founded on the supposition of some vicarious Head of Unity to the Catholick Church which we condemn the Church of Rome for setting up and Mr. K. himself seems to disown p. 55. Nor wou'd that Hypothesis it self justify the distinction because if Christ have made any Vicarious Head or center of Unity to the Catholick Church we cou'd not be united to him as his members without union with that Vicarious Head. So that to be Catholick members of the Church and members of the Catholick Church are the same thing And if Mr K. use that expression in this sense let us consider a little the description he gives of those who are Catholick members of the Church Here are three characters to know them by Their embracing the catholick Faith their making no separation from their lawful Governors their living in charity with their neighbour churches The first is Embracing the Catholick Faith and he shou'd have added Professing catholick holiness of life For this character 't is undeniable and I hope Mr. K. will not exclude any of the forementioned Protestant Churches from being Catholick members of the Church on this score The two latter Mr. K. himself will find too dangerous and too schismatical to own upon second thoughts For from the third viz. living in charity with their neighbour churches I infer 1st That this character does exclude all the Papists from being catholick members of the Church for they are so far from living in charity with their neighbour Churches that their Trent-creed does assert its Articles to be that catholick Faith without which no man can be saved and consequently damns all the Churches in the world besides their own 2. On supposition the Reformed Churches abroad which have not Diocesan Bishops be true Churches this character excludes all those of the Church of England from being catholick memâ—ers of the Church who do with Mr. Dodwell unchurch all those Reformed Churches that want Prelatical Ordination For to unchurch them is not to live in charity with them 3. If the Churches of the Presbyt and Indep here be true Churches as I shall in this Paper evince they are then Mr. K. and all that are of his mind are no catholick members of the Church because they live not in charity with their neighbour Churches And I hope there is not the less charity due to them for being of the same countrey or Nation for Mr. K. makes subjection to lawful Pastors a mark of the members of the catholick Church p. 4. and declares the Presbyt c. destitute of that mark p. 6. And consequently denys them to be members of the catholick church which is the highest breach of charity imaginable And what if the Presbyt shou d treat Mr. K. according to his own principle and declare him no catholick member because he lives not in charity with them They would but use his own weapons against himself But however they have been misrepresented they are not of that schismatical humour as some are who have long made a loud outcry against Schism 4. Nay if this character be true then in all those contentions that have happen'd in the Church where the contending Parties have been so uncharitable as to excommunicate one another ' tho sometimes about meer trifles the one Party or both have ceast to be catholick members of the church And so when Pope Victor excommunicated the Eastern churches for not keeping Easter on the same day with him He and all that joyn'd with him ceast to be catholick members of the church And if to be catholick members of the Church and members of the catholick Church be the same what a vast part of the christian worâ—d has been unchurch'd in every age by the uncharitable censures of proud contentious Prelates I suppose Mr. K. never considered these consequences or else he would never have made living in charity with neighbour Churches a necessary mark of the catholick members of the Church As if the legitimate children of the same Father might not in an angry mood call one another Bastards or the subjects of the same King in a pievish humour nickname their fellow subjects Rebells without any just cause I am sure the Presbyterian Churches both at home and abroad are the least concern'd in this character for they have never unchurcht the Prelatical Churches even when they have met with the most harsh and unreasonable treatment from them But Mr. K. has given us another character to distinguish the Catholick members of the Church by which he imagines will exclude all the Presbyterians Independents c from that number viz. That they are such as make no separation from their lawful Governors All this is founded on his schismatical mark of the catholick Church viz. That its members live under their lawful spiritual Governors Here therefore all those difficulties occur about the meaning of lawful spiritual Governors which were propos'd p 3 4 5 6 7. And which sense soever Mr. K. chooses he will find it does oblige him to unchurch a great part of the Catholick Church i. e. to be a schismatick of the worst sort And if the laws of Christ must determine the debate he will give the Dissenters such an Argument against Prelatical Churches being members of the Catholick as he will never be able to answer And Mr. Baxter's Treatise which proves the unlawfulness of Diocesan Prelacy has according to Mr. K. done what that charitable man never intended unchurcht all our Diocesan Churches and cashierd them from