Selected quad for the lemma: power_n

Word A Word B Word C Word D Occurrence Frequency Band MI MI Band Prominent
power_n bishop_n call_v presbyter_n 3,415 5 10.3134 5 false
View all documents for the selected quad

Text snippets containing the quad

ID Title Author Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) STC Words Pages
A41330 The questions between the conformist and nonconformist, truly stated, and briefly discussed Dr. Falkner, The friendly debate &c., examined and answered : together with a discourse about separation, and some animadversions upon Dr. Stillingfleet's book entituled, The unreasonableness of separation : observations upon Dr. Templers sermon preached at a visitation in Cambridge : a brief vindication of Mr. Stephen Marshal. Firmin, Giles, 1614-1697. 1681 (1681) Wing F962; ESTC R16085 105,802 120

There are 6 snippets containing the selected quad. | View lemmatised text

Apoc. 18.4 how were they made and kept his people else must we therefore hold Communion with Babylon 3ly Christ holds Communion with his people in the Lutheran Churches I doubt not but if they impose upon you the Doctrine of the Ubiquity of Christs Humane Nature as a condition of Communion will you hold Communion with them 9ly Persecution joined to Imposition upon the members of Christs body what Christ never imposed renders the sin of the Imposing-Church much greater and refusing Communion with such a Persecuting Imposing Church is no Schism If Christ doth give us leave to flee from one Persecuting City to another where there is no Persecution then if a City be a Persecuting City by reason of a Persecuting Church surely he doth not bind us to hold Communion with that Persecuting Church 10ly Though one particular Church cannot communicate with another particular Church because of their corrupt Impositions yet if that Church which cannot communicate with the other will admit of those members of that Church who walk as become Christians in all other points excepting those Imposed corruptions which at present they cannot see being blinded with those deluding notions of indifferency and circumstances that Church cannot be charged with Schism though they refuse communion with the Imposing Church for we give communion to their members only exclude their imposed corruptions I do not mean such members as voluntarily took that solemn Oath c. of reforming those corruptions and now return to them again I look on this as a greater sin but for others I know several of our Churches would give them communion I do not say all will but then how are we Schismaticks 11ly Particular Churches may be so corrupt both in Doctrine Worship and Conversation that the sounder members not only may but ought to separate from them to save their own souls from infection and this is not Schism but Duty 12ly The case of those who are actual members of those Churches where these corruptions are is different from those who are no members of such Churches they have something else to do before they may separate 13ly If it be our sin to communicate with such as we know to be notoriously wicked unless we follow the rule of Christ Mat. 18.15 16 c. to seek the removal of them or do not our duty to reform the Pastor Cure of Church-Division pag. 100. or remove him as Mr. Baxtar tells us How we shall communicate without sin though we had nothing else to trouble us I know not that many such come to the Sacraments and who more boldly than they we know which way shall we reform them the Curate hath no Juridical power To the Spiritual Court must we go To the Diocesan must we go we are like to mend it carry Witnesses how many miles when yet the power we cannot own to be of Christ When all is done have a Writ upon our backs to bring us to the common Law and what then Whence to conclude they have dealt unworthily by us who bring the old Nonconformists against us to condemn us as if the state of this Church were the same with the true Church of England POSTSCRIPT AFTER I had finished I met with a Pamphlet Entituled The reason of Episcopal Inspection asserted in a Sermon at a Vesitation in Cambridg by John Templer D. D. The scope of the Sermon is to prove the Divine Right of Prelacy over Elders and Congregations And that the Author might shew himself to be a true Son of the Church he hath given sufficient proof in every particular For the Liturgy that is so perfect that he saith the most accuminated Intellect is not able with justice to charge it with any error p. 18. All then the old Nonconformists Parker Ames Bradshaw Cartwright Richardson Didoclavius c. together with the latter Nonconformists who were appointed with others by the Kings command to review the Liturgy and have given an account what things in it were to be corrected Calvin also for saying he found in it some Tolerabiles Ineptiae are all by this accuminated Doctor dub'd for so many Dunces They must be men of higher Acumens than these that can find any just cause against it these have said nothing considerable But whatever be the opinion of this Author yet Mr. Jeans a man of an acute Intellect one of their own and as great a Zealot once as he can be confesseth when he intended to write in defence of the Discipline and Ceremonies when he read these mens Books he found such arguments in them as were never answered