that the Priests and Bishops be all one St. Austin saith what is the Bishop but the first Priest So saith St. Ambrose there is but one Consecration of a Priest and Bishop for both of them are Priests but the Bishop is the first Thus he The next I shall mention is Dr. Whitaker Regius Professor of Divinity in the University of Cambridge Contr. Duraeum l. 6. § 19. de Eccl. Regim qu. 1. Cap. 1. de notis Eccles quaest 5. He repeats Sr. Jeromes words at large on 1 Titus and to Evagrius that Bishops and Presbyters were the same that the Primitive Churches were governed by the common consent of the Presbyters that this custom was not changed by the Apostles but afterwards by the Church and thus argues If the Apostles had changed the order as Sanders pretendeth what had it advantaged him to have so diligently collected Testimonies out of the Apostles to prove that they were sometimes the same He might easily have remembred that the Order was changed by the Apostles themselves after the Church was distracted with contentions if any such thing had been done and he enquires Wherefore then saith Jerome Before it was said I am of Paul c. He answers This might deceive Sanders but it is certain Jerome onely alludeth to that place of the Apostle to shew that Schisms were the Cause of changing the Order but this Remedy was almost worse than the Disease for as at first one Presbyter was set above the rest and made a Bishop afterwards one Bishop was preferred before the Rest and this custom at length produced the Pope with his Monarchy Resp ad decion rationem Campiani p. 51. and elsewhere he thus speaks of Aerius his Heresie And truly if to condemn Prayers for the Dead and to make Bishop and Presbyter equal be Heretical Nihil Catholicum esse potest nothing can be Orthodox and Catholick That passage in Mr. Tract of Schism p. 13. Hales of Eaton is as memorable as its Author They do but abuse themselves and others that would persuade us that Bishops by Christs institution have any superiority over men further than Reverence or that any is superior to another further than positive order agreed upon among Christians hath prescribed Nature and Religion agree in this that neither of them hath any hand in the Heraldry of Secundum sub supra all this comes from composition and agreement of Men among themselves wherefore this abuse of Christianity to make it Lacquey to Ambition is a Vice for which I have no extraordinary name of Ignominy and an ordinary one I will not give it lest you should take so transcendent a Vice to be but trivial The most Excellent Arch-bishop Usher both in his Writing and Discourse acknowledged these Orders to be the same that the difference was only in degree that Bishops ordained as Presbyters but regulated the Ordination as Bishops and would not endure to hear the Ordination of the Reformed Churches condemned In his Reduction of Episcopacy Printed by Dr. Bernard he proves both by the words of Paul of Tertullian P. 2 3. and the Order of the Church of England that Spiritual Jurisdiction belongs to the Common Council of Presbyters in which the Bishop is no more than President and page 6. has these words True it is that in our Church this kind of Presbyterial Government hath been long disused yet seeing it still professeth that every Pastor hath a right to rule the Church from whence the name of Rector was also first given to him and to administer the Discipline of Christ as well as to dispense the Doctrine and Sacraments and the restraint of the exercise of that Right proceedeth only from the Custom now received in the Realm no man can doubt but by another Law of the Land this hindrance may be well removed And to say the Truth this was the general opinion of the Church of England for many years after the Reformation and very few even of the Bishops themselves opposed it Till the Treaties about Marriage with Spain and France became the great occasion of corrupting the Court and Church and letting in a sort of Men who in pursuance of secret Articles were to effect an accommodation with Rome Vid. Dr. Heylin's Cyprianus Angl. Mr. Baxter against a Revolt to a Forreign Jurisd p. 25. alibi See also the late Bishop of Hereford's Naked Truth and therefore must settle the Jus Divinum of the Prelacy as the Council of Trent had done before them by taking the power of opposition and dissent out of the hands of the inferiour Clergy who generally abhorred the design from that time this new Doctrine has much grown upon the Nation and with a great deal of noise and confidence has been asserted by the main bulk of the Ecclesiasticks and yet some few of the most learned of them have declared against it I shall onely mention two both of eminent note and figure in the Church at this day I mean the Bishops of Worcester and Salisbury For the Bishop of Worcester I have cited his Irenicum so often already that it would be in vain to add any thing more the main design of that learned Tract especially the latter part of it is to prove that God has not by his Law settled any form of Church Government and he has for ever ruined the pretensions of Episcopacy to a Jus Divinum they say indeed he has retracted that Book but as long as he has not destroyed the reason of it we are well enough for it is upon the reason of the thing not the authority of his person how great soever that we depend and till that Book be undone as well as unsaid it will remain in full force and virtue for reason is always the same though Men and their Interests may vary The Bishop of Salisbury inferior to none in all the accomplishments of Gentleman Vindication of the Church of Scotland p. 306. States-Man and Divine spoke his thoughts freely at a time when Prelacy was in its Zenith thus At first every Bishop had but one Parish but afterwards when the numbers encreased that they could not conveniently meet in one place and when through the violence of persecution they durst not assemble in great multitudes the Bishops divided their charges into lesser Parishes and gave assignments to the Presbyters of particular Flocks which was done first in Rome in the beginning of the second Century c. And P. 310. I do not alledge a Bishop to be a distinct office from a Presbyter but a different degree of the same office c. P. 331. I acknowledge Bishop and Presbyter to be one and the same office and so plead for no new Office-bearer in the Church the first branch of their power is their authority to publish the Gospel to manage the worship and dispense the Sacraments and this is all that is of Divine Right in the Ministry in which Bishops and
Nicene Creeds have so Interpreted Scripture but what if one should ask him How he is sure the Doctrines of the Creed are true Expositions of Scripture Either he must fall into the Circle or resolve his Faith into the Infallibility of the Church and Compilers of those Creeds and therein he turns his back upon the Church of England and all the Reformed in one of the Principal and most Important Points of Controversie the Resolution of Faith I will not suppose him so ignorant as to think that the Apostles were the Authors of that Creed that goes under their Name Bishop Pearson and Dr. Towerson will tell him the contrary and by the Confession of all Protestants These Creeds are but summary Collections of the most principal Doctrines of Faith put into that form by Fallible Men and are to be received no further and on no other account than as they are Consonant to the Word of God and therefore were never intended as a Standard or Rule of Faith or as an infallible Interpreter of that which is so I wonder how this Gentleman would have been infallibly assured of the Divinity of Christ if he had lived before these Symbols were extant I wonder how he is infallibly assured of the true sence of these Creeds I doubt he wants one Creed to give an Infallible Interpretation of another and so ad Infinitum but if he say the sence of these Creeds is very plain and obvious to any ordinary Capacity so is the Scripture too in all Fundamental Points and is sufficient Assurance of the Truth of them without the joint Security of Ancient Creeds and Churches Whether these odd Opinions are to be imputed to his inconsiderateness of which every Page affords us instances enough or rather to the Happy Illuminations of his great Rabbi Mr. Dodwell I will not determine but the latter is not improbable if we compare it with what that Amphibious Gentleman writes Separation of Churches p. 542. That the Power actually received by Ordained Ministers must not be measured by the true Sence of Scriptures but by that wherein the Ordainers understood them c. Many other Effata of the like Nature have proceeded from that great Oracle which would scarcely have been encouraged or so much as suffered in any Reformed Church besides our own but it was sufficient to make these things passable that they were levelled at the Dissenters and sent them all headlong into the Pit I think it may not be amiss to defend the Vindicator from the Imputation of Malice against the late Arch-Bishop of Canterbury which this Gentleman very unfairly suggests the Passage aimed at is this To say that Bishops Vindic. p. 18. which are stated Pastors in an Organical Church are the Apostles Successors in their Apostolical Power is destructive to their own Notion of Church Government and would give the Bishop of Rome as great Power in England as the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury when there is any All the Malice lies in this little Parenthesis when there is any and here the Citizen clamours upon him for reviling Gods High Priest Reply p. 18. and speaking evil of the Ruler of his People What Apology will the Vindicator now make Truely if it was my own Case I would desire no better than that of St. Paul under the same Accusation I wist not Brethren that he was the High Priest The late Arch-Bishop had been deprived by Law above half a Year before that Vindication was writ and the Metropolitane See was vacant a considerable time after this was Printed and yet it was a malicious Reviling of the Ruler of Gods People to say there was none I will not drive this too far I hope he can give a better Reason for calling the Deprived Prelate the Ruler of Gods People than I can for him If he was the Ruler still What becomes of the Authority of those that deprived him It had been more becoming this Gentleman to have answered that Argument wherein this Parenthesis had its Place than by falling foul upon so Innocent an Expression to expose those thoughts which Prudence would have concealed I know not of any thing else in his Reply that needs to be taken notice of but what will fall under the General Heads of this following Treatise wherein I have attempted at least to prove that our Congregations are not Schismatical or Unlawful though many of our Ministers were not Ordained by Diocesan Bishops though the Places we meet in be distinct from the Parish Churches and the Mode of our Worship in some things different from theirs And because I find the most Learned of our Adversaries condemn our Present Practice 1. As Inconsistent with Catholick Unity and Communion 2. As Guilty of Disobedience to Superiours Civil and Spiritual 3. And of Scandalous Indecencies and a Breach of good Rules and Order I shall examine the matter as carefully as I can under all these Particulars heartily Praying that whatever Censures I bring upon my self the Interests of Truth and Peace may be promoted ERRATA PAge 6. l. 38. r. retain'd p. 16. l. 13. r. consciousness p. 20. margent r. August p. 33. l. 38. r. Diaboli instinctu p. 37. l. 15. p. 38. l. 12. for rite r. right p. 117. l. 17. for Ananias r. Anianus Several lesser faults will occur which are referr'd to the Reader 's Candor and Emendation A Defence of the Vindication c. CHAP. 1. The true Notion of Catholick Unity distinguished into Political and Moral A Regular Ministry not Essential to this Unity The Judgment of the Fathers and others IT is the observation of an Ingenious Gentleman that the World has never been without some extraordinary word to fill mens mouths and furnish out Pamphlets and by which the Sentiments of men have been for the most part more absolutely governed than by the true reason of things for Reason concludes nothing without disquisition but the other like a kind of spell captivates and determines mens thoughts many times beyond the Relief of the most rational and convincing Arguments Amongst all the Charms of this nature which take place as the Interests and Designs of Parties or posture of Publick Affairs vary and direct I know of none that has been more unmercifully tortured and forced to speak things never intended by it than this of Unity It has been the Motto and Device of every Ascendant Party in the Militant Church to frighten the weak and timorous and chastise the more resolute opposers of Spiritual Usurpation and Tyranny The Papists for the good Service it has done them have preferr'd it to be the Seventh Note of their Church according to the Order in which their great Cardinal has marshall'd them and under the Umbrage thereof have raised the greatest Feuds and Divisions that ever infested the Christian World In their most bloody Persecutions barbarous and funest Tragedies they have still pretended to act by the Commission of Catholick Unity to advance her Interests
