Just Mart. ibid Constit Apost c. 27. Apost Can. 5 e See Cypr Ep. passim Tertull. Apol. c. 39. and many more in Blondel de Jure plebis c. f See Albasp Observ p. 254 255. g See Tolet de sacerd lib. 5. cap. 4. n. 15. and Pad Paul Sarpi's Tract of Church-benefices translated by Dr. Denton h Constit Apost c. 57. Counc Carth. 4 Can 35 i 1 Phil. v. 1. Clem. Rom Ep ad Cor p 54 55 Pius in Ep Justo Episc Biblioth Patr Tom 3 p 15 Constit Apost c 30 44. k Ignat Ep. ad Smyrn forequoted Constit Apost c. 28 l Albasp Observ p. 254 255. m Ignat. Ep ad Philad forecited Cypr. Ep 40 72 73. The ancient description of a Church is well known Plebs Episcopo coadunata See Dr. Still Iren. p. 416. That the Bishop was chosen by the Suffrages or Votes of the people he took the charge of n and as was said before administred Church-censures in the presence of his Flock whose judgment he consulted o That Presbyters did but sedom preach publickly in the two or three first Ages except in Alexandria or some few Churches that had Presbyters of more than ordinary Learning and Abilities Chrysostom's preaching at Antioch and Austin's at Hippo while Presbyters are noted as unusual That every City had its Bishop is granted by all and Dr. Hammond and Grotius own many had two nay some had more as might appear by many instances were it needful And every Town of any bigness was then called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or City and the number of Christians did not of a long time even in the larger Cities exceed that of our larger Parishes Nor were Bishops confin'd to Cities or Towns for the Countrey Villageâ— where three were any tolerable number of Christians to mâ—ke a Church or Congregation had long their Bishops also who were not put down till Ambition had begun to deprave the Church and for a reason agreeable to the humour of those that did it ne vilescat nomen Episcopi p If we consider the nearness of Episcopal See's of which we read many that were much nearer one another than our Market-Towns perhaps one two or a few more miles distant q If we observe all the small inconsiderable pâ—aces that were the See's of many famous ancient Bishops not half so big as our lesser sort of Perishes r If we consider the vast number of Bishops mentioned within a narrow compass of ground n See Cypr. Ep. 68 forecited and many more testimonies in Baxter's Church-History Answer to Stillingfl from p. 128 to 133. and in Blondel de Jure plebis c. a See Blondel ibid. p Concil Laod. Can. 57. q To give a few instances In Palestine Diospolis or Lydda was but six miles from Joppa Joppa four miles from Janmia Rhinccoruca four miles from Anthedon and Anthedon not three miles from Gaza and Gaza twenty furlongs from Constantia anciently called Majuma So in Egypt Nicopolis was twenty furlongs from Alexandria and Taposiris Canopus Heraclia and Naucratis not much farther from one another and yet all these Episcopal See's r Mr. Thorndike Right of Churches reviewed tells us p. 53. that in Africa Bishops were so plentiful that every good Village must needs be the Seat of an Episcopal Church and the African Church as Dr. Stillingfleet tells us Iren. p. 373. longest retain'd the primitive simplicity and humility Binnius tells us of Sylvester calling together 284 Bishops of which 139 were out of Rome or not far from it A Council of Donatists at Carthage had 270 Bishops as Austin tells us Ep. 68 about the year 308 and yet they were the smaller number and complain'd of Persecution Victor Vtic in Persec Vand. acquaints us that in that part of Africa 660 Bishops fled besides the great number murdered and imprisoned and many toâ—erated The 6th Provincial Council of Carthage had 217 Bishops And to give an instance of later date which we are more capabâ—e to judge of even Patrick is said to have founded here in Ireland 365 â—hurches ordain'd so many Bishops besides 3000 Presbyters Vsher de Eccles Brit. Primord p. 950. If we add hereto the late date of Parâ—hâ—s as distinguished from the Bishops Church The Government of the Cathedrall by the Bishop with the Dean and chapters being a Relict of the ancient Episcopal Government From these evidencies and many more might be added duly weigh'd Wee may easily judge what the ancient Churches and Bishops were A primitive Bishop had no more then one Church or assembly capable of personal Communion under his Charge which he rul d with the joynt concurrence of his Presbyters or Elders The first that set up more Assemblies under one Bishop were Rome and Alexandria and no other Church can be prov'd to have done so for near 300 years nor many Churches for 4 or 5 hundred And even those Assemblies did but long make up one communicating Church and were but to the Bishops Church as Chappels of ease are to our larger Parish Churches But for Diocesan Churches and Bishops 't is evident from these few remarks That they are entire strangers to the primitive Church in its first and purest Ages 'T was only Ambition striving to modell the Ecclesiastical Government by the Civil that first gave rise to them and from the same ambition