and thereupon layed by his Pen his judgment being quickly altered but if you be a person of a more accuminated Intellect why did you not answer those dull fellows and therein do us a kindness that we might have conformed as well as you He tells the Reader p. 17. If this order of Prelacy had a period the Dissenters would never pitch upon any one way A. 1. The same saith the old Gentleman at Rome these Dissenting Protestants cannot pitch upon one way Hence no period must be put to the Papal Government 2ly You were very cunning Sir to pitch upon the warm side of the hedg thereby to save your selves from persecution and keep your fat Livings then cry up obedience to Governours pity the Martyrs had no better Intellects to have taken this course too and so have saved their stakes 3. If men would lay by their self-interests we might sooner pitch upon one way but so long as he sits at Rome and the Jews are uncalled I look but for little of this unity in the Gentile-Churches But to the main scope of his Sermon Had it been to prove the Divine Right of an Episcopus Praeses or Primus Presbyter as Ambrose calls a Bishop with the Presbytery or Ecclesiastical Senate I should not have been his opposer but it is an Episcopus Princeps and that not with but over the Presbytery superiour in power which he contends for how strongly proved we shall see His Text was Act. 15.36 Paul said to Barnabas Let us go again and visit our Brethren c. That the Doctor intended out of this Text to prove such a Visitation as was then when he Preached and so in England when Bishops visit I presume else he deceived him to whom he dedicates it and the four Doctors that Licensed it See how the Text will force it The Proposition or Antecedent is this Paul and Barnabas two Apostles Act. 14.14 Persons of extraordinary mission commission and qualifications for the office having by their Preaching converted many people from Heathenism to the Faith of Christ gathered them into Churches and set Elders over them These Elders and Churches being but all young Converts and through the relicts of corruption in them and the malice of Satan and his Emissaries without them being in danger to miscarry in Doctrine or manners these two Apostles go to visit the Churches which they had planted
be Gods Ape and hateful enemy then God must have no worship and every time the Devil imitates Gods worship God must change his worship and appoint new means of worship I pray Sir did the Devil or God first appoint Sacrifices why may I not think the Devil understood something of the promised seed and the meaning of the Sacrifices and in the following Ages in hatred and revenge against God and hatred of souls drew men to sacrifice to himself not only beasts but men as being the best of Creatures and so most acceptable Sacrifice in the imitation of Isaac that should have been sacrificed and thus he got before God Sir I pray do this shew us where there were Ceremonies first invented by Idolators depending only on their wills as yours do and you tell us you may change them when you please these were used in idalatrous worship and the Church of God translated those Ceremonies I do not mean individual from the idolatrous Temples into the worship of the holy and true God and he approved of them This you must prove or else you speak not home to our Case The last thing Mr. Falkner brings is the Testimony of worthy men about retaining some Ceremonies c. I only say I honour the men but I am of Mr. Falkner's opinion that the holy Scriptures are the only unerring Rule and I will willingly follow them so men where they follow Christ Several Distinctions about significant signs Mr. Falkner makes but I see not how any of them reach the Question no not so much as one 1. Here are signs depending only on the Wills of Men. 2. These signs are Instituted to Instruct us in our Duty towards God 3. These are said to be helps for our Edification 4. These signs are appropriated and annexed to the Worship of God While we Administer his signs we set up our signs 5. He that useth not these signs is turned out of the work of the Lord and shall not worship the Lord. I desire Mr. Falk would either from express Scripture or necessary consequence from Scripture or from the example of any holy and ordinary persons in Scripture approved by God I say I desire from either of these he would prove such signs in this manner Imposed Did Moses ever dare to Institute one Exciting which is one Distinction sign and annex it to the worship of God more than he had in charge from God yea and turn out those Priests that would not use it It is said of your Ceremonies they are not Dark and Dumb but so set forth that every man may understand what they mean May every man understand c truly I have known the Surplice above fifty years but never understood that the putting on a Surplice should properly signifie the Reverence we bear to God and the high esteem of his ordinances till Mr. Falk told me so p. 391. nor I believe did few Preists so understand it It seems then when you put off the Surplice going into Pulpit now you declare a lower esteem of God and his Ordinances Others tell us it signifies Purity others Decency it seems you are not agreed in the ends of your own inventions But for your exciting sign in the Cross many thousands if