being any part of the Church-Catholick There is no doubt but unjust separation from any lawful spiritual Governors is a sinful practice And particular Churches gather'd by such a sinful separation are not gather'd in a regular way And therefore an unjust violation of due Order is all that Mr. K. can justly pretend to charge the Presbyterians and Independents with and perhaps will find it a more difficult task than he imagines to make good that charge And therefore to clear this matter let me premise Particular Churches are the chief integrating parts of the Church Catholick These Churches consist of one or more Pastors and a Christian Flock associated under his or their oversight for personal communion in Faith Worship and holy living These Churches are obliged by the very dictates of the light of nature and general rules of the holy Scripture to endeavour the preservation of all necessary Unity by the amicable consultations of their associated Pastors The judgment of such associated Pastors should be submitted to by the people under their care when 't is not repugnant to the Word of God and contrary to the interest of Religion But the people do not owe them a blind obedience nor have such Pastors any power but for edification Much less can such Bishops pretend to an higher power whose very Office Christ never instituted whose pretended relation to their Diocess is not founded on the peoples consent to it and if such Bishops should claim
the sole power of Church-Government in a Nation and exercise it against the will of Christ to the nâ—torious detriment of souls as by unjust silencing of faithful Pastors when their labours are highly conducive to the Churches good by imposing on the people sinful conditions of Church-communion by obtruding unqualifi'd Pastors on the people against their consent c. To separate from such Bishops so far as to disobey these unjust commands is no separation from our lawful Governors and is no more a Rebellâ—on in the Church than 't is a Rebellion in the State to disobey one that usurps a Power he never receiv'd from the King and which he exercises against the laws and interest of the Kingdom And therefore I would propose these two Questions to Mr. K. in reference to this Head. Q. 1. On supposition the Presbyt's and Indep's have made an unjust separation from their lawful Governors whom they should have submâ—tted to Whether â—his be such a crime as will exclude them from being Catholiâ—k members of the Church To resolve that We must consider the nature of their separation Their Ministers separate from the Bishops i. e. they are not willing to obey them in what they account a sinful and dangerous usurpation viz. the assuming the sole power of Church-Government and depriving the Pastors of particular Churches of an essential part of their Office and suspending them unjustly Their people separate from the Parish-Ministers but 't is not by disowning them as no true Ministers but by refusing to receive them as theirs because they judge they have a right to choose a Physician for their Souls as well as for their Bodies and therefore think not themselves bound to acquiesce in the Patrons or Bishops choice when contrary to their own edification especially when there are terms of Parish-communion impos'd to some unlawful to others greatly suspected and all true Church-discipline is cast out or neglected They separate not from the conforming Churches as no true Churches but as preferring the ordinary communion of purer because they judge the laws about Parish-order do not oblige when injurious to the interest of Religion and Souls Now suppose them mistaken in these matters through the weakness of their judgment will this sort of separation make them cease to be Catholick membeâ—s of the Church 'T is not a separation from any thing Christ has made necessary to the unity of his Church 't is only a separation from some humane order which they dare not comply with because they apprehend it contrary to the laws of Christ And is this to be compar'd to a Rebellion in the State as he is pleas'd to do p. 6. Is the convocation Christ or their Canons equally obligatory as his laws or do those that disobey the Canons of the Convocation because they judge them opposite to the laws of Christ renounce their Allegiance to him as the Head of his Church Are their Canons even about things they call indifferent as necessary to be obey'd as the undoubted Rules of the Gospel by all that wou'd be Catholick members of the Church when those that are requir'd to obey them fear the things commanded are unlawful When I read such expressions as this about Church-Rebellion I cannot but lament the effects of humane ignorance and pride and observe in such as Mr. K. some degrees of that spirit that has acted Papal Councils who made no scruple of treating all that would not pay them a blind obedience with such characters as these And I know no better way to convince Mr. K. of the folly of this Principle I am opposing than by shewing him how pernicious the consequences of it are to his own Party For if this sort of Schism which he supposes the Dissenters guilty of prove them to be no Catholick members of the Church then sure more heinous Schism will prove those to be in the same condition who are guiâ—ty of it Greater Schism is more opposite to Catholick Vnity than lesser But the Prelates