in the Empire sprung up Metropolitans Patriarks and Popes The last of these long claiming only a Primacy of order among the rest of the Bishops in the Empire for which Constantinople long vy'd with them 't is but of late they have emprov'd their pretensions into a claim of Supremacy over the Catholick Church as the Vicars of Christ And 't is too observable in Church History that as the Seats of Bishops swell'd and their power encreast by engrossing to themselves that work which a score or hundred Bishops cou'd hardly discharge so all true Discipline was gradually disus'd and lost and the Church miserably deprav'd by the corruption of it as well as divided by the Contentions of aspiring Bishops about their primacy and usurped power If you dâ—sire further satisfaction on this head I referr you to Mr. Baxters Treatise of Episcopacy who in the 2d part 5 6 7 ch has given as Satisfactory an account of the ancient Episcopacy as can be expâ—cted of any matter of fact at that distance The few slender exceptions produc't by Dr. Stillingfl in his Vnreason of Seper which yet do not reach the two first Centuries are so clearly invalidated and expos'd by Mr. Baxters Answer to Dr St. p. 100 101 c. and by Mr. Clerkson in his No evidence of Diocesan Churches in Antiq c that I shall take it for granted that Diocesan Bishops and Churches are Strangers to Antiquity and shall look on that cause as desperate and lost unless some of its Patrons cou'd disprove that full stream of evidence he has brought against it from the most ancient Christian writers in the foremention'd
Treatise There are few considerable defenders of Prelacy whose writings he has not animadverted on And t is strange to observe how farr the most of them mistake the true state of the controversie Some go about to prove a sort of general superintendents Arch-Bishops or Metropolitans who had some inspection over the Bishops of particular Churches within their Province and presided in their Synods but did not put down the Government and exercise of Church-Discipline in those particular Churches as if this were a proof of those Diocesan Bishops that do cast out all Government and exercise of Discipline by the Bishops or Pastors of particular Churches and pretend to be the sole Pastors of the Diocess And yet the jurisdiction of such Metropolitans is of no very ancient date and quite contrary to the judgment of Cyprian who disowns any Bishop of Bishops and owns only Bishops or Overseers of Flocks or Churches Others take a great deal of pains to prove the stated presidency of one by the name of Bishop in a Consessus or Bench of Presbyters who had but all one Communicating Church under their charge which is not deny'd to have begun early in the Church as a Remedy of Schism But that difference of Bishop and Presbyters when both were but joynt-rulers of a Congregation is so far from being a proof of modern prelacy that such Diocesan Bishops have put down the primitive Parish-Bishops and monopoliz'd the power of many score or hundreds of such Bishops to themselves and thereby rendred true Church-government impracticable Nay that very difference betwixt the Bishop and Presbyters of a particular Church seems to have had it's rise wholly in the notorious disparity of his gifts learning age c. above the rest but was never esteemed by them a difference in office or power nor is it ascrib'd to any higher Original â—hen Human Constitution by Jerome Auâ—â—in Ambâ—ose Sedulius Primasius Chrysostom Theodoret c. not to mention â—â—der writers If then Ordination belong to Scripturall Bishops and such be the Pastors of particular Churches 〈◊〉 none else diâ— orâ—â—â—â— in the Primitive Church in its purest Ages Then a l suâ—h Bâ—shops have that power Nor indeed have any power to orâ—â—â— but on the account of their being such Scriptural Bishâ—â—s â—hâ— office of Diocesan Prelates being a manifest Usurpation in thâ— Church which had it's rise in human Ambition That Uâ—u pation cannot rightfully deprive the true Bishops or Pastors oâ— that power of Church-government which is as essential to their office as the power of teaching or being guides in worship And whatever may be said for Parish-Bishops submitting for peace sake to the usurpation of a Diocesan ex gr when he claims the sole power of Ordination where the true ends of it are attain'd yet they have no reason to submit to it when Diocesan Bishops shall so abuse that usurped power as to corrupt and deprave the Ministry by imposing sinful terms and hazard the ruin of Souls by neglecting to provide a number of faithful Pastors suitable to their real necessities The Ordination therefore of the Pastors or Bishops of particular Churchâ—s is more agreeable to the holy Scripture and primitive Antiquity and consequently more unexceptionably Valid then that of a single Diocesan From whence it follows That the ordination of Pastors in the Presbyterian Churches is Valid because either they are ordain'd by Diocesan Bishops who had power to ordain on the account of that office they have in common with scriptural Bishops tho they have none as Diocesan or they are ordain'd by a concurrence of scriptural Bishops to whose office the power of Ordination was annext by divine Institution and and cannot be alienated by any humane usurpation For Christ has given none power to change his Institutions Nor can the will of the Ordainers debar his Officers from any part of that Authority which his Charter conveys to them And if the validity of Ordination by such scriptural Bishops be deny'd the Church had no ordained Ministers for a Century or two at least Having laid down these Notions about Mission I come to examine D M's Quest's Quest 1 What priesthood or holy Orders had the first Reformers but what they received from the hands of Roman Catholick Bishops Answ If D M mean that their priesthood or ministerial office was convey'd to them by the Bishops as the Givers of it they receiv'd it from none at all nor has any that power to give 't is given by Christ in his Charter But if he mean that the Roman Catholick or Popish Bishops did invest them in that office 'T is own'd that most of the Reformed Ministers were ordain'd by them and 't is not material whether they were R man Catholick Bishops of the same rigid stamp as those of the present Age or no for the validity of their Ordination depends on the Essentials of the Pastoral office retain'd and not on their horrid corruption of it And as Mr. K. well observes they ordain'd as Christian not as Roman Bishops But what if some of the Reformers became Pastors to the people upon their necessities and call who durst not comply with the sinful terms of Ordination in the Church of Rome and yet could have no other They would not be in this case destitute of a true Mission For the evident necessities of the peoples souls who earnestly desir'd to have the Truths of the Gospel purely preach'd and divine Worship purely celebrated and who could not with a safe conscience continue in the Communion of the Roman Church and their Qualifications for so necessary a work were a sufficient signification of the will of Christ that they should undertake it For the precept about the ordinary regular way of Admission to the Ministry did not oblige where it cou'd not be lawfully observed and where there was a far greater necessity of a pure untainted Ministry then of that positive point of Order For else on supposition no Pasâ—oâ—s had embraced the Reformation The people who did woud have been obliged to have lived like Aâ—heists without publick worship 2 Q Who authorized the first Reformers to preach their Protestant Doctrine and administer their Protestant Sac aments Answ It does not belong to the Ordainers to determine what Doctrine the person ordained shall preach but to Christ who has determined that matter already And therefore if the Doctrine which our first Reformers preacht and the Sacraments they administred be Christ's as Mr. K. well argues 't is ridiculous to ask who authoriz'd them to preach the one or administer the other Christ did and no men can authorize any to preach any other Doctrine or administer any other Sacraments The Bishops or Priests in the Roman Church had no right or Mission from Christ to preach Popish Doctrine or administer Popish Sacraments or celebrate Popish Woâ—shâ—p so far as these are contrary to the Doctrine Sacraments and Worship contain'd in the Gospel These were gross corruptions of their office
them their Office. Many of them try'd his remedy they represented these things to their Ecclesiastical Superiors as Luther to the Archbishop of Mentz and the Bishop of Brandenburg and the Pope himself But they soon learnt by dear experience how averse the Court of Rome was to any Reformation and how little it was to be expected from the Prelates who either had no will or no courage to attempt a Reformation against the will of the Pope Luther and all his followers in stead of prevailing with those that had the conduct of the Church were excommunicated as Hereticks Now according to Mr. K's principle these Reformers being censured and suspended by the Prelates to whom they were subject were discharged from the execution of their Office and should no more have made a Schism in the Church to regain it than one must make a Rebellion in the State to regain a Civil Office. And since they did not desert their Office but went on to preach against the Constitution of the Romish Church and the will of their Superiors the Popish Prelates they were no better than Schismaticks and Church-Rebels Nay if his Notion of the Catholick Church be true the people that separated from the Popish Prelates and adher'd to their excommunicated Pastors ceast to be members of the body of Christ And how great a part of the Reformed Churches and their Pastors fall under this heavy charge And will Mr. K. own all these unavoidable consequences upon mature deliberation What if we should once more have a Popish Convocation in England and these should restore the Romish Religion and suspend aâ—l the present Parish-Ministers whom Mr. K. thinks now lawful Pastors According to his Principle they being but Presbyters and the Bishops Subjects must not preach against the Constitution of the Church of England declaring her judgment by a Convocation in whom the supreme Government of the Church is lodg'd they must therefore cease their Ministry and no more make a Schism by the exercise of it than they must make a Rebellion in the State to regain a Civil Office. Nay to separate from such Governors of the Church of England will prove those that do it no Catholick members of the Church The same principles may be apply'd to the Arrians who got Imperial Councils and consequently the Government of the Imperial Church into their hands and for such Pastors as Athanasius to preach against Arrianism which was then the Doctrine of the Church was Schism and Church-Rebellion In a word According to these Principles 'T is in the power of a Convocation to damn many thousand souls by suspending an Orthodox and substituting a corrupt Ministry and for those Orthodox Pastors when suspended to endeavour their salvation by the exercise of their Ministry is to be Schismaticks and Church-Rebels And what is this less than to set up the will of such Church-Governors above the will and laws of Christ above the Salvation of Souls and above the Interest of Truth and Holiness Therefore 3. Let us examine the Grounds of this strange Assertion viz. Because there is a regular way for reforming abuses And for particular Presbyters to do it against the will of the Bishops whose Subjects they are is like reforming abuses in the state in spight of the King a remedy generally worse then the disease c. Answ 1. All that these reasons prove is that Reformation shou'd be first sought by humble addressing to our Superiors But Mr. K. plainly leaves it impossible if they refuse 2. They are founded on this wretched mistake that the Authority of Bishops in the Church does resemble that of a King in the State and so to reform abuses in the Church against their will is like reforming abuses in the State in spight of the King. Whereas t is Christ's Authority in the Church that does resemble the King 's in the State. And therefore if he wou'd rightly state the comparison it runs thus Christ the King of his Church requires all his Officers to preach the pure Doctrine and administer the pure institutions deliver'd in his Gospel which is his universal law Let us suppose there are in this or that particular part of the Church dangerous corruptions crept in The law of Christ obliges these his officers to disown them and reform them but the Major part of these will not but presume to silence those that do it according to his command Now the Quest is whether those that obey the command of Christ be the Rebells against him or those that neither will obey his commands themselves nor allow others to do so One wou'd think that such as refuse to reform and silence all that in their own place attempt it according to the tenour of their Commission are like to prove the Church Rebells But no doubt the Pastors of a Church may disown and excommunicate one that abuses his office to the perverting the Church and for him to continue to p rvert the Church by such male-administration is to Rebell against Christ and his laws The charge of Rebellion therefore must arise from the vioâ—ation of Christ's Authority not mens which the Major part of Pastors may be guilty of in a Nation as well as the lesser 3 He seems to confound a private and a publick Reformation 4. The Reason given why a Bishop or Presbyter when censur'd is discharg'd from his Office viz. Because to regain it is like making a Rebellion to regain a Civil Office does suppose two great mistakes 1. That the Ordainers give a Spiritual office in the Church as the King gives a Civil office in the State And this is no less a mistake then to set the Ordainers in the place of Christ T is his Charter gives the sacred office as the King 's does the Civil and the Ordainers do but for orders sake approve and ceremonially invest the person as the Recorder does the Mayor of a Town whom the Burghesses choose And herein Mr. K. seems to own that very error which is the ground of all Mr. M's impertinent Questions 2. He supposes that the Bishops who ordain Presbyters have equal power to depose them from their Ministerial office as the King has to take away a Civill Commission And thus p 27. he teâ—ls us That the present Dissenters were the Bishops subject accountable to them as their Superiors and liable to be discharg'd from their office and the benefits of the Communion of the Church by their Censure Whereas T is plain that it is the Charter of Christ gives the sacred office as the King 's does the Civil And as none can take a Civil Commission given by the King to any Subject but by the King's orders and Command So none can take away that spiritual Commission Christ has given any officer in his Church but by his orders But now he has given none leave or Authority to depose his officers but for evident Male-administration as preaching Heresie gross scandal c. And if in any part