not millions of Children in England have been baptized with this sign I pray Name but One of these that ever was Excited to fight under Christs Banner by this sign Reason is a word in which the Conforming party glory much all Learning and Reason they have engrossed I pray Sir shew us the Reason how the moving of a Priests finger over an Infants Fore-head in its Baptism comes to have that efficacy to excite that Infant to fight under Christs Banner How the Christians of old used the real sign of the Cross I know I do not go about to justifie or condemn their practise but this is another thing or shadow of a thing no wonder though your own Mr. Carr calls your Ceremonies trifles things of which come no good Surely Sir while you speak of the Reverence of God we should show more Reverence to that Majesty in being content with his Soveraignty and wisdom in his own Institutions and not annex vain empty trifles to them and turn out those men who will not submit unto them CHAP. III. THE next thing required of us is our subjection to the Ecclesiastical Government consisting of six distinct Officers or more that exercise Church-power and holy Writ knows but one of them In the Commonwealth none dare pretend to Office but only such as the King and the Law authorize and appoint if there should be any other their power and actions were null invalid and they liable to punishment But in the Church men can be more bold Here Dr. Stillingfleet's notion if true must help us viz. That Christ hath appointed or determined no form of Government in the Church but left it to the chief Magistrates or Church-governours to appoint the form c. the design of his Irenicon In that Iearned Piece there are several things I must yield to as That the power of Ordination is proper to the name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 285. To which let me add what Mr. Samuel Smith a Minister dead above 20 years since told us he with many others being at one time Ordained by the Bishop of Peterborough the Bishop bad them all take notice That he did not Ordain as Bishop but as Presbyter this Mr. Smith would take his Oath to be true yet Bishop Gauden told me The power of Ordination was solely in the Bishop and though Presbyters did impose hands with the Bishop it was out of courtesie Thank you Sir I am not to meddle with this now I presume he would defend this as well as he did the Jus Divinum of Episcopacy in the several sheets that passed betwixt us upon the question but whence then comes Reordination to the same office in the same Church a thing unknown to Fathers Councils Papists Lutherans Calvinists but only to this new Edition of Conformists 2ly I shall yield also to him in this That it is not necessary there should be so many particular Churches as particular Congregations And this is a question of great moment Of this a word hereafter 3ly I agree also with him That the power of Order and Jurisdiction is committed by Christ ex aequo to all Ministers of the Gospel actu primo or habitually p. 197 198 275. By this we may understand what he means by Church Governours in the Question To which I shall speak but briefly though I had prepared a larger discourse upon it Three things then I would prove 1. That Christ hath appointed a Form of Government in his Church 2ly I will shew what that form is and this will prove the first 3ly That form is Jure Divino Consequently if this Ecclesiastical Government which we are required to subject to be not according to that
so nothing but Forms which is the sense of your Church I say may I be but as pleasing to God My reason is I observe it would very much please my corrupt lazy unbelieving heart I should not need then to beg of God the presence of his Spirit to help me as to the matter of prayer nor need I act my faith and dependance upon him as conscious of my own insufficiency 2 Cor. 3.5 for all my prayer is prepared to a syllable I should not then labour with my proud heart to submit quietly to Gods pleasure though he doth substract and not afford that presence sometimes which he doth at other times For here are the same words and syllables at all times his absence or presence hath no room here It may be the Friendly Debater that can jeer I see at Christian experiences will jeer at me too because I give this experience of my corrupt heart but I care not As for Dr. Falkner let but the Question be truly stated and I do not find one Scripture-argument he hath brought that concludes the Question for his own humane reasons I little regard them in divine Worship As for private Christians I know your Clergy look on them as the Pharisees did upon the vulgar Joh. 7.49 but Sir I know more of them than you or Dr. Falkner plain Mechanicks have I known well Catechised and humble Christians excellent in practical piety kept their station did not aspire to be Preachers but for gifts of prayer few Clergy-men must come near them I profess I fall short of them I have known some of them when they did keep their Fasts as they did often they divided the work of Prayer the first began with Confession the second went on with Petition for themselves the third Petition for Church and Kingdom c. the fourth Thanksgiving every one kept to his own part and did not meddle with anothers part Such excellent matter so compacted without