of Presbyters they are called Bishops Surely these things are as clear proof that Bishops were not a Superior Order as a Negative is capable of and there being no one Text in Scripture that affirms the distinction Semper praesumitur pro negante we must have concluded in the Negative though we had not had these proofs But what is wanting in Scripture they hope to make up out of the Fathers and Councils in behalf of Diocesan Prelacy it is certain they think their greatest strength lies there And we deny not that many of the Fathers seem to make a great difference betwixt Bishops and Presbyters but this does not overthrow our Hypothesis for if they are the same in Scripture the Sayings of the Fathers cannot make them otherwise and yet few or none of the Ancients say that they are distinct Orders much less that they are so by divine right but some of them acknowledge the contrary as we shall presently shew It is not therefore their using the Name of Bishop in a sence distinct from that of Presbyter or requiring Presbyters to be obedient to their Bishop that will prove a superiority of order jure divino for we grant that it was the early Practice of the Church to choose one of the Gravest and Wisest of the Presbyters and constitute him President over the rest and that where there were many Presbyters in a particular Church commonly the Eldest or worthiest was as Pastor and the other his Assistants but still we know the Parson and the Curates are of the same order and every Bishop in England is equal in order to the Archbishop of Canterbury though they take an Oath of Canonical Obedience to him the same we say of the distinction betwixt Bishop and Presbyter in Primitive Times This would be a sufficient reply unto the Antiquities this Gentleman has alledged but lest he should think he has done a mighty feat in transcribing these Passages I shall animadvert more particularly upon them He begins with the Canons of the Apostles but why they should take place of Clemens Romanus and Ignatius I cannot tell unless he has a Mind to cheat us with the Name or was cheated by it himself Dr. Cave reckons them among the Supposititious Works of the First Age and Dr. Beveridge who has laboured so hard to defend them against Daille only contends that they were written by Clemens Alexandrinus near the latter End of the Second Century But what say these Canons why they say Let not the Presbyters or Deacons do any thing without the consent of the Bishop for he hath the People of the Lord entrusted to him and there shall one day be required of him an Account of their Souls Here says the Gentleman the Bishop has the Power of governing the Presbyters and Deacons Concil Carth. c. 23. Cypr. Edit Goul. Ep. 6. p. 17. Ep. 24. p. 55. it is well argued however the Kings of England can make no Laws without the consent of the Lords and Commons have they therefore the power of governing him Cyprian did nothing without the concurrence of his Presbyters nay he determined to do nothing without the consent of his People by our Gentleman's dialect the Presbyters and People had the Power of governing the Bishop And is there one word here to prove that the Bishop was of a Superior Order The Curates of a Church are to have the direction and consent of the Parson and yet the Order is the same And it deserves to be considered whether 't is likely this Bishop the Canon speaks of was any more than the Pastor of a particular Church since he must be supposed capable of giving the Necessary Orders for management of all Affairs and nothing must be done without his consent it would be a Rule hard to be observed as our present Dioceses are Modell'd and if Presbyters must do nothing without the Bishops consent they must do nothing at all the whole time being too little for Travel and Consultation there would be none left for Action unless by consent we must understand a general Permission to do what they please without consulting him at all in particular Matters which would be a very odd Comment upon such a Text and not very well agreeing with the Reason that is added for this consent viz. That the Bishop has the People of the Lord committed to him and shall give an account of their Souls Surtly this requires a more careful and near inspection than to commit the care of all by an Act of general consent to others without ever intending a personal Acquaintance with one of a Thousand Pres Treat of Repentance so solemnly committed to him Dr. Taylor says he is sure we cannot give an Account of those Souls of whom we have no notice The next passage is out of Clemens Romanus his Epistle to the Corinthians a Piece of Antiquity which all the World has a great Veneration for that which the Gentleman thinks is for his purpose he gives us thus The Apostles foreseeing that there would be Contentions about the Name or Dignity of Bishop or Episcopacy they set down a List or Continuation of Successors that when any died such a certain person should succeed him But this place in Clement is very falsly recited and whoever furnished him with it abused him and imposed upon his Ignorance This Translator whoever he be would have us to think that the Apostles set down a List of the Names of those that were to Succeed in the Episcopal See this we cannot admit until he tell us where this List is to be found how far it went It seems it was a Continuation of Successors but it is hard to imagine how they could have the Names of Persons so ready that were yet unborn and unconverted we know an Infallible Spirit could reveal it to them but surely then we should have had it in the Canon of Scripture such a thing would have been of singular Use not only for prevention of Disputes about the choice of Bishops but for the Uncontroulable Evidence of the Truth of Christianity when they were able to produce a Prophetical List with the Names of Persons then unborn and yet all in due time appearing and ascending the Chair according to that Sacred Roll for these Reasons we cannot but reject the Fiction of any such List of Names which when one died declared that such a certain Person should succeed him And I am sure the words of Clement say no such thing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Edit Colomes 103. the true English of them is this And our Apostles understood by our Lord Jesus that contention would arise about the Name of Episcopacy and for this Cause being furnished with perfect foreknowledge ordained those before-mentioned and moreover gave 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 order that whensoever they should die other approved Men should succeed and perform their Functions I know there have been great Disputes about this odd word 〈◊〉
has sufficiently taken off this Objection Agere de sui temporis politia non de ea quae fuit ab Ecclesiae initiis and more particularly to that of Jerom Chamier de Occum Pontif. cap. 6. p. 180. manifestum est de suo loqui tempore c. It is manifest when St. Jerom says a Presbyter does every thing that a Bishop does except in Ordination he speaks of the time in which he lived and from that very thing he draws an Argument to prove that formerly Bishop and Presbyter were the same because says he even now though the Names have been for a long time used for Distinction of Degrees yet excepting in Ordination there is nothing that a Bishop does but a Presbyter may do it also and therefore if after so long a Discrimination of Title and Degree Bishops have only gained this one Point of Power it is certain at first there was no difference at all this is the reasoning of that Father wherein he agrees very well with himself and is guilty of no such inconsistency as some careless or prejudiced Readers would charge upon him But that which seems most directly to confront these Witnesses is That Aerius is reckon'd amongst the Hereticks by Epiphanius for this Opinion and is represented as a Prodigy and his Opinion madness which Dr. Morrice does not forget to Proclaim as that which gives a mortal wound to our Cause But a learned Prelate of their own will give them a sufficient answer to this Irenic p. 277. for if Aerius was a Heretick for holding the Identity of Order it is strange that Epiphanius should be the first man that should charge him with it and that neither Socrates Sozomen Theodoret nor Evagrius before whose time he lived should censure him for it and why should not Jerom have equally Animadverted upon who is as express in this as any man in the World But some tell us He was an Arian others say he was put amongst the Hereticks for making an unnecessary Separation from the Church of Sebastia and Eustathius the Bishop thereof not that this was indeed Heresie but it was the custom of angry Bishops in those Ages to call all men Hereticks that stood in their way as appears by the famous Catalogues of Hereticks and Heresies that Philastrius a Bishop and Saint has bequeathed unto the World It is too evident to be concealed that Epiphanius though otherwise a Worthy and Good Man was of a hot and eager Temper rash in his Censures and sometimes transported into great irregularities of Practice as appears by the disturbance he made at Constantinople Socrates c. 11 12. and the rude Language he gave to Chrysostom because he did not at his command banish Dioscorus and condemn the Books of Origen The Learned Author of the Summary of the Controversies between the Church of England and the Church of Rome gives us an instance of the rash and injudicious Zeal of Epiphanius in condemning Aerius for Heresie in another point which will very much depreciate the Authority of that Father in judging of Heresies Summary of the Controv. p. 62.63 64. take it in the Words of our Author At the Celebration of the Eucharist the Bishop or Priest made mention of the Names of Martyrs and Confessors and those who had deserved well of the Church and particular Christians in their Private Devotions remembred their own Relations and Friends and thus it became a Custom without enquiring into the Reasons of it till by this Custom People began to conclude that such Prayers were profitable for the dead and that those who had not lived so well as they should do might obtain the pardon of their Sins by the Intercessions of the Living which I confess was a very natural Thought and shews us the easie progress of Superstition that Customs taken up without any good Reason will find some reason though a very bad one when they grow Popular upon this Aerius condemns the Practice and he is reckoned amongst Hereticks for so doing He desired to know for what Reason the Names of dead men are recited in the Celebration of the Eucharist and Prayers made for them whether by this means those who died in Sin might obtain Pardon which he thought if it were true would make it unnecessary to live vertuously if they had Pious Friends who would pray for them when they were dead Epiphanius undertakes to confute Aerius but gives such Reasons as are no answer at all to his Questions He says it signifies our Belief that those who are dead to this World do still live in another state are alive to God That it signifies our good Hopes of the Happy State of those who are gone hence That it is done to make a Distinction between Christ and all other good Men for we pray for all but him who intercedes for us all Very worthy Reasons of praying for the Dead c. Thus you see what a Monstrous Heretick Aerius was and what an admirable Confuter Epiphanius The Truth is these two Heresies of Aerius concerning the Parity of Bishops and Presbyters and the unlawfulness of praying for the dead are much of the same Nature and Epiphanius's Confutation of them both equally Learned and Satisfactory for it is very observable that in the same place where he condemns that monstrous prodigious Heresie of the Identity of Order he fairly confesses That by the two Orders of Presbyters and Deacons Epiph. conr Acrium haeres 75. p. 905. all Ecclesiastical Offices might be performed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 After the Fathers we have suffrage of the Canonists Gratian cap. 24. Legimus dist 39. cap. 5. Olim dist 95. cap. 4. Nullus dist 60. cap. 16. Ecce dist 95. Lancel l. 1. Tit. 21. p. 32. Auth. Glossae in cap. dist Concil Basil Duaren de sacr Eccl. Min. l. 1. c. 7. And it being thus enrolled in the Canon Law was publickly taught by the Schoolmen and others as Lombard lib. 4. Sentent dist 24. litera I. But at length the Roman Church saw it necessary for the better settling of the Papacy to advance the Order of Episcopacy above Presbytery and in the Council of Trent they have Decreed Sess 23. cap. 4. Can. 6 7. this Superiority and in their New Edition of the Canon Law have inserted this Note Annot. Marg. ad Cap. legimus dist 43. That Bishops have differed from Presbyters always as they do now in Government Prelacy Offices and Sacraments but not in the Name and Title of Bishop which was formerly common to both And those Learned Examiners of the Tridentine Council Chemnitius and Gentilletus Exam. part 2. Lib. 4. the one a Divine the other a Lawyer condemn this Decree the one by Scripture and Fathers the other by the Canon Law The Judgment of the Reformed Churches is so well known by the Harmony of Confessions that I shall not particularly enlarge upon it we have it there laid down