the sole power of Church-Government in a Nation and exercise it against the will of Christ to the nâ—torious detriment of souls as by unjust silencing of faithful Pastors when their labours are highly conducive to the Churches good by imposing on the people sinful conditions of Church-communion by obtruding unqualifi'd Pastors on the people against their consent c. To separate from such Bishops so far as to disobey these unjust commands is no separation from our lawful Governors and is no more a Rebellâ—on in the Church than 't is a Rebellion in the State to disobey one that usurps a Power he never receiv'd from the King and which he exercises against the laws and interest of the Kingdom And therefore I would propose these two Questions to Mr. K. in reference to this Head. Q. 1. On supposition the Presbyt's and Indep's have made an unjust separation from their lawful Governors whom they should have submâ—tted to Whether â—his be such a crime as will exclude them from being Catholiâ—k members of the Church To resolve that We must consider the nature of their separation Their Ministers separate from the Bishops i. e. they are not willing to obey them in what they account a sinful and dangerous usurpation viz. the assuming the sole power of Church-Government and depriving the Pastors of particular Churches of an essential part of their Office and suspending them unjustly Their people separate from the Parish-Ministers but 't is not by disowning them as no true Ministers but by refusing to receive them as theirs because they judge they have a right to choose a Physician for their Souls as well as for their Bodies and therefore think not themselves bound to acquiesce in the Patrons or Bishops choice when contrary to their own edification especially when there are terms of Parish-communion impos'd to some unlawful to others greatly suspected and all true Church-discipline is cast out or neglected They separate not from the conforming Churches as no true Churches but as preferring the ordinary communion of purer because they judge the laws about Parish-order do not oblige when injurious to the interest of Religion and Souls Now suppose them mistaken in these matters through the weakness of their judgment will this sort of separation make them cease to be Catholick membeâ—s of the Church 'T is not a separation from any thing Christ has made necessary to the unity of his Church 't is only a separation from some humane order which they dare not comply with because they apprehend it contrary to the laws of Christ And is this to be compar'd to a Rebellion in the State as he is pleas'd to do p. 6. Is the convocation Christ or their Canons equally obligatory as his laws or do those that disobey the Canons of the Convocation because they judge them opposite to the laws of Christ renounce their Allegiance to him as the Head of his Church Are their Canons even about things they call indifferent as necessary to be obey'd as the undoubted Rules of the Gospel by all that wou'd be Catholick members of the Church when those that are requir'd to obey them fear the things commanded are unlawful When I read such expressions as this about Church-Rebellion I cannot but lament the effects of humane ignorance and pride and observe in such as Mr. K. some degrees of that spirit that has acted Papal Councils who made no scruple of treating all that would not pay them a blind obedience with such characters as these And I know no better way to convince Mr. K. of the folly of this Principle I am opposing than by shewing him how pernicious the consequences of it are to his own Party For if this sort of Schism which he supposes the Dissenters guilty of prove them to be no Catholick members of the Church then sure more heinous Schism will prove those to be in the same condition who are guiâ—ty of it Greater Schism is more opposite to Catholick Vnity than lesser But the Prelates are guilty of more heinous Schism than this of the Dissenters supposing it to be Schism and consequently if Mr. K's principle be true are no Catholick members of the Church That the Prelates are guiâ—ty of more heinous Schism I offer this Argument to evince Those who impose unnecessary and and doubtful terms of Church-Communâ—on nay who declare many thousands of true Christians ipso facto excommunicated are greater Schismaticks than those who only scruple those terms tho through mistake and who unchâ—rch not those Churches which they are thus forc'd to separate from For the Schism of the Imposers is more voluntary and curable by forbearing to prescribe such terms of Communion as are more likely to prove engines of Division The Schism of the Refusers is more involuntary and in doubtful cases often incurable And 't is more opposite to Christian Love to excommunicate thousands of sincere Christians than 't is to prefer those Churches which we upon the best enquiry judge more pure before those that seem more corrupt without unchurching them even tho in so doing we should be guilty of some breach of the Churches peace by vâ—olating a tolerable humane order So that all Mr. K. will gain by excluding