Tautologies each of them for a good time about an hour if not more apiece to the wondering of those who joyned with them Such answers of prayer I have known to others that they have praised God for assurance that he had heard them before they rose off their knees and at that time it was done a thing of very great consequence but heard not of it till two days after Here was no reading of Liturgies these were old Jacobs sons could wrestle and prevail with God and yet must be punished if they came not to Church and set above an hour in the cold to hear a Minister read that which their boys could do at home and blessed be God that England in this dark day hath many thousands of such plain but praying Christians however despised and punished As for that Question Whether every particular Congregation makes a particular Church which you deny and oppose the Dissenters p. 234. c. I pray Sir why do you not answer Mr. Alsop's Text which he brings p. 45. from 1 Cor. 11.18 compared with 20. that Text deserves an answer and till that be done they are not confuted you have left out the strongest Argument Sir you must state the Question a little closer else you will not carry it I doubt not but there may be one particular Congregation which may be invested with the power and execute all the power of the keys and I think that is a Church For instance take your own Congregation and a few more in London where four or five thousand meet to worship God so large are your places with Galleries also I would suppose in such a Congregation there would be required four Teaching Elders four Ruling Elders Sir I must own that Officer though I think there hath been an error in assigning him that power which is not due to him and four Deacons Let all these Officers ply their work as hard as they will I doubt not but they will find their hands full and hearts full too unless the Four thousand be the better Christians But Sir will you deny this Congregation to be such a Church as we read of in the Gospel compleat as to exercise of all the power of the keys I am sure you will not As for your Reason for Episcopal Government another ground of difference between us which you give us in your Preface pag. 5. quoting Mr. Noyes of New-England in your Treatise pag. 234. agreeing with you viz. It is hard to perswade considering men that the Christian Church should degenerate so soon so unanimously so universally c. Mr. Noyes Would not Elders so many knowing men at least some of them have contended for Truth wherein their own Liberties were so much interessed Aerius his opposing of Bishops so long after their rise and standing is inconsiderable c. Sir much here might be said but I leave it to those with whom you have to deal as for Mr. Noyes I know him very well and know what may cause him to write for Episcopal Government That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 bear with my words for I am sure it is contrary to Scripture and Reason of the Congregational men That the Fraternity or Plebs is the first subject of the power of the keys have made such work in Congregational Churches to my knowledg that their Elders have felt the need of that principle and made them to think again But good Brother what Episcopacy is it you mean if you mean only Episcopus Praeses I am of your opinion it was the government in the Apostles time when Elders in a particular Church were multiplied And if we would but exercise more meekness and patience one with another Consult the Scriptures more attentively we shall find that the true Government and Constitution of the Church takes in somthing of Episcopacy somthing of Presbytery something of Independency But Sir if you mean Episcopus Princeps which is our Case one that hath a Superiority of power above Presbyters with which these must not meddle and this Bishop such large Diocess as ours are and this Bishop also the Sole Pastor over the Diocess as Bishop Morley checking Mr. Baxter tells him that the Bishop of Worcester and not Mr. Baxter is Pastor of Kidderminster as well as of all other Parochial Churches in that Diocess pag. 2. Sir this Episcopacy you and Mr. Noyes have to prove that it was ever in the Apostles time or of Christs Institution for this we utterly deny The Presidential Episcopacy as I may term it lasted as it is conceived by Learned men till the middle of the second Century or towards the end of it your self does not deny it Iren. pag. 275 276. But for this Princely Episcopacy when that began to be set up then began the Degeneracy of the Apostolical Government Though Mr. Noyes makes little of Aerius yet Medina tells the world that Jerome Austin Ambrose Sedulius Primasius Chrysostom Theodore Theophilacct were all of Aerins his judgment and you say Medinas judgment will prove true Iren. 276. So say Bishop Jewel and Learned Whitaker Quam Epiphanius frigidissimis rationibus refellit saith Whitaker Tom. 1. pag. 149. As for their Diocesses beside what I have said before you tell us they were not very large since all the Parishes could communicate on the same day with what was sent from the Cathedral Church Iren. pag. 370. Sure I am what you plead for now does not agree with the last Paragraph of your Irenicum where you were nearer the Truth How they should come to degenerate so soon is easily understood if we