in a higher or lower degree about ones part in this Society according to its Invisible form yet it can ground a judgment of certainty about ones part in the same according to its Visible form So that altho God only knows those whom he accepts yet the Church may know certainly whom she ought to admit And as God in the matter belonging to his cognizance to wit the sincerity of profession and the rights consequent thereunto so the Church in the matter belonging to its cognizance to wit the credibility of profession and the rights consequent thereunto proceeds upon certain knowledg § 5. Of the Catholick Church Invisible and Visible IT hath been well observed That the term Catholick Church hath been sometimes used of a particular Church holding the true Doctrine of the Apostles and is the same with Apostolical and in this sence any Bishop of a true Apostolical Church may be called a Catholick Bishop But here the term Catholick signifies the same with Oecumenical or the Church that is throughout the whole World or the whole World of Christians And in this sence the Church is termed Catholick not as actually extending to the whole World but potentially no Nation or People being excluded but all having Liberty to accept and injoy the Priviledges thereof In this notion there is one Catholick Church both in the Invisible and Visible form The Catholick Church Invisible is the whole company of true Believers throughout the World who make that part of Christs Mystical Body which ia militant here on Earth The Catholick Church Visible is the whole company of Visible believers throughout the World or believers according to humane judgment § 6. The Vnity of the Catholick Church Visible THE Catholick Church is not only notionally but really existent and hath Relation to particular Churches as an intregal whole to integral parts The same relation it hath also to particular Christians yea and to such as are not fixed members of a particular Church There being one peculiar Kingdom of Christ throughout the World distinct from the World in general visibly constituted and administred not by humane Laws and Coercive Power as Secular Kingdoms are but by Divine Laws and Power directly and purely respecting the conscience there must needs be one Caetholick Visible Church The Catholick Church in its Visible form is one political Society or Spiritual Commonwealth the City of God the more special Kingdom of Christ upon Earth for the World in general is his Kingdom at large The Unity of the Catholick Church being a political Society ariseth not out of a local contiguity but out of the moral and political Union of the parts And if the Invisible Church be one body the Visible must be so likewise For these terms the Church Visible and Invisible do not signifie two Societies as hath been shewed but the same Society distinguished by its diver considerations The Visible Catholick Church hath one Head and Supreme Lord even Christ one Charter and Systeme of Laws Members that are free denizons of the whole Society one form of admission or solemn initiation for all its Members one Spiritual polity or one Divine form of Government and one kind of Ecclesiastical Power The members of one particular Church are intituled to the priviledges granted of God to visible Christians in any other Church wheresoever they come to be injoyed by them according to their capacity and in a due order And wheresoever any Christian comes as a stranger he is by his relation to the Universal Church bound to have communion with the particular Church or Churches of that place in Gods ordinances according to his capacity and opportunity And if it be said he is looked upon as a transient member of that particular Church where he comes as a stranger I answer that it ariseth from his being a member of the Catholick Church which contains all particular Churches as an integral whole its several parts for it is his right and not a favour or a matter of mere charity Whosoever is justly and orderly cast out of one Church is thereby vertually cast out of all Churches and ought to be received by none This cannot be meerly by compact among the Churches or by the mutual relation of mere concordant or sister Churches but by their being integral parts of one society for the ejection out of all de jure follows naturally necessarily ipso facto from the ejection out of one The Apostles were general officers of the whole Catholick Church as of one visible society And it is not to be imagined that it lost its unity by their death The ordinary Pastors and Teachers tho actually and in exercise overseeing their own parts are habitually and radically related to the whole Catholick Church and thereby are inabled to exercise their ministerial authority in any other parts wheresoever they come without a new ordination or receiving a new pastoral authority so that they do it in a due order This shews that the several Churches are parts of one political society otherwise the officers could not act authoritatively out of their own particular congregation no more than as one well observes a Mayor or Constable can exercise their offices in other Corporations § 7. The Priority in nature of the Catholick Church to particular Churches FOrasmuch a◠men are Christians in order of nature before they are members of a particular Church and ministers in general before they are ministers of a particular Church they are members and ministers first of the Catholick Church in order of nature and then of particular Churches And the Charter and Body of Laws and Ordinances by which the Church subsists doth first belong to the Catholick Church and then to particular Churches as parts thereof To be a member of a particular congregation gives only the opportunity of injoying divine ordinances and Church priviledges but immediate right thereunto is gained by being a visible believer or a member of the Church Catholick One may be a member of the Church Catholick and yet not a fixed member of any particular Church and that in some cases occessarily and in that state he hath right to Gods ordinances The Ethiopian Eunuch was of no particular Church and yet baptized by Philip. The Promises Threatning and Precents of Christ are dispensed by his Minister to the members of his Church primarily not as members of a particular but of the universal Church And therefore the Minister dispenseth the same with authority in Christs Name even to strangers that come into his Congregation 8. The Visibility of the Catholick Church AS a large Empire is visible to the eye of sence not in the whole at one view but in the several parts one after another so is the Catholich Church As a large Empire is visible in the whole at one view by an act of the understanding which is the eye of the mind so is the Catholick Church As the unity of a large Empire is not judged invisible
either by the immediate agency of the Apostles themselves Acts 14.23 or of others by their appointment Tit. 1.5 Yet I do not hereby mean that every Congregation or Assembly for worship or acts of government was a whole political church For some such congregations might be only parts of a church meeting according to convenience but still the said personal communion was in the whole church simul or per vices and there was a personal superintendency of the Bishop or Pastor over the whole in all the acts of his Pastoral office As for such a particular church as consists of many it may be several hundred stated congregations having each of them their proper Presbyter or Presbyters and is governed by one sole Bishop the aforesaid Presbyters being said to be no Bishops and whose members are not capable of personal communion among themselves either simul or per vices nor of the personal superintendency of their Bishop in the necessary acts of his Pastoral Office if there be any Scripture-precedent or divine Rule for the same I am ready to take notice of it § 15. The due place of constituting a particular Church ORdinarily the place of a particular church was a City and from the City the church ordinarily took its denomination Nevertheless nothing is found in Scripture to make a City the only proper Mansion of a church so that no Village could be a fit Receptacle of it yea the Scripture mentions a church which was not a City-church viz that at Cenchrea which was not a City but the Haven of Corinth Cities being places of the confluence of people had ordinarily the Gospel first preached and first received in them and consequently first afforded the materials of a church And they were the fittest places for the erection of a church in order to the making of more converts to be added to them besides other conveniences And therefore right Reason without a particular Divine command would direct those Master-builders the Apostles to erect churches in cities Howbeit the City-churches were not confined to the respective cities but commonly took in all the Christians of the adjacent Villages And in the Apostles times the Christians both of a city and its adjacent Villages did ordinarily but make up one competent congregation or in its numbers it did not exceed one of our parishes Tho some very few churches quickly grew numerous yet most rationally it may be conceived that they did not exceed many nor equal some of our very populous Parishes Here it must be considered that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or a city was any Town corporate and that every such that had Christians in any competent number had a stated church in it And the Rule was not then as now that the church and its bishop did make that a city which otherwise would not be but that every city or town corporate or place of confluence of people where there were christians should have its church with its proper bishop § 16. Each particular Church is a distinct Political Society AS Cities in a Kingdom so are particular churches in the church universal This similitude holds in the main but not in all respects As a whole Kingdom hath its fundamental Constitution by which it subsists and its Magna Charta for priviledges belonging to the whole so the church universal hath its fundamental constitution and charter by which it subsists in its proper state And as every city is a distinct body-politick under the King and hath from him its charter by which it subsists so every particular church as a distinct political Society under Christ hath its charter from him by which it subsists in its proper state The erecting of particular churches as several political societies by the Apostles who were Christs authorized Agents for erecting his special Kingdom the church and guided therein by his infallible spirit and by others at their direction and according to the same Rule is a sufficient Charter for the constitution of such churches wherever there are fit materials Besides the law of nature requires the parcelling the church universal into such distinct Societies under their proper Pastors that church-communion and Pastoral superintendency might not be transient and uncertain but permanent and certain The several cities in the same Kingdom may have their special Laws and Priviledges divers from each other according to the diversity of their charters granted by the King But particular churches have not municipal laws and priviledges divers from each other but the same in common to them all because they have all the same charter in specie Here note that they may be rightly called distinct Political Societies that have each of them their own charter tho it be not divers but the same in kind among them all He that is a citizen or a Magistrate of one city is not a citizen Magistrate or Officer in all cities of the same Kingdom But a member or a Pastor of one particular church hath an habitual or fundamental Right of being a member or Pastor in any particular church throughout the world which is not actually to be made use of but in a due order as hath been above noted Particular churches tho they consist of dissimilar parts are all of them similar parts of the Church Catholick partaking of its name and nature whereas cities are dissimilar parts of a Kingdom From these premises it follows that the qualifications requisite to make men members or ministers of the universal church do sufficiently qualifie them to be members or ministers of any particular church wherewith they are naturally capable of Communion § 17. Of the local bounds of Churches ALL the Christians in the world are one holy society and if it were possible they should have local presential communion one with another but that being impossible by reason of the large extent of the society they are necessarily parcelled into several congregations for the capacity of such communion is the end of erecting particular churches in all reason they should consist of persons who by their cohabitation in a vicinity are made capable of it and there may not be a greater local distance of the persons from each other than can stand with it Moreover all Christians of the same local precinct not more populous nor of larger extent than to allow personal communion are most conveniently brought into one and the same stated church that there might be the greatest union among them and that the occasion of straggling and running into severed parties might be avoided And so we find in Scripture that all the Christians within such a local precinct commonly made but one church Tho it be highly convenient that particular churches be so bounded as to take in all the christians of the same precinct as aforesaid and therefore necessary when some special reason doth not compel to vary yet it is not absolutâ—ly necessary in reason nor do we find any divine institution to make it invariable tho
the Apostles and their coadjutors were led to this way by the natural convenience of it But if any where a greater inconvenience comes or a greater benefit be lost by such a partition of Churches than the convenience of it can countervail there the partition must be made as it may be that is as the state of things will admit It is supposed by some learned men that in the Apostles time there were several Churches at Rome under their several bishops or pastors as one of the circumcision another of the uncircumcision within the same local precincts And if there were not so de facto I think few will deny but that the state of christians then and there might have been such as to have made such a partition of churches among them lawful and expedient § 18. Of the power of a particular Church THE power of a Church is but the power of the ruling part thereof and therefore the power of particular churches is according to the power of their particular bishops or pastors the nature whereof shall be opened when I come to speak of the nature of the pastoral office It appears by what hath been already shewed of the frame of particular churches mentioned in Scripture that they all had the government within themselves Every stated church had its proper pastor or pastors having authority of teaching and ruling it in Christs name If a distinction of churches into such as have Pastoral government within them and such as have it not be asserted it must be proved by the assertors from divine testimony And if it be granted that every organical church hath in it its authoritative Teacher or Guide under Christ and in his name it must be granted as far as I can see that it hath in it its Ruler also for ruling is but by teaching and guiding The smallest Church hath the same power in its narrow Sphere that the greatest Church or any association of Churches have in their larger Spheres that is it hath the same power intensively tho not extensively Indeed the authoritative acts of larger churches and associations in regard of their amplitude may be justly esteemed in degrees more Solemn August and Venerable § 19. The subordination of Churches of the same kind considered TOuching this point of the subordination of Churches there be three parts of the enquiry 1. Whether there be a subordination of one or more particular Churches to another particular Church whose constitution and frame is the same in specie with theirs 2. Whether there be a subordination of particular Churches to some other Church specifically different from them in the frame thereof and being in a state of greater sublimity and amplitude 3. Whether there be a subordination of particular Churches taken distributively to an association or collective body of the same Churches or an assembly thereof and of that collective body to a larger association of more such collective bodies conjunct with it or to an assembly thereof and so forward till we come to the largest that can be reached unto 1. Whether there be a subordination of one or more particular Churches to another particular Church whose constitution and frame is the same in specie with theirs and whose officers are of the same holy order such as the seven Churches of Asia were in relation one to another and as congregational Churches are to each other and as Diocesan Churches are to each other if de jure there be such Churches Now as touching subordination in this kind what hath been or may be by humane right upon prudential considerations either statedly or pro tempore is not here examined but what is by divine right inferring an obligation upon one Church to be subject to another of the same specifick frame with it self Sometimes a Church hath been called a mother-Church in relation to other churches either because they have issued from it as swarms from a hive or because they have received the Christian faith from it or because they have been erected by some sent forth from it c. Now that these latter Churches do owe a reverential regard and observance to the first which is called the Mother-Church is not to be doubted and such regard or observance every small or obscure Church owes to those that are more Ample Illustrious or Renowned But that the said Mother Church can by divine right or warrant claim a governing power over those Churches that have issued from it or that the more Ample and Illustrious Churches can claim the like over the smaller and obscurer I do not find any proof but I judg the contrary because notwithstanding the aforesaid diversity or disparity of condition they all rest upon the same Basi◠Christs Charter by which they are constituted which is the same to all and alike immediately given to all So that in this respect they all stand upon the same level and are equal Now one equal hath not governing power over another in that wherein they are both equal § 20. The subordination of Churches of different kinds considered AS touching the subordination of Churches to some other Church specifically different from them as of parochial or congregational Churches to a Diocesan Provincial National Church be it first observed that the Diocesan Church is not merely the incorporated society of a Cathedral nor any one parcular Church besides the Parochial Churches nor is it materially divers from them jointly taken nor the provincial church from the Diocesan churches nor the national church from the provincial churches jointly taken But in their several ranks they differ formally as being each of them one body politick constituted by the political compages of the churches included in each of them And let what was before observed be here reminded that each congregational or parochial church having its proper Presbyter or Elder invested with the power of the keys is a political church or such as hath its government within it self And thereupon the divine warrant of such a Diocesan Church as is the lowest that hath government within it self and consequently that swallows hundreds of political churches that are of Christs institution was called in question and still I desire the Asserters of it to give some proof of its divine right Indeed the Postscript of the Epistle to Titus mentions him as ordained the first bishop of the Cretians Of what authority that Postscript is I know not but this is certain that where there were Christians there were to be churches in every city of Crete and there were reckoned a hundred cities in that no very large Island and those churches were political societies within themselves having their proper elders or bishops And upon supposition that the whole Island made but one larger church constituted by the political union of the said particular churches in every city under Titus it must be such as is now called a provincial church under one Archbishop Now if the Diocesan church be not looked upon as the
more prevalently in their judgment and practice in their hearts and lives than the superadded errors and corruptions and are ready to Renounce those errors and corruptions if they saw their inconsistence with the essentials are true Christians otherwise they are not such The same church may be a true and a false church in different respects or formal considerations In respect of the essentials of Christian Faith Worship and Ministry it may be a true church and in respect of some devised Church-form superadded by which over and above the said Essentials it is constituted and denominated it may be in that distinct formal consideration a false church OF THE MINISTRY § 1. The Nature of the holy Ministry in general THE Holy Ministry is a state of Authority and Obligation to perform some special Holy Works and Services in the Name of Christ for the edifying of the church So that whosoever is in a holy order or office is qua talis authorized and obliged to the work and service that is appropriated to it and whosoever statedly and de jure doth the work and service appropriated to a holy order is really in or of that order altho men may not give him the name thereof Whether the Magistratical and Ministerial Offices may reside together in the same person is not here considered but if it were granted that they may they would essentially differ from each other For the Magistrate as such hath received no authority formally ministerial nor hath any minister as such the power of a civil magistrate Some thus distinguish between the magistratical and ministerial authority that the one is directive and the other imperative I take not this to be a competent distinction for that authority that infers an obligation on the subject to obey is properly imperative and the ministerial authority doth so as the Scripture speaks expresly Heb. 13.17 Paul was no Magistrate but as a Minister he speaks 2 Cor. 10.6 Having in readiness to revenge all disobedience and he expresly declares his ministerial authority to be imperative Phil. v. 8. The I might make hold in Christ to injoyn thee that which is convenient c. and v. 21. having confidence in thine obedience I wrote unto thee Now they had rightly distinguished if instead of imperative they had put coercive coactive or imperial For all directive authority by special office is imperative Whosoever doth by special office direct unto duty in the name of his King and according to his will as a Minister doth in the name of Christ doth therein command But a coactive power is something more and belongs not to a Minister as such The Magistrate rules by the Sword and the Minister by the Word § 2. Of the efficient cause of the Ministry and its Authority AS Christ alone hath the power of appointing the work or works of the holy ministry to be done in his name either towards believers or the unbelieving towards the church jointly or toward particular persons severally so he alone hath the power of appointing the holy orders or offices that contain an authority and obligation to perform the same And seeing Christ hath already appointed all the ministerial works and appropriated the same to certain ministerial orders no new order or office of the holy ministry can be instituted by men for they cannot institute other ministerial work to be done in Christs Name than what he hath appointed But the circumstances and accidental modes and subservient offices about the work of the ministry are of that nature as that they well may be appointed by men and accordingly the officers for the management thereof may be so appointed and such modes and circumstances being necessarily subject to great variation in regard of the great diversity of occasion cannot well be pre-defined The holy ministry and power belonging to it is conferred neither by Magistrate nor by Prelate nor by any spiritual officer or officers as the proper givers thereof but by Christ alone And tho Christ give it in some respect by the mediation of men yet not by them as giving the office power but as instruments either of designing the person to whom he gives it or of the solemn investiture of that person therein as the King is the immediate giver of the power of a Mayor in a Town corporate when he gives it by the mediation of the Electors not as giving the power but designing the person to be invested with it or by the mediation of some other officers as instruments of the solemn investiture Neither Magistrate nor Prelate nor any spiritual officer or officers can dsiannul or take away that spiritual office whereof they are not the authors nor in proper sence the givers Nor can they inlarge or lessen it as to its essential state or define it otherwise than Christ hath defined it And if the ordainer in conveying the holy office or order should use any any words or actions that import the lessening thereof in its essential state they are void and null as if a Minister that joyns a Man and Woman in marriage according to the true intent of that ordinance shall add some words that forbid the Husband the government of his Wife that addition is a nullity § 3. Of the Office of a Bishop Elder or Pastor THE Ministry of Gods appointment is either extraordinary and temporary as that of the Apostles and Prophets and Evangelists also if so be they were only the itinerary assistants of the Apostles or ordinary and perpetual as that of Pastors and Teachers The words Elder Bishop Pastor are names of the same Sacred Office as appears Acts 20.17 28. where their Ministry towards the Church is set forth in Pauls words to the Elders which he sent for from Ephesus to Miletum Take heed to your selves and to all the flock over which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers to feed the Church of God which he hath purchased with his own blood The Apostles besides their extraordinary Office of Apostleship had also the ordinary Office of Bishops pastors and Elders or to speak peradventure more properly they had these ordinary offices included in their Apostleship Christ saith to Peter Feed my sheep And Peter calls himself an Elder 1 Pet. 5.1 And John in his second and third Epistles so calls himself And indeed if it were not so they could have no successors or partakers Howbeit the Scripture gives us no evidence of their being fixed Bishops or Pastors to particular Churches As for the meaning of these names the word Bishop imports an Overseer Elder is a name of Authority borrowed from age and applied to a Ruling-officer The word Pastor is metaphorical signifying that this Officer is to the Congregation of God as a Shepherd to a Flock of sheep to feed them This feeding consists in teaching and ruling so that every Pastor is in the nature of his office a Teacher and he feeds by doctrine And indeed Pastoral Ruling is by