Dissenters from the Catholick Church on the account of their Schism will be That by the same reason our Convocation were no Catholick members of it and if so I am sure they are no lawful Governors in it For what I have here asserted that the Convocation have excommunicated thousands of sincere Christians and that ipso facto I appeal to their Canons and to the consciences of any that peruse them and know the Nonconformists in these Kingdoms few whereof are not by some of these Canons ipso facto excommunicated See Mr. Baxter's English Schismatick detected who from p. 42. to the 50th recites the particular Canons Nay if all that are guilty of equal Schism with that of the Dissenters supposing them guilty be no Catholick members of the Church I fear there are few such in the World. Sure the Schism of the Papists is of a more monstrous nature who unchurch aâ—l the Churches on earth besides themselves And the Greeks pay them in the same coyn And if other of the Eastern Churches do not unchurch one another they have lost their old wont What dreadful work Councils have made in hereticating and unchurching one another upon very unjustifiable grounds fills up both pages in Church-History And as such were more heinous Schismaticks than those that are guilty only of passive separation i. e. separation occasion'd by mens scrupling the lawfulness of some humane Canons so according to this notion they were no Catholick members of the Church And at this senseless rate we may soon reduce the Catholick Church to a small compass And what would become even of the Christian World if the compassions of our blessed Lord were as narrow as the charity of such censorious Christians The 2d Quest I wou'd propose to
strangers to the most of them These are so paâ—pable impossibilities as to an unbyast considerer are instead of a thousand Arguments that the Bishops or Elders which these Texts speak of were not Diocesan Bishops i. e. they were not the Overseers or Rulers of many score or hundreds of Churches as their Flocks to whom they were to perform all these Pastoral works and the Flocks to pay them the forementioned Duties But the Pastors of such a number of people as they could thus personally oversee teach rule watch over visit c. and such a number as could pay them that love submission imitation c. prescrib'd in the forequoted Texts Especially when 't is so expresly asserted Acts 14. v. 23. That such Elders were ordained in every Church which Titus is also appointed to do in every City 1 Tit. 5. And 't is well known every Town equal to our usual Market-Towns in England was then called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or City and but a few comparatively of the inhabitants at first converted to Christianity I grant that soon after the Apostles time the name of Bishop and Presbyter or Elder begun to be distinguisht and that of Bishop apply'd to a stated Praeses or Moderator of a Presbytery or certain number of Elders But 't is as evident That the Bishop and his Presbyters in the Primitive Church were but the Rulers of one Single Congregation capable of personal communion not of many Score or hundred Churches How plain to this purpose is that known passage of Ignatius whose Authority the Defenders of Prelates have so vainly boasted of who in his Epistle to the Philadelphians gives this certain mark of every Churches individuation viz. There is to every Church one Altar and one Bishop together with the Presbytery or Eldership and the Deacons my fellow servants 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c The same Author in his Epistle to Polycarp advises that good Bishop to have frâ—quent Churhc-Assemblies and to enquire after all by name and not to despise servants and maids So in his Epistle to the Smyrnenses Fellow all of you the Bishop as Jesus Christ does the Father 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c and the Presbyteâ—y as the Apostles and reverence the Deacons as the appointment of God. Let none without the Bishop transact the affairs of the Church Let that be accounted a valid communion which is in his presence or by his permission for where the Bâ—shop is there let the multitude be 'T is not lawful without the Bishop to Baptize or make a Love-Feast Nothing can more fully evidence that the Church of Smyrna had their B shop Presbyters and Deacons and 't were ridiculous to apply those passâ—ges to a modern Bishop and his Diocess Justin Martyr's known account of Church = Assembâ—ies evinces the truth of this which the learned Mr. Jos Mede in his Discourse of Churches quotes p. 48 49 50. and from thence acknowledges They had then but one Altar or place of Communion to a Church taken for the company or coporation of the faithful as united under one Bishop Tertullian's account of particular Church-assemblies assures us Apol. cap. that Church-discipline was exercis'd in them and that by the probati seniores or approved Elders among whom we own the Preses was called Bishop Even in Cyprian's time his famous Church of Carthage was not so great but that he frequently professes he would do nothing in Church-affairs without the consent of his Presbyters and all the people especially in the censuring of Offendors As in his Ep. 3.6 10 11 13 14 26 27 28 c. Edit Goul And Ep 68. as he there declares the people have the chiefest power of choosing worthy Priests and refusing the unworthy so when he relates the manner of the Ordination of a Bishop he tells us All the next Bishops of the same Province do come together to that people over whom the Bishop is set and the Bishop is appointed tâ—e people being present who fulliest know the life of every one and have thoroughly seen the Act of every one's conversation Which also we saw done with you in the Ordination of Sabinus our Colleague that the office of a Bishop was given him and hands imposed on him in the place of Basilides by the suffrage of the whole Fraternity and by the judgment of the Bishops that had met together c. We may easily gather what the Bishops Church was when all the people must be present and judge of his life and are supposed to be thoroughly acquainted with it A Diocess of the modâ—rn extent would be hard put to it to meet together for this purpose and pass their judgment concerning the life of their Bishop The Constitutions and Canons called Apostolical assign such duties to the Bishop as plainly imply his relation to a Congregation capable of personal Communion as his Charge or Flock And to give a brief summary of those proofs which it would require a large volume to insist fully on if we consider impartially all the duties which the most ancient Christian Writers describe as belonging to the office of a Bishop viz. To be the ordinary publick Teacher of his Flock a and Baptizer of those that were received into his Church b To confirm the Baptized to reconcile and absolve all penitents to administer the Lords Supper c To receive all oblations c. and distribute them To take care of the poor and sick and strangers as their Overseer and Curator d To try all causes about scandal in his Church with his Presbyters in the presence of his Flock e To Ordain other Bishops and Elders To keep Synods among his neighbour Bishops To grant communicatory Letters f c. And to how great a flock one man is capable to perform them If we consider further that the Bishop and his Presbyters liv'd usually in the same House and in Common at least near the Church and that in the distribution of their maintenance one half of it was destin'd to repair the Fabrick or Temple and maintain the poor the other half to the Bishop and his Clergy or Presbyters g That it was the common custom for the Presbyters to sit in the same Seat with the Bishop in a semicircle and the Deacons below them h That the Deacons are always mentioned as Officers in the same Church with the Bishop i That the Love-feasts were not to be kept without the Bishops permission and he was to have his share sent him if absent k That the way of strangers communicating was by communicatory Letters or Certificates which were to be shewed to the Bishop of the Church where they desir'd to communicate l That a Schism was describ'd by setting up Altar against Altar every communicating Church having its Altar or Table for celebrating the Lords-Supper and Bâ—shop m a Constit Apost c. 26. Just Mart. Apol 2 b Tertull. de Cor Mil. c. 3. c Ignat. Ep. ad Smyrn p 4. Just Mart Apol 2. d
and therefore when any of them embrac'd the Reformation when they begun to preach the Gospel more purely and to celebrate divine Worship more free from the idoâ—atrous and superstitious mixtures that had prevail'd in the Roman Church they restor'd their Ministry to its true use and so far purg'd it from that wretched depravation And in this debate Mr. K need not be asham'd to defend either Luthâ—r or Calvin or Zuinglius For S cinus or hâ—s followers they can produce no Mission to preach against the Divinity and satisfaction of the Son of God no more than D. M. to preach uâ— the worship of Images or Invocation of Angels and Saints or Adoration of the Host c. For the 3d and 4th Qu. I shall joyn them Whether Cranmer and his Associates could condemn the Church of Rome by pretence of the Mission they received from her Bishops If so whether a Presbyterian Minister having â—eceived Orders from a Protestant Bâ—shop can by vertue of such Orders pronounce the Church of England a corrupt Church 'T is evident both these Questions are founded on this ridiculous fancy that the person Ordained is obliged to conform his Ministrations to the judgment or humour of the Ordainers 'T is true indeed if in any Church the Ministers that are Ordained be obliged to subscribe a Confession of Faith or observe any publick Rules in their Worship they ought not to be Ordain'd on these terms if they think any thing in the Doctrine of that Church or the Ruâ—es of its worship contrary to the Doctrine of Christ or the Gospel Rule of Worship Much less should they enter into that obligation with a design to break it afterwards This were odious dissimulation But if any have been Ordain'd in a Church that has obliged them to subscribe certain Articles of Faith and Rules of Worship which at their Ordination they had no scruple against and shall upon deeper study find many of those Articâ—es were gross and dangerous Errors and those Rules of Worship idolatrous or superstitious they are not obliged to preach those Errors or practice those Rules against the dictates of their own conâ—cience Nay if those errors and corruptions endanger the salvation of their Flock they ought to preach against them and warn souls of their danger And not to do this is to betray those souls to desert the cause and testimony of Christ and fail of that fidelity he expects in the discharge of their office They ought to do all in their sphere towards a Reformation and if they should be suspended for the doing that which Christ has made their duty the suspension is unjust and null as being opposite to the laws and interest of Christ and is indeed a Rebellion against him If therefore the Doctrines and Worship of the Roman Church were pernicious and endangered the salvation of souls and our Reformers had just ground to account them such they were bound by the laws of Christ to preach against them and warn the people of them and in their sphere attempt a Reformation Nor would any suspension or excommunication of those Popish Bishops that Ordain'd them justify their deserting their Ministry and betraying the interest of Christ and souls And they might do this without assuming any Authority over the Church of Rome they only refused subjection to her unjust impositions And so may Presbyterian Ministers refuse subjection to the sinful impositions of those Prelates that Ordain'd them and are not obliged to lay down their Office when ever their Ordainers shall unjustly silence them as we proved before But Mr. K. I perceive likes not this Answer and therefore chooses to justify the Church of Engl. upon narrower grounds And therefore in his Reply to these Questions 1. He grants that A Presbyter or Bishop ought not to preach against the Constitution of the Church whereof they are Members 2. He asserts This was not the Reformers Case and therefore he founds the lawfulness of the Reformation entirely upon its being made by the Convocation in whom he supposes the supreme Church-Government lodged in this Nation Had Mr K. only argued that the Reformation in England was not only lawful but effected in the most regular way with the concurrence of the Civil Magistrate upon the advice of so considerable a part of the Clergy none could have blam'd him for taking in all the considerations that prove the Reformation in England to have been the most unexceptionably regular and orderly But that in his eager zeal to defend the Prelates of the Church of England in silencing their brethren he should make such a Concession to the Papists as may be used against the Reformation elsewhere with so great advantage was not ingenuous But we must excuse him that he had rather wound the Reformed Churches abroad than not gratify his spleen against the Presbyterians at home and car'd not whom he made Schismaticks provided he fastned that character on his Brethren Let us therefore examine this Concession of his p. 27. A Presbyter or Bishop ought not to preach against the Constitution of that Church of which they are members The reason he gives is Because there is a regular way wherein they may endeavour a Reformation viz. If they find any thing amiss in her Doctrine or Discipline they may make their application for the redress of it to those that have power to reform it but must not presume being subjects to uâ—urp their Governors power But what if their Governors refuse to reform and silence those that desire or in their own sphere attempt it All the answer is But if such a Bishop or Presbyter be censur'd and suspended he is thereby discharg'd from the execution of his Office and he must no more make a Schism to regain it than one must make a Rebellion in the State to regain a Civil Office. This we urge and I think with reason against the Presbyterians and other Sects among us that either have no Ordination or appointment to their Offices from the Church of England or Ireland or else abuse the power against her which was once given them by her and from which they are again legally suspended And as we urge this against them so likewise against D. M. c. Let us briefly consider the Consequences of this Concession and the grounds of it 1. Its Consequences The first Protestant Pastors in France and most other parts of Europe were before the Reformation members of those Churches where they lived and subject to their Governors they had received Ordination by the hands of Popish Prelates God was pleased so to bless their studies and search after truth that they begun to discover abundance of gross and pernicious errors in the Doctrine and a wretched mixture of Idolatry and Superstition in the worship of the Church they lived in What should they do they were but particular Presbyters and therefore should not according to Mr. K's principle preach against the Constitution of the Church which gave