believe the 2 Thes 2 3 4 and 7. ver and the 17. Chap. of the Revelation If positâ permissione infallibiliter sequitur quod permittitur which I am sure is true then it is as true if the Spirit foretels what shall come to pass that must come to pass good Austni good Cyprian and other good Bishops by their Superiority of power and large Diocesses did prepare the way for wicked Boniface the third and he made the Catholick Church his Diocess it was impossible for him else to come there had the Churches kept to the Apostolical Government That Counsel and prediction of God was secretly and severely brought about by men This was once your your Opinion Ire pag. 197 198. Though the Elders had equal power from Christ yet being it was to be exercised but in a co-ordinate way with others you tell us they might devolve the exercise of their power to others Iren. 276. and Dr. Templer tells us there is a greater probability of an Vnion of Judgment when all within a certain precinct lie under an obligation to be determined by the reason of One c. when there is only matter of Right and Liberty which require care pains watch but no profit or gain come into the Purse as here we can easily and readily listen to Reason that may take us off from Duty and part with that Right which hath no profit but only pains annexed to it FINIS
several houses at that time where they had prepared in one house such bitter herbs as Sichory Wild Lettice which they say they used in another house Wormwood and Horehound in another Centory Germander in another bitter Almonds and Gentian c. so mention twenty more differences yet if Bitternesses were observed the rule was kept Again shall these bitternesses be boiled or raw beaten into a sawce like our Mustard as Scaliger saith the Churoseth was here is nothing determined be sure there be bitternesses and the general Rule is kept Again here is no mention made of drink but to have a Lamb and unleavened bread eaten and bitter things and not drink it had been a dry Feast fit to choak them Again the Lamb must be roast but how must it be without a Spit as we use sometimes or with a Spit and if so whether with a Spit made of Iron c. or Wood and that of a Pomegranate tree as a Learned man supposeth who can tell there is nothing determined or expressed and I prefume that Learned Author was not there to turn the Spit Again it must be roast but must the fire be made of wood or coal or turff or other combustible matter not a word of any such thing Thus I might reckon up many more circumstances that I wonder at this Author and another of his party answering for their Ceremonies telling us This is the difference between the Law and the Gospel that under the Law all ceremonies and circumstances are exactly prescribed not so under the Gospel How true this is the Reader may judg Leaving then this Author a while let us come to the stating of the Questions and for the first about Forms of Prayer Mr. Carre begins his Book and states the Question thus 1. Forms of Prayer are lawful thus it was stated in the Commencement-house when Dr. Fern was Vicechancellor and moderated I yield it being my own practice to compose Forms for my Children and for others who could not express themselves in fit words in their families before their servants and what then what is this to our business 2. For the Ceremonies The Church hath power in circumstances and who denies it 3. For Government some Episcopacy is lawful The Proposition must not be universal for then we shall setch in a Universal Bishop which as yet our opponents do not like Make it particular for my part I yield it I shall therefore now give the true state of the Questions and then leave it to the judicious Reader to see whether any one argument the Conformists use conclude the Questions For the First about imposed Forms of Prayer the question is this Quest The Question about Forms Prayer stated Whether the Lord Jesus hath given such power to any ordinary persons Civil or Ecclesiastical to compise and impose their Forms of Prayer upon his Ministers in the Gospel-church whom he hath sufficiently qualified for his work unto which he hath called them so that in their ministration and worshipping of God by prayer his Ministers must be tyed up to those very Forms and Syllables and not vary from them Let me open the Question 1st That Christ is Lord of his House King of his Church having the only power over it to institute what he please no Christian will deny 2ly True Ministers of the Gospel are his Ministers they have their talents and abilities from him their call and authority from him Their Laws and Doctrine what they must preach and how they must order all things in the Church from him They have a promise of his Presence and unto him must they give an account of their work 3ly These Ministers being his are sufficiently qualified in one sense it is true 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2 Cor. 2. 16. who is sufficient but yet again Timothy is charged that those whom he takes into the Ministry be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sufficient men Praying and Preaching are the two great works of a Minister Act. 6.4 to declare the will of God to the people and to open and present the wants of the people unto God is their business and whom Christ sends of his errand he fits them for both or never sends them Ephes 4.8 11. He prepareth gifts for his If your Forms of Prayer will make a man sufficient I know not who shall be insufficient if he can but read well 4ly These are Christs Ministers in the Gospel church I hope 't is no strange thing to put a difference between the Ministers of the Old and New Testament Gal 4.1 2 Cor. 3 c. that the Spirit is given by Christs Ascension in a greater measure both as to gifts and grace to the body of the Gospel-Church than to the old Church hath been unquestioned Divinity by the Conformists 5ly For ordinary persons to impose such as cannot dare not lay claim to an extraodinary Mission as the Prophets and Apostles had Yet the Apostles never imposed their Prayers on the Churches 6ly For these to tye up Christs Ministers to words and syllables in Prayer from which they must not vary This is the practise indeed but this is the question by what right this is done What I have heard in answer to it is that the Church allows our own Prayers before and after Sermon 1. Whether the Church allow it I cannot tell the genuine Sons of the Church say no and will use only the Canon-prayer The Arch-Deacon in his Visitation did dehort the Ministers from the use of their own prayers with these words Though I do not command nor enjoin you yet I advise you to it it is more out of fear it would cause such an Odium among the people should they take them off from their own prayers wholly in places where there is any knowledg in ignorant places they use none at all but the Common-Prayer as I have certain intelligence of divers places The Fathers of the Church in their Conterence with the other Ministers at the Kings first coming in thus express themselves Account of the Proceedings c. p. 19. VVe heartily desire that according to this Proposal great care may be taken to suppress those private conceptions of pray ers before and after Sermons As the Judges are the Interpreters of Statute-Laws so surely the Bishops of the Canons Now it is clear they would take away all but Book-prayer The judgment of Bishop VVren and Bishop Cozens is well known 2ly But if superiors being but ordinary persons have power to impose their Forms at Baptism the Lords supper c. all but before and after Sermon is it because their power of imposing is limited by God where I pray certainly by what power they take away the use of our own prayers before and after Sacraments they may before and after Sermons and that we see they desire it might be done but that they fear the consequence Let us come to their reasons for this One they draw from the Scriptures and that is
the Churches I find him in his Primacy do you prove it was but for one or two Sessions not during his life Certainly that Angel was well known in the Church to whom Christ wrote in some Churches commending him in others discommending though its true the Epistles concerned the whole Church 4ly This Angel is not the Moderator in a consociation of Churches as Reverend Mr. Hooker speaks of whose constancy in the place may be bad but the Primate among the Elders of one particular Church so that his fear does not reach us Q. 3. For the Jus Divinum of this This form Dr. Stillingfleet cannot deny the Apostles did constitute in the Churches but it seems the Apostolical practice though they were guided by the Spirit of Christ is not sufficient to make a Jus Divinum a positive Law for it is demanded 1st There was no positive Law for the change of the seventh-day Sabbath but yet the Dr. tells us the Apostolical practice is sufficient for they were guided by an Infallible Spirit p. 12 13. If so in a matter of far greater moment than in this I hope it is sufficient the Dr. cannot deny it 2ly Dr. Stillingfleet denies the 18. Mat. 15 16. proves Excommunication Then what positive Law hath he for Excommunications Deacons Ordination of Church-Officers 3ly The Apostolical form did best conduce to the end of Government which the Dr. urges much against the Jesuit Rat. Account p. 462. I pray compare that form then and our form now under which did or do ignorance and prophaneness most abound 4ly If not so then one great end of the Acts of the Apostles which Oecumenius calls the Evangelium Spiritus sancti is lost A Lapide in his Preface to that Book speaks excellently 5ly I set up this Form you demand my authority I answer It was the Form they set up who were guided by an Infallible Spirit and Christ owned the Form in writing to it You set up your Form different from it I demand of you shew me your authority and see which is best 6ly If Apostolical practise be not sufficient then you may to Rome for a Form for ought I know I know no stop As to the Author of the Book Samaritanism I am sure the Author was nothing a-kin to the good Samaritan for he shews himself a man of a vinegar-spirit his discourse as to Church-Government is built upon this foundation That Form of Government which appeared for hundreds of years first only and was de facto Instituted of God that only hath Divine right to warrant it p. 10 11. In p. 37. I find this was Episcopacy but this is very false these three terms first only and hundreds of years are not found in Episcopacy The first Governours had power over Bishops and Archbishops if any such Creatures were 2ly They were not the only