are guilty of more heinous Schism than this of the Dissenters supposing it to be Schism and consequently if Mr. K's principle be true are no Catholick members of the Church That the Prelates are guiâ—ty of more heinous Schism I offer this Argument to evince Those who impose unnecessary and and doubtful terms of Church-Communâ—on nay who declare many thousands of true Christians ipso facto excommunicated are greater Schismaticks than those who only scruple those terms tho through mistake and who unchâ—rch not those Churches which they are thus forc'd to separate from For the Schism of the Imposers is more voluntary and curable by forbearing to prescribe such terms of Communion as are more likely to prove engines of Division The Schism of the Refusers is more involuntary and in doubtful cases often incurable And 't is more opposite to Christian Love to excommunicate thousands of sincere Christians than 't is to prefer those Churches which we upon the best enquiry judge more pure before those that seem more corrupt without unchurching them even tho in so doing we should be guilty of some breach of the Churches peace by vâ—olating a tolerable humane order So that all Mr. K. will gain by excluding Dissenters from the Catholick Church on the account of their Schism will be That by the same reason our Convocation were no Catholick members of it and if so I am sure they are no lawful Governors in it For what I have here asserted that the Convocation have excommunicated thousands of sincere Christians and that ipso facto I appeal to their Canons and to the consciences of any that peruse them and know the Nonconformists in these Kingdoms few whereof are not by some of these Canons ipso facto excommunicated See Mr. Baxter's English Schismatick detected who from p. 42. to the 50th recites the particular Canons Nay if all that are guilty of equal Schism with that of the Dissenters supposing them guilty be no Catholick members of the Church I fear there are few such in the World. Sure the Schism of the Papists is of a more monstrous nature who unchurch aâ—l the Churches on earth besides themselves And the Greeks pay them in the same coyn And if other of the Eastern Churches do not unchurch one another they have lost their old wont What dreadful work Councils have made in hereticating and unchurching one another upon very unjustifiable grounds fills up both pages in Church-History And as such were more heinous Schismaticks than those that are guilty only of passive separation i. e. separation occasion'd by mens scrupling the lawfulness of some humane Canons so according to this notion they were no Catholick members of the Church And at this senseless rate we may soon reduce the Catholick Church to a small compass And what would become even of the Christian World if the compassions of our blessed Lord were as narrow as the charity of such censorious Christians The 2d Quest I wou'd propose to
Mr. K. is Vpon what grounds does he assert that the Presbyterians Independents c. have made a separation from their lawful spiritual Governors This Quest relates to the regular constitution of their Churches Who then are the lawful Pastors of these Presbyterians c. from whom they have separated Does he mean the Bishops or the Parish Ministers If the Bishops they must be consider'd either as the King's Officers to execute that civil power which he has circa sacra And so the Presbyterians submit to them and separate not from them Or they must be consider'd as Christs Officers to exercise that spiritual power which his Charter gives and as such the Presbyterians are very ready to submit to them when they have prov'd the divine Right of their Office Or they must be consider'd as the Churches Officers and if so 't is requisie that Church should obey them who assign them their Office or consent to be their subjects not those who account their Office a sinful usurpation and are the more unwilâ—ing to become their Subjects because they cannot be so without complying with sinful Impositions and even approving their usurpation And that any Church may lawfully constitute new Officers whom Christ never appointed and suâ—ject his undoubted Officers to their Authority especially such as Diocesan Prelates who by engrossing the power of the Keys render Church-discipline impracticable is a proposition Mr. K. will hardly prove If the Parish-Ministers be the lawful Governors they separate from I would willingly know how they come to be the lawful Governors or Pastors to those that consent not to their Pastoral relation and have sufficient reasons why they do not Will Mr. K. say that all persons ought to commit the conduct of their Souls to that Minister whom the Bishops or Patron chooses and that 't is sinful separation not to do so I wou'd then enquire What does he think of those Parishes that are so large that scarce the tenth part of the people can enjoy the labours of the Parish-Ministers as Stepney Giles Martins and Cripplegate Parishes in London which have one with another 30000 or 40000 souls in each of them Does he think it an unlawful separation for that part of the people that cannot have room in the Parish Churches to attend the Ministrations of other pious and judicious Pastors Is this such a separation too as will exclude them from the Cathoâ—ick Church To assert tâ—is is to prefer a point of humane order or