Presbyters are equally sharers but besides this the Church claimeth a power of jurisdiction of making Rules for Discipline and applying and executing the same all which indeed is suitable to the common Laws of Socleties and the General Rules of Scripture but hath no positive warrant from any Scripture Precept Therefore as to the management of this Jurisdiction it is in the Churches power to cast it into what mould she will c. I believe I shall rather be censured for having said too much than not enough upon this Subject yet I will venture so much farther upon the Readers Patience who cannot be wearier of reading than I am of transcribing as to conclude this Chapter with the suffrages of three Famous Divines of the Gallican Churches that have all writ in our Day Let the learned le Blanc Thes Sedan de Grad distinc Minist p. 501. be first heard thus Quod spectat vero Discrimen Presbyteri Episcopi c. But as to the difference betwixt Bishop and Presbyter for as much as the Church of England is Governed by Bishops it is the more general opinion of the English that Episcopacy and Presbytery are distinct offices instituted by Christ with distinct powers but the rest of the Reformed as also they of the Augustane Confession do unanimously believe that there is no such distinction by Divine Right but that as the names in Scripture are synonymous and put for each other indifferently so the thing is wholly the same and that the superiority of Bishops above Presbyters which has now for many Ages obtained in the Church is onely of Positive and Ecclesiastical Right and has been introduced thereinto by degrees That even in the Apostles days a certain precedency of honour and place was given unto him who did excell his Colleagues either in Age or in the time of his Ordination so that he was as President or Moderator of the Presbytery and yet look'd upon as altogether of the same office and had no power or jurisdiction over his Colleagues and this Person did always perform those things which the Presidents or Moderators of our Synods now perform But in the following Age it so fell out that this Primacy was not conferr'd according to the Persons Age or time of entrance but a custom was introduced that one of the Presbyters should be chosen by the Votes of the whole Colledge who should continually preside after the same manner over the Presbytery and these after a while assumed to themselves the name of Bishops and by degrees gained more and more Prerogatives and brought their Colleagues into subjection to them till at length the matter grew up to that Tyranny which now obtains in the Church of Rome Moreover though all reformed Divines excepting those of the Church of England condemn that supream power which among the Papists Bishops usurp over Presbyters as Tyrannical and think that by the Law of God there is no distinction betwixt Bishop and Presbyter yet is there some dispute amongst them whether it be not expedient by Positive and Ecclesiastick riâ—â—â— to appoint some degrees amongst the Ministers of the Gospel by which some may be set above others provided such moderation be observed as that it may not degenerate into Tyranny the French and Dutch Churches and not a few in England it self think it dangerous and not sufficiently agreeable to the Laws of Christ to admit any such thing but the Judgment and Practice of the Churches in Germany and Poland is otherwise they have certain Bishops which they call Superintendents that preside in such certain districts over the rest of the Pastors with some Authority and Power but much short of that which the Popish Bishops claim The second I shall mention is Monsieur Jurieu Pastoral Letters let 14. who having spoken concerning the Monastick Life and Oecumenick Councils as two great Novelties which had very unhappy effects he adds Behold a third of them 't is the Original of the Hierarchy which hath given birth to the Antichristian Tyranny hereby is understood that subordination of Pastors which hath been seen in the Church for 1000 or 1200 years in this subordination are seen the lowest Orders in the lowest seats above these are seen the Priests above the Priests are the grand Vicars above the Grand Vicars are the Bishops above the Bishops are the Archbishops or Metropolitans above the Arch-bishops are the Primates above the Primates are the Exarchs above the Exarchs are the Patriarchs above all these appears a head which was insensibly framed and placed there this is that which is called the Pope All this is a new invention with respect to the Apostles who left in all the Churches Presbyters or Bishops to Preach the Word and Administer the Sacraments But the Bishop and Presbyter were not distinguished those which St. Paul calls Bishops he calls Presbyters in the the same place this is matter of fact which our Adversaries cannot deny Then he proceeds to tell us how this distinction was made and the account thereof agreeing very much of that of Le Blanc I shall not transcribe it The last I shall take notice of is the Renowned Monsieur Claude whose Name will be great in all the Churches as long as Piety and Learning have any esteem among Men his words are these As for those who are ordained by meer Presbyters can the Author of the Prejudices be ignorant Historical Defence of the Reform Part. 4. p. 95. that the distinction of Bishop and Priest as if they were two different offices is not only a thing they cannot prove out of Scripture but that which even contradicts the express words of Scripture where Bishop and Presbyter are names of one and the same office from whence it follows that Presbyters having by their first Institution a a rite to confer Ordination that Rite cannot be taken away from them by meer humane Rules can the author of the Prejudices be ignorant that St. Jerome Hilary and after them Hincmar wrote formerly concerning the Unity or as they speak the Identity of a Priest and Bishop in the beginning of the Church and about the first rise of that distinction which was afterwards made of them into different offices can he be ignorant that St. Austin himself writing to Jerome refers that distinction not to the first institution of the Ministry P. 97. but meerly to an Ecclesiastical use And elsewhere And to speak my thoughts freely it seems to me that this confident opinion of the absolute necessity of Episcopacy that goes so high as to own no Church or Call or Ministry or Sacraments or Salvation in the World where there are no Episcopal Ordinations although there should be the true Doctrine the true Faith and Piety there and which would make all Religion depend upon a formality and on such a formality as we have shewn to be of no other than Humane Institution that opinion I say cannot be lookt on otherwise than as
time a power of installing them themselves when it cannot be done otherwise since naturally that which we have a right to do by another we have a right to do by our selves Nay what if not onely Monsieur Claude but Monsieur Dodwell too that speaking head of our high-flown Clergy acknowledges such a right in particular Societies of chusing and investing their Officers No matter whether it be reconcileable with the other parts of his Scheme or no Dodwel Separat of Churches p. 102. P. 52. In his Separation of Churches he speaks to this purpose The Church with whom God has made the Covenant is a Body Politick though not a Civil one and God has designed all persons to enter into this Society It is sufficient for my purpose that the Ecclesiastical Power be no otherwise from God than that is of every supream Civil Magistrate it is not usual for Kings to be invested into their Offices by other Kings but by their Subjects yet when they are invested that doth not in the least prejudice the absoluteness of their Monarchy where the Fundamental Constitutions of the respective places allow it to them much less doth it give any power over them to the persons by whom they are invested If the power of Episcopacy be Divine all that men can do in the case is onely to determine the person not to confine his power no act can be presumed to be the act of the whole Body P. 509. but what has passed them in their publick Assemblies in which Body is the Right of Government As nothing but the Society it self can make a valid conveyance of its right so it is not conceivable how the Society can do it by any thing but its own Act And when ever a person is invested into the Supream Power P. 522. and the Society over which he is placed is independant on other Societies such a person can never be placed in his power if not by them who must after be his subjects unless by his Predecessor which no Society can depend upon for a constant Rule of Succession I am apt to think this must have been the way of making Bishops at first how absolute soever I conceive them to be when they are once made This seems best to agree with the absoluteness of particular Churches P. 523. before they had by compact united themselves under Metropolitans and Exarchs into Provincial and Diocesan Churches And this seems to have been fitted for the frequent persecutions of those earlier Ages when every Church was able to secure its own succession without depending on the uncertain opportunities of the meeting of the Bishops of the whole Province And the alteration of this practice the giving the Bishops of the Province an interest in the choice of every particular Colleague seems not to have been so much for want of power in the particular Churches to do it as for the security of compacts that they might be certain of such a Colleague as would observe them It is probable that it was in imitation of the Philosophers Successions that these Ecclesiastical Successions were framed and when the Philosophers failed to nominate their own Successors the Election was in the Schools These are his words and they are too plain to need a Comment If every particular Church had Originally a power within it self to chuse and invest its Bishop and the concurrence of other Bishops herein was not for want of Power in that particular Church but only for securing the agreement of Bishops amongst themselves We have done with the necessity of a continued Line of Episcopal Ordinations and there may be true mission without it quod erat probandum But 2dly Should we grant that there is a necessity of an uninterrupted Line and that this as he learnedly speaks is a sufficient proof that there is such a Line yet it must be considered this necessity will onely prove that there must be some Bishops and Churches that are in the Line but it will not prove that they are all so nor that it is the case of those amongst us for though we may suppose that God has had a true Ministry in all Ages and will have that will not demonstrate that he hath such in England and therefore to prove the Ministry of the English Churches true he must have some better Evidence than the necessity of such a Line which will onely prove it is somewhere not that it is amongst us and it is but small satisfaction to us to know that there is a true Ministry some where in the World but no man in the World can tell where it is By this Gentlemans way of reasoning the Papists pretend to prove the Infallibility of their Church first they suppose the necessity of an Infallible Judge and then take it for granted that this Judge is to be found amongst them and truly Arcades ambo The Vindicator put a question to him and we should be glad of a better answer than he has yet thought fit to give us He desired T. W. to tell him whether this Line of Succession might be continued in a Schismatical Church for if by Schism Men and Societies are cut off from the Catholick Church as this Man affirms such Schismatical Churches are indeed no Churches no parts of the Universal Church and so cannot be the Subjects of the Apostolical Power and if this Power cannot be derived through a Schismatical Church then must he grant either that the Church of England has not this Power or that the Papal Churches through which it runs are not Schismatical and if they be not his own Church must be so in separating from them for he holds separation to be utterly unlawful unless it be from a Schismatical Church His answer to this such as it is you have in the 23 page of his reply in these words I cannot understand his Logick in this if by Schism Men and Societies are cut off from the Universal Church then such Schismatical Churches are no Churches But is not the consequence as plain as can be if Schism cut Men and Societies off from the Universal Church then such Schismatical Societies are no Churches Can they be Churches and yet cut off from the Universal Church Can they be cut off by Schism and still united to it He that does not understand the Logick of this does not understand the Logick of Common Sense but has he nothing farther to reply Yes he says Churches they are though Schismatical while they retain the Apostolical Succession But the Question is whether Schismatical Churches can retain the Apostolical Succession Since by Schism he says they are cut off from the Catholick Church and so Unchurched these things will require a second reading and a more direct reply and that I may provoke him to do it I shall lay the case before him in these three points 1. If any Schismatical Societies may still remain Churches then Schism as such does not cut Men and
Decency and having no sacredness by institution may vary with the different customs and usages of Countries But as to National Churches since the usages and customs of the same Nation and Rules of Decency are the same the Bishops may agree upon an Uniformity of Rites for a National Church The summ is it is not the Command of Superiours but the Customs of a Country that make a thing Decent and therefore the same Rites may be commanded throughout a Nation because the Customs upon which Decency stands are the same 3. When we make Custom the Rule of Decency we do not mean This or that way of Worshiping of God is Decent because we are accustomed to Worship him so but on the contrary We use to Worship so because it is Decent that is agreeable to our custom of expressing Honour and Reverence in other cases Otherwise we should make the same thing the Rule of it self and say this Worship is Decent because it is customary and it has been our custom to Worship God thus because it is Decent which would be running the ring besides then might all the fopperies of the Roman Church set up for Decency because they are now become customary No actions or gestures in the Worship of God how long soever they have been used can plead Decency but those which are used in other cases as well as in Divine Service and therefore used in the service of God because agreeable to the general customs of Decency in other matters 4. Nothing is required of us by the Law of Decency but to preserve the Worship of God from all Indecencies It is impossible to prove that we are obliged by that Law to use this or that Ceremony in the Worship of God if it may be managed decently without them If the Omission of such Ceremonies do not render the service of God Indecent the Law of Decency is not broken As no man can be charged with a breach of the Law of Justice but he that has done some unjust thing or of the Laws of Charity but he that is uncharitable so none can be charged with breaking the Laws of Decency but he that Behaves himself Indecently in Divine Worship As there is no medium between Justice and Unjustice so there is none betwixt Decency and Undecency and when of two actions one is said to be more just the other must needs have something of injustice in it so when one thing is more decent the other must have something of indecency for these things being privately opposed admit of no medium in a capable subject There are some indeed tell us of certain transcendental heights of Justice Charity and Devotion which might be omitted without sin Miscell p. 275. thus Mr. Norris in his discourse of Heroick Piety How they can reconcile it with the 14th Article of the Church of England I cannot tell it is like such men will pretend to the same Eminencies of Decency too but so long as they acknowledge we may fall short of such acme's without Sin we are well enough the Nonconformists pretend not to such high Attainments they would be heartily glad could they come up to the Rule in any thing but are so far from pretending that they do not desire to exceed it nor do they grudge these Gentlemen that unweildy Glory of being wiser and better than God has commanded Now let us Examine the Practice of Dissenters in their worshipping of God and its agreeableness with the Rules of Decency The Chester Gentleman falls upon the Vindicator for saying We desire the Rules of the Gospel may be carefully look'd into and such a Model of Government and Worship taken from thence as may be likely to answer the great ends thereof that nothing may be imposed but either what is expresly commanded or has a natural and proper tendency to promote that which is so then would the Worship of God appear like it self Rational Grave and Majestical becoming reasonable Creatures to offer and a Being of perfect Simplicity and Spirituality to accept Nor would we as we are accused under pretence of Spirituality reject the natural Decorum of an Action in Divine Worship but only lay aside these Formalities that are over and above natural Decency which in Civil Converse are counted Foppish and daily grow out of repute betwixt man and man and are no where so improper as in the Service of God Now what harm is there in all this the Gentleman it seems has nothing to object against it but all the Question is Whether the Worship of God in our Conventicles be as agreeable to this Rule as their is in the Churches and no doubt he thinks the Case is half determined by the very Names Churches and Conventicles for is it imaginable that men should worship God as decently in a Conventicle as in the Church All the Club will say and swear too 't is impossible but what if our Assemblies are as much Churches as theirs and theirs as much Conventicles as ours 't is true enough for any thing he has yet produced to the contrary Of Schism Mr. Hales tells us that all pious Assemblies in times of Persecution and Corruption are the only lawful Congregations and the publick Assemblies though according to form of Law are indeed nothing but Riots and Conventicles if they be stained with Corruption and Superstition He charges the Dissenters with Indecency 1. In their Expressions 2. In their Gestures 3. In their Habits 1. In Expression because our Ministers use not a stated form of Prayer and therefore he accuses them of Rushing into the presence of God with the rash and sudden thoughts of one single Person with a Prayer newly Coined but whether Sterling or no is uncertain being never tried for the People know it not till it be out But must it needs follow that because we have not a form laid before us that our thoughts are therefore rash and sudden is he sure that we never use Premeditation both as to the general Method and Matter of Prayer And for the words if they be usually Scripture Phrase I hope they will pass for currant in a more equal Ballance than his Will this Gentleman say that all conceived Prayer is rash and irreverent Then I am sure he will condemn the most learned and pious Divines yea and Bishops too of the Church of England who in the Pulpit commonly use such Prayers and sometimes of a considerable length too which we may be sure they would not do if they thought it impossible for the People to joyn with them in it and if the Duty of Prayer may be performed rationally and gravely without a prescribed form this Objection vanishes into putrid Air. If this Gentleman would only say that He and his Companions cannot express themselves rationally and reverently in the presence of God without a prescribed form of Words we would not contradict them they best know what they can do but to say that without such
whether they have a Bishop or Baptism amongst them or no and the Sacrament supposes mens Union to God but does not effect it His Observations from John 4.21 must be examined before we pass them 1. There is something under the Gospel that does correspond to that solemn Worship at Jerusalem How do you mean correspond Sir Their's was Worshipping the true God according to his Word and ours is or should be so if that be corresponding we grant it but what it is to the purpose I cannot Divine he adds The Worship at Jerusalem and the Spiritual Worship were the Type and 〈◊〉 one of another I am loth to quarrel with him about Words but I think it is a very improper Expression that their Priesthood and Sacrifices and Altar were Types of Christ I find the Apostle to the Hebrews largely illustrating but that they were Types of Gospel-Worship is neither agreeable to the Language of Scripture nor the Reformed Churches He farther says As all the Jews did Communicate at one Altar in like manner must all Christians partake in the same Spiritual Sacrifices If by Sacrifices he means that which Christ offered up to the Father we assent to it as a great Truth or if he means the same Sacraments and Prayers we grant these must be specifically the same amongst all Christians 2. We are informed That the design of the Jewish Anniversaries was to keep them in the same Communion and the spiritual Worship is for the same End If by the same Communion he means the same Truth and Divine Worship it is granted or if he means their Union to one High-Priest it is true so far as the High Priest was a Type of Christ the only remaining High Priest of the Church the same may be said of his three other Observations which are all safe whilst by the High Priest and Altar we understand Jesus Christ But if he means as he must if he will serve himself of them that this High Priest and Altar typifie the Government of the Church by Bishops it is a very foolish and dangerous Notion and if it proves any thing it will prove that there ought to be one Prime Bishop the Principle of Unity with whom all Inferiour Priests and Churches must be in Communion as he speaks otherwise the Type and Antitype do not correspond in the principal Point which is a Center of Unity if he says every Bishop is such a Center then the Donatists formerly and the Papists now are excused from Schism for they have their Bishops as well as the Church of England but I have largely proved from the acknowledgment of the most Learned Doctors of our own Nation that Episcopacy is not Essential to the Unity of the Church and I would send this Gentleman to them who will teach him better Divinity than the Mythology of Mr. Dodwel 'T is a gross mistake to say That Salvation belonged only to those that worshipped at Jerusalem there were Proselytes who only submitted to the Seven Precepts of Noah and were not circumcised nor admitted to the Priviledges of the Jewish Church Vid. Schind in Verb. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and yet to these the Jews granted a part in the World to come such were Naaman Cornelius and many more this he might have sound in Selden Lightfoot Mede c. and our Saviours words Salvation is of the Jews were never intended to exclude all others for the same Jesus by his Apostle Peter tells us God is no respecter of persons but in every Nation he that feareth God and worketh Righteousness is accepted of him But the Jews enjoyed the ordinary means of Salvation and Christ the Saviour of the World was of them according to the Flesh The Mystical reasonings of this Gentleman from the One High Priest and Altar amongst the Jews are pure impertinencies as to the Question in Hand For the Jews were obliged to have onely One High Priest and One Altar and no more or if they had according to his fiction it must be in dependance upon the Supream One but under the Gospel it is quite otherwise for it is in the power of Christian Kingdoms to multiply particular Churches and distribute a greater Diocess or Parish into as many lesser as they see good each having their proper Bishop without any dependence one upon another in point of Government the Bishop of Eugubium is as absolute in his Church as the Patriarch of Constantinople The Diocess of Chester might if the King and Parliament pleased be divided into twenty or a hundred Bishopricks without any Jurisdiction of one over the rest but such a thing could not be done amongst the Jews without confounding and destroying their Constitution He blames Mr. H. for laying so much stress upon the word Schism P. 14. and tells him the Nature of Schism may be expressed by other words as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mr. H. never denies but it may and so may the Nature of Treason be expressed by other terms but yet he that would prove any thing to be Treason by Statute Law must see whether he finds it so called in the Statute 25 Edward III. or any other that ascertain Treason And so he that would prove 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. to be Schism must enquire how far the practices by these words signified are of the same nature with those which are expresly called Schism in the Statutes of Christ He pretends to give us a more exact interpretation of the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and what is it Why they signifie a Separation of the parts a rending or cleaving of one thing into two no great Criticism All the World knows where there is a Separation there must be parts Separated but says he in the Ecclesiastical sence it must signifie a dividing of Christs Body which is most visibly done by Separation and Breach of Communion No doubt Schism signifies division and a breach of the Unity of the Church But that Unity does not consist in the Unity of one Governing Head under Christ nor in the Unity of one Personal Communion which is impossible but in the Unity of Faith and Love If by Separation of Communion he means multiplying particular Churches this is very lawful in many cases an overgrown Church may be divided into ten or twenty and if it be done upon good reason and with Christian Love and Charity there is nothing at all either Sinful or Schismatical in it if there be any Schism in forming new particular Churches which are sound in the Faith it must be in doing it contentiously and out of opposition to one another which resolves it into Mr. H's Notion of Uncharitableness Mr. H. observes that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used figuratively for a division and that twofold 1. A Division in Apprehension for which he cites John 7.43 To this the Gentleman Replies There was not