Governours for the Presbyters governed while the Apostles lived 3ly The first Governours did not last hundreds of years 4ly The first Government was not confined to a narrow Diocess as Episcopacy was In Augustine's time there were in one Province under Carthage of the Catholicks and Donatists above nine hundred Bishops but their first Governours had all Nations for their Diocess and that made their Government Apostolical I am sure there is none such now Again Presbyters were first before Bishops witness your own Tribe that tell the world Episcopacy was set up to prevent Schism among Presbyters after the Schism in Corinth among the Presbyters According to this Author there is no Government at all in the Church for these three Terms are found in no form of Government now therefore I leave him As for his fine language wherewith he courts us as Jack-straws Fools Knaves Peevish c. this Samaritans Oil and Wine we bear it the Disciple is not above his Master There is another Question of very great consequence but for these times not so useful therefore I will only state it and give mens opinion about it and leave it though I had prepared something to speak to it Q. Whether every particular Congregation consisting of one teaching Elder and a number of visible Christians be a particular Church according to the New Testament or may not yea ought not several particular Congregations unite to make up one particular Church By a Church I mean an Organical Church invested with all the power and exercise of the Keys within it self both quo ad actum primum secundum such were the eight Churches I mentioned before Learned and pious Ames Med. Theol. l. 1. c. 39. tells us That a Church in the New Testament is a Parochial Church such a company or congregation as ordinarily meet in one place to worship God Sure I am that ordinarily there is but one teaching-Elder in such a Church And this Church hath as much power as the National Church of the Jews met together Compare his 16 18 Theses great use he makes of the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Cor. 11.20 so doth a reverend Brother who knew my opinion quote it with a little warmth but my good Brother must prove there was but one Teaching-Elder in that Church else his argument will be guilty of Ignoratio Elenchi five answers more I would have given Mr. Tho. Hooker giving the true sense of Independency saith it imports thus much Every particular congregation rightly constituted and compleated hath sufficiency in it self to exercise all the Ordinances of Christ. Surv. Ch. Dis part 2. pag. 80. But then it seems it must be compleated and to this compleating are required a Pastor Teacher Ruling-Elder Deacon one at least of all these So pag. 4. ib. and without these though a particular Congregation may be called a true Church as a man that hath but one eye one arm or leg may be still defined Animal rationale as having a reasonable soul yet he is but maimed no intire man such is that Church pag. 2. Ibid. I pray how many such Congregations have we The Synod held at Boston in New England Septemb. 10. 1679 the last year pag. 10 11. calling for a full supply of Officers in the Churches speak thus The defect of the Churches on this account is very lamentable there being in most of the Churches only one Teaching Officer for the burden of the whole Congregation to lye upon The Lord Christ would not have instituted Pastors Teachers Ruling Elders nor the Apostles have ordained Elders in every Church Act. 14.23 Tit. 1.5 if he had not seen there was need of them for the good of his people and therefore for men to think they can do well enough without them is both to break the second Commandment and to reflect upon the wisdom of Christ as if he did appoint unnecessary Officers in his Church Thus the Synod Half the question then is gained the Independents yield it men worthy to be listned to for they take up the word of God for their only Rule I know there is a
observe the 11. and 13. ver going before we may well guess 3. If you refer it to his Office as you do and would thence infer the perpetuity of his Office to the Worlds end I deny that to be the meaning For when the Apostle charges him 2 Tim. 4.5 do the work of an Evangelist c. there the word Evangelist is taken in the same sense with Eph. 4 11. not only Calvin and Gerhard but Scultetus though an Episcopal man yieldeth and it were absurd to think otherwise But that Timothy in the 1. Epistle Chap. 1.3 should be ordained a Bishop as you say and long after this charged to do the work of an Evangelist they must have dull Intellects indeed that know nothing of an Evangelist and a Bishop who beelieve it The Evangelist being one fixed to no place and had the power of Miracles as Eusebius and the Scriptures testifie This was a Commandment so incumbent upon Timothy that his Salvation or miscarrying was concerned in it as he performed it and so it is true of all Ministers but for an Evangelist the French Church the Low Countries Scotland New-England where Mr. Eliot hath more right of Superiority over the Churches of the Indians than any Prelate in the World yet would detest your Doctrine nor any Churches that I know of own an Evangelist As yet then the proof fails Thus we find in Clemens Epistle to the Corinthians a Metropolitan Church forsooth