it doth not hence follow that Peter was a fixed Bishop of the Jews and Paul of the Gentiles no more were any of the Apostles fixed Bishops in those places where they were more especially imployed and we know that they made frequent removes §. 10. Of the Episcopacy of Timothy and Titus THE Name of Bishop is not given either to Timothy or Titus except in the Postscripts of the Epistles But those Postscripts are taken for no part of Canonical Scripture For if they were free from the objected Errors about the places from which the Epistles were written they cannot in reason be supposed to be Pauls own words and written by him when the Epistles were written Moreover the travels of Timothy and Titus do evidently shew that they were not diocesan bishops nor the setled Overseers of particular churches And those passages 1 Tim. 1.3 I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus and Tit. 1.5 For this cause I left thee in Crete shew an occasional and temporary employment And whatsoever stress may be laid upon these texts to prove they were bishops of those places yet they do not sound like the fixing of them each in their proper diocess The name of an Evangelist is expresly given to one of them 2 Tim. 4.5 and the work enjoined both of them and accordingly performed by them being throughout of the same kind there is all reason to believe that they had the same kind of office Now by several texts of Scripture compared together we find the work of Evangelists to be partly such as belonged to the Apostles whose Agents or Adjuncts they were and partly such as was common to Pastors and Teachers whose office was included in theirs Their work in common with the Apostles was the planting and setling of churches by travelling from place to place and in this regard they have been well called Apostles of the Apostles And in doing this Vice-apostolick service they did also that which was common to pastors and teachers in teaching and ruling but with this difference that the ordinary pastors did it statedly in those churches where they were fixed but these transiently in several churches which they were sent to erect or establish or to set things in order therein as the Apostles saw need Or if Timothy and Titus were not in an office essentially divers from the ordinary pastors and teachers yet they were in extraordinary service as being the Apostles Agents and being in that capacity might have their intrinsick spiritual power enlarged to a greater extent and higher pitch of exercise than the ordinary Ministers Howbeit I rather judg that they had an office specifically different from that of the ordinary pastors because in the enumeration of the several sacred offices Paul mentions the office of an Evangelist as a distinct kind from the rest But if it can be proved that the Superiority of Timothy and Titus over bishops or elders of particular churches was not as they were the Apostles assistants or as extraordinary and temporary officers but as ordinary superiors it will indeed follow that Archbishops or bishops of bishops are of divine Right Nevertheless the Episcopal authority of bishops or presbyters of particular churches such as the Scripture-bishops were remains unshaken § 11. Of the Angels of the Churches ANother allegation for the divine right of bishops of an higher order than presbyters is from the Angels of the seven Churches Apoc. 1. and 2. To which many things are said by those of the other persuasion As that those Angels are not called Bishops nor any where implied to be bishops in the present Vulgar sense of the word That the denomination of Angels and Stars in the judgment of ancient and modern Writers do belong to the Ministers of the Word in general That in mysterious or prophetick Writings and Visional Representations a number of things or persons is usually expressed by singulars and that it is very probable that the term Angel is explained under that plurality you distinguished from the rest Apoc. 2.24 but to you and the rest in Thyatira c. and to be a collective name expressing all the Elders of that church Also some observe that it might be expressed in the same manner as Gods providence in the administration of the World by Angels is expressed wherein one being set as chief over such a countrey the things which are done by many are attributed to one Angel president It is further to be considered that in the church of Ephesus one of the seven the Scripture makes mention of many bishops who were no other than presbyters Acts 20.28 Against this some say That the Elders there mentioned were not the presbyters of the church of Ephesus but the bishops of Asia then gathered together at Ephesus and sent for by Paul to Miletum But 1. This is affirmed altogether without proof 2. The text saith Paul sent from Miletum to Ephesus to call the elders of the church which in rational interpretation must be the Elders of the church to which he sent 3. If the bishops of all Asia had been meant it would have been said the Elders of the churches For in Scripture tho we find the Christians of one city called a church yet the Christians of a Region did ever make a plurality of churches as the churches of Judea the churches of Galatia and the churches of Asia 4. There is not the least hint given of the meeting of the bishops of Asia at Ephesus when Paul sent for the elders of the Church 5. The asserters of prelacy hold that Timothy was the first bishop of Ephesus now Paul did not send for him for he was already present with him and accompanied him in his travels Nor did he commit the charge of the church to him but to the Elders that were sent for 6. It could not be the sence of the church of England that those Elders who are declared to be bishops were bishops in the Vulgar meaning of the word when she appointed that portion of Scripture to be read at the ordination of Presbyters to instruct them in the nature and work of their Office Some say That by the Angel of the church is meant the Moderator or President of the Presbytery who might be either for a time or always the same person and the Epistle might be directed to him in the same manner as when the King sends a Message to the Parliament he directs it to the Speaker Now such a Moderator or President makes nothing for bishops of a higher order than Presbyters § 12. A further Consideration of the Office of an EVANGELIST and of a general Minister COncerning the Office of Evangelists such as Timothy and Titus the query is Whether it was temporary or perpetual An eminent Hierarchical Divine saith That Evangelists were Presbyters of principal sufficiency whom the Apostles sent abroad and used as Agents in Ecclesiastical Affairs wherâ—ver they saw need Now this description doth not make them of a specifically
different Order from the ordinary presbyters and it seems to confine their Ministry to the Apostles times Grotius saith they were presbyters tyed to no place and that many such Evangelists were ordained long after and thereupon concludes that not to ordain without a title to some particular place is not of divine right Indeed if the office of an Evangelist be no other than that of a general Minister or a presbyter tyed to no place it seems not only to have been requisite in the Apostles times but to be of standing conveniency if not of necessity in the church And his not being limited to one church is but the extending of the common office of a presbyter or bishop and not the making of a new office For this more extensive power of a general Minister is only the having of that in ordinary exercise which every Minister hath in actu primo by vertue of his relation to the Catholick church in which Teachers and Pastors are set 1 Cor. 12.28 and into which his ministerial acts of teaching and baptizing have influence yea which he hath by vertue of his relation to Christ as a steward to an housholder in his Family and as a delegate to the chief pastor for the calling of the unconverted as well as for the confirming of Converts Now the more or less extensive exercise of an Office is a matter of humane prudence and variable according to time and place But that a general Minister be of a higher order than fixed bishops or presbyters is not of standing or perpetual necessity Nor is it always necessary that he be in a state of superintendency over them Nevertheless if a superintendency be granted to him by the consent of the churches and pastors for the common good or by the Magistrate as to his delegate in his authority in Ecclesiastical affairs I cannot condemn it but rather judg that it may be sometimes not only expedient but necessary Yet it is not of divine right but of prudential determination § 13. A further Consideration of the Angels of the Churches and of a President bishop AS touching the Angel of a Church it being a mystical expression in a mystical book it may be rationally questioned Whether it be meant of one person or of a number of Colleagues as may appear by what hath been already noted But if it be meant of one person it is not necessarily to be understood of one that is the sole pastor and bishop of a Church Nay by what hath been already noted it may with as great if not greater probability be understood of a Prefident bishop who is not of a superior order to the rest of the bishops but the first or chief in degree of the same order and like the Moderator of an Assembly a Chair-man in a Committee and Mayor in a Court of Aldermen And for such a presidency there needs no divine institution it being not a holy order or office of a different species from that of the rest of the Pastors but a priority in the same office for orders sake For it is orderly and convenient that where there are many Presbyters or elders of a particular Church that for concords sake they consent that one that is ablest among them should statedly have a guiding power among them in the ordering of Church-affairs § 14. Of the Office of Ruling Elders THESE have been commonly called Lay-Elders but some have disliked that name alledging that they are sacred officers but they own the name of Ruling Elders Now it is to be noted that the asserters of the divine right of this office make it not an office of total dedication to sacred imployment as the office of a Minister but allow such as bear it to have secular imployments not only occasionally but as their stated particular calling also that they make it not an office of final dedication to sacred imployment as the office of a Minister is but grant that such as bear it may cease from it and again become no Elders Also they make not these Elders to have office power in all Churches as Ministers have actu primo but only in their own particular Churches and in Classical and Synodical assemblies nor do they ascribe unto these Elders the power of the keys of binding and loosing of remitting and retaining sins which belong to Ministers nor do they solemnly ordain these Elders by prayer and imposition of hands as Ministers are ordained Now the Query is whether Christ hath instituted in his Church such a spiritual officer as this ruling Elder who is not totally nor finally dedicated to sacred imployment but statedly left to secular callings and hath no office power no not in actu primo in the church at large but only in his own church or in such an assembly as that Church helps to make up nor hath the power of the keys of binding and loosing of remitting and retaining sins nor is ordained by prayer and imposition of hands I say whether Christ hath instituted such an officer and authorized him in his name as his steward to admit into or cast out of his Family the Church I find nothing in Holy Scripture to warrant his divine right nor can I see in reason how one destitute of the above nanamed capacities can put forth acts of spiritual Discipline or of binding and loosing in Christ Name In the New Testament there be three significations of Presbyter the first belonging to age the second to Magistracy in the greater or lesser Sanhedrim the third to ministers of the Gospel The only place that hath a shew of mentioning the ruling Elder in the Church that is not a Minister of the Gospel is 1 Tim. 5.17 The Elders that rule well c. But this hath nothing cogently to evince two different kinds of officers but that of those in the same office some may be imployed more especially in one part of the work thereof and others in another part and that the being more abundantly imployed in the Word and Doctrine hath the preeminence The Emphasis lies in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifying that some did more especially or abundantly labour therein but not implying that others did not meddle therewith And learned men observe that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is maintenance which is not used to be given to this kind of officer we are now inquiring of For they are such as have secular imployment to live by The Enumerations of divers gifts Rom. 12.6 doth not infer the institution of divers offices For as he that giveth and he that sheweth Mercy may be the same man so he that teacheth and he that exhorteth and he that ruleth may be the same For they are all proper acts of the pastoral office Likewise in 1 Cor. 12.28 those two expressions Helps and Governments do necessarily infer the institution of two Functions no more than Miracles and Gifts of healing there also mentioned do infer the same § 15. That a single Presbyter
for the encrease of the wealth power and splendor of bishops and other chief Clergy-men or for any political considerations the essential form of a bishops church constituted by the Apostles who were immediately commissioned from Christ should be changed from a single Congregation or Society of which the bishop took the personal oversight to a diocess consisting of many yea commonly of many hundred stared congregations having each of them their proper presbyter and all of them but one bishop to whom it is impossible to take the personal oversight of the souls therein and to perform towards them all the duties which were the ordinary work of the ancient bishop 2. Whether the office of a bishop or elder of one single church instituted by the Holy Ghost should be changed into mother essentially different office viz. of a bishop of many yea many hundred single churches each whereof have their proper pastors or presbyters who according to the Scripture are the same with bishops 3. Whether the office of presbyter or elder of divine institution who according to the Scripture is truly and properly a bishop should be changed into an office essentially different viz. of a presbyter who is no bishop but only the bishops subject substitute or Curate And whether the said office should be statedly bereaved of the power of discipline which is essential to it 4. Whether the office of a bishop which is a trust given by Christ to be personally discharged by him that receives it should be executed by delegation to a Lay-man yea or to a Clergy-man who is held to be no bishop 5. Whether the ancient government of the Church by a bishop in conjunction with his presbyters should be changed into a government by the bishop alone and by his Chancellor and Officials whose authority is derived from him Concessions concerning Episcopacy I Hold it lawful and expedient that the elders or pastors of a particular Church should statedly defer to one that is ablest among them a guiding power over them in ordination and discipline and other church affairs I hold it not unfit that this person should for distinctions sake have the title of bishop given him tho he be not of an essentially different order from the rest of the pastors but only of a superior degree in the same holy Order Some Nonconformists think upon probable grounds that tâ—â—â—e should be a general sort of bishops who should take care of â—â—he common government of particular churches and the bisâ—â—ps thereof and that they should have a chief hand in the ordaining and placing and displacing of the pastors or bishops of particular churches And from this I dissent not A Consideration of the present state of Conformity in the Church of England IN considering the terms of Conformity now injoined I am not forgetsul of the reverence due to Rulers I do not herein presume to judg their publick acts but I only exercise a judgment of discretion about my own act in reference to their injunctions which surely they will not disallow To consider the lawfulness of those things of which an unfeigned approbation is required is an unquestionable duty If I should profess what I believe not or practice what I allow not my sin were heinous and inexcusable The Reasons of my dissent are here expressed as inoffensively as can be done by me who am to shew that it is not nothing for which I have quitted the station which I formerly held in the Church I have no reason nor will to lay a heavier yoke upon my self than the Law doth or to set such bars in my own way as the Law doth not I therefore admit that more restrained sense of the Declaration which is thought by many to make the enjoined terms more easie I am concerned to take notice of smaller as well as greater matters because as well the one as the other are alike to be owned Tho I would not differ with the Church about little things yet I may not profess an allowance of any little thing which I believe is not allowable I desire to proceed in this enquiry with good judgment and to do nothing weakly but however it be I had rather be thought to be injudicious and overscrupulous in making objections than want a sufficient clearness in a business of this nature I take no pleasure in making objections against the book of Common prayer but I do it by constraint that I may give an account of that Nonconformity to which by an irresistible force of Conscience I am necessitated If all things contained and prescribed in the said book be right and good I heartily wish that I and all men were convinced of it I joyn with the Congregation in the use of the Liturgy and I acknowledg that by joyning in it I declare my consent to the use of it as in the main an allowable form of Worship But this doth not as I suppose signifie my allowing of all things therein contained Of the Declaration of unfeigned Assent and Consent required by the Act of Vniformity THE true intent of this Declaration is to be considered By the form of words wherein it is expressed it seems to signifie no less than assent to and approbation of the whole and of every thing contained and prescribed in and by the Book of Common-prayer c. so that no man can make this Declaration that is not satisfied of the truth of every thing contained and the lawfulness and allowableness of every thing prescribed in the said book Nothing is more evident to me than that I ought not to dissemble or lye in matters of Religion but so I do if I declare my unfeigned assent and consent to those things contained and prescribed in the Liturgy from which I really dissent But this meaning thereof is not acknowledged by many and very judicious persons among the Conformists They grant indeed that the words will not only bear this sense but would seem to incline to it if the meaning of them were not evidently limited by the Law it self and that in the very clause wherein it doth impose it That the Law doth expresly determine this assent to the use of the Liturgy they say is evident from these words He shall declare his unfeigned assent and consent to the use of all things in the said book contained and prescribed in these words and no other I A. B. do here declare c. Now by all rules of interpreting laws we are directed say they to understand what is said more generally in any law according to the limitation which the law it self gives especially if it be in express words I admit this later and more restrained sense of the Declaration as probable and in this disquisition I proceed accordingly taking the declared assent and consent as limited to the use of things Nevertheless it must necessarily extend to the use of all things contained and prescribed in the Liturgy And thereupon I judg that not only all
who have received it should make use of it yet not under the constraint of a Vow but freely for those holy and good eâ—ds which are best obtained by it except some special reason as aforesaid doth oblige them to Marry But let them know that in using their gift they do no more than what is their duty to do The distinction between Counsels and Precepts in this and other matters is but vain For it is the bounden duty of all to do their utmost for the Glory of God and their own and others good § 16. As self-devised religiousness by degrees increased among Christians accordingly many rigorous Prohibitions and Limitations about Marrying both groundless and unreasonable were devised Many of the Ancients both Fathers of the Church and Hereticks were averse to or at least not much pleased with second successive Marriages either in Clergy or Laity And some degree of Penance for the same was injoyned by the Canons of some Councils The Scripture saith Marriage is honourable in all without exception thereby shewing that no condition of life puts a bar to it against those who are capable of it And if no condition of Life be a bar thereunto why should former Marriages be so The Scripture expresly asserts the lawfulness of second Marriages Rom. 7.3 If a Woman while her husband lives be married to another she shall be called an adulteress but if her husband be dead she is free from that law so that she is no adulteress tho she be married to another man St. Paul saith of Widows 2 Cor. 7.9 If they cannot contain let them marry Vers 39. A Wife is bound by the law as long as her husband lives but if her husband he dead she is at liberty to be married to whom she will only in the Lord. Those young Widows whose Marriage is condemned 1 Tim. 5.11 12. were such as had devoted themselves to the service of the Church according to the manner of those times And they are said to have Condemnation not simply because they married but because they cast off their first faith that is they did violate their engagement to Christ and the Church to please the flesh Upon this ground the Apostle forbids the admitting of younger Women into that special Ministry that they might not be exposed to such temptation And vers 14. he exprefly wills That the younger women should marry which must necessarily include young Widows also because it is brought in immediately after the condemning of young Widows in case of prevarication against their aforesaid engagement His meaning is to shew that it is most covenient for them to Marry in regard of their age and condition yet not to bind any absolutely so to do Some of the Ancients thought the Apostle granted second Marriages only ex Venia by way of indulgence or dispensation so that he who used it sinned not as being not forbidden by the Law but he did not fulfil that high perfection of Life that the Gospel calls unto But herein such indulged their own opinion and I find that they were in other things very fanciful and over-rigorous in their Principles and somewhat Stoical But the Evangelical Law or the New Testament hath not so declared The prohibiting of second Marriages tends to the diminution of mankind and the weakning of Commonwealths with other inconveniences § 17. Successive Marriages more often reiterated had a greater ill name among the Ancients But those places of Scripture which license Widows to marry do it indefinitely without limitation to a Widow of the first Husband only And we find in Scripture no restraint against third fourth or more Marriages And according to reason if a Widow of the first Husband may lawfully Marry Why not also a Widow of the second Husband seeing there may be the same justifiable cause of Marriage Indeed there may be an excess in the reiterating of successive Marriages but then the dishonesty or sinfulness lies not in the Reiteration of the Marriage in it self considered but in the excess as undecent and uncomely The allowable frequency of such Reiteration is not punctually defined in general and a like to all but is varied according to the different cases of persons In the case propounded by the Sadduces to our Saviour of seven Brethren successively married to one Woman Matt. 22.25 he speaks nothing of the illegitimacy or unsoundness of the said Marriages The case of the Samaritan Woman Job 4. is to be considered Our Saviour doth tax her for living at that time with one as a husband who indeed was not her husband but he doth not expresly reprove her former plurality of successive Husbands nor do I observe that he puts any note of sinfulness upon it yet for ought I know there might be sinfulness in the undecent excess thereof The Papists say That the Catholick Church allows second and third Marriages and in whatsoever number successively yet the benediction ought not to be allowed to such Marriages because the Consecration ought not to be reiterated But this denial of the benediction and the ill reflection it hath upon second Marriages is founded upon an error that Marriage is a Sacrament and consecrated to be a Symol of the Mystical Union between Christ and the Church § 18. Seeing the gift of Continence in single Life is the Priviledg of particular persons and not of certain Orders and Callings of men a Vow or other Obligation to single Life should not be laid upon all that enter into some special Callings but particular persons should be left free therein to marry or abstain from Marriage as they find themselves qualified and called to the one or the other That Marriage is lawful and honest in the Ministers of the Gospel is evident from Scripture against all prejudices arising from customs introduced or Canons made in after-ages That one evidence that among the qualifications of a Bishop it is mentioned that he be the Husband of one Wife is clear and full against all contradiction As Peter had a Wife so Paul shews that he had power to take a Wife even in his Apostleship 2 Cor. 9 5. Have we not power to lead about a Sister a Wife as well as the other Apostles By a Sister he means a believing Christian by leading about a Sister a Wife he means living in Matrimony That disease of our fallen nature for which Marriage is appointed a remedy is common to all sorts and therefore the remedy should be as common And as is before noted the gift of Continence is a priviledg of particular persons and not of certain Orders and Callings Marriage is in it self no more impure to the Clergy than to the Laity Tit. 1.15 Vnto the pure all things are pure There is no Estate or Calling polluted by Marriage or made less holy or less worthy by the use of it for it is honourable in all men And it is to be considered that Gods Law binds every Christian to live as chastly
is a Christian Church in a Commonwealth that is not Christian indeed in that Case the Christians taken personally are members not severed from the Commonwealth but parts of it but the Spiritual Society which they make is no part of it but really severed from it When a Commonwealth becomes Christian the Church is not to be looked upon as swallowed up in the Commonwealth but they remain distinct Societies notwithstanding the intimate conjunction that is between them and they differ in their kind and formal state from each other The foundation upon which the Commonwealth rests and its constitutive parts formally taken are of another nature than the foundation on which the Church rests and its constitutive parts formally taken The former is immediately founded in humane Laws and Compacts and Essentially made up of several orders and ranks of men diversly indued with temporal qualifications powers and liberties joyned by Civil Bands and Subordinate one to another but the latter is immediately founded in Divine Laws not only natural but positive and Essentially made up of several orders and ranks of men spiritually distinguished and indued with spiritual qualifications Powers and Liberties joyned by Spiritual Bands and Subordinate one to another Hereupon none become Members of the Church merely as Members of the Commonwealth and none become Cives or Members of the Commonwealth merely as Members of the Church and they that are deprived of the Rights of the Commonwealth may still injoy the Priviledges of the Church and they that are deprived of the Priviledges of the Church may still injoy the Rights of the Commonwealth Indeed a Christian Commonwealth ultimately intends those high and excellent ends which the Church doth nextly and immediately viz. The Glory of God and the Eternal happiness of men and procures the same in its own way as the Church doth in its way And the Magistrates and Officers of a Common-wealth must proceed by the Rules of Christianity in their Civil Administrations as well as the Ministers of the Church in their Sacred Administrations and they are the Servants of Christ the Mediator not only as Christians but as Magistrates And Christianity doth influence its professors considered as Members of the Commonwealth as well as of the Church In these respects such a Commonwealth hath attained a more excellent State and exists in a more perfect mode than other Commonwealths Nevertheless the Church is another and higher thing than that higher mode of the Commonwealth as Christian and hath an Essentially different Polity being a Society of another foundation and specifically different Constitution It is questionable to say the least whether the Civil Power of the Commonwealth and the Spiritual Power of the Christian Church may lawfully reside in the same person I do not now speak of that Power in the Church which is objectively Ecclesiastical but formally Civil such as is the Kings Supremacy in all Causes and over all Persons Ecclesiastical within his Dominions but of Power formally Spiritual And if both Spiritual and Civil Power may lawfully reside in the same person yet that person tho naturally but one would be politically two and the People subordinate to him in those two capacities tho they be the same persons yet they would be two Societies distinguished in their Essential forms When the Commonwealth fails the Church may still subsist and when the Church fails the Commonwealth may still subsist The Commonwealth of the Jews that was a Theocracy suffered an Intercision during the Babylonish Captivity yet their Church then remained tho it were greatly wounded it was not extinct And afterwards when they were no Commonwealth of themselves but a Province of the Roman Empire their Ecclesiastical Society and Polity stood intire till it was to give place to the Christian Church § 4. Of the Church as Visible and Invisible THE notion of Visible and Invisible must not here be taken strictly for that which is or is not the object of seeing only but of other sensitive perception or of any humane intuition All other Societies of men admit not this distinction because they are constituted in their formal being by things that do appear outwardly But this of the Church is constituted in its formal being primarily by things that in themselves do not appear outwardly and but secondarily by things that appear as expressions of the things that in themselves appear not The Church is a Society of regenerate persons joyned to the Lord Christ as their Head and to one another as fellow-members by a mystical union through the Holy Gost residing in them all and through faith unfeigned towards God in Christ and holy love toward one another justified sanctified and adopted to the inheritance of Eternal Glory Now the said Qualifications Relations and Priviledges being in themselves hid from mens knowledg and judgment do primarily constitute the Church which is thereupon in its primary consideration a Society Mystical and Invisible It is also a Society of persons professing Christianity or Regeneration and externally joyned to Christ and to one another by the profession of unfeigned faith and love and by the Symbols of that profession and partakers of the external Priviledges belonging to it And according to this external Constitution which is necessary tho it be not primary it is named Visible So then the Church Invisible and Visible are not two Societies but the same Society distinguished by its divers formal considerations and constitutions the one primary the other secondary and the former is not for the latter but the latter for the former These two distinct considerations or modes or forms of the same Society are not commensurate to each other but the Church in its Visible form is of a larger extent than in its Invisible form For many profess Christianity or Dedication to God in Christ that are not really that is heartily and intirely so dedicated This Society as understood in the compleat notion thereof cannot be extended any further then its primary that is its Invisible form doth reach Whatsoever lies without that compass is but the shadow without the substance the image without the life thereof And therefore all they that are joyned to it meerly according to its Visible form are of it not adequately univocally and simply but inadequately analogically secundum quid They that upon their credible profession are of this Society but analogically as to the external form only have just Right and Title to its external Priviledges according to their capacity and disposedness before them that can discern and directly judg only of things that appear outwardly so that if men debar them of those Priviledges they do them wrong For tho God allows them not and thâ—y have no right in his judgment which is always according to truth and not bate appearance yet he hath commanded men to admit them and consequently given them right before men Credible profession in whatsoever degree higher or lower can ground but a judgment of charity
provinces of narrower circuits of ground And how doth it appear that an Oecumenical council rightly so named can be For suppose it be not necessary to consist of all the bishops in the world but of some as delegates in the name of all yet it must consist of so many proportionably delegated from all in the several quarters as may signifie the sence and consent of all Hereupon let it be considered whether there be a possibility of such assemblies much more whether there be a possibility of the continuation or of the succession of them in such frequency as would be requisite in case such an assembly were Head of the Church Nor doth it stand with reason that an Oecumenical council in case it were existent can possibly execute the authority that belongs to the head of the Universal Church in overseeing all in receiving appeals from all in making authoritative determinations for all either immediately by it self or mediately by subordinate councils judicatories and ministers to be superintended regulated and determined by it in their proceedings Nor is there any notice given of the said headship of a General council more than of the Popes or any other bishops universal headship in the primitive and authentick records of the Charter that Christ hath given to his Church to wit the Holy Scriptures Nor is any rule given therein for the constitution of a General council whether it shall be made up only of the Clergy or only of such bishops as are of a higher order thâ—â— Presbyters or of all such bishops of the Catholick Church or if of some in the name of all what number there must be either definite or indefinite and proportionate to the number of those that are represented It is evident de facto that the officers of the Catholick Church as the particular bishops or pastors and the associations and conventions of them do not derive their spiritual authority from a General council Nor doth it appear that de jure they should derive their power from it any more than from the Pope § 11. The infallibility of the Catholick Church examined THE Romanists assert an insallibility about matters of faith somewhere seated within the Catholick Church as the perpetual priviledg thereof some of them place it in the Pope and others in a General council Hereupon this priviledg is to be considered whether it be and what it is The meaning of the term is a being not liable to be deceived or to deceive about those matters about which it is said to be That the catholick church is infallible in the essentials of the christian religion is a most indubitable truth for every member of the catholick church so remaining is infallible so far it involves a a contradiction that any such should err therein for it were as much as to be a christian and no christian The Query therefore is whether it be liable to errour in the integrals aâ—d accidentals of Religion Now the church remaining such is not necessarily or in its nature infallible so far and therefore if it be infallible it must be so from the free grant of Christ But it doth not appear in the Holy Scripture that any such grant is made to the church What was the Apostles doctrine and consequently the doctrine of the Church in their days obedient to their authority we know what the church universally held in any one age touching all the integral parts of religion much more concerning accidentals I conceive extreamly difficult if not impossible to be known But that the church hath de facto if not universally yet very generally erred in the same errour about some integrals of religion appears by the ancient general practise of some things now generally accounted erroneous as for instance the giving of the Lords Supper to infants Moreover it is evident that the whole Church in its several parts hath erred some in one point some in another and that no part thereof hath been found in which hath appeared no error in some point of Religion or other And if all the parts may variously err in several points why may not they also harmoniously err all of them in one and the same point If the Catholick Church be not infallible in all doctrines of Faith much less is any such Council infallible as was ever yet congregated or is ever like to be congregated Hereupon it follows that in all Controversies of doctrine we cannot stand finally to the decision of the Catholick Church if it were possible to be had or to the decision of any the largest Council that can possibly convene We cannot tell what the Catholick Church is nor what particular Churches or persons are sound parts thereof but by the holy Scriptures For what Criterion can be brought besides them Mens bare testimony of themselves is not to be rested on How can we know that the first Nicene Council was orthodox in its determination about the Sacred Trinity and the second Nicene Council erroneous in its determination for Image-worship but by finding that the former was consonant and the latter dissonant to the Scripture in their aforesaid determinations If it be said That of Councils called General those that consist of greater numbers of bishops must carry it against those that consist of lesser numbers let some proof either from Scripture or Reason be given for it What ground is there from either to conclude that in the time of the Arrian Heresie the major part of bishops in the Roman Empire or the major part of those that assembled in Council and for instance in the first Council at Nice might not possibly have been Arrians Moreover if the major part were to carry it in the first six Centuries why not also in the ten last That promise of Christ Mat. 28. I am with you always to the end of the world may imply That there shall be a successive continuation of Bishops or Pastors in the Catholick Church to the worlds end that shall be Orthodox in the Essentials yea and in the Integrals of Religion yet it doth not imply that they shall be the greater number of those that are called and reputed bishops or pastors within Christendom nor that the greater number of those being convened in Councils shall not err in their Conciliar determinations about matters of Faith § 12. Of the Indefectibility of the Catholick Church CHRIST hath promised the perpetuity of the Church in general in saying that he would build it on a Rock and the gates of Hell should not prevail against it and I am with you always to the end of the world but how far and in what respect this perpetuity and indefectibility is promised ought to be enquired into lest we expect or insist upon more than the promise hath ensured That which Christ hath promised cannot be less than that there be always upon earth a number of true believers or faithful Christians made visible by their external profession of Christianity successively
Iowest political church but as constituted by the political union of congregational or parochial churches held also to be political under an officer of another order and the proper superior of those officers under which the parochial churches immediately are then let it be observed that a church of this frame is not properly an Episcopal but an Archiepiscopal Church For the churches whereof it is compacted are properly Episcopal being such as have each of them their own bishop pastor or elder But the divine right of such an Archiepiscopal church I leave to further inquiry As for a National church I come now to inquire in what sence it may or may not be granted In a more general notion it is some part of the universal church distinguished and severed from the rest of that body by the limits of a Nation or of a civil state or in other terms a nation of Christian churches or the Christian churches of a Nation But there are more express and special notions thereof respecting the frame of Ecclesiastical Polity which are discrepant from each other And about the being thereof in these special notions mens judgments vary Some own a national church in this sence only viz. a nation of churches or the churches of a nation agreeing at least in the essentials of christian Dectrine divine Worship and church-Government Some own a national church in a stricter sense namely the said churches not only agreeing in the points aforesaid but politically united by the same common band of Ecclesiastical Government under one head personal or collective And this stricter sence hath a subdivision for it may be understood of the churches united in a Civil Ecclesiastical polity under a civil head or supream or of the churches embodyed in the band of a polity purely Ecclesiastical under a spiritual head or supream I own the rightful being and divine warrant of a national church as united in one Civil Ecclesiastical polity under one civil head or supream either personal as in a Monarchy or collective as in a Republick And in this sence I assent to the National Church of England viz. All the churches in England politically united under one Supream Civil Church-Governour the Kings Majesty Yet it is to be understood that the partition of a church by the bounds of a nation or of a civil state is but extrinsecal or accidental to the church as such also that the union of the churches of a nation in the band of civil church-polity under a civil head is but an extrinsecal and not an intrinsecal union But I question the divine warrant of a national church embodied in the band of one national polity purely Ecclesiastical under one spiritual head or supream either Personal as a Primate or Patriarch or collective as a consistory of bishops or elders intrinsecally belonging to it and being a constitutive part of it For I find no Canon or Precedent for it in Scripture which is the adequate rule of divine right in the frame of churches and of what intrinsecally belongs thereuntò and I do not know any such spiritual head of the Church of England as for the Arch-bishops of Canterbury and York they at the most can be heads but of their respective provinces and are not subordinate but coordinate to each other in point of Archiepiscopal Government however the case is between them in point of precedency Yet if the civil supream power shall constitute a person or persons Ecclesiastical to be head of a national church or the churches of a nation politically imbodied I here offer nothing against it or for it But if there be such a national constitution being but humane it is but extrinsecal and accidental to the church and being derived from the civil supream it is but a civil church-polity § 21. The subordination of particular Churches to an association or collective body of the same Churches considered I Come to enquire whether there be a subordination of churches taken distributively to an association o◠collective body of the same Churches or an assembly thereof and again whether there be a subordination of that collective body to a larger association of more collective bodies or to an assembly thereof and so forward till we come to the largest that can be reached unto The association of particular churches is of the law of nature and therefore to be put in practise according to their capacity tho there were no positive law for it for they are all so many distinct members of one great body or integral parts of the Catholick church and they are all concerned in each others well being both in reference to themselves as fellow members of one body and to Christ their Head whose honour and interest they must promote each church not only within themselves but throughout all the churches to the utmost extent of their agency And they naturally stand in need of each others help in things that concern them severally and jointly Likewise that there be greater and lesser associations acting in their several spheres higher or lower the one included in the other is of the law of nature or of natural convenience for the more ample capacity and more orderly contributing of the mutual help aforesad such as have been called classical provincial and national assemblies used in one form of church-government yea and beyond this the association of the churches of many nations as far towards an oecumenical council as they are capable of convening is of the same reason But of an oecumenical association truly so called that is of all the churches in the world the moral impossibility thereof hath been spoken of before It is also by the law of nature most convenienient that in the lesser associations all the ruling officers personally meet and that in the larger they meet by their delegates or representatives chosen by all and sent in the name of all which meetings are called assemblies or synods and the convenience of meeting by delegates is that the particular churches be not for a time left wholly destitute of their guides and that there may be less trouble and difficulty and danger of disorder in the whole management Note That what is most naturally convenient hath in it the reason of necessary or is matter of duty unless when something gainsay or hinder and then indeed it ceaseth to be convenient And that there be some kind of subordination in the said associations and their respective Assemblies is of the Law of nature which requires order but as to the kind or manner of subordination men go several ways Some place it in a proper Authority or Governing power that the collective bodies of Churches have over the several Churches included in them others place it in the agreement of the several churches and some of these make this further explanation that the Canons made by Synods as they are made for the people who are subject to the Pastors are a sort of Laws and oblige by