this Gentleman had made Preaching the Gospel of Reconciliation one of them I am sure for that end he press'd that Text How can they preach except they be sent Does he mean the Sacraments why the Fathers of his own Church tell him all Antiquity allows the Baptism of Private Persons in Case of necessity and why not the other Sacrament too the Words of Tertullian are well known offers tingis he argues from that Text He hath made us Kings and Priests unto God and to his Father It is the Authority of the Church that hath put a difference between the Clergy and the Laity Tert. de Corona Militis de Baptism p. 602.603 Laices etiam jus est Sufficiat in necessitatibus and which hath established this sacred honour for the Body of the Clergy this is so true that where there is no Clergy-man to be had thou dost Celebrate thou dost Baptize and thou art to thy self a Priest now where there are three there is a Church though they be Laicks for every one lives by his own Faith and God is no respecter of Persons If therefore these Abyssines deprived themselves so long of the Sacraments they were needlesly scrupulous Ruffinus tells us that when Frumentius by the Providence of God was advanced to some Power in the Realm during the Kings Minority he carefully sought out such as were Christians among the Roman Merchants and exhorted them to meet together and pray which they did and when the Indians came amongst them they instructed them in the Christian Faith and all this was done before he took his Journey to Alexandria and tho' Valesius will needs be so nice as to distiuguish betwixt Oratories and Churches and betwixt Preaching and instructing I yet here was the great End of Churches and Bishops and Sermons happily attained viz. The Conversion and Instruction of Poor Souls a greater Seal of Mission than that of working Miracles wherewith 't is said Frumentius returned The Gentleman 's other instances prove no more but that in the sence of those times it was very desireable to have Ministerial Ordination and that they rather chose to be at a great deal of pains than to want it but it is not the desireableness but the necessity of it that the Vindicator denied and the Church of England you see will stand by him in it Nor was it his design to ridicule the Ceremony of laying on of Hands But that foolish conceit that by such contact there is a transition of power from one to another in a continued Line The Presbyterians themselves always use that Apostolical rite in their Ordinations tho' they do not think it necessary to the conveyance of Authority He charges the Vindicator with want of Sence or Integrity in reporting the Notion of a Patriarchal Right to Soveraignty But if he can explain that Notion any better 't would have been a very obliging thing to have done it I must confess I am as dull as the Vindicator in understanding it and cannot imagine how that Patriarchal Right should exist any where but in the Line of the Eldest Family in the World For if at any time you set up a Younger Brother it must be upon some other Title not the Patriarchal but either the express Nomination of God or Election or Conquest or the like But to claim the Regal Power by Patriarchal Right without pretending at least to the Line of Primogeniture is a thing I despair of ever understanding That this Patriarchal Right was ascribed to our Kings in the Late Reigns is too well known and will not be so easily forgotten by the Nation as it is denied by those that then filled Mens Ears with it E. of W. a Noble Peer pretty well known to T. W. once publickly Animadverted upon this Doctrine and the Authors of it and observed that such a right could be but in one Person in the World at once and no Person in the World could tell who that was What he mentions p. 56. concerning the Decency of Ceremonies has been obviated in the former part and there he may learn from the Bishops and Doctors of the Church of England that the Worship of God is never the better performed for them and therefore never the more decently and Bishop Sanderson condemns him for a Superstitious Fop that thinks otherwise this case is therefore adjudged already See the Review p. 57. If the Motion he makes of allowing the Bishops to be judges of Decency is to be so understood as that whatever the Clergy in Convocation Judge Fit and Decent must presently be submitted to and that the Pastors of Particular Churches or People how mean or half-witted soever must not make use of their discerning faculty this I confess is one way to end controversies by tying us all up to the Inspirations of the Canonical Tribe and this is that some of them have been long aiming at but surely 't is too far of the day to impose at this rate upon English Men. The Survey or endeavours to justifie their Excommunications by the old pretence of contempt and malice but these Men ought to be very certain that it is Malice and not real Scruple of Conscience against which they so severely proceed And they have no power to impose those things upon Men which they know thousands are dissatisfied in and they themselves acknowledge render their Duties not a whit more pleasing and acceptable to God That scandalous and disorderly Persons are to be disciplin'd according to the demerit of their Actions and Behaviour No Church or sober Christian that I know of will deny but that persons of Orthodox Judgment and Sober Conversation should be Excommunicated Fined Imprisoned Banished and Ruined because they dare not comply with such things as have been imposed in England is a practice not to be justified by any Rule in our Bibles or President in the Reformed Churches but is indeed contrary to Humanity it self To what he says about the Greek Churches p. 59. it is sufficient to reply If the procession of the Spirit from the Father and the Son be not an Article of Faith we desire to have a rule to distinguish what is de fide and what not in those Creeds But if it and the Greek Churches object against it then T. W. has excluded them unless he will say that ours is not the true Athanasian Creed and if it be not why must it be put into the Liturgy and Subscribed and Assented to under that denomination He endeavours to help his Alderman out about the same Table and tells us he meant something else by it than the same Table in Specie but since he has not told us what that more is we may suppose he wanted a handsome Salvo for he durst not say it must be the same numerically and it would be hard to find any thing betwixt those two kinds of Identity He tells us To have the same Prayers is to join with the Church
their Disciples and Followers who refusing to be called of that Sect yet participate too much with their Humours in maintaining the above-mentioned Errors and the King further adds I Protest upon my Honour I did not mean it generally of all those Preachers or others that like better the single Form of Policy in our Church than of the many Ceremonies of the Church of England or that are perswaded that their Bishops smell of a Papal Supremacy No I am so far from being contentious in these things that I equally love and honour the Learned and Grave Men of either Opinion And that those called Puritans at that time in England were not such Persons as are here described appears sufficiently from the earnest Endeavours both of the House of Commons and Lords of the Privy Council on their behalf and the different account they give of them who must needs be acknowledged very competent Judges and it is observable that the Familists in England took notice of this censure of the King 's Fuller Church Hist Book 10 p. 30. and in their Petition to him when he came into England they disown all Affinity with the Puritans and speak reproachfully of them under that Title themselves I hope this will abundantly acquit the Old English Puritans from being the Persons aimed at in those Royal Reflections and therefore notwithstanding any thing in that Book it may be very true that the Bishops flattered that King into an ill Opinion of them That some of our English Prelates endeavour'd to do very ill Offices betwixt the King and Presbyterian Party even before he came into England is most certainly true and it cannot be imagined that they would be less busie when they had him amongst them Bishop Bancroft was more than ordinary active in such Designs as appeared amongst other things by a Letter from one Norton a Stationer in Edenburgh directed for him and intercepted Calderwood's Hist of the Ch. of Scotland p. 248. upon Examination Norton acknowledged that he was employed by Bancroft to disperse certain Questions that tended to the Defamation of the Kirk and Presbyterial Government The same Bishop writ frequent Letters to Mr. Patrick Adamson the Titular Archbishop of St. Andrews which were many of them intercepted wherein he stirs him up to Extol and Praise the Church of England above all others and to come up to London Ibid. p. 259. assuring him that he would be very welcome and well rewarded by the Archbishop of Canterbury This Adamson had composed a Declaration which passed under the King's Name wherein the whole Order of the Kirk was greatly traduced and condemned The Commissioners of the General Assembly complained to the King of the many false Aspersions contained therein which were so shameful that the King disowned it and said It was not his doing but the Archbishops and prudently discarded that great Favourite and gave the Rents of the Bishoprick to the Duke of Lenox The poor Gentleman thus abandoned professes himself to be truly Penitent for what he had done and makes a full Recantation which he Subscribed in the presence of a great many Witnesses and directs it to the Synod conven'd at St. Andrew's Confessing That he had out of Ambition Vain-Glory and Covetousness undertaken the Office of an Archbishop That he had laboured to advance the King's Arbitrary Power in Matters of Religion and Protested before God that he was commanded to write that Declaration by the Chancellor the Secretary and another great Courtier and that he was more busie with some Bishops in England in Prejudice of the Discipline of the Kirk partly when he was there and partly by Mutual Intelligence than became a good Christian much less a Faithful Pastor c. Now although the King fondly adhered to such kind of Men whilst he hoped to advance his Prerogative thereby yet when he began to perceive the ill Effects of such Conduct Ibid. Preface he still deserted them and in those prudent Intervals would freely declare his good Opinion of the Presbytery and their Form of Government particularly in the National Assembly 1590. He thank'd God that he was King of such a Country wherein says he there is such a Church even the sincerest Church on Earth Geneva not excepted seeing they keep some Festival Days as Easter and Christmas and what have they for it As for our Neighbours in England their Service is an ill mumbled Mass in English they want little of the Mass but the Liftings Now I charge you my good People Barons Gentlemen Ministers and Elders that you all stand to your Purity and Exhort the People to do the same and as long as I have Life and Crown I will maintain the same against all deadly Nay Calder p. 473. when he took his leave of Scotland upon the Union of the two Kingdoms he solemnly promised the Ministers of the Synod of Lothian that he would make no Alterations in their Discipline but when he came up to London those who had been tampering with him and his Courtiers before had a fair opportunity to accomplish their Design which was the utter Abolition of the Presbytery in Scotland and the Suppression of the Puritans in England And saith my Author as soon as the English Prelates had got King James amongst them R. Baylie's Vindication and Answer to the Declarat p. 11. they did not rest till Mr. Melvill and the Prime of the Scots Divines were called up to London and only for their Just Defence of the Truth and Liberties of Scotland against Episcopal Usurpations were either Banish'd or Confin'd and so sore Oppressed that it brought many of them with Sorrow to their Graves and the whole Discipline of the Church was over-thrown notwithstanding the King 's parting Promise to the contrary The Nonconformists in England were so far from being brought over by the Severities of the former Reign that they drew up a Petition about this time Signed by Seven hundred and fifty Ministers desiring Reformation of certain Ceremonies and Abuses in the Church which Fuller gives us at large this was designed to have been presented before the Conference at Hampton-Court but was deferr'd till after The Relation of this so much talk'd of Conference as Fuller reports it out of Barlow is justly suspected of great Partiality and the Historian himself speaks doubtfully of it and yet even in that we have a plain Indication of what temper the Court and Bishops were It looks very odd that when the King had allow'd several of Dr. Reynold's Exceptions he should threaten if they had no more to say He would make them to Conform or hurry them out of the Land or do worse a poor business for a Prince to menace his own Subjects for Non-conformity to that which himself had formerly called an Ill-mumbled Mass in English and even now acknowledged wanted some Reformation But we have this Matter set in a truer Light by Mr. Patrick Galloway in his Account of it
from London to the Presbytery of Edenburgh Calder p. 474. after it was Revised by the King 's own Hand The words are Beloved Brethren after my hearty Commendations these Presents are to shew you that I received Two of your Letters One directed to His Majesty the other to my Self for my Perusal the same I read closed and three days before the Conference delivered into His Majesties Hand and received it back again after some short Speeches upon those words in your Letter the Gross Corruptions of this Church which were then expounded and I was assured all Corruptions dissonant from the Word of God or contrary thereunto should be amended The Twelfth of January was the day of Meeting at which time the Bishops were call'd upon and gravely desired to advise upon all the Corruptions of this Church in Doctrine Ceremonies and Discipline and as they would answer it to God in Conscience and to His Majesty upon their Obedience that they should return the Third day after which was Saturday Accordingly they returned to His Majesty and when the Matter was propounded to them as before they answered All was Well And when His Majesty with great fervency brought instances to the contrary they upon their Knees with great earnestness craved that nothing should be altered lest the Popish Recusants punished for Disobedience and the Puritans punished by Deprivation ab officio beneficio for Nonconformity should say they had just Cause to insult upon them as Men who had endeavoured to bind them to that which by their own Mouths now was confess'd to be Erroneous After five Hours Dispute had by His Majesty against them and his resolution for Reformation intimated to them they were dismissed for that day c. but it appears by the result their importunity overcame him at last Dr. Fuller observes That whereas before this Conference it was disputable whether the North where he long lived or the South whither he lately came would prevail most on the King's Judgment in Church Government now this Question was clearly decided I hope now the Vindicator may be allowed to have some Grains of Shame and Modesty common to Humane Nature though he ventured to say That the English Prelates flattered King James into an ill Opinion of the Puritans and the thing is not so plain or known a Contradiction as the Citizen pretends and for him to tell the World at this time a day of the famous Piety and Virtue of that Prince is ridiculous enough Alas the History of his Reign is too well known his Contending with Parliaments his Encouraging of Papists his Secret Articles upon the Treaties with Spain and France his greedy Desire of Arbitrary Power his Prostituting the Honours and Wasting the Treasures of the Nation after a most inglorious manner produced those ill Effects under which these Kingdoms have laboured and languished ever since till by the late happy Revolution our Antient Rights and privileges were raised out of the Grave recognised and settled upon their true Basis once more The Unhappy Government of K. Charles the First is now sufficiently Unveiled especially by Rushworth's Impartial Collections The Vindicator briefly hinted at those Irregular and Arbitrary Practices that forced the Parliament to take up Arms for the Defence of their Liberties and for rescuing the King out of the hands of those Councellors that had so fatally misled him T. W. calls this Notorious Calumny and says he could answer all the Instances particularly but he refers to the Rolls and Acts of Parliament The Vindicator is willing to joyn issue with him here and appeals to the several Petitions Remonstrances and Speeches made in Parliament as they stand upon Record in the Journals of both Houses and they are now made so publick that no Man but one who has no Reputation to lose would have offered to deny that which all the Nation that can read Books know to be true And I will also tell him that there is not one passage mentioned by the Vindicator concerning the Male Administration of that King but what he may find in the Supplement to Baker 's Chronicle a History never suspected for Disloyalty but evidently partial the other way The Vindicator renew'd the Challenge to Name four Persons in that Parliament Dr. Burnet tells us the Duke of Hamilton was dissatisfied with the Courses some of the Bishops had followed before the Troubles began and could not but impute their first rise to the Provocations that had been given by them Memoirs p. 408. that were not in full Communion with the Church of England when the War began It is true many of them that were for Episcopacy were highly offended at the Behaviour of some of the Bishops as appears by the Speeches of the Lords Falkland and Digby both great Royalists and for my part I desire no other Evidence of the intolerable Usurpations of the Laudensian Party than what those Noble Lords have given us which being now in so many Hands by the Publishing the third part of Rushworths Collections I will not transcribe The Nonconformists indeed generally joyned with the Parliament in that Cause which was doubtless as just and necessary when first undertaken as ever was carried upon the Point of a Sword But that it was without the least design upon the Kings Person their Solemn League and Covenant plainly proves and the many Declarations and Remonstrances which they afterwards made when they saw new designs laid and pursued In the Year 1648. When the Republican Faction was at the highest the Ministers called Presbyterian in and about London fearing that which afterwards happened boldly Published a Vindication of themselves and Exhortation to the People part of which I shall here Transcribe to let the World see how shamefully they have been abused about the Death of that King their Words are these To this Vindication we are compell'd at this time Vindicat. of the Minist Printed for T. Underhil Ann. 1648. Subscribed by C. Burgess D. D. W. Gouge D. D. E. Stanton D. D. T. Temple D. D. G. Walker E. Calamy B. D. J. Whitaker D. Câ—wdrey W. Spurstow L. Seaman D. D. Sim. Ashe T. Case N. Proffect T. Thorowgood E. Corbet H. Roborough A. Jackson J. Nalton T. Cawton C. Offspring Sa. Clark Io. Wall F. Roberts M. Haviland J. Sheffield W. Harrison W. Jenkin J. Viner E. Blackwel J. Cross J. Fuller W. Taylor P. Witham Fra. Peek Ch. 〈◊〉 J. Wallis T. Watson T. Bedford W. Wickins T. Manton D. D. Tho. Gouge W. Blackmore R. Mercer R. Robinson J. Glascock T. Whately J. Lloyde J. Wells B. Needler N. Staniforth S. Watkins J. Tice J. Stileman Jos Ball. J. Devereux P. Russel J. Kirby A. Barham because there are many who very confidently yet most unjustly charge us to have been formerly instrumental toward the taking away the Life of the King and because also there are others who in their Scurrilous Pasquils and Libels as well as with their Virulent Tongues represent us
exprest far different Sentiments concerning us and we hope we shall never do any thing to forfeit their Friendly respect but be always as ready to return as receive it I must not omit what this Gentleman has replyed to the Vindicator concerning the Penal Laws as they have been executed upon Protestant Dissenters He pretends they reclaimed many and did a great deal towards bringing English Protestants to Uniformity it was well he did not say to Unity for that had been one of the grossest Fallacies in the World And I will not deny but that many Dissenters went to Church when they had no where else to go their Ministers being some in Prison others beyond Sea and many not daring to shew their Heads and perhaps some of them were forced by those severe Proceedings to comply further than their Consciences could well allow and such kind of Conversions the French Dragoons may boast of too but it is nevertheless certain that these things tend to alienate the Minds of Men one from another and the present numbers of Dissenters may convince him such Methods will never effect a general Unity and it was some years ago observed in Parliament by an Honourable Person That neither the Oxford Act 1680. Coll. of Debates p. 211. nor that of the thirty fifth of the Queen nor any other had ever been executed in favour of the Church that Dissenters were as many if not more than ever And the present Bishop of Worcester will tell this Gentleman Charge in his Primary Visitation p. 25 26. That distance and too great stiffness of behaviour towards Dissenters have made some of them more their Enemies than they would have been That Persecution was a Popular Argument for them the Complaining side having always the most pitty but now that is taken off says he you may deal with them upon more equal Terms Some think Severity makes men consider I am afraid it heats them too much and makes them too violent and refractory That this Gentleman may see that not the Vindicator only but the most eminent Fathers of the Church of England condemn the Severities that have been used towards Protestant Dissenters and how unbecoming as well as imprudent a thing it is in him to justifie them I shall leave their own Words to his Consideration The present Arch-Bishop of Canterbury who Honours the Metropolitane See more than he can be honoured by it in a Fast Sermon before the Queen Sept. 16 1691. speaking of the Clergy expresses himself thus And it can never be sufficiently lamented no though it were with Tears of Blood that we whose particular Charge and Imployment it is to build up the Souls of men in a Holy Faith and in the Resolution of a good Life should for want of due Instruction and by the Dissolute and Profligate Lives of too many amongst us and by inflaming our needless differences about lesser things have so great a hand in the pulling down Religion and in betraying the Souls of men c. The Bishop of Worcester in his Visliation Charge acknowledges that the Persecution of Dissenters was promoted by the Papists his Words are I hope they are now convinced that the Persecution which they complained lately so much of was carried on by other men and for other designs than they would then seem to believe Indeed we always thought the Papists had the chief hand in it and we are glad others begin to see it None has spoke more freely to this matter than the Bishop of Sarum in his Observations upon Ridleys Letter to Hooper P. 4. he puts this Objection But when the Clergy of the Church of England saw that good and great Men and the glorious Martyrs of Jesus Christ such as Hooper was were offended with these Ceremonies they should have used their utmost endeavours to have gotten them discharged by Law as they were impos'd by Law and not have left them to remain as a standing offence and a perpetual stumbling block to all others of Hoopers mind Now to this he Answers This I confess would be an Objection very much to the Prejudice of the Church of England could it not be truly said that the Clergy did heartily endeavour to procure this ease to scrupulous Consciences though without success for all the eminent Bishops of England in Queen Elizabeths time did labour in this Point and could not prevail with the Queen to Consent to it And a little further blaming the Nonconformists for crying out so much of Persecution excuses it thus If any man take my right hand and therewith bruise and batter my left hand is my right hand therefore become a Persecutor Is it not really persecuted as well as the other and has it not a fellow-feeling and share of the Misery and in his Exhortation to Peace and Union God be thanked for it that there is an End put to all Persecution in matters of Religion P. 27. and that the first and chief right of Humane Nature of following the dictates of Conscience in the Service of God is secured to all men amongst us and that we are freed I hope for ever of all the Remnants of the worst part of Popery I mean the Spirit of Persecution The Seven Bishops in their Petition to the late King declared they would not be wanting in due Tenderness to Dissenters but willingly come to such a temper as should be thought fit when the matter should come to be considered and settled in Parliament and Convocation and about the time of the P. of Orange's Landing all their discourse was of Union Comprehension insomuch as that a Reverend Prelate told a dissenting Minister He need never to fear Persecution from the Church of England again adding If any such thing should ever happen let me be accounted a false Prephet I hope these Gentlemen will not give us occasion to say as Demades the Orator was wont to say of the Athenians That they never came to consult of Peace nisi atrati but in Mourning under some Publick Calamity or Danger Our gracious Soveraign when P. of Orange in his Declaration promised to endeavour a good Agreement between the Church of England and all Protestant Dissenters and to cover and secure all those who would live peaceably under the Government from all persecution upon the account of their Religion and has all along strictly adhered to that Royal Promise and Design and in pursuance thereof encircled with his Lords and Commons in Parliament has given us our present Indulgence as that which the Wisdom of the Nation judged the likeliest way to Unite us all in Interest and Affection and I hope the Sentiments of all these will more than ballance what our Gentleman has offered to Vindicate the Execution of the Penal Laws and he must be a man of more than ordinary assurance that durst take upon him to oppose his private peevish opinion to such an august and venerable Determination This Gent. as well as
Oecumenius who wrote above a thousand years after Christ nay the very Postscripts themselves prove that they are of much later date than the Epistles for in one of them Phrygia is called Pacatiana which was not the name of it till above three hundred years after Christ when it was conquered by one Pacatius a Roman General and after him called Pacatiana and in the Postscript to Titus it is said the Epistle was writ from Nicopolis which it could not be since in the Epistle it self Paul speaks of Nicopolis a place whither he designed to go and Winter and would have Titus come to him there come to me to Nicopolis for there not here I design to Winter these Postscripts therefore betray themselves by their own language And he should have told us what there is in the word Angel that will demonstrate a Diocesan Bishop but instead thereof tells us a long story out of Dr. Hammond which is worse than impertinent for it affirms that those Angels were not Diocesan Bishops but Metropolitanes or Arch-Bishops that had Bishops under them Vid. Dr. Sherlock Vindic. of Prot. Princ. p. 71. now our learned Church Men acknowledge that Metropolitanes are not of Divine but of Ecclesiastical Institution and have no proper Jurisdiction over Bishops and they generally desert Doctor Hammond in this Notion but this Gentleman had not considered so far but found a large Paragraph that would prove the largeness of those Churches and thought he had got a prize in short let them but acknowledge Presbyters to be Bishops as Dr. Hammond says they all were in Scripture Times Dr. Morrice of Diocesan Ep. scop p. 27. and let the Bishops be Metropolitans holding only by Ecclesiastical Institution without any proper Authority over the Presbyters and we shall not much differ from them Let us now see what evidence may be brought to prove that Presbyters are of the same Order with Bishops and have the same power as they And 1st It is no contemptible argument that Presbyters are frequently called Bishops in Scripture that the names are used promiscuously the greatest Patrons of the Prelacy acknowledge the Elders of the Church of Ephesus are so called Acts 20.28 The Ministers of the Church of Philippi are called Bishops and it is observable that the Syriack Version which is very antient has but one word for Presbyter and Bishop now if there be so material a disserence betwixt a Bishop and a Presbyter as some men would make it is strange there should not be a distinct word to express it by if only such as are now owned to be Bishops were called Presbyters the argument would not be so strong for they might think to evade it by saying the lesser is included in the greater and they are Presbyters before they are Bishops but when even those who are acknowledged to be meer Presbyters are called Bishops it is very considerable for the lesser cannot include the greater it would sound very strange in England for a Presbyter to write himself Bishop and if the Apostles had known any thing of this mighty distinction upon which the Fate of so many Churches and Salvation of so many Souls is made to depend we cannot suppose they would have laid such a temptation before us to draw us into an opinion of the Identity of Order by the indifferent and promiscuous use of the Titles Dr. Morrice in his defence of Diocesan Episcopacy makes very little account of the Title of Bishops being given to Presbyters in the Church of Philippi Pag. 29 30. and is pleased to say This debate about the Bishops of Philippi had soon been at an end if our Author had thought fit to explain himself and told us what he meant by Bishops for were the Pastors of single Congregations respectively in Covenant Then there must have been several Congregations or Churches in the same City which Mr. Clarkson will not allow Or were those Bishope only Presbyters ruling the Church of Philippi with common and equal authority Then our Authour must give up the question and instead of making many Bishops must own that there was none at all there but onely Presbyters will he contend that there were no other Bishops than Presbyters That will be to abuse his Reader with the Ambiguity of a Word which he takes in one sence and the Church in another that many Presbyters might belong to one Congregation none ever denied but that many Bishops in the Allow'd and Ecclesiastical sence of the Word had the oversight of one City seems strange and incredible to the Antient Christians Chrysostom observing this expression of the Bishops of Philippi seems to be startled with it What many Bishops in one City By no means it cannot be what then They were not Bishops properly so called but Presbyters I have taken the more notice of this Paragraph Works of the Learned Augustin p. 25. because La Crose magnifies it as a terrible Dilemma though he has lamentably spoiled it in the Abridgment but taking it as the Dr. has laid it before us I see not how it can much weaken our Cause or fortifie his own We do really maintain that these Bishops were Presbyters ruling the Church of Philippi with common consent and whether this be the Ecclesiastical sence of the word or no we are not much concerned to enquire it is sufficient to our purpose that it is the true Scriptural sence and the only one too Communi Presbyterorum consilio Ecclesâ—e gubernabuntur Hieron 1. Tit. for we never find the word in all the New Testament signifying an Ecclesiastical Order of Men Superior to Presbyters we deny not but that this Name very early began to be appropriated to the Senior Presbyter in a Church or City who yet never pretended to be a distinct Order from the rest of his Colleagues of the Presbytery for a long time afterwards But as the word thus used is taken in an Ecclesiastical not Scriptural sence so the Dignity thereby expressed is of meer Ecclesiastical not Divine Institution And whereas Chrysostom says They were not Bishops properly so called he can mean no more by it but that they were not such Bishops as that word was made to signifie by common usage in his time and we grant they were not for the Distinction of Office and Degree not being known in Scripture the word could not be used in that distinguishing sence there Thus a Learned Canonist gives it as the Vogue of many Primitive Authors Lancel Instit Lag Can. l. 1. Tit. 21. p. 32. That Bishop and Presbyter were formerly the same and that Presbyter was the Name of the Persons Age Bishop of his Office but there being many of these in every Church they determined amongst themselves for the preventing of Schism that one should be Elected by themselves to be set over the rest and the Person so elected retained the Name of Bishop for Distinction sake the rest were only called Presbyters and in
Learned Grotius has fully proved that there never was a Council truly called General excepting that of the Apostles at Jerusalem that Councils have no governing Power Non ideo convocari Synodum quòd in co pars sit imperii Yea that the Church has no Legislative Power by Divine Right That what was written in Synods for Order and Ornament are not called Laws but Canons and have either the force of advice only Burnets Abridement p. 139. or they oblige by way of agreement c. And our Reforming Bishops Cranmer Tonstal and others being required to give their opinions concerning the Authority of General Councils declared that this Authority did not flow from the number of the Bishops but from the matter of their decisions and this indeed is the only true notion of Ministerial Power it depends purely upon the matter of their Canons not the Authority of the Person so that they can never by their Authority make a thing indifferent to become a Duty Praeeant ipsi judicio directivo says Grotius they are Councils not Parliaments and only to shew men what is Sin and Duty not to make any thing Duty which was not so before Dr. Sherlock fairly acquits himself of the Suspicion of ascribing unto a Council of Bishops Vind. of Prot. Princ. p. 30. Vind. of the Def. of Dr. St. p. 162. any Power in matter of Faith or Manners or Catholick Unity and because in a former Treatise he had let fall an Expression that might seem to give them such a Power he by much strugling gets from under it and says he meant no more than a Power of Deposing Heretical Bishops but withal adds It does not follow that any Bishops or any Number of Bishops however assembled have such an Authority to declare Heresie as shall oblige all men to believe that to be Heresie which they decree to be so and therefore the effects of those Censures must of Necessity depond upon that Opinion which People have of them those who believe the Censure just will withdraw from the Communion of such a Bishop those who do not will still communicate with him and whether they do right or wrong their own Consciences must judge in this World and God will Judge in the next And elsewhere he thus speaks As for Ecclesiastical Causes nothing is a pure Ecclesiastical Cause but what concerns the Communion of the Church who shall be received into Communion or câ—st out or put under some less Censures c. Here we see it is not in the Power of Councils or Synods to take away any of that Power from Presbyters that God has given them this is none of the Ecclesiastical Causes belonging to them This is more directly asserted by the Author of the Summary of the Controversies betwixt the Church of England P. 119. and the Church of Rome what he says of the Episcopal Office will hold true of the Ministerial in General That a General Council has no Authority to give away those Rights and Powers which are inherent in every Church and inseparable from the Ministerial Office for it is not in Ecclesiastical as it is in Civil Rights Men may irrevocably grant away their own Civil Rights and Liberties but all the Authority in the Church cannot give away it self nor grant the whole entire Episcopacy with all the Rights and Powers of it to any one Bishop If Bishops or Presbyters will not exercise that Power which God has given them they are accountable to their Lord for it but they cannot give it away neither from themselves nor from their Successors for it is theirs only to use not to part with and therefore every Bishop or Presbyter may reassume such Rights though a General Council should give them away because the Grant is void in it self By ancient Ecclesiastical custom Arch-Bishops were set over Bishops Vind. Prot. Prin. p. 72. and yet Dr. Sherlock confesses they have not direct Authority and Jurisdiction over them and if Bishops have no Superiority over Presbyters but what is grounded upon this Ecclesiastical Right it will not amount to formal Authority But 2. No Power can be claimed by Ecclesiastical Right but what has been acquired according to the Rules of those Councils and Customs by which they claim if it be a jus Ecclesiasticum they must come by it more Ecclesiastico in that method which Ecclesiastical Canons have prescribed and nothing is more evident than that the Rules of the Primitive Churches gave all the Presbyters and the People too a voice in the Election of their Bishops the African Bishops in a Council where Cyprian Presided Cypr. Ep. 68. Concil Nic. Arab. Can. Sozom. l. 1. c. 23. determined that Plebs maximè habeat potestatem vel eligendi dignos sacerdotes vel indignos recusandi St. Ambrose Ep. 82. Electio vocatio quae sit à tota Ecclesia verè cartò est divina vocatio ad munus Episcopi That this was the Primitive Custom none will deny though some Question whether this be absolutely necessary or no and I will not say it is necessary where the Office stands upon a Divine Institution but certainly where it only stands upon the Plea of Ecclesiastical Right the Ecclesiastical Method is absolutely necessary to give that Right for our Bishops cannot pretend to stand upon the Foundation of those Canons which they do not observe in their entrance upon that Office since those Canons must needs bind them as much in their Acquisition of Power as the People in their Subjection to them The best Title therefore our Bishops have to shew for their Prelatical Jurisdiction is the Law of the Land Our learned Historians and Lawyers tell us that before William the Conquerors time there were no such Courts in England as we now call Courts Ecclesiastical or Spiritual only by the Laws of Ethelstane the Bishops were allowed to be present with the Sheriffs in their Tourne Courts Brompton de Leg. Ethels where all Ecclefiastical matters were heard and determined Sir Edward Cook says William the Conquerour was the first that by his Charter to the Dean and Chapter of Lincoln prohibited Sheriffs to intermeddle any more with Ecclesiastical Causes but leave them wholly to the Bishop 4. l. Institut c. 53. p. 259. and yet there appears no enrolment of any such Charter till the 2d of Rich. 2d And Cook himself mentions the Red Book of Henry the first de general placit Comitat. extant in the Office of the Kings Rememb in the Exchequer wherein 't is said of the Sheriffs Tourne Courts Ibi agantur primo debita Christianitatis jura secundo Regis placita postremo causae singulorum and he adds certain it is the Bishops Consistories were erected and Causes Ecclesiastical removed from the Tourne to the Consistory after the making of the said Red Book Nothing will set this matter in a better Light than our Acts of Parliament especially that of the 37. Hen 8. Entituled An
Act that Doctors of Civil Law being married may exercise Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction In most humble wise shew and declare unto your Highness your most faithful humble and obedient Subjects the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons of this Present Parliament Assembled That whereas your Highness is c. The Arch-Bishops Bishops Deans and other Ecclesiastical Persons who have no manner of Jurisdiction Ecclesiastical but by under and from your Royal Majesty to whom by Scripture all Authority and Power is wholly given to hear and determine all Causes Ecclesiastical and to all such Persons as your Majesty shall appoint thereunto And long before this time our Kings were so tender of their Royal Rights in Ecclesiastical Matters that when the Clergy in Parliament 51. Edw. 3d. Petitioned that of every Consultation Conditional the Ordinary may of himself take upon him the true Understanding thereof and therein proceed accordingly that is without Appeal to the King who by his Delegates by Commission under the great Seal might determine the same the Kings Answer was That the King cannot depart with his Right Instit 4th part cap. 74. p. 339. but to yield to Subjects according to Law upon which Sir Edw. Cook gives an Item Nota hoc stude bene By the Statute 1. Edw. 6.2 The Bishops could hold no Court but in the Kings Name and it was no less than Praemunire to issue out Process in their own Names and under their own Seals and though that Statute was Repealed in 1. Mary 2. Yet it lets us see the true Fountain of Prelatical Jurisdiction and some are of opinion that it was revived in general terms in the 1. Eliz. 1. Which annexes and unites all Spiritual and Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction to the Imperial Crown of England and shews that the Prelatical Power of our Bishops is wholly founded directed and limited by the Laws of the Land And this is readily granted by our ablest Civilians particularly Godolphin in his Abridgment of the Ecclesiastical Laws Introduct p. 2◠whose words are No sooner had Princes in ancient times assigned and limited certain matters and causes Controversial to the Cognizance of Bishops and to that end dignified the Episcopal Order with an Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction but the multiplicity and emergency of such Affairs require for the dispatch and management thereof the Assistance of subordinate Ordinaries c. Dr. Cases of Consc l. 3. ch 3. fol. 544. Jeremy Taylor acknowledges that the Supream Civil Power is also Supream Governour over all Persons and in all Causes Ecclesiastical and he says This is a rule of such great necessity for the conduct of Conscience as that it is the measure of determining all Persons concerning the the Sanction of Obedience to all Ecclesiastical Laws c. And in another place It was never known in the Primitive Church that ever any Ecclesiastical Law did oblige the Church unless the secular Prince did establish it The Nicene Canons became Laws by the Rescript of the Emperor Constantine says Sozomen When the Council of Constantinople was finished the Fathers wrote to the Emperor Theodosius Ibidem cap. 4. fol. 600. Petitioning ut Edicto Pietatis tua confirmetur Synodi sententia The Decrees of the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon had the same Confirmation as to the last Marcion the Emperor wrote to Palladius his Prefect Quod ea quae de Christiana fide à Sacerdotibus qui Chalcedone convenerunt per nostra praecepta statuta sunt And indeed what is it that the Civil Magistrate may not do in the making of a Prelate in the Church of England He may elect the Person and does so in reality for he nominates Authoritatively and whatever some pretend Godolph Repert Canon p. 42. the Dean and Chapter have no power to refuse the Conge d'eslire and Mr. Gwin in the preface to his Readings tells us that the King of England had of antient time the free appointment of all Ecclesiastical Dignities investing them first per Annulum Baculum and afterwards by his Letters Patents and that in process of time he made the Election over to others under certain Forms and Conditions and affirmeth with good authorities out of the Books of the Common Law that King John was the first that granted this Liberty of Election to the Dean and Chapter but that all Bishopricks were at first Donative The Civil Magistrate may multiply Bishops ad libitum and if he pleases may appoint one in every Parish by the Statute of 26 Hen. VIII c. 14. Six and twenty Suffragan Bishops are added to the Diocesans as saith the Act hath been accustomed to be in this Realm the Arch-Bishop or Bishop was to name two whereof the King to chuse one and to give him the Name Title and Dignity of Bishop and to that Name Title and Dignity the Arch Bishop with two Bishops or Suffragans more is to consecrate him onely he is to act by the Commission of the Diocesan and to have none of the profits of the Bishoprick this restraint in the exercise might have been taken off if the Legislative Power had so pleased And if this Law had not given them the Episcopal Power they could not have exercised that Power by any Commission from the Diocesan whatsoever He may also delegate the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction to whom he pleases either to Lay-Men or to Presbyters 'T is commonly assigned to Lay-Chancellors they do judicially Excommunicate and Absolve and they have their Commission to do it from the King not from the Bishop and in some places the Episcopal Jurisdiction is reserved to a Presbyter as in the Peculiars we have in divers parts of England at Bridgnorth six Parishes are Governed by a Court held by a Presbyter and Godolphin tells us there are certain peculiar Jurisdictions belonging to some certain Parishes the Inhabitants whereof are exempted from the Arch-Deacons and sometimes from the Bishops Jurisdiction of which there are fifty seven in the Province of Canterbury A certain proof that the Bishops Jurisdiction is only by humane Right or Custom because the Law can exempt some Parishes from it but by the Citizen of Chesters Divinity all these peculiars have the peculiar priviledge of being unchurched and their exemption would be tantamount to Excommunication because they are not under the Government of the Bishop without which there can be no Church Unity If any say they are under the Archiepiscopal Jurisdiction I answer they are no otherwise under it than the Bishops are and the Prelatical party themselves acknowledge that Arch-Bishops are but of Humane Institution Lastly The Civil Magistrate may also depose and deprive Bishops when they see just cause and this power has been so lately exerted that it needs no farther proof I would fain know whether the deprived Bishops be not divested of all Episcopal Jurisdiction Perhaps this will be thought an invidious question and an insulting over the misfortunes of those learned Gentlemen but I profess seriously it is
same over all Churches and this Surveyor says The Bishops succeed them in the same Authority only the exercise thereof is limited by humane Agreements and asks the Vindicator whether a Bishop be not as truly a Bishop and a Presbyter as truly a Presbyter in any other Man's Diocese or Parish as in his own But here he puts things together that should be kept distinct a Bishop in the received and ordinary sence of the word is a Relative term and always connotes a Bishoprick either in Possession or Title as his Charge and Cure and therefore though he be Bishop in another Man's Diocese he is not Bishop of that Diocese indeed as a Minister of the Gospel he may Preach and Administer the Sacraments any where that Providence casts him and gives him an opportunity of so doing and if this be all the Episcopal Power they pretend to we will allow it to be as Universal as they please but the Power of Jurisdiction over Ministers and People which they call the Apostolical Power they have not any where but in their own Dioceses and yet even that Power the Apostles had all the World over and could not be limited in it by any Humane Agreements whatsoever By this Notion our Gentleman has advanced the Bishop of Chester has no more Authority in Cheshire than the Bishop of Rome Review p. 40. but what is founded on Humane Agreements and what thanks his Diocesan will give him for such a Doctrine I cannot tell for he afterwards acknowledges that the Bishop of Rome has no Authority at all in England which makes the whole Power of our Bishops to depend upon Humane Agreements without which he that has none at all would have as much as they Or perhaps it is liable to a worse Consequence than that for if every Bishop has Universal Power in all Dioceses by the Grant of Christ and is only restrained in the Exercise thereof by Humane Agreements then may the Bishop of Rome with Apostolical Authority make Canons for all England and Excommunicate us all if we receive them not for Christ gave him Universal Power only it was limited by Humane Agreements which he never agreed to and if he had that could not render his Act unauthoritative but only irregular Only the best on 't is any Bishop in England may make Canons for Rome too and Damn them all Pope and Cardinals and all if they will not obey I would gladly understand this Doctrine a little better and therefore I beg the favour of this Gentleman to tell me what Agreements these are of which he speaks where and when made and by whom Are they only made by the Bishops amongst themselves or had the People a hand therein or does he mean the Laws of the Land If Bishops can by mutual Agreement so restrain the Exercise of their Power why may they not by the like Agreements constitute one to be Head over them all I wish this Gentleman would go to School to a learned Doctor of his own Church though he was not in Communion with him in these Notions yet I hope no Schismatick for all that Treat of Supremacy p. 120 121. 't is the worthy Dr. Isaac Barrow whose words are The Offices of an Apostle and Bishop are not in their own Nature well consistent for the Apostleship is an extraordinary Office charged with the Instruction and Government of the whole World and calling for an answerable Care the Apostles being Rulers as St. Chrysostom saith ordained by God Rulers not taking several Nations and Cities but all of them in common intrusted with the whole World but Episcopacy is an ordinary standing charge affixed to One place and requiring a special Attendance there who as St. Chrysostom saith do sit and are employed in one place Now he that hath such a General Care can hardly discharge such a particular Office and he that is fixed to so particular an Attendance can hardly look well after so General a Charge I need not repeat what has been said about the Powers of Timothy and Titus what the Gentleman here alledges is anticipated and answered He must prove that Presbyters may not do what Timothy and Titus did that they may not ordain that they may not reprove one another for their Faults as they have occasion He says These are the Powers that Bishops have exercised all along and so have Presbyters too and if exercise proves the Title they must therefore be Bishops also He adds The Congregational Invention allows of no such Officers the most ordinary Pastors being all Independent without ever a Timothy or Titus to Govern them and therefore by Scripture stands condemned and if it be so I am sure Episcopacy is involved in the same Condemnation for the Bishops are by their own Party accounted the only Pastors and the Inferiour Clergy are but their Curates and yet these Pastors have none to supervise them but are as Independent as can be there 's no Paul to govern these Timothies and Titus's and therefore their Churches are to use his own words plainly contrary to the Apostolical Pattern And Dr. Morrice has told us That it is not essential to a Bishop to have many Congregations under him Bishops may be Pastors of single Congregations yea they may not have one Presbyter under them Review p. 60. and yet be Bishops still for Milles the Martyr was a Bishop and yet had no Christian in his Diocese and yet I think there are few Pastors of our Congregational Churches but what have Presbyters under them so that Episcopacy and Independency may very well comport together for Episcopacy is Independent and may be Congregational and if the one be condemned by Scripture the other must fall with it He says It is an idle fancy to suppose that the Office of Timothy and Titus was itinerant for then says he they were out of their Office when they were at home the one in Ephesus and the other in Crete If by calling those places their Homes he would insinuate that they were their proper Diocesan Sees where they were to reside 't is a begging of the Question and every Body knows that's the way of Idle Persons it is as certain as our Bibles can make it that Timothy was only to abide at Ephesus for a Season till Paul's return out of Macedonia 1 Tim. 3.14 after which he accompanied Paul into Asia Chap. 4.13 from thence to Italy Heb. 13.23 thence Paul declares he would send him to Philippi Chap. 2.19 and we find him at Rome again Col. 1.1 And Titus was so far from being resident at Crete Gal. 2.1 3. 2 Cor. 2.12 7. 13. 12.8 2 Tim. 4.10 that he was commanded away to Nicopolis before Winter Chap. 3.12 he was sent to Corinth and Dalmatia and went up to Jerusalem with Paul and came to him during his Imprisonment at Rome These Removes our Gent. would have us to think were their Episcopal Visitations but that would