there is no mention made of any such Prelate But pag. 2.62 69. and 73. especially he mentions only Elders without any distinction A Bishop being but Primus Presbyter Primi Presbyteri Episcopi appellabantur Ambros in 4 Eph. as Ambrose calls him it may stand with Episcopus Praeses Thus Polycarpus in his Epistle to the Church in Philippi another Metropolis saith Dr. Hammond there is no menion of any such Prelate but pag. 18. he exhorts them to be subject to the Elders and Deacons answering to Paul Phil. 1.1 For Timothy's being twice ordained and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 mentioned 1 Tim. 4.14 which you would have understood of Prophets c p. 45 46. What you aim at in Timothy's twice Ordination I know not whether that we may be twice ordained though first by Presbyters let it first be proved that Timothy was twice ordained to the same Office Timothy first ordained by the Apostle himself you say 2 Tim. 1.6 I pray Sir to what Office say and prove from Divine Writ If the second time ordained not to an inferiour Office I hope the first Ordination by an Apostle the second to a higher Office by Inferiour Officers I pray when was he ordained an Evangelist Nor does your notion of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 take to be meant of any other Prophets different from Paul for we know that Paul excelled in all gifts 1 Cor. 14.18 as of Tongues so no question of Prophesie Why therefore Paul might not be He to whom the Spirit revealed this concerning Timothy as yet so young and so to take him along for his Companion give us a Reason for it seems there was a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 given 1 Tim. 4.14 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and in 2 Tim. 1.6 he bids him stir up the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which was in him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That the Apostles did convey gifts we know by their imposing of hands though the Presbitery joyned with the Apostle in his Ordination and so I know not above One Ordination that ever Timothy had and that to an Evangelist His third and last Topick to prove the Superiority of this Prelate is the practise of the universal Church pag. 42. To which add his saying pag. 53. As for Prelacy the Essence whereof lyes in a Superiority of an Ecclesiastical person over Elders in a certain precinct it was ever owned by the Church as agreeable to the Canon of Scripture Sir did you deliver this in the Pulpit for a Truth where be sure no man ought to speak any thing but Truth Have not you read Austins Epistle to Hierom Epistle 18. in which Austin writes thus to him Quanquam enim secundum honorum Vocabula quae jam Ecclesiae usus obtinuit Episcopatus Presbyterio major est c. Surely you have read Hieroms Comment upon Tit. 1. Episcopi noverint se magis consuetudine quam Dispositionis Dominicae veritate Presbyteris esse majores To which A. B. Anselm subscribes in his Comment on the same Chapter What Sir is Ecclesiae usus and Consuetudo the same with Canon of Scripture Have not you read Estius Sent. l. 4. d. 24. calling those Hereticks that are not of your Opinion and undertaking to prove the jus Divinum of Prelacy as you do he saith thus Quod autem jure Divino sint Episcopi Presbyteris Superiores si non ita clarum este sacris Scripturis aliunde tamen satis efficaciter probari potest Have you not read what Medina saith of the Fathers in this point and what our Bishop Jewel naming the same Fathers that Medina did adds Paul himself must be a Heretick if Bishop and Presbyter be not the same according to the Scriptures Much more I might add that I wonder you could write such a line And what Sir will you exclude all those Churches from being parts of the Catholick Church that have not nor do own your Prelacy or what Church do you mean when you say the Church hath owned That so many of the Church were of your Opinion this with your Metropolitan Arch-Bishop brought that Whore in Apoc. 17. to her Chair without which that Prophecy had not been fulfilled to this day so that though it is not true what you say yet if it had been true it had not much prevailed with me but God hath left Testimony against it both in his Word and in the Church As for your notion p. 51. The reason why the Apostles wrote to the Churches that were in the cities which were Metropoles was to shew that all the Churches which were in that Province did depend upon that Metropolis Government and this Bishop was an Archbishop p. 50. I pray Sir which of the Apostles told you this was their reason or where do you find this written The Apostle mentions but but one 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Pet. 5.4 This notion I see you are so taken with that p. 51. you tell us this Hypothesis gives the most intelligible account why all the Churches in Asia are reduced to Seven An Intelligible account then we have of that which I had a desire to know but because the Lord had hidden it it became not me to inquire after his secrets but now we have a reason why all the Churches in Asia are reduced to Seven 1. I pray Sir give us since you are so acquainted with Christs secrets an Intelligible account why since there were so many Churches in Europe and those Churches in the Metropoles yet the Lord writes not to one of