of Christs Ministers have the same force towards his subjects That the power of a Pastor in binding and loosing as to the communion and external priviledges of the Church is more than declarative of the mind of Christ therein I yet discern not For tho the sentence of an erring judg in a Civil judicatory is valid till it be reversed yet the erring keys have no effect and the Church and the Members thereof are not bound by the unjust sentence of a Pastor to reject a godly person that hath not given just scandal or to carry themselves towards him as towards one unfit for Christian Communion but they are still to receive him as a brother Indeed the injured person may be bound to forbear the use of his right in some parts thereof as coming to the Church-Assembly in case a schism or disturbance would follow But this obligation doth not arise from any validity that is in the unjust sentence but from the duty of preserving peace and order The distinction of the power of Order and the power of jurisdiction is vain For the spiritual Pastor or Elder hath no other power than the power of the Keys and the full power of the Keys intrinsecally belongs to the order or office of a Pastor or Elder But if any pretend that the full power of the Keys doth not intrinsecally belong to the office of a Pastor or Elder but a part only or that there be two kinds of power of the Keys the one whereof belongs only to one superior kinâ— of spiritual officers and the other is common to all â—piritual â—astors let him prove such distinction and distribution from the Word of God § 5. Of the Delegation of Spiritual Power THE delegation of power is a derivation thereof from its ordinary subject to another who is not the ordinary subject thereof and who hath right to exercise it merely as authorized by the ordinary subject thereof as when a Bishop delegates his episcopal power to him who is no Bishop and who exercises the same merely by vertue of his delegation The office of a Bishop Pastor or Elder is a trust and that of the greatest consequence in the world and a trust may not be delegated by the receiver to another person without the express consent of the giver No subordinate officer can make a legal deputy unless he be authorized thereunto by law or in his commission or Charter from the supream power And Christ hath not exprest his consent to the transferring of this trust nor given authority to his Ministers to make such Delegation That Princes and Soveraign Powers bâ—ing Gods Trustees do transfer the work of their trust to Delegates and subordinate officers is no ground for Christs Ministers to do the like For first Christs Ministers are only authorized Ambassadors Heralds and not Spiritual Soveraigns under him as the supream Magistrates are Civil Soveraigns under God 2. It is in the nature of civil soveraignty to make delegates and subordinate officers of civil power and the due Government of the Civil State makes it necessary but there is no such thing in the nature of the pastoral office and no necessity for it in Ecclesiastical Government 3. The specification of magistracy or civil power is left to men but the spiritual power is specified by Christ and by him appropriated to officers of his own institution 4. Christ to provide for his flock hath taken another course than to authorize Bishops and Pastors to do their work by Delegates namely to command the ordaining of more Bishops or Elders as need requires The delegation of Episcopal Power is a repugnancy in it self For it is the power of the keys or of stewarship in Christs house of binding and loosing of remitting and retaining sins in Christs name by special authority from him And can any that is not Christs officer so authorized exert such power Besides if one part of the bishops proper work viz. The exercise of Ecclesiastical Government may be delegated to one that is no bishop why may not any other part of his work be so delegated as the ordaining of ministers And if it be replied ad ordinem pertinet ordinare by as good reason it may be said that it as incommunicably belongs to the order or office of Christs institution to exercise Christs Discipline as to ordain Ministers Indeed a Vicar being of the same sacred office or order may so exert the said power in the place of another as that his act is valid But it may well be questioned whether any bishop may make one or more vicarious bishops to execute his charge for every bishop hath received a trust from Christ to be fulfilled in his own person Col. 1.7 And I do not find that Christ hath granted a faculty to any bishop to fulfil his Ministry by a Vicar of his own order But I do not question but a bishop may have an assistant or assistants of his own order either occasionally in case of present disability or justifiable avocation or statedly when the flock that is under his personal oversight requires more work than one man can do And then the said assistants are not his Vicars but collegues performing each of them their own part in the work and service of their Lord Christ § 6. The identity of a Bishop and Presbyter IT is granted by the assertors of prelacy that the names Bishop and Presbyter are used promiscuously Now they that assert two distinct offices under promiscuous names had need bring clear proof for the distinction of those offices Howbeit I do not merely insist on the names as indifferently used but wheresoever the sacred office of Presbyterate is set forth in Scripture it is set forth as the office of a spiritual Pastor or Bishop which is to feed the Flock of God by teaching and ruling it And such a Presbyter as is a sacred officer of the Christian Church but not a Bishop or Pastor is not to be found in Scripture Tit. 1.5 7. shews not only an identity of name but of office To give order for the admission of none to the office of an Elder but one so qualified because a Bishop must be so qualified is not rational if the bishop be of a distinct office from the Presbyter and superior to him Act. 20 28 The Elders are called Bishops and have the whole Episcopal Power to feed the flock by government as well as by doctrine 1 Pet. 5.12 The elders are exhorted to feed the Flock of God which is among them and to take the oversight thereof and under the force of these two words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the bishops claim their whole power of government 1 Tim. 3. The Apostle immediately passeth from the Bishop to the Deacon and takes no notice of such an officer as a Presbyter below a Bishop and above a Deacon And neither this nor any other Scripture doth afford us the least notice of any qualification or ordination or any sacred
work and duty belonging to a Presbyter who is no bishop Not one place of Scripture doth set forth any Presbyter as less than a bishop Phil. 1 1. Paul makes mention of Bishops and Deacons in the Church at Philippi in the inscription of his Epistle but no mention of Presbyters that were not bishops And it seems by that Text that in the Apostles times there were more bishops than one placed in one city and 't is to be noted that Philippi was but a little City under the Metropolis of Thessalonica Thus bishop and elder in the places aforecited are names of the same office whatsoever it be and the Hierarchical Divines grant as much but are not agreed what office is there set forth by those names One part of them think that those Texts speak of or at least comprehend such Presbyters as are now so called The other part of them think they speak of such bishops as are now distinct from presbyters Now they that hold that the said Texts speak of or include such presbyters as are now so called must needs hold that such presbyters are pastors and bishops in the Scripture sence of those names and so an identity of the bishop and presbyter is confessed and it rests upon them to prove the divine institution of bishops of a higher order over such presbyters and they that hold that the said Texts speak of such bishops as are now distinct from presbyters must needs grant the qualification ordination and work of presbyters inferior to bishops is not set forth in Scripture If it be said that the order of inferior and subject presbyters is of divine institution and yet not defined or expressed in Scripture let a satisfactory proof be brought from some other authority of its divine institution and what its nature is If it be said that at first the function of a bishop and presbyter was one but afterwards it was divided into two and that the division was made by divine warrant the asserters are bound to prove it by sufficient authority To have the power of the keys of binding and loosing of remitting and retaining sins in Christs name as his commissioned Officer is to have Episcopal power and this power belongs to a Presbyter The Asserters of Prelacy answer this by distinguishing the power of the keys in foro interiore or the Court of Conscience within and foro exteriore in the exterior Court to wit that of the Church and say that the former belongs to the Bishop and Presbyter both and the latter to the Bishop only To which I reply 1. The Scripture makes no such distinction and where the Law distinguisheth not we may not distinguish 2. The distinction is vain for all power that belongs to the Pastors of the Church purely respects the conscience by applying to it the commands promises and threatnings of God and it respects the conscience as having the conduct of the outward man and that in reference to Church communion as well as other matters 3. If Presbyters may in the name of Christ bind the impenitent and loose the penitent as to the conscience in the sight of God which is the greater and primary binding and loosing then by parity of reason and that with advantage they may bind and loose as to Church-communion which is the lesser secondary and subsequent binding and loosing That Officer is a Bishop that hath power of authoritative declaring in Christs name that this or that wicked person in particular is unworthy of fellowship with Christ and his Church and a power of charging the Congregation in Christs name not to keep company with him as being no fit member of a Christian Society and also a power of Authoritative declaring and judging in Christs name that the same person repenting of his wickedness and giving evidence thereof is meet for fellowship with Christ and his church and a power of requiring the Congregation in Christs name again to receive him into their Christian fellowship For these are the powers of Excommunication and Ecclesiastical Absolution and a Presbyter hath apparently the said powers As he can undoubtedly declare and charge and judg as aforesaid touching persons in general so by parity of reason touching this or that person in particular all particulars being included in the general He hath undoubtedly a power of applying the word in Christs name as well personally as generally That a Presbyter hath the said powers is granted by the Church of England in the common usage of the Ecclesiastical Courts wherein a Presbyter is appointed to denounce the sentence of Excommunication tho the Chancellor doth decree it And the Excommunication is not compleat till a Presbyter hath denounced it in the congregation That the Apostles have no successors in the whole of their Office is confessed on all hands but if they have successors in part of their Office viz. in the Pastoral Authority in this respect the Presbyters if any are their successors Peter exhorting the Presbyters stiles himself their fellow-Presbyter which is to be understood in respect of the power of Teaching and Ruling The Pastoral Authority of Presbyters is further cleared in many passages in the publick forms of the Church of England touching that Order The form of Ordaining Presbyters in this Church lately was Receive the Holy Ghost whose sins thou remittest they are remitted and whose sins thou retainest they are retained and be thou a faithful dispenser of the word of God and of his holy Sacraments in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost Amen Now the former part hereof is intirely the words used by our Saviour John 20.21 22. towards the Apostles expressing their Pastoral Authority And the latter part is no derogation or diminution from the power granted in the former part If Presbyters are not partakers with the Apostles in the Pastoral Authority how could they have Right to that Form of Ordination Likewise this Church did in solemn form of words require the presbyters when they were ordained to exercise the discipline of Christ as the Lord hath commanded and this Realm hath received the same according to the commandment of God And that they might the better understand what the Lord hath commanded therein this Church did appoint also That at the ordering of Priests there be read for the Epistle that portion of Acts 20. which relates St. Paul's sending to Ephesus and calling for the Elders of the Congregation with his exhortation to them To take heed to themselves and to all the flock whereof the Holy Ghost hath made them overseers to rule the congregation of God Or else 1 Tim. 3. which sets forth the Office and due Qualifications of a Bishop These portions of Scripture this Church appointed to be read to the Presbyters as belonging to their Office and to instruct them in the nature of it And afterwards the Bishop speaks to them that are to receive the Office of Priesthood in this form of words
You have heard brethren as well in your private examination as in the exhortation and holy lessons taken out of the Gospel and the writings of the Apostles of what dignity and how great importance this Office is whereto ye are called that is to say The Messengers the Watchmen the pastors and stewards of the Lord to teach to premonish to feed to provide for the Lords Family I acknowledg the passages here alledged are taken out of the old Book of Ordinanion that was established in this Church till the late alteration made Anno 1662. If those Alterations signifie another meaning about the several Holy Orders than what was signified in the Old Book then the sense of the Church of England in these times differs from the sense of the same Church in all times preceding the said Alterations But if they signifie no other meaning than what was signified in the old Book my Citations are of force to shew what is the sense of this Church as well of the present as of the former times about this matter And let this be further considered That the form of ordaining a Bishop according to the Church of England imports not the conferring of a higher power or an authorizing to any special work more than to what the Presbyter is authorized The old form was Take the Holy Ghost and remember that thou stir up the grace of God that is in thee by imposition of hands for God hath not given us the spirit of fea◠but of power and of love and of soberness What is there in this form of words that might not be used to a Presbyter at his ordination Or what is there in it expressive of more power than what belongs to a Presbyter The new form since the late alteration is Receive the Holy Ghost for the work and office of a Bishop in the Church of God now committed to thee by imposition of our hands in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost Amen And remember that thou stir up the grace of God that is given thee by this imposition of our hands f r God hath not given us the spirit of fear but of power and of love and of soberness And what is there in this form that is expressive of any office power that the Presbyter hath not unless these words for the work and office of a bishop Now both the name and work and office of a bishop belongs to the Scripture-presbyter who is of divine institution and the presbyter to whom it doth not belong is but a humane creature or an ordinance of man § 7. Of the present Diocesan Bishop A Diocesan Bishop according to the hierarchical state is a Bishop of the lowest degree having under him Parish-Ministers that are Presbyters or Priests but not accounted Bishops and by divine right claiming to himself alone the Episcopal Authority over all the Parish Churches and Ministers within his Diocess which may contain a hundred two hundred five hundred or a thousand parishes For an Episcopacy of this kind I discern no Scripture-Warrant nor Divine Right Every particular Church should have its proper pastor or Bishop and particular Churches with their proper pastors are so evidently of divine right that some eminently learned men in the Church of England have declared their judgment that no form of Church-Government besides the mere pastoral office and Church-Assemblies is prescribed in the Word of God but may be various according to the various condition and occasion of several Churches But if it be said that parochial Congregations are not Churches but only parts of the Diocess which is the lowest political Church I desire proof from Scripture that such Congregations as our parishes having their proper presbyter or presbyters invested with the power of the keys are not Churches properly so called The reason of demanding this proof is because the Scripture is a perfect rule for the essential constitution of Churches though the accidents thereto belonging may be regulated by humane prudence And it is most evident in Scripture that a particular congregation of Christians having their proper pastor or pastors presbyter or presbyters are Churches properly so called and a parochial Minister I conceive to be a pastor presbyter or elder according to the Scripture Moreover if a Diocess containing many hundred or perhaps a thousand parishes as it doth in England do constitute but one particular Church and the parishes be not properly to be accounted Churches but only so many parts of that one diocesan Church why may not ten thousand yea ten times ten thousand parishes be likewise accounted but one particular church and brought under one man as the sole bishop or pastor thereof Nor do I discern how it is possible for one man to do the work of a bishop towards so many parishes which is to oversee all the flock to preach to them all to baptize and confirm all that are to be baptized and confirmed to administer the Lords Supper to all to bless the congregation publickly and privately to admonish all as their need requires to excommunicate the impenitent to absolve the penitent and that upon knowledg of their particular estate for all these are pastoral or episcopal acts And let it here be noted that I speak of the work of a bishop infimi gradus or under whom there are no subordinate bishops If such a Diocesan bishop saith it sufficeth that he perform all this to the flock by others namely by the parish ministers as his Curates and by other officers his substitutes It is answered 1. The pastoral Authority is a personal trust 2. He is to shew his commission from Christ the prince of pastors to do his work by others for I am now enquiring what is of divine and not of humane Right 3. None but a bishop can do the proper work of a bishop and consequently the presbyters by whom the Diocesan doth his work either are bishops or their act is an usurpation and a nullity It is matter of divine Right only that is here considered As for the humane Rights of a Diocesan bishop to wit his dignity and his jurisdiction under the King as Supreme and to which he is intituled by the Law of the Land I intermeddle not therewith § 8. Of a Bishop or Bishops THE Divine Right of a bishop infimi gradus Ruling over many churches as their sole hishop or pastor hath been considered and now it is to be considered Whether there be of divine institution such a spiritual officer as hath the oversight of Bishops or is a Bishop of Bishops The Diocesan Bishop is really of this kind tho he will not own it for he is a bishop of Presbyters who are really bishops if they be that kind of Presbyters that the Scripture mentions But if the Presbyters which in the hierarchical state are subject to the Diocesan Bishop be of another kind they are not of Christs institution What hath been already said
multitude but the Eleven Apostles set forth two whereof one was chosen by lot to the Apostleship and the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth not there signifie a numbring by common suffrages for God made choice of Matthias Indeed the election of those seven Deacons Act. 6. is expresly declared to have been by the people But to this it is said that it was for the avoiding of offence and the better to quiet the murmuring among the people It is also said that the peoples electing of them to that office was a matter of special equity because the work thereof as far as is there expressed was the distribution of maintenance as there was need in that extraordinary time for which end there was a trusting of the common stock in the hands of them that were chosen But in whatsoever hand the election of a minister lies the peoples consent is of great importance For he cannot perform the work of a Pastor to any people without their own consent it is plain that he cannot guide and rule them in a pastoral way against their wills Yet I know not but that sometimes they may be obliged to consent that he be Pastor when he is by sufficient warrant and upon good grounds chosen by men for them tho their refusal may render themselves uncapable of receiving benefit by him and him uncapable of doing the work of his office towards them But forasmuch as the peoples consent gives the minister the opportunity of discharging the duties of the relation which otherwise cannot be done it is much to be regarded in the call of a minister to any people and the freer the consent the better it is in respect of the ends of the pastoral relation and consequently their consent before his admission is most desirable yet where there is not a consent before an after consent may suffice The people in electing their Pastors if they have the liberty thereof or in consenting to the election made by others ought ordinarily to be directed by the judgment of other Pastors N. B. That we may carry the Question from the meer name Pastor to the matter all these things must be distinctly considered 1. What Qualifications make a man capable of the sacred office sine quibus non 2. What maketh a man so capable a minister as related to the uncalled world and the universal Church obliged indefinitely to do his best for them and this is Christs mission 1. By his Word 2. And his Spirit giving him a true willingness and consent 3. And by authorized ordainers investing and sending him 3. What maketh a minister to be such a one as the congregation is bound to consent shall be their proper pastor And this is 1. His special fitness 2. His special opportunity 3. And these so judged by the Magistrate and Bishops or other Pastors who are meet discerners and if they be peremptory in their imposition he hath the greater advantage In all these aforesaid the peoples election or consent is no necessary cause 4. What maketh the man and the Church or any person in esse relative formally related as their Pastor and his flock and that is mutual consent if he consent not no Magistrates or Bishops command maketh him their Pastor tho it may oblige him to consent nor yet if they consent not As a Father may make it a Childs duty to marry such an one but it s no marriage without consent 5. What is necessary to the exercise of the office and that also is mutual consent as to every proper part which is a priviledg which an unwilling person can neither have right to nor possess nor use § 20. Of Ordination and the moment thereof in the office of the Ministry ORdination is an outward solemn setting apart of persons to the holy ministry by prayer and fasting and the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery As touching the importance thereof some say that it is the constituting or making of a minister others say it is the solemnizing of his entrance into the office or his inauguration thereinto or his investiture therein and is of the same moment to the ministry with the solemnizing of marriage to the conjugal relation the delivery of a twig and turf to the possession of land These different ways of expression being considered may be found to come to the same issue and the latter may sufficiently set forth the making of a minister as far as mans act can make him The words by which that which we call ordination is set forth in Scripture are 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Act. 14 24. which doth not necessarily evince an ordaining by suffrages but in the New Testament it is used to signifie an ordaining to the office whether by God or man as hath been before noted But if the Text were thus to be read They ordained them Elders by the suffrages of the people yet it is plain that not the people but Paul and Barnabas ordained them 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Tit. 1.5 Which signifies to constitute 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Act. 13.2 Which signifies to separate or set apart Now the latter way of expressing the force of ordination viz. The solemn inauguration or investiture in the office is a separating of one unto it or a constituting of one in it in that sence that mans act of ordainining can bear For it cannot be the act of an efficient cause making and giving the office and power thereof For that as hath been already shewed is not the act of man but of Christ alone But it is a necessary ordinary antecedent and that the most important as being the last and most compleat designation made by men of the person on whom Christ confers the office and the solemn investing of him in it Hence it follows that tho ordination be ordinarily necessary to the ministry yet it is not of that absolute necessity in all cases as that there can be no lawful or valid ministry without it for where it cannot be had there may be otherwise a full signification of the will of Christ that some persons should do the work of the ministry Moreover the work of the ministry is a necessary means of saving souls of upholding and perpetuating a Church unto Christ upon earth of maintaining soberness righteousness and godliness of life among professed Christians and that some take this work upon them is an obligation of the Law of Nature and indispensable But regular ordination is but a point of order and for the interruption or cessation of this latter the former is not to be broken off or cease And if there be in any an obligation statedly to do this work he is in the office of the ministry If any alledg that Christ by his law hath made an uninterrupted regular ordination indispensably necessary to the ministry he is bound to prove it If any pretend an uninterrupted regular ordination of all his predecessors he is bound to make it clear
they but Christ makes the office and not they but Christ gives the power that belongs to the office from which they cannot detract The ordination of Timothy is said to be by the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery 1 Tim. 4.14 If it be said that by the Presbytery is meant a company of Bishops it it granted that Presbyters and Bishops were all one If it be said they were a company of none but Diocesan Bishops that had subject-presbyters of an inferior order under them let it be proved from Scripture It is said by some That only the Diocesan Bishops ordain authoritatively and the Presbyters concomitantly founding the distinction on those two Texts 2 Tim. 1.6 and 1 Tim 4.14 it being said in the one That Timothy received the gift by the putting on of Paul's hands and in the other by the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery To this it is answered 1. That the imposition of hands mentioned 2 Tim. 1.6 might be in confirmation for the first receiving of the Holy Ghost after Baptism and the following effects of the spirit of love power and of a sound mind argue so much 2. If any of a higher state than Presbyters laid hands on Timothy in his ordination yet the phrase of Presbytery argues that they did it as presbyters 3. If it was Paul that ordained Timothy authoritatively and the presbytery but concomitantly our bishops cannot thence claim the sole authoritative ordination for Paul was of an order above them and was no otherwise a bishop than as having Episcopal power eminently contained in his Apostolick office 4. If the presbytery there mentioned be a company of bishops of an order superior to presbyters it will follow by this distinction that such a bishop ordains not authoritatively but concomitantly 5. The said Texts afford no ground for the distinction of authoritative and concomitant ordination According to the hierarchical principle the bishop is enabled to give orders not by his power of jurisdiction but by his power of order Now a presbyter hath as much of the Character and Sacrament of order as a bishop and the consecration of a bishop is not held a distinct Sacrament of order from the ordination of a presbyter and the truth is the form of consecrating a bishop according to the English Ordinal is expressive of no more power of order than is given to the presbyter in the form of his ordination in the said Ordinal The conjunction of Presbyters with the Bishop in the present form of ordination shews that the order is conveyed by them as well as by the bishop Their imposition of hands is an authoritative benediction and dedication of the party ordained Let any instance be produced of the imposition of hands by any such as had no power of conveying that which was signified by that ceremony I mean of conveying it so far as mans act can reach unto To say it is only a sign of their giving consent is a poor evasion for the people give consent also If presbyters are at any time allowed to ordain by commission from a Bishop they cannot do it rightly if they have not an intrinsick power of doing it For the Bishops commission or license cannot give a new spiritual power to a Presbyter which was not in him before at least radically or habitually § 24. Of a valid Ministry AS Christ allows the Church to receive such to Baptism and the Lords Supper as he doth not receive so he allows the Church to call some to the Ministry whom he doth not call For it is his prerogative to be the Searcher of the Hearts and men can judg but by appearance Such as Christ doth not allow the Church to call to the Ministry may by his permission through the Churches mal-administration be called thereunto and being so called they abide therein by his permission till they be cast out by due reformation and so long their calling is valid as to external order And such are Ministers to others tho not to their own good and Chrsts ordinances by them administred are valid and effectual to those intents for which he appointed them The whole current of Scripture shews that Gods ordinances are not made void by the close hypocrisie or gross impiety of the dispensers thereof and the contrary opinion tends to unchurch Churches and to deny the Christendom of the Christian World for the most part As we must distinguish between miscarriages in admission and the nullity of the office so between defects or corruptions in the office it self and the nullity thereof The Priesthood and Worship in the Temple at Jerusalem was often much corrupted yet it was true for the substance thereof but the Priesthood appointed for the Calves at Dan and Bethel was false for the substance and a nullity Tho the sacrificing Priesthood at Dan and Bethel were a nullity yet the Ten Tribes had the substance of the true religion and some external acts of worship true and valid as circumcision and so retained something of a Church So now among the Papists there is the substance of the Christian Religion and some thing of a Church and Ministry and ordinances The Ministry of the Popish Priests with reference to the Sacrifice of the Mass is a nullity but as ordained to preach the Gospel and Baptize and to any other parts of the proper work of the Ministry it is not a nullity but their administration in those things is valid § 25. Of the Magistrates Power in Ecclesiastical Affairs MAgistratical and Ecclesiastical power are in their nature wholly divers and they are not subordinate but collateral powers yet Ministers are subject to Magistrates and Magistrates to Ministers in divers respects according to the nature of the power that is seated in either of them The Magistratical power is Imperial the Ecclesiastical is ministerial and so the pastor is under the magistrate as his Ruler by the sword not only in civil but in sacred things and the magistrate is under the pastor as his Ruler by the word or his authoritative teacher The pastors power over the magistrate is no dimunution to his right for it takes away none of his authoritty nor doth it hinder the exercise and efficacy of it but it is his benefit because it is an authoritative administring to him the mercies of the Gospel in Christs Name and if he be not under that authoritative administration he is not under the blessing of the Gospel Howbeit the pastoral discipline may not be so exercised towards the supream magistrate as by dishonouring him to make him less capable of improving his office to the common good which the excommunicating of him would do but if magistrates whether of higher or lower rank be excommunicated nevertheless they must be obeyed The magistrates power over the pastor is no diminution to his spiritual authority for it is not given to hinder but to further the efficacy and exercise thereof So that both powers are mutually
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the 57th Canon of the Laodicean Councel do shew that bishops with their Churches had been constituted in villages tho in some dependance on the City-bishop Mr. Beverege in his Annotations on Council Anchyram c. 13. shews that the the Chorepiscopi were truly bishops tho the exercise of some Episcopal functions were denied them by the Canons and by the Canon last mentioned they were not absolutely forbidden to ordain presbyters and deacons but that they should not do it without the permission of the City-bishop under whom they were § 3. Of divers Cities having two Bishops at once THERE are many instances in the antiquity of two bishops allowed at once in the same City Narcissus and Alexander were bishops of Jerusalem at the same time Euseb Hist l. 6. c. 9 10. Ignatius and Euodius were both bishops of Antioch at the same time Clemens const l. 7.46 At Rome Linus and Clâ—tus were fellow bishops in Peters days Platina in the life of St. Peter Epiphanius heresy 68 concerning Meletius saith Alexandria had not anciently two Bishops as other Cities had Austin was made Bishop of Hippo in the days of Valerius and joined with him as his colleague in the Episcopal function Aug. Epist 34. to Paulinus And some learned men of the hierarchical way conceive that Peter and Paul were bishops of Rome at the same time the one of the Circumcision and the other of the Uncircumcision The Nicene Council was the first that decreed that universally there should be but one bishop in a City Can. 8. If any that come from the Novations to the Catholick Church be a bishop let him have the dignity of Priesthood unless it please the Catholick bishop to give him also the honour of the Episcopal Name If it doth not please him let him find a place for him that he may be a Chorepiscopus in the parish or a presbyter in the Clergy that there may not seem to be two bishops in one City As concerning the Catalogues of the ancient bishops in great Cities wherein the succession is by one single person after another It may be considered That Historians being of later ages had respect to the custom of their own times wherein the Episcopacy resided in one And when anciently there were two or more equal in the name and authority of a Bishop the survivor was reckoned the successor whenas he was indeed but the surviving colleague Some do thus labour to remove the contradictions of Historians touching the order of the succession of the first bishops of Rome Linus Cletus Anacletus c. by supposing that these or some of them were presbyters or bishops at the same time ruling that Church in common and that the following writers fancying to themselves such bishops as were set up in the Church in their times fell into those diversities of tradition § 4. Of the more late Erection of many Parishes under one bishop IT is acknowedged by all parties that Christians in great Cities were not divided into divers fixed Congregations or Parishes till long after the Apostles days And tho when they were multiplied they had divers meeting-places yet those places were promiscuously frequented and the people were taught and governed by all the Presbyters in common and were called but one Church It is observed by Epiphanius Heres 68. n. 6. That it was the Custom only at Alexandria to have one president in the whole City and to distribute the presbyters to teach severally vid. Grot. Annot. on 1 Tim. 5.17 Seldens Comment on Eutych Origin Alexand. p. 85. And most agree that it was two hundred and sixty years after Christ before parishes were distinguished And there must be a distinction of parishes before there could be a union of them into Diocesses § 5. That Bishops and Presbyters are of the same order The Testimony of later times concerning it THat this is not the opinion only of those who are now called Presbyterians let the testimonies both of ancient and later times touching this point be considered I begin with those of later times The French and Belgick Confessions assert the parity of order of all Ministers of the Gospel Reynold Peacock bishop of Chichester wrote a book de Ministrorum aqualitate which the Papists caused to be burnt Vid. Erasmus his Annotations on 1 Tim. 4. Cassanders consult Article 14. saith It is agreed among all that of old in the Apostles days there was no difference between bishops and presbyters but for orders sake and avoiding of schism a bishop was put before a presbyter This his opinion he delivered to the Emperor of Germany being sent for by him to inform his conscience about such questions In the time of King Henry the Eighth there was published a book by Cranmer and others called the bishops book wherein is affirmed that the difference of bishops was a device of the ancient fathers not mentioned in Scripture An. 1537. In the book called the Institution of a Christian man made by the Clergy in a provincial synod and set forth by the Kings Authority and approved by the Parliament it is asserted That the Fathers of the succeeding Church after the Apostles instituted certain inferior degrees of Ministry yet in the New Testament no mention is made of any degrees or distinctions in orders but only of Deacons or Ministers and of presbyters or bishops The Parliament Divines at the Treaty in the Isle of Wight in their Answer to the King say This doctrine of the sameness of the order of a bishop and presbyter was published by King Henry the Eighth An. 1543. to be received by all the subjects and was seen and approved by the Lords both spiritual and temporal and by the lower house of Parliament The words of the book are The Scripture mentions these two orders only to wit Presbyters and Deacons and the Apostles confirming them by prayer and imposition of hands Mr. Mede discourse 5. on 1 Cor. 4 1. saith there are properly but two orders Ecclesiastical Presbyters and Deacons the rest are but divers degrees of these two Dr. Hammonds opinion concerning bishops and presbyters is thus declared in his Annotations on Acts 11. Altho the Title of Elders hath extended to a second order in the Church and now is in use only for them yet in the Scripture-times it belonged principally if not alone to the bishops there being no evidence that any of that second order were then instituted in the Churches Now if in Scripture-times presbyters of an inferior order to bishops were not instituted as this learned man supposeth it is evident that all those Church-officers called presbyters mentioned in Scripture were bishops and if this inferior order of presbyters be not to be found in Scripture I desire to know what proof can be made of its divine institution Many if not most Papists acknowledg that presbytery is the highest order in the ministry and that Episcopacy is but a different degree of the same order And it is
no resolved point of faith among them whether bishops differ from presbyters only in degree or in order and office Catalogus Testium veritatis Tom. 2 reports that Wicklief held but two orders of ministers Walsing Hist. in Rich. 2 p. 205. saith That it was one of Wickliefs errors that every priest rightly ordained had power to administer all Sacraments Dr. Reynolds in his Epistle to Sir Francis Knolls shews That they who had laboured for Reformation of the Church for five hundred years past held that all pastors be they intituled bishops or priests have equal authority by the Word of God Ockham a great Schoolman faith that by Christs institution all priests of whatsoever degree are of equal authority power and jurisdiction Catal. Test Verit. Richardus de Media Villa in 4 Sent. distinct 24 q. 2. saith That Episcopacy is to be called not an order which is a Sacrament but rather a certain dignity of an order Council Colon. Enchirid. Christ Religion Paris edit An. 1558. p. 169. of holy orders saith bishops and presbyters were the same order in the primitive church as all the Epistles of Peter and Paul and Jerom also and almost all the Fathers witness Richardus Armachanus l. 9. c. 5. ad quest Armen saith There is not found in the Evangelical or Apostolical Scripture any difference between bishops and simple priests called presbyters It. lib. 11. q. Arm. c. 5. Johan Semeca in his gloss dist 95. c. Olim saith In the first primitive church the name and offices began to be distinguished and the prelation was for the remedy of Schism Gratian distinct 60 c. null ex urb pap saith The primitive church had only those two holy orders presbyterate and diaconate And Dr. Reynolds saith That this was once enrolled in the Canon-Law for sound doctrine Peter Lombard the father of the Schoolmen Lib. 4. distinct 24. tit 1. saith the same and that of these two Orders only we have the Apostles precept Sixtus Senensis heaps up the testimonies of others upon his own to the same thing § 6. The Testimony of Antiquity for the identity of Bishops and Presbyters HERE I first observe by way of preface That Michael Medina de Sacr. Orig. accusing Jerome of holding the sameness of bishops and presbyters saith that Ambrose Austin Sedulius Primasius Chrysostome Theodoret Oecumenius Theophylact were in the same Heresie as Bellarmine reports him lib. 4. de Eccles Milit. c. 9. The same Medina gives this reason why Jerome Austin and others of the Fathers fell into this Heresie as he calls it because this point was not then clearly determined of Hist of the Council of Trent lib. 7. p. 570. And Bellarmin de clero l. 1 c. 15. saith that this Medina assures us That St. Jerome was of Aerius his opinion in this point Touching Aerius Whitaker Controv. 2. q. 5. saith that he was not accounted an Heretick by all but by Eustathius who opposed him Dr. Reynolds in his Epist to Sir Francis Knolls shews out of bishop Jewel that Chrysostome Jerome Ambrose Austin Theodoret Primasius Sedulius Theophylact and most of the ancient Fathers held that bishops and presbyters are one in Scripture with whom Oecumenius and Anselm of Canterbury and another Anselm and Gregory and Gratian agree The Testimony of Clemens Romanus Clemens in his Epistle to the Corinthians mentions but two Orders Bishops and Deacons Pag. 96. The Apostles preaching through Regions and Cities did constitute their first fruits proving them by the Spirit to be bishops and deacons to those which should afterward believe With him bishops and presbyters are every where the same Ib. p. 4. Ye walked in the Laws of God subject to them that have the rule over you 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and giving due honour to the Presbyters among you ye warned the young men that they should follow things moderate and grave Ib. p. 100. Our Apostles foreknowing there would be contentiona bout the name of Episcopacy for this cause having received certain foreknowledg appointed the aforesaid Episcopacy and gave Ordination 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that if they dyed other approved men might successively receive their Ministry 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It will not be a light sin to us if we eject out of thier Episcopacy those that have unblameably and holily offered that gift blessed are those presbyters who are gone before who have received a fruitful and perfect dissolution for they fear not lest any one should cast them out of the Charge wherein they are set Ib p. 108. Base things very base and unworthy of Christian conversation are reported That the most firm and ancient Church of Carinth for one or two persons doth move sedition against the presbyters Ib. p. 120. Who then is generous among you and let him say if the sedition and contention and schisms be risen because of me I will depart whithersoever ye will and do the things commanded by the multitude only let the flock of Christ be in peace with the presbyters set over it Ib. p. 128. You therefore that have laid the foundation of schism be subject to the presbyters be instructed unto Repentance c. These are the passages in that Epistle relating to the point here in question And who cannot see that here are only two Orders of Ministers bishops and deacons and not three bishops priests and deacons Also Presbyters and those in the Episcopacy and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are evidently the same And here is no mention of any office above the presbyters and to them the church were required to be subject As concerning that passage p. 7. To the High Priest proper ministrations were appointed to the priests their own place was assigned and upon the Levites their proper ministry lay and the Laick man bound to Laick precepts I conceive that it alone affords no argument for three Orders of ministry or essentially different offices in the gospel-Gospel-church For it respects the present matter but only in way of similitude and no more is signified thereby than as under the Mosaical Oeconomy there were several orders and several ministrations pertaining to them so it is also in the Gospel-church but it may not be used in argumentation beyond what is plainly designed in it much less may it be urged to prove any thing contrary to the tenor of the whole Epistle besides the High-priests office was not of another kind from the priests but a higher degree in the same office for some particular ministrations which also in time of his incapacity might be ordinarily performed by another priest And let the comparison be forced to the utmost it will shew no greater difference between a bishop and a presbyter than between an Archbishop and an ordinary bishop It is Grotius his argument That this Epistle of Clemens is genuine because it no where makes mention of that excessive authority which began to be afterwards introduced or was at first introduced at Alexandria by the custom of that church after the
death of Mark and in other places by that example And it plainly shews as the Apostle Paul doth That the Churches were governed by the Common Council of Presbyters who were also Bishops The Testimony of Irenaeus It is clear that this Father makes the presbyters to be the same with bishops and the successors of the Apostles and with him the succession of bishops is all one with the succession of presbyters Lib. 4. c. 43. We must obey those presbyters which are in the Church who together with the succession of Episcopacy have received the gift of truth Id. l. 3. c. 2. Unto that tradition which is in the church by the succession of presbyters we challenge them that say they are wiser not only than the presbyters but the Apostles Id. l. 3. c. 3. declaring the tradition of the greatest and ancientest church and known to all even the church of Rome founded by Peter and Paul at Rome that which it hath from the Apostles and the Faith declared to men and coming to us by the succession of bishops c. Id. lib. 4. c. 4. We must forsake unjust Presbyters serving their own lusts and adhere to those who with the order of presbytery keep the doctrine of the Apostles found and their conversation without offence unto the information and correction of the rest The church nourisheth such presbyters whereof the Prophet speaks I will give thee princes in peace and thy bishops in righteousness Id. lib. 4. c. 63. The true knowledg of the doctrine of the Apostles and the ancient state in the whole world according to the succession of bishops to which they gave the church which is in every place which is come even to us From these citations it is evident that this Father doth express one and the same order of Episcopacy in all presbyters If any do use this evasion that he calls all those that were true bishops by the name of presbyters let them shew where he mentions presbyters of another order or makes two different orders of Episcopacy and Presbyterate Here I will take notice of the words of Irenaus concerning those Elders of the church mentioned Acts 20. lib. 3. c. 14. viz. In Miletum the bishops and presbyters which were from Ephesus and other the next Cities being convocated Tho it seems most reasonable by the Elders of the church there sent for by Paul to understand the elders of that particular church of Ephesus to which the Apostle then sent and indeed if they had been from other Cities also it would have said according to the Scripture way of expression the elders of the churches yet admitting what this Father saith hereof observe we that he speaks of bishops and presbyters as congregated in the meeting and he might mention two names of the same office And the Apostle speaks to all those presbyters that there convened as those whom the Holy Ghost had made bishops of the flock And suppose they were the bishops of Asia as some would have it yet it cannot be proved that they were any other than bishops of single Congregations or that they were such bishops as had subject presbyters of a lower order under them The Testimony of Clemens Alexandrinus He thus writes Stromat lib. 6. p. 667. He is really a presbyter of the church and a true Deacon of the will of God if he teach the things of the Lord not as ordained by men nor esteemed just because he is a presbyter but taken into the presbytery because he is just Here in the Church are progressions of bishops presbyters deacons imitations as I think of the Angelical glory and of the heavenly dispensation which the Scripture speaks they expect who treading in the footsteps of the Apostles have lived in the perfection of righteousness according to the Gospel These the Apostle writes being taken up into the clouds shall first be made deacons and then shall be taken into the presbytery according to the progress of glory Here this Father first mentions only two orders presbyters and deacons afterwards a progression of bishops presbyters and deacons as imitations of the heavenly dispensation but in the close applying the similitude to blessed men taken into heaven he makes the progress to be only in being first as deacons then as presbyters mentioning no higher order Hence I conceive may be inferred that he speaks of presbyters and deacons as of two different orders and of bishops but as a higher degree in the order of presbyters This also may be further confirmed Stromat lib. 7. p. 700. where distinguishing of a twofold 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or employment in secular affairs viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he saith that presbyters hold that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which makes men better and the deacons that which consists in service His meaning is that as in the Civil State there are two orders the one governing and the other ministring so there are likewise in the Church the Presbyters holding the one and the deacons the other These passages of this Author I thought fit to mention and have not found in him any more relating to the distinct ministers of the church The Testimony of Jerome This Father also speaks of presbyters as the same with bishops and successors of the Apostles On the Epistle to Titus c. 1. he saith As presbyters know that they are by the custom of the church subject to him that is set over them so let the bishops know that they are greater than presbyters rather by custom than by the verity of the Lords appointment He also testifies that they did and ought to rule the church in common and that imparity came in by little and little In his Epistle to Evagrius he shews that the presbyters of Alexandria from Mark till Heraclas and Dionysius had always one chosen out of them and placed in a higher degree and named bishop as if an Army made an Emperor and Deacons chose one whom they knew industrious and called him Arch-deacon Here he mentions no other making of bishops than by presbyters And that the presbyters made the bishop is an argument brought by him to prove the identity at first and afterwards the nearness of their power And he ascribes to presbyters the making of their bishop and placing him in a higher degree and naming him bishop And he distinguisheth the ancient way of making bishops by presbyters from that way of making them which followed the times of Heraclas and Dionysius which was by Episcopal ordination This evidence is confirmed by the testimony of Eutichius Patriarch of Alexandria who out of the Records and Traditions of that Church in his Arabick Originals saith according to Seldens Translation in his Commentary p. 29 30. That the presbyters laid hands on him whom they elected till the time of Alexander Patriarch of Alexandria for he forbad the presbyters any longer to create the Patriarch and decreed that the Patriarch being deceased bishops should
convene and ordain one to the Patriarchate and that they might chuse the Patriarch out of any Region Jerome as an Historian only mentions from the testimony of Eusebius some bishops made by the Apostles But who can prove that those bishops were of a higher order than Presbyters The Testimonies of other Ancients in the same point Cyprian lib. 3. Epist 9. Erasmus his Edit to Rogatianus The Deacons must remember that the Lord chose Apostles that is bishops and Praepositi but after the ascension of the Lord the Apostles made Deacons to themselves as ministers of their Episcopacy and the church Here are but two Orders mentioned 1. bishops and Praepositi who were as the Apostles 2. Deacons who are ministers to them and the church Id. lib. 1. Epist 11. to Pomponius When all ought to maintain discipline much more the Praepositi and the Deacons From this and the other place before cited it may plainly appear that there was no middle office between that of the Praepositi and the Deacons And all the Presbyters being Praepositi must needs be of the same Order with bishops that title importing the very nature of the bishops office Chrysostome on the first to Timothy consesseth that there is little or no difference between a bishop and a presbyter That a bishop had not a different ordination from a presbyter Ambrose shews on 1 Tim. c. 3. in these words Why after the bishop doth he come to the ordination of a deacon Why but because there is one ordination of a bishop and presbyter for either of them is a priest but the bishop is the first every bishop is a presbyter but every presbyter is not a bishop for he is a bishop who is first among the presbyters Here note that the difference lies in this that the bishop is the first among the Presbyters Vid. Sedulius on Tit. 1. Anselm of Canterbury on Phil. 1. Beda on Acts 20. Alcuinus de divinis officiis c. 35 36. all agreeing in this point § 7. Testimonies to prove That the Episcopal Authority is really in the Presbyters 1. THAT Presbyters have the power of the keys and that the Apostles received it as Presbyters is commonly agreed on all sides Mr. Thorndike in his form of primitive Government and Right of Churches p. 128. saith That the power of the keys that is the power of the Church whereof that power is the root and source is common to bishops and presbyters Bishop Morton in his Apology Dr. Field and many others say much more 2. Presbyters have the power of jurisdiction and discipline particularly of excommunication and absolution Spalatensis proves that the power of excommunication and absolution is not different from the power of the keys which is exercised in foro poenitentiali and is acknowledged to belong to presbyters L. 5 c. 9. n. 2. l. 5. c. 2. n. 48 c. Jerome in his Epistle to Heliodor saith If I sin a presbyter may deliver me to Satan In the Church of England a presbyter is set to pass the sentence of excommunication in the Chancellors Court tho he doth but speak the words when the Court bids him Tertullian in his Apology c. 59. saith that probati quique seniores all the approved Elders did exercise discipline in the Church Clemens Alexandrinus Strom. l. 7. saith that in the Church the presbyters keep that discipline which makes men better Irenaeus l. 4. c. 44. With the order of presbytery they keep the doctrine of the Apostles sound and their conversation without offence unto the information and correction of the rest This place shews that discipline for correction as well as doctrine for information did belong to the presbyters Epiphanius haeres 42. reports that Marcion was expell'd by the Roman presbyters the Sea being vacant Id Heres 47. That Noetus was convicted judged and expelled by a session of presbyters Many Diocesses have been long without bishops upon several occasions and governed all that time by presbyters Vid. Blondels Apol. sect 3. p. 183 184. The Church of England allows presbyters in the Convocation to make Canons Also it allows presbyters to keep persons from the Communion of the Church for some offences and to receive them again if they repent To say that the presbyters cannot exercise this power without the bishops consent doth not derogate from the truth of their power herein for in some ancient times it was so ordered that presbyters could perform â—o sacred ministrations without their bishop They might not baptize as hath been observed without the bishops command but that limitation respected only the exercise of the power but not the power in it self 3. Presbyters have power of ordaining Acts 13.1 2 3. The Church of Antioch had not many Prelates at that time if any but the prophets and teachers there are mentioned as Ordainers Whereas some say they were bishops of many Churches in Syria they speak without proof and against the text which saith there were in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers c. which clearly expresseth that they all belonged to that Church this right of presbyters is confirmed by the passages before cited concerning the ordaining and making the bishops of Alexandria by the presbyters of that Church Firmilian in Cyprian Ep. 75. saith of them that Rule in the Church that they have the power of baptizing of laying on of hands and ordaining and who they be he expressed a little before viz. Seniors and Praepositi by which the presbyters as well as the bishops are understood Foelicissimus was ordained a deacon by Novatus one of Cyprians presbyters schismatically yet his ordination was not nulled by Cyprian but he was deposed for mal-administration The first Council of Nice in their Epistle to the Church of Alexandria and all the Churches of Egypt Libia and Pentapolis thus determine concerning the presbyters ordained by Meletius Socrat. l. 1. c. 6. Let those that by the grace of God and helped by our prayers are found to have turned aside to no schism but have contained themselves within the bounds of the Catholick and Apostolick Church free from spot of error have authority of ordaining Ministers and also of nominating those that are worthy of the Clergy c. Now tho they had not this power granted them to be exercised apart without their bishop yet it is to be noted that they had the power tho the Bishop as president guided in all those acts The Author of the Comment on the Ephesians that goes under the name of Ambrose saith That in Egypt the presbyters ordain consignant if the bishop be not present Also Austin faith that in Alexandria and all Egypt if the bishop be wanting the presbyters consecrate Presbyters sent bishops into England and ordained bishops for England Bedes Hist l. 3. c. 4 5. The Abbot and other presbyters of the Island Hye sent Aydan c. at King Oswalds Request and this was the ordinary custom tho in respect of the custom
of the Empire it is said to be unusual That presbyters may ordain see Anselm on 1 Tim. 4.14 also Bucer Script Anglic. p. 254 255 259 291. The Lollards and Wickliefists in England held and practised ordination by meer presbyters Walsingham Hist Ang. An. 1389. so did the Lutheran protestants Bugenhagius Pomeranus a presbyter of Wittenberg ordained the Protestant bishops of Denmark in the presence of the King and Senate in the chief Church at Hafnia See Melchior Adam in the Life of Bugenhagius and Chytraeus Saxon Chronicle l. 14 15 16 17. Forbes in his Irenicum l. 2. c. 11. saith that presbyters have a share with bishops in the imposition of hands not only as consenting to the ordination but as ordainers with the bishop by a power received from the Lord and as praying for grace to be confer'd on the persons ordained by them and the bishop That the Ancients did argue from the power of baptizing to the power of ordaining is evident out of the Master lib. 4. distinct 25. 4. Presbyters with Bishops laid on hands for Restoring the excommunicate and blessing the people Cyprian Epist 12. Nor can any return to communion unless hands be laid upon him by the Bishop and Clergy Vid. also Ep. 9. 46. Id. l. 3. Ep. 14. Erasm Edit To the presbyters and deacons against some presbyters who had given the peace of the Church rashly to some of the lapsed with the knowledg of the Bishop In lesser offences sinners after a just time of penance and confession receive Right of Communication by the imposition of hands of the Bishop and Clergy Clemens Alexandrin paedag p. 248. speaking against women wearing other hair than their own saith On whom doth the presbyter lay hands whom doth he bless Not on the woman adorn'd but on anothers Hair and thereby on anothers Head § 8. Testimonies in reference to the Bishops Plea of being the Apostles Successors FOR the diversity of order between a bishop and a presbyter it is alledged That bishops are the Apostles successors which presbyters are not To this it is answered 1. The ancient Fathers make presbyters as well as bishops the successors of the Apostles Irenaeus lib. 4. c. 43 44. We must obey the presbyters that are in the Church even those that have succession from the Apostles who have received the certain gift of truth according to the pleasure of the Father with the succession of Episcopacy Here presbyters are said to have succession from the Apostles and to have succession of Episcopacy This cannot be evaded by saying he intended it only of presbyters of a superior order which are bishops for this is to beg the question and in this Father there is no footstep of any order of presbyters but what are bishops Cyprian l. 3. Ep. 9. The Deacons must remember that the Lord chose Apostles that is bishops and Praepositi but after the ascension of the Lord the Apostles made deacons to themselves as Ministers of their Episcopacy and the Church Now in the names of Bishops and Praepositi the presbyters are included as I have before made manifest And it is plain that in this place all in the sacred Ministry above Deacons are included in those names and called Apostles Jerome in his Epistle to Heliodor speaks in general that Clericks are said to sucreed the Apostolical degree The late form of Ordination in the Church of England viz. Receive the Holy Ghost whose sins thou dost forgive they are forgiven and whose sins thou dost retain they are retained and be thou a faithful dispenser c. is for the former part the very form of words used by our Saviour to his Apostles to express their Pastoral Authority and fully proves that the office of a presbyter is Pastoral and of the same nature with that which was ordinary in the Apostles and in which they had successors 2. Some conceive there is no proper succession to the Apostles whose office as to its formal state and specifick difference was extraordinary and expired with their persons And in proper speaking the ordinary Bishops or Elders cannot be reckoned the successors of the Apostles for they were contemporary with them in the first planting of the Churches and did by divine right receive and exercise their governing-power which the Apostles did not supercede by their presence tho it were under the regulation of their supereminent authority and the Bishops or Elders of all succeeding ages are properly the successors of those first bishops Bellarmine l. 4. de Pontif. c. 25. saith That bishops do not properly succeed the Apostles because the Apostles being not ordinary but extraordinary Pastors have no successors and that the Pope of Rome properly succeeds Peter not as an Apostle but as an ordinary pastor of the whole church 3. Whereas some say That the Order of bishops began in the Apostles and the order of presbyters in the seventy disciples it is answered 1. As concerning the bishops order when the Fathers speak of Apostles or Evangelists long residing in one church they did by way of similitude call them bishops thereof Reynolds against Hart saith That the Fathers when they term an Apostle the bishop of this or that City mean in a general way that he did attend that Church for the time and supply that room in preaching which the bishop afterwards did And not only the Apostles but itinerant Ministers or Evangelists were in such a general sence bishops of the places where they came Paul staid at or about Ephesus three years Acts 20.31 yet he was not bishop there in the strict and proper sense of the word James was either no bishop of Jerusalem or no Apostle but as many think another James 2. As concerning the order of inferior presbyters said to be instituted in the seventy disciples it is spoken without proof and against Reason Spalatensis saith those seventy had but a temporary commission and therefore that he cannot affirm that Presbyterial Order was directly and immediately instituted in them de Rep. Eccles l. 2. c. 3. n. 4. Saravia acknowledgeth that the seventy disciples were Evangelists de Minist Evang. grad c. 4. § 9. Testimonies concerning the Episcopacy of Timothy and Titus 1. TImothy was not a fixed bishop His travels we find upon sacred Record When Paul went from Beraea to Athens he left Silas and Timothy behind him Acts 17.14 Afterwards they coming to Paul at Athens Paul sent Timothy thence to Thessalonica to confirm the Christians there 1 Thes 3.6 An. C. 47. Thence he returned to Athens again and Paul sent him and Silas thence into Macedonia Acts 18.5 and thence they returned to Paul at Corinth An. 48. Afterwards they travel to Ephesus whence Paul sent Timothy and Erastus into Macedonia Acts 19.22 whither Paul went after them An. 51. from Macedonia they with divers brethren journied into Asia Acts 20.4 and come to Miletum where Paul sent to Ephesus to call the elders of the Church An. 53. Then Paul did
not leave Timothy as Bishop of Ephesus but took him with him in his journey to Jerusalem and so to Rome for those Epistles which Paul wrote while he was prisoner at Rome bear either in their inscription or some other passage the name of Timothy as Pauls companion viz. the Epistles to the Ephesians to the Philippians to the Colossians to the Hebrews and to Philemon Pauls beseeching of Timothy to abide still at Ephesus when he went into Macedonia 2 Tim. 1.3 had been needless if he were then a setled bishop there Besides it is granted that Timothy was not bishop of Ephesus when he was with Paul at Miletum yet that Church had then elders which the Holy Ghost had made Bishops Therefore it cannot be that Timothy was the first Bishop that ever Ephesus had which nevertheless is affirmed in the Postscript of the second epistle to Timothy Spalatensis lib. 2 c. 3. n. 60. saith That without doubt Timothy was a General bishop that is an Apostle tyed to no seat 2. Titus was no fixed Bishop His travels we likewise find upon sacred record Paul made him his companion in his journey to Jerusalem Gal. 2.1 An. 43 45. Paul returning to Antioch passed through Syria and Cilicia confirming the Churches Acts 15.41 from Cilicia he passed to Creet where having preached the Gospel and planted a Church he left Titus for a while to set in order the things that were left undone Tit. 1.5 An. 46. Paul injoins Titus to come to him to Nicopolis where he intended to Winter Tit. 3.12 an 51. but changing his purpose he sent for him to Ephesus where his Winter-station was 2 Cor. 1.8 thence he sent him to Corinth to enquire of the state of that Church His return from thence Paul expected at Troas and because there he sound not his expectation answered he was grieved in spirit 2 Cor. 2.12 Thence Paul passed into Macedonia where Titus met him and brought him the glad tidings of the gracions effect which his first Epistle had wrought among the Corinthians 2 Cor. 7.5 c. an 52. Paul having collected the liberality of the Saints sends Titus an 53. again to the Corinthians to prepare them for that contribution 2 Cor. 8.6 And we do not find that after his first removal from Creet he did ever return thither After this we read that Titus was with Paul at Rome and went thence not to Creet but to Dalmatia 2 Tim. 4.10 It is to be noted that after the time of Titus his being in Creet was the greatest part of his travels And if Titus did abide some years in Creet that doth not declare him to be a fixed bishop there for unfixed Ministers were not so obliged to perpetual motion but that they resided long in one place according to the work to be done there as Paul abode three years at Ephesus 3. Of Timothy and Titus jointly these following things may be observed In the New Testament there is no instance of a setled Overseer or Pastor whose motion was so planetary as theirs and there is no evidence that afterwards they return'd to reside at Ephesus or Creet it is granted by the assertors of their supposed Episcopacy that they were not bishops till after Pauls first being at Rome Now the first Epistle to Timothy and the Epistle to Titus were written by Paul before his first going to Rome and his second Epistle to Timothy was written at his first being at Rome Vid. Ludov. Capellus Histor Eccles p. 66 74. All that aver Timothy and Titus to be bishops borrow their testimony from Eusebius and all that he saith is only that it is so written and he had this story from the fabulous Clemont and from Egesippus who is not extant It is observed that Eusâ—bius Irenaeus and others delivered what they received too securely 4. Touching the Postscripts of the Epistles in which they are stiled bishops whether they be canonical or authentick proof let it be considered It cannot be imagined that Paul or his Pen-man would underwrite these wards viz. The first Epistle to Timothy was written c. and the second Epistle to Timotheus ordained the first bishop c. Did he know or mind that there would be a second epistle or bishop Or did he then intend that the first should be distinguished from the second by these words of distinction The first Epistle to Timothy Beza proves was not written from Laodicea but from Macedonia to which opinion Baronius and Serrarius subscribe And the name of Phrygia Pacatilana was not in use in Paul's time nor till the more declining time of the Roman Empire In the postscript of the second Epistle to Timothy these words ordained first bishop c. is not in many ancient Copies saith Beza nor in the Vulgar edition nor in the Syriack Interpreter The Epistle to Titus was not written from Nicopolis as the postscript saith for had Paul been there he would have said I have determined here not there to winter And whereas it faith the first bishop did Paul or his Penman mind the notifying of a succeeding bishop and the distinguishing of Titus from him in this Epistle Moreover bishop of the Church of the Cretians is not the stile of a bishop of a Diocess who hath some City and not a whole Region for his Sea Creet is said to have had a hundred Cities in it and Titus was directed by Paul to ordain elders or bishops in all those Cities that had Christians And the Scripture way of expression would be not the Church but the Churches of the cretians Church being used of a City with its adjacent Villages and Churches of a Region or Countrey of such a circuit as Creet was Thus there is good ground to think that the postscripts are of much later date than the Epistles themselves 5. The precepts given by Paul to Timothy and Titus are either such as concern all presbyters or such as are above the bishop of a particular church 1. Some precepts given them concern all presbyters To be instant in season and out of season belongs to all preachers of the Gospel As a bishop must be able to convince gainsayers so ought all presbyters The stopping of the mouths of subverters is by conviction and extends as well to doctrine as to definitive sentencing Mat. 22.34 and even definitive silencing was anciently by presbyters either alone or in conjunction with their bishops The authority given to Timothy That those who sin be rebuked before all belongs to presbyters and it is that which may be done by equals To lay hands suddenly on no man concerns presbyters to whom belongs the power of laying on of hands Nor doth this precept infer That a bishop hath power to ordain alone and it is granted that one bishop alone may not ordain a bishop Presbyters as well as bishops were concern'd in that precept of not receiving an accusation suddenly against any And in ancient times if a bishop or presbyter were accused the matter
was referred to a Synod consisting of bishops and presbyters Other precepts given them were above the proper work of a bishop of a particular Church To erect and govern Churches in a hundred Cities and to govern such presbyters who according to Dr. Hammond were bishops belonged not to an ordinary bishop of a particular Church Wherefore this latter sort of duties belonged to Timothy and Titus as Evangelists or General Ministers who had a kind of Vice-Apostolick office of which sort were Barnabas Silas Apollos Titus Timothy and Epaphroditus and others Ambrose on Eph. 4. saith they are stiled Evangelists who did Evangelizare sine Cathedra It often happened that those unfixed Officers resided for a longer time in some places and then they managed the affairs of those Churches in chief during the time of their residence § 10. Concerning the Angels of the Seven Churches in ASIA IT is much insisted on that these Angels were bishops of a superior Order to that of presbyters Whereupon let it be considered 1. That the title of Stars and Angels are not proper but figurative and mystical names made use of in a mystical book and that the said names are common to all ministers Gregory the Great l. 34. Mor. on Joâ— c. 4. saith that these Angels are the preachers of the Churches 2. That the name Angel may be taken collectively not individually Austins Homily on the Apoc on these words I will remove thy Candlestick saith that John calls the Church the Angel As the Civil state of the Pagano-Christian Empire is called the Beast and the Ecclesiastical state the Whore so Angel may signifie the whole Presbytery but put in the singular number to hold proportion to the seven stars which signifie the same thing and the seven Candlesticks In these Epistles to the Churches there are indications that not a single person but a company is represented under this name Rev. 2.10 16 24 25. 3. Beza saith that this Angel was only praeses Indeed he to whom the title of bishop was appropriated by the ancient Fathers was the President of the presbytery Ambrose on 1 Tim. c. 3. saith He is the bishop who is first among the presbyters This priority or presidency is in History observed to have begun first at Alexandria the people whereof above other men were given to schism and sedition as Socrates saith of them l 7. c. 13. If this presidency began at Alexandria upon the death of Mark it must needs be long before the death of John the Apostle Howbeit Clement in his Epistle to the Corinthians takes no notice of such a priority or presidency of one above the rest in that Church And Jerome having mentioned John as the last of the Apostles saith that afterwards one was set over the rest Now whereas Jerome called the imparity of bishops and presbyters an Apostolical tradition it is to be noted that with him an Apostolical tradition and Ecclesiastical custome are the same But the main thing still remains unproved for ought that is to be gathered from this title of Angel or from any thing contained in these Epistles to the Asian Churches namely that these Angels whatsoever they might be were bishops of a superior order than that of presbyters or that they had a superiority of jurisdiction over the presbyters or that they were bishops set over divers setled Churches or fixed Congregations with their Pastors or that they had the sole power of jurisdiction and ordination The main point in controversie is not Whether bishops but whether such as the present Diocesan bishops have continued from the Apostles times to this Age. The ancient bishop was the Officer of a particular Church not a general Officer of many Churches He was not a bishop of bishops that is he did not assume a power of ruling bishops who have their proper stated Churches Cypr. in Conc. Carth. saith None of us calls himself or makes himself to be a bishop of bishops or by tyrannical terror drives his Colleagues to a necessity of obeying The ancient bishop did not govern alone but in conjunction with the presbyters of his Church He did not and might not ordain without the Counsel of his Clergy Ignatius in his Epistle to the Trall saith What is the presbytery but the sacred Assembly of the Councellors and Confessors of the bishops Cyprian in his epistle to Cornelius wisheth him to read his Letters to the flourishing Clergy at Rome that did preside with him Id. l. 3. Ep. 14. Erasm Edit From the beginning of my Episcopacy I resolved to do nothing without your counsel and without the consent of my people 4. Conc. Carthag 23. The sentence of a bishop shall be void without the presence of his Clericks Concil Caâ—thag c. 22. Let not a bishop ordain Clericks without a Council of his Clericks The Present Ecclesiastical Government compared with the Ancient EPISCOPACY IT is commonly objected against the Nonconformists That they are enemies to Episcopacy and that they renounce the Ancient Government received in all the Churches The truth of this Objection may easily be believed by those that hear of Episcopal Government and consider only the name thereof which hath continued the same till now but not the thing signified by that name which is so changed that it is of another nature and kind from what was in the first Ages There be Nonconformists who think they are more for the Ancient Episcopacy than the Assertors of the present Hierarchy are and who believe they are able to make it evident may they be permitted Something to this purpose is here in a short Scheme tendered to consideration and proof is ready to be made of each particular here asserted touching the state and practice of the Ancient Church 1. IN the first ages a Political Church constituted as well for Government and Discipline as for Divine Worship was one particular Society of Christians having its proper and immediate bishop or bishops pastor or pastors In these times the lowest political Church is a Diocess usually consisting of many hundred parishes having according to the Hierarchical principle no bishop but the Diocesan Yet these parishes being stated ecclesiastical Societies having their proper pastors are really so many particular Churches 2. In the first Ages the bishops were bishops of one stated Ecclesiastical Society or particular Church But in the present age bishops that are of the lowest rank according to the Hierarchical principle are bishops of many hundred churches which kind of bishop the ancient churches did not know and which differs as much from the ancient bishop as the General of an Army from the Captain of a single Company 3. The bishop of the first Ages was a bishop over his own Church but he was not a bishop of bishops that is he was not a Ruler of the Pastors of other Churchs But the present bishop even of the lowest rank according to the Hierarchical principle is a bishop of bishops namely of the presbyters of
his Diocess who are the proper and immediate Pastors of their several Churches and really bishops according to the true import of that name and office as it is in Scripture 4. The Presbyters of the Church of England if they be not bishops are not of the same order with the presbyters mentioned in Scripture for all presbyters therein mentioned were bishops truly and properly so called Now if they be not of the same order with the Scripture presbyters they are not of divine but meerly humane institution but if it be acknowledged that they are of the same order as indeed they are why are they denied to be bishops of their respective Charges And why are they bereaved of the Episcopal or pastoral Authority therein 5. The bishops of the first Ages had no greater number of souls under their Episcopacy than of which they could take the personal oversight But the present bishops have commonly more souls under their Episcopacy than a hundred bishops can personally watch over The ordinary work of the ancient bishop was to preach give thanks administer the Eucharist pronounce the blessing and exercise discipline to the people under his charge But the bishops of the present age neither do nor can perform these ministries to the people that are under their charge 6. The ancient bishop did exercise his Episcopaâ—y personally and not by Delegates or Substitutes But the present bishop doth for the most part exercise it not personally but either by his Delegates who have no Episcopal authority of themselves but what they derive from him alone or by Substitutes whom he accounts no bishops 7. The ancient bishops did not govern alone but in conjunction with the presbyters of his Church he being the first presbyter and stiled the Brother and Colleague of the presbyters But the present bishop hath in himself alone the power of jurisdiction both over the Clergy and Laity 8. The ancient bishop did not and might not ordain Ministers without the counsel of his Clergy But the present bishop hath the sole power of ordination Tho some presbyters whom he shall think fit join with him in laying on of hands yet he alone hath the whole power of the act without their consent or counsel 9. To labour in the word and doctrine was anciently the most honourable part of the bishops work and it was constantly performed by him in his particular Church or Congregation But now preaching is not reckoned to be the ordinary work of a bishop and many bishops preach but rarely and extraordinarily 10. The ancient bishops were chosen by all the people at least not without their consent over whom they were to preside And when a bishop was to be ordained it was the ordinary course of the first ages for all the next bishops to assemble with the people for whom he was to be ordained and every one was acquainted with his conversation But the present bishops entrance into his office is by a far different way 11. Anciently there was a bishop with his Church in every City which had a competent number of Christians But in the later times many yea most Cities have not their proper bishops I mean bishops in the Hierarchical sense tho they be as large and populous as those that have It is to be noted that the manner was not anciently as now that a Church and its bishop did cause that to be called a City which otherwise would not be so called but any Town-corporate or Burrough was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a City according to the ancient use of the word 12. Because in the first ages the Christians of a City and its adjacent Villages did ordinarily make up but one competent Congregation There was commonly but one Church in a City and that City-church took in all the Christians of the adjacent Villages who were but one stated Society all the members whereof might have personal communion one with another But the dividing of the bishops Cure into such parts as are now called Parishes came not in till long after the Apostles times and when that division first took place they were but as Chappels of Ease to the City-church Here it is to be noted That till Constantine's time it cannot be proved that there were above four or five Churches in all the world that consisted of more people than one of 〈◊〉 parishes nor of half so many as some of them 13. In the beginning of Christianity Cities or Towns were judged the â—ittest places for the constituting of Churches because in them the materials of a Church to wit believers were most numerous and in them was the greatest opportunity of making â—ore Converts with other advantages which the Villages did not afford Yet when the number of Christians encreased in a Region Churches having their proper Bishops were constituted in Villages or places that were not Cities one proof whereof is in the Chorepiscopi who were bishops distinct from ordinary presbyters Thus it was in the first ages But in the following times when the worldly grandure of Episcopacy was rising decâ—â—ed were made that bishops might not be ordained in Villages or small Cities lest the name and authority of a bishop should â—e contemptible 14. Tho it hath been decreed by Councils That there be but one bishop in a city and the custom hath generally prevailed yet there in manifold proof that in the first ages more bishops than one were allowed at once in the same city yea in the same church Indeed the Ecclesiastical Historians now extant being comparatively but of later ages and having respect to the government of their own times set down the succession of the ancient bishops by single persons whereas several bishops presiding at the same time the surviving and most noted Colleague was reckoned the Successor 15. The ancient bishops exercised discipline in a spiritual manner by the sword of the Spirit which is the word of God and by arguments deduced from it sought to convince the judgment and awe the conscience according to the true nature of Ecclesiastical discipline But the present bishops have their Courts which are managed like Secular Courts to compel men to an outward observance of their decrees by the dread of temporal penalties annexed to excommunication 16. The present bishops say of their Church-government that without secular force none would regard it But the ancient bishops thought it a reproach to Christs discipline to declare to the world that it is a powerless thing of it self and insufficient to obtain 〈…〉 unless the temporal sword inforce it 17. The Episcopal or Pastoral authority is now commonly exercised by a Lay-chancellor and tho an ordinary priest be present in the Court to speak the words of excommunication yet the Chancellor as Judg decrees it And excommunications and absolutions pass in the bishops name and authority when he never had the hearing of the cause but anciently it was not so In this case I enquire Whether Christ hath authorised any
the forms of sacred administrations but also all the Rubricks together with the Calender and Tables and every part thereof comes within the compass of this declaration As concerning the import of the assent and consent to be given thereunto I take it unquestionably to signifie according to the genuine sense of the words our approbation or allowance of the use of all things as aforesaid and not meerly to bind us for peace sake not to oppose them Wherefore if the use of any one thing great or small therein comprehended be not allowable there is just ground of refusing this declaration Assent and consent to the use of all things supposeth that all are lawful it supposeth also that all things are so far fit to be used as to have no such evil consequence as may justly forbid their use it supposeth also that the whole and every part of this book is so far true as to have no errors which doth entrench upon the Christian Faith or hath bad influence on mens lives I think I may comply for charity and peace sake in the use of indifferent things of no hurtful tendency tho they be unuseful or unprofitable yet I query whether I may declare my unfeigned assent and consent to the use of those unuseful or unprofitable things or to the using of them instead of things useful and profitable I think some little errors and untruths of inconsiderable consequence such as little mis translations or misapplications of Scripture-phrase may be tolerated in the service of God yet I query whether I may declare such assent and consent to all and every thing as doth express a justifying of those little errors and untruths or an allowing of the retained use of them My bare using of them necessarily signifies no more than that I judg them to be tolerable but my declaring consent to the required use of them signifies that I judg them to be allowable I think I may joyn in a prayer as it is sound and good for the substance tho it hath some little error doctrinal or historical couched in it yet I query whether I may personally use or consent â—o the use of such error I query whether I may declare unfeigned assent and consent to the use of things in themselves indifferent if I heartily wish they were not used in regard of inconveniences or offences arising from them I query also Whether I may declare my assent and consent to the use of a Rubrick being an injunction if I disallow the injoining of the thing prescribed in it and in consenting to a rule or law as such I consent not only to the doing of the thing prescribed but to the prescribing or enjoining thereof Forasmuch as I am not sufficiently clear whether the words unfeigned assent and consent do import only an acknowledgment of the things as simply lawful and passable or besides this an approbation thereof as laudable and desirable I do here in some particulars resolve diversly according to the different supposition of the higher or lower meaning of the said words Of the Second Article of Subscription required by the Thirty sixth Canon THo the declaration of assent and consent be restrained to the use of things yet it doth not appear that the subscription required by the Thirty-sixth Canon is so restrained For these words thereof That the Book of Common-prayer and of ordering Bishops Priests and Deacons contains nothing contrary to the word of God seem plainly comprehensive as well of things asserted as of things to be done or used and the truth of the one sort seems to be acknowledged as well as the use of the other sort to be allowed And to say That nothing therein is contrary to the word of God seems to me as much as to say that all things therein are agreeable to the word of God The word of God is the Rule by which all things in the Liturgy ought to be regulated Now for a thing that is under a Rule to be not contrary to the Rule is all one as to be agreeable thereunto Any moral act not contrary to Gods Law is agreeable to it and what is not agreeable to it is contrary to it Here followeth a Consideration of divers particulars contained in the Liturgy Of the Order how the Holy Scripture is appointed to be read I Do not think it in it self unlawful or utterly unfit that some Apocryphal Chapters should be read in the Church But I question whether I may consent to the use of the Calendar and Tables so far as they direct to the reading of Apocryphal Chapters in the same place and under the same title with Canonical Chapters also to the reading of the proper lessons tho apocryphal rather than the lessons in the ordinary course tho canonical I grant that the Church in her Articles of Religion doth sufficiently distinguish between the Canonical and Apocryphal Books nevertheless the aforesaid use of the Apocryphal Chapters in the liturgy without any distinction of the Canonical there given may tempt the Vulgar to take them for Gods word It is to be noted that in the order of reading the lessons the title of holy Scripture and Old Testament is given to the Apocrypha I am more concerned to know whether there be no sufficient objection against the matter of any of the Apocryphal Chapters appointed to be read which may prove them not fit to be used in Divine service Judith c. 9. approveth the fact of Simeon against the Sichemites as performed by divine assistance and approbation and desires the like assistance in her enterprize Chap. 10. and C. 11. she speaks things untrue In defence of the prescribed use of these Chapters it is said that these things are related historically and not for imitation as many things are in the Canonical Scripture Such as were Elijah's intercession against Israel and both his and Jonah's passionate desire of death But this doth not satisfie for those unwarrantable passages which in Canonical Scripture are related historically are sufficiently signified to be unwarrantable as in particular those speeches of Elijah and Jonah are plainly notified to be their weaknesses But the aforesaid passages in Judith seem to be recorded in way of approbation being deliberate in a solemn prayer for success in an enterprize and she expresly prays for success in her deceit and nothing of the disallowance of these things is intimated in that story I ask Whether the reading hereof as a holy lesson doth not tend to the imboldning of men in such undertakings and at least whether it hath not the appearance of evil from which we ought to abstain by the Apostles precept I might further object That there is little evidence of the Historical truth of this Book But on this I insist not Tob. 5.12 The Angel Raphael is brought in telling a falshood in express terms viz. that he was Azarias the son of Ananias the great of Tobits brethren Tho this fift chapter be left out of the
the close So that in all things as aforesaid the Vnity in Trinity and the Trinity in Vnity is to be worshipped He therefore that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity What less than the whole doctrine aforegoing can the said words in all things as aforesaid refer to For ought doth appear no one part of the doctrine or explication is made more necessary to be believed than another Besides in the Nicene Creed in the doctrine of the Person of Christ why may not the summary thereof expressed in these words and in one Lord Jesus Christ the only begotten Son of God be distinguished in like manner from the following explicatory words begotten of the Father before all worlds God of God light of light c. as if the one but not the other were thereby intended as necessary to be believed Moreover if the sense of this Creed in the said Assertions be not to exclude from salvation all such as do not so distinctly know nor so explicitely believe concerning the doctrine of the Trinity as its sets forth in the explication thereof yet certainly it can be taken for no less than the excluding of such as apprehend and believe in any point contrary thereto which is the case of the Greek Church in denying the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son Admit the said Assertions are to be restrained to those that believe not as is expressed only in the summary of the doctrine I then make this query Whether none of those who being of very low capacities do not distinctly apprehend and explicitely believe one God in Trinity and Trinity in Unity so as in their apprehensions neither to confound the persons nor divide the substance can truly and savingly fear God and believe in Christ Here let it be no offence to make the following Queries 1. Whether it be certain by the word of God that all those of the Christian profession whose apprehensions of the Trinity were not fully conformable to the Faith of the Homousians as the Orthodox were called in those times did perish everlastingly 2. Whether it be certain by the Word of God that all those who so apprehended of the union of the natures in Christ as was exprest either by the Nestorians or Eutychians did perish everlastingly Furthermore I enquire Whether it be certain by the Word of God That all Pagans who have lived since the times of Christianity and to whom the Gospel was never published are damned In the aforesaid Assertions the form of words being unlimited and universal seems to import so much Now the case of such who live in meer negative infidelity being without the revelation of the Gospel is different from theirs who by wilful perverseness overthrow the Faith against the evidence of that Divine testimony in the Holy Scripture which they profess to believe Without doubt none of the whole stock of Mankind can be saved but through the Redeemer Jesus Christ But it is not so certain that all are damned who live and dye without the knowledg of Redemption by him I certainly know That without holiness no man shall see the Lord and that no man can be holy without the sanctifying operation of the Holy Spirit But that none of them are sanctified who are without the knowledg of Christ and his Gospel is not so evidently and certainly known to me either from Scripture or Reason The sum of the matter is That I am afraid in the solemn rehearsal of a Creed in the midst of Divine Service to adjudg those to eternal damnation that are not so adjudged by the word of God yet I heartily and entirely assent to the doctrine of the Trinity and of the Incarnation of Christ according to the explication thereof as set forth in this Creed and I would not give my suffrage that any should be allowed in the publick Ministry who holds in any point contrary to the said doctrine Of the LITANY THE manner of the composure of the Litany and more especially that the formally petitioning words are in great part uttered by the people only I judg not so inconvenient but that I may comply therewith yet I had much rather and do heartily wish that it were otherwise framed Now I enquire Whether being thus minded I may justly declare my unfeigned consent to the use thereof Of the COLLECTS c. IN the Collect for Christmas-day these words And as at this time to be born are to be considered That our Saviour was born on or about the 25th of December is a matter of great uncertainty and little probability and contrary to the most rational Chronology It is therefore questioned whether the said words may be statedly used in a solemn prayer of the Church Tho this be a small matter yet the question is VVhether one may declare an assent and consent to the use of it while he doth not believe it to be true Of the Order for the Ministration of the Holy Communion IT is liable to exception That a great part of the Communion Service as it is called which makes a great part of the Morning-prayer for the Lords day is appointed to be read at the Communion-Table when there is no administration of the Sacrament If the declared consent hereunto import no more than that it may be complyed with in submission to authority I shall not refuse it In the Fourth Commandment it is appointed to be read The Lord blessed the Seventh day instead of the Lord blessed the Sabbath-day It may well be questioned whether one may consent to the changing of God own Words in this Commandment into other words of mans chusing But if the declared consent respect not the changing of one word for another but only the simple using of that word which stands in the Liturgy I shall not utterly refuse it seeing it hath nothing that is false or evil nor any so considerable inconvenience that I discern as to necessitate to a non-compliance Yet I dislike the retaining of it In the Exhortation preparatory to the Sacrament it is declared That it is requisite that no man should come to the Holy Communion but with a full trust in Gods Mercy and quiet conscience Here it is said not only that it is a duty to be so qualified in coming but that it is requisite that no man should come but so qualified This seems to mean that the said qualification is so necessary that none may lawfully come without it It is hereupon to be considered whether a godly Christian under doubts and fears touching his own estate towards God and apprehensive of Gods displeasure towards him may not have that Grace which may enable him to come acceptably to this Sacrament Tho I do not scruple the lawfulness of kneeling in the act of receiving the Sacramental Bread and Wine yet it is hard to consent to a Rule that debars from the Lords Supper all Christians who through unfeigned scruple of conscience refuse this gesture especially considering
give thee hearty thanks for that it hath pleased thee to deliver this our Brother out of the miseries of this sinful World Also that when we shall depart this Life we may rest in him as our Hope is this our Brother doth are to be used at the interment of all persons whatsoever but such as dye unbaptized or excommunicate or have laid violent hands on themselves But multitudes that are not here accepted dye in notorious sin and give no credible evidence of their repentance Tho we be not infallibly certain that such notorious sinners and in all appearance impenitent to the last are damned yet it may be questioned whether there be ground of hope for their being saved and whether they may be owned as Brethren that rest in Christ and whom God of his great mercy hath taken to himself and on whose behalf we ought to give thanks to God that he hath taken them out of the miseries of this life It may also be questioned Whether it be of safe or dangerous tendency for the Church in her publick Leturgy solemnly to declare all this at their interment Tho the words in sure and certain hope of the Resurrection to eternal Life be to be understood of the Resurrection in general and not of the Resurrection of the deceased party yet the very committing of his Body to the ground in sure and certain Hope of the Resurrection to eternal Life in general doth imply some degree of grounded hope of his part in that Resurrection or else the said words seem to be used impertinently Whereas it is said There is some degree of Hope where we cannot determine the contrary I answer that this which is called a degree of Hope is a meer negative or nothing and signifies no more than that we are not infallibly sure of mens final Impenitence and Damnation This is not properly any degree of Hope nor doth it include any Judgment made of the party it being a meer negative And here no Judgment of Charity is included because here is no ground thereof supposed It doth not satisfie to say That the Church supposeth all who dye in her Communion to be hopeful because this supposeth and requireth the due exercise of discipline in the Church Now we see that discipline is not so exercised but that multitudes in whom no credible or hopeful evidence of repentance doth appear dye in her Communion And this omission of discipline is constant general and uncontrolled It is granted that dying-impenitents do not go immediately into the power of the Devil but first into the hands of the great God to be disposed of by him according to the conditions of the Gospel-Covenant which flow from a grant of mercy Nevertheless we know that the Law of Grace and Mercy finally abused and violated doth contain a Denunciation of the greatest Wrath and Vengeance And it seems very improper to say of one whom God hath taken into his own hands to adjudg to everlasting punishment for the final violation and contempt of the Covenant of Grace That God hath taken him to his mercy or unto himself of his great Mercy because he judgeth and condemneth him for violating the Law of Mercy Besides what mortal man certainly knows whether the Judgment and Execution immediately after Death be not the same thing Some geneneral Observations upon the Book of Common-Prayer ACcording to the Tenor of this Book every person in the external Communion of the Church is set forth as godly or regenerate when multitudes in the said Communion are palpably unregenerate and ungodly This appears by several important passages already noted touching every person baptized confirmed interred c. and by these further Instances In the order of Matrimony for every Married couple this form is to be said O Lord save thy Servant and thy Handmaid who put their trust in thee and the like for every Sick person that is visited by the Priest and for every Woman that is Churched It is likewise recommended as convenient that the new married Persons should receive the Holy Communion at the time of their Marriage or at the first opportunity after their Marriage which seems to suppose that all persons who may lawfully be married are fit to receive the Sacrament of Christs Body and Blood The Objection here made is not against the applying of the aforesaid or the like form of words or the vouchsafing of the aforesaid Priviledge of the Holy Sacrament to those that give any credible evidence of their faith and repentance but that it is done to all indifferently whatsoever their state towards God appears to be Indeed the Church may be called Holy as the Apostles writing to the Churches give them the stile of Saints and those that are sanctified and holy Brethren and the like But the query is Wherther they would or we may account every Parishioner who is not excommunicate in this present way of Church-Government to be penitent and believing and holy and wether we may use towards every particular Parishioner such forms of words as import their unfeigned faith notwithstanding a manifest appearance of impenitence and ungodliness If the omission of things most necessary in some main parts of the Liturgy be a just ground of not declaring an unfeigned assent and consent to the forms as there prescribed I may urge that in the general Confession there is no mention of Original sin As for those words the devices and desires of our own hearts they denote actual sins of the heart And that clause There is no health in us betokens there is no Salvation or Deliverance in our selves Or if it were designed in this place to fignify Original sin it is a very obscure expression thereof This Omission is the more liable to exception if it be upon these Principles and Suppositions that all who are in the external Communion of the Church are regenerate that all baptized Persons yea or all baptized in Infancy whether they be the Children of the promise or not are delivered from the guilt of Original sin Or that no reliques of Original sin which are truly and properly sin remain in the regenerate It may be likewise urged that in the said Confession there is no sufficient expressing of actual sins in particular and that the Morning and Evening-prayer mostly consists of meer generals without such particular Confession of sins and Petition for spiritual Graces as is requisite to be made on the behalf of the whole Congregation There may be indeed particular Confessions and Petitions proper for particular Persons which are not here intended But there are others of common concernment and necessity to all Christians And my query is Whether this sort may be statedly omitted in a publick Liturgy Of the form of ordering Bishops Priests and Deacons IN the Preface it is said That it is evident to all men diligently reading the holy Scriptures and ancient Authors That from the Apostles time there have been these Orders of Ministers in
Christs Church Bishops Priests and Deacons Between the Orders of bishops and deacons there is unquestionably an essential difference But if by the orders of bishops and priests be meant several Orders or Offices specifically or essentially different and not several degrees of superiority and inferiority in the same office the essential nature whereof is in both I cannot by subscription declare that the said assertion is not contrary to the word of God Upon diligent reading of the Holy Scripture I cannot find therein the office or order of a presbyter that is no bishop Nor can I consent to this passage in the said Preface No man shall be accounted or taken for a lawful Priest or be suffered to execute the function except he be called according to this form or hath had formerly Episcopal Ordination I am no way satisfied in the disabling or degrading of so many Ministers as are ordained only by Presbyters Of the promissory part of the second Article of Subscription in these words That he himself will use the form in the said book prescribed in publick prayer and administration of Sacraments d n one other Can. 36. THE last words and none other taken in their most obvivious sense seem to exclude all other form of prayer used by the Minister before or after Sermon whether conceived at the present or precomposed For prayer before and after Sermon is publick prayer Now it is expresly promised by the Subscriber that he will use no other form in publick prayer than what is prescribed in the said book I know many Conformists do practise otherwise than is here expressed But I know also that some do urge this and another Canon against their practise and I now enquire into the plain force of the words which ought to be regarded by a considerate Subscriber I suppose it will be granted by all That the Church intends hereby to engage against using any other form whatsoever in the administration of Sacraments and thereupon one would think that she intended hereby to engage also against using any other form whatsoever in publick prayer seeing in the words of the promise the engagement against the use of any other form both in publick prayer and administration of Sacraments is alike expressed If any sufficient reason or good warrant can be produced for restraining the words to the excluding only of the use of any other publick Liturgy as for example the Mass-book or of any other publick Directory of Worship instead of the Common-prayer nevertheless it were to be wished that men might not be enjoined to make a promise in those words which in their plain sense do express an engagement which is not thereby intended I have considered many particulars which come within the compass of the Declaration of unfeigned assent and consent injoined by the Act of Uniformity and the Subscription required by the Thirty sixth Canon In all which my desire and design is not to disaffect any persons to the Book of Common prayer but to receive satisfaction if it may be had concerning the things wherein I am dissatisfied For I own the said form of worship to be in the main sound and good for the matter of it and I sincerely join with the Congregation in the same tho I take it to be less perfect than is to be desired It is not therefore the use of a Liturgy in the publick Worship of God nor the reading of the Common-prayer in the ordinary daily service that makes me a Nonconformist But the high strain of the Declaration and Subscription and the strict observation of all things prescribed are difficulties which I cannot overcome This consideration of the present state of Conformity hath proceeded according to the limited sense of the Declaration as restrained to the use of things which being a probable limitation I have willingly admitted for peace sake But there be those who will not allow it saying that the true intendment of the said Declaration is to be taken from the plain signification of the form of words wherein it is expressed which is no less than a full justification of all things whatsoever contained and prescribed in and by the Book of Common-prayer c. as right and good I confess I am not able with a judgment of certainty to determine which of these two explications doth truly and rightly expound the full intendment of this Declaration And tho I have admitted the more restrained meaning thereof as probable yet the truth is I have not found that it doth any great matter to make the way of Conformity easie or passable as appears by the foregoing examination of many things contained and prescribed in the Liturgy But if the other opinion of the more comprehensive meaning be true the way is yet more difficult for then the Declaration doth imply an acknowledgment of the truth of all assertions any where contained in this Book also of the truth lawfulness and goodness of all expressions not only in the divine Service it self but in all the directing-Rules viz. Rubricks Calendar and Tables also of the lawfulness and fitness not only of the use of things injoined but of the very injunction or imposition the said directing Rules being so many injunctions strictly requiring us to observe the things prescribed in them But as I have before observed if the sense of the Declaration be restrained to the use of things it doth not appear that the injoined Subscription is to be so restrained As I have said I consent to the use of the Common-prayer as a tolerable Form of Worship but that doth not imply my allowing of all and every thing therein contained Upon the review of the whole matter let it be impartially considered whether a Declaration of so high a strain about a book of meer humane and fallible composition containing in it many hundreds of propositions and consequences should be so rigorously exacted If some recognition in this kind be thought necessary it were to be desired that it might be contrived in a form of words less p rplexing and ensnaring yet sufficiently engaging Of the Renouncing of the Obligation of the COVENANT Required by the Act of Vniformity THis Covenant was not meerly a League between men confirmed by an Oath but a Vow to God of several things directly respecting him And tho its intent were to engage men one to another yet that was not the whole nor chief intent thereof but its chief intendment was to engage all the Covenanters jointly to God Howsoever it be called an Oath yet so far as it is an Oath of things which directly and immediately respect God or that are to be performed towards him it hath the nature of a Vow To invalidate the Obligation of an Oath or Vow made to God is a thing of a high nature and had need to be done with a clear judgment One point of this Oath or Vow was to endeavour Church-Reformation according to our Places and Callings And no Reformation
such as the Popish Whippings or such as some of the Ancients with pious intention but superstitiously used as perpetual abiding on the top of a Pillar never to sleep but standing c. And there are Austerities inconvenient for measure by excess in that which is for kind sutable and comely as immoderate Abstinences and Abasements all such being to be rejected come not into the present consideration But the query is Whether allowable Austerities may be not only adjuncts but also acts or matter of Worship Humiliation or Prostration of soul in self abasement before God is an act of internal Worship And I do not see but the Austerities we now speak of may be lawfully used as direct and immediate signs of such humiliation and consequently as acts of Worship Whatsoever is directly and immediately expressive of internal Worship is external Worship And so fasting and other abstinences may be esteemed not only as fit adjuncts of Worship and helps therein but acts thereof Vows of the aforesaid allowable Austerities to be continued in for term of life or notable length of time are dangerous and apt to insnare the Consciences and if a special religious state be placed in them more than what belongs to Christianity as such they are Superstition and Will-worship MATRIMONIAL PVRITY § 1. MArriage is the Bond of an individual Conjunction between Man and Woman instituted of God to an individual Conversation or Course of Life This Bond cannot be dissolved by man because it is not man but God that makes it tho the Married parties voluntarily enter into it and publick Officers instrumentally authorize their Act according to Gods Law Hence it is said Whom God hath joyned let no man put asunder But this Rule puts no bar to Gods right of dissolving this Bond by an Act of his Law upon causes therein declared § 1. By the Church of Rome Matrimony is held a Sacrament upon this ground That God hath consecrated it to be a Symbol of the indissoluble Conjunction of Christ with the Church and of Grace to be conferred upon those that enter into it Indeed it is used in Scripture as a similitude to express or illustrate the Mystical Union betwixt Christ and his Church But every similitude used in Scripture to express a holy Mystery as that of the Vine and Branches to express the Union between Christ and the faithful doth not thereby become a consecrated Symbol thereof with a promise of Grace annexed to it as so consecrated Nevertheless tho Matrimony be not an instituted Symbol of Divine Grace yet Grace suitable to this state of Life is promised to the faithful and this state as all other things is sanctified by the word of God and prayer unto those holy ends which God hath designed in it § 3. The Causes for which Matrimony was ordained are excellently set by the Church of England in these words First It was ordained for the Procreation of Children to be brought up in the fear and nurture of the Lord and to the praise of his holy Name Secondly it was ordained for a remedy against sin and to avoid Fornication that such as have not the gift of continency might Marry and keep themselves undefiled Members of Christs Body Thirdly It was ordained for the mutual Society help and comfort that the one ought to have of the other both in prosperity and adversity It belongs to the substance of Matrimony that the Man and the Woman give and take the power of their bodies mutually unto the conjugal due called benevolence 1 Cor. 7.3 4. And they are so equal in the matter of Wedlock that both of them are both superior and inferior in asking and rendering the said due Hence it is a resolved case That sterillity is not an impediment of Marriage because tho the primary end which is Procreation be thereby hindred yet the secondary end to be a remedy against sin which is also of Gods ordaining is obtained But Frigidity or total Impotency is a just impediment because in that case both the primary and secondary end of Marriage is made void and the essential due thereof cannot be rendered § 4. As concerning the ancient Polygamy or plurality of Wives at once some conceive that it was only by Divine connivence and that it was a sinful practice which God winked at Others conceive that it was by Divine dispensation and that the law of the Conjunction of one Man and one Woman was most consentaneous to nature but that it was not in nature immutable and indispensable but such as might be changed the state of things and persons being changed yet then not to be changed but by his authority from whom all the Laws of nature do proceed But whether Polygamy were allowed or only winked at it appears to be wholly disallowed by the Law of Christ and was never as yet admitted in any Christian Commonwealth If according to the words of Christ a Man putting away his Wife and Marrying another commiteth Adultery much more doth he commit Adutery if keeping the former Wife he Marry another The Concubines mentioned in the Old-Testament were not as in our days unmarried but properly Wives tho in respect of some Matrimonial Priviledges inferior to Wives strictly so called For their carnal Conjunction with any besides him whose they were was a defiling of the Marriage-bed Concerning Reuben who lay with Bilhah Jacobs Concubine this is denounced Thou shalt not excel because thou wentest up to thy Fathers bed then defiledst thou it Gen. 49.4 § 5. As concerning the honour of Matrimony it is written Heb. 13.4 Marriage is honourable among all men and the bed undefiled but Whoremongers and Adulterers God will judg This is the law of Christ On the contrary the hypocrisie and the countefeit sanctity of those lyars who were to bring in the great Apostacy upon the Christian Church is foretold to consist among other things in forbidding to Marry 1 Tim. 4.3 And the prohibition of it to divers orders of men and other unjust restrictions laid upon it are one kind of the forbidding to Marry intended in that prediction The wisest and most civilized Commonwealths that were not Christians have testified their great respect to Marriage by encouraging it with many Priviledges as more conducing to the publick good than the single Life By the Roman Laws in times of Gentilism Marriage was priviledged and the single Life disadvantaged § 6. The debasing of Matrimony came in with the degeneracy of the Church Quickly after the Apostles age Christians departed from the simplicity that is in Christ by devising rules of Life which Christ required not and built upon the precious foundation which had been laid Wood Hay and Stubble And the Devotion both of men and women was carried forth to a self-devised religiousness yet the essentials of Christianity were preserved sound Accordingly many of the Fathers of the Church extolled Celibate and Virginity with excessive praises and thought of Marriage as of a state
is undeniable and witnessed by the common sense of human nature that since the Fall a shameful turpitude doth inseperably adhere to this act And this is a natural intimation to mankind of their vicious propagation in their fallen state I mean in respect of original sin and a manifest sign of the common viciousness and brutishness in this case as also of the impotence of passion or sensual commotion to which all are obnoxious herein and ordinarily more than in other sensualities if it be not carefully brought under the due governnance of reason Wherefore that Cynical impudence which some are reported to have acted herein is to be abhorred of all men And even Human much more Christian modesty requires the greatest reservedness herein Nevertheless this inseparably adhering turpitude is not always and directly or of it self a sinfulness That there is a natural where there is not a sinful turpitude many instances do shew That many things just and honest and necessary have a kind of shamefulness in them is acknowledged by men in general If in the present instance there be always some sinfulness it is no other than what is found in all the good acts of men in this their imperfect state And those acts are not counted nor called sins by reason of such adhering sinfulness for that they are prevalently tho not perfectly good and virtuous § 12. Continence in single life is not a common but a special giâ—t which all have not received Mat. 19 10 11. When the Disciples said If the case of a man be so with his Wife it is good not to marry Our Saviour answered All men cannot receive this saying save they to whom it is given And v. 12. He that is able to receive it let him receive it The Apostle saith 2 Cor. 7.7 I would that every man were even as my self but every man hath his proper gift of God one after this manner another after that And of the unmarried and Widows he speaks If they cannot contain let them marry This shews that all have not that singular gift from God to preserve themselves in pureness of body and spirit without the remedy of Marriage And nothing can be produced from Scripture or Reason to argue that the bare want of the said singular gift is a sinful incontinence The general impetus of nature to the conjunction of Male and Female is necessary to the perpetuating of mankind And if it were not so generally implanted in nature there is reason to think that considering the many great intanglements and molestations that accompany Marriage many would not encumber themselves therewith and so would refuse to serve the Providence of God in the successive Generations of men upon Earth in that regular way of Procreation which he hath appointed for mankind from the beginning And who knows but in the state of Innocence as there might be vehement Hunger and Thirst so there might be an impetus of Nature to this conjuction I suppose that in the state of innocence the motions of the sensitive appetite would not be raised and laid immediately at the call of the rational appetite but from the sensitive nature it self as the immediate source and spring from which they issue and to which they return Yet I firmly hold that in that state the said motions were so perfectly under the government of the rational appetite doing its Office as thereby to be always diverted from whatsoever would be dishonest But I think that that good government must have been maintained by prudence and diligence not indeed with trouble and difficulty as now it is but with a pleasant and facile industry In case of Hunger and Thirst Innocent nature might admit a simple motion of sense to Eat and Drink in a time unseasonable for such an act but Reason and the rational appetite would so bridle it that no irregular act of Mind or Body should follow § 13. In the want of the gift of continence legitimate Matrimony is the remedy appointed of God 1 Cor. 7.1 It is good for a man not to touch Woman Nevertheless to avoid Fornication let every Man have his own Wife and every Woman her own Husband The meaning whereof is Tho in divers respects it be more convenient to be unmarried yet there is one respect of greater moment which commands the use thereof viz. to avoid Fornication And vers 9. It is better to Marry than to burn God doth not give to all to overcome the inordinacy of carnal desire without Marriage where it may be duly had and such as cannot otherwise overcome the said inordinacy must Marry if they can to keep themselves pure in Body and Mind or as 't is expressed in the Liturgy undefiled Members of Christs Body § 14. They who are unavoidably kept from Marriage or being in Wedlock are dâ—pâ—ived of conjugal imbraces by their yoke-fellows infirmities or necessary absence must rely upon God for strength to repress inordinate motions and to keep themselves in that purity of heart and life which is acceptable to him For the necessary help of his Grace is never wanting to those that use his means and keep within the bounds which he hath set God will not have his order broken nor his universal perpetual law transgressed such as the Law of Marriage is to satisfie mens natural desires But when they are debarred of Gods appointed remedy or when they have used it but are by his providence frustrated of the benefit thereof they must not transgress the limits which he hath set them but they must have patience and strive against nature and expect such relief from Gods Grace as shall be sufficient for them § 15. To be regulated by those Laws which God hath set in Nature and Scripture is mans uprightness but to depart from them to self-devised ways is his sin and folly under a shew of Wisdom and by pleasing himself therein he deviates more and more from the right way The general admiring of Monkery and Vows of single Life hath as much contributed to the corruption of the Christian Religion and the advancing of the Antichristian Impurity and Superstition as any institution or custom that ever was taken up in the Christian Church Howbeit some may be called to single Life for Religions sake according to the Words of our Saviour Matt. 19.12 There he Eunuchs which have made themselves Eunuchs for the kingdom of Heavens sake He that is able to receive it let him receive it Such as clearly know they have received the gift above mentioned may be called of God to single Life to imploy themselves more freely in serving God either in a publick or private calling All that are so gifted are not hereunto called because many of them may be required to glorifie God and do good in a Married state either in respect of their own Families or the Commonwealth But in regard there be few comparatively who have received this gift it is most rationally supposed that they