rather disorder about Parish-bounds bâ—â—ore the salvation of souls and in effect to say that 't were better all those peop e should want the ordinary means of salvation and live like Pagans or Atheists without any publick worship of God than such a point of Church-ordeâ— be violated And if any can believe all this 't is very much to be doubted whether they know what souls and their salvation are Again What does Mr. K. think of such Parish-Ministers as want the necessary quaâ—ifications such as are notoriously ignorant or scandalously wicked Do those in their Parishes who after having sought redress in vain choose other Ministers of eminent leaâ—ning and hoâ—iness make a sinful separation even such as will argue them no Catholick members of the Church If he say this he still prefers a meer point of humane order before the end of it the edification of souls and had rather hazâ—rd their damnation than have a scandalous Parish Minister disown'd whose Life is more likely to debauch than his Doctrine to reform his Hearers I might insâ—st on many such Questions as these but because Mr. K. has not thought fit to give us any reason why he takes the Parish-Ministers for the only lawful Governors even to those Nonconformists that consent not to their pastoral relation I shaâ—l fâ—r their vindication offer this argument to prove that the Nonconformists live under their lawful spiritual Governors or Past rs and consequently make no separation from them I instance in the Presbyterians Those are the lawful spiritual Governors of particular Christian Flocks or Churches who have all the qualifications requisite a valid Ordination the consent of those Churches and who in taking the oversight of them violate no law of God nor any just law of man. But such are the Pastors of the Presbyterian Churches in these Kingdoms E. they are the lawful Pastors of those Churches The minor Prop. alone needs proof viz. That the Pastors of the Presbyt Churches are such as are here describ'd For their Qualifications and the consent of the people that is matter of fact concerning which they may safely appeal to those that know them â—nly I would here suggest that a considerable number of Ministers who prescribe various difficult exercises to a Candidate for the trial of his abilities are as likely to judge of them as one single Bishop who usually commits the examination of them to his Chaplain For the validity of their Ordination I undertake to make that good in answer to the Questions about Mission The only doubt then remaining is Whether these Pastors in taking the oversight of their Flocks do violate any law of God or any just law of Man 1. For the laws of God I cannot understand any that they should be supposed to violate but either that law that enjoyns us to obey Superiors or such as enjoyn the preservation of the Churches peace For the former it falls in with what doubt may arise concerning the laws of men For the latter the precepts of God which concern the Churches peace I need only say these two things to clear them from the suspicion of violating them 1. That the great duties recommended in the holy Scriptures in order to the preservation of the Churches peace are a mutual forbearance in things indifferent and a charitable judgment of each other in lesser differences This is evident from the 14th Chapt. of the Ep. to the Rom. to the 17th ver of the 15th where these duties are at large prest from great variety of Topicks and urg'd on those that had Pastors among them And to say this great Rule on y oblig'd Christians to these duties till the Clergy had determin'd those indifferent things and by their imposing them cast out all Dissenters is too like the confidence of those Gentlemen who own Christ instituted the Communion in both kinds But teâ—l us his Institution obliges not now the Church has pleas'd to command it shall be otherwise And I do appeal to any impartial judg whether the Convocation or the Presbyterians have better observ'd this great Rule that concerns the Churches peace But 2. No Law of God enjoyns us to do any thing sinful for the Churches peace But for the Pastors of the presbyterian churches to desert their ministerial Office when never justâ—y forbidden and when their labours were highly conducive to the Interest of Religion and the Salvation of souls were sinful Methinks those Men that are so zealous to exclaim against all alienation of
invite such to take the Pastoral care of their Souls as are duly qualified that such qualified persons should not accept Ordination on such wicked terms is past doubt But what if they live so remote from any other Christian Kingdom that they cannot have Ministerial Ordination elsewhere Wiâ—l any say that in this case those qualified persons for want of this Ordination ought not to â—â—ke on them the Pastoral charge of those people which God hâ—s given them such abilities for and such a Call by his providence 〈◊〉 To say this were to set up the Rule about the regular ordeâ—ing the Ministry above the ends of the Ministry it self and o◠〈◊〉 circumstances of the Duty to the substance of it Wher◠〈◊〉 â—sitive precepts must always yield to moral and matters or 〈◊〉 order to the end of the Duty ordered and the former must nâ— be pleaded against the latter Ordination by Pastors is noâ— therefore there necessary where it cannot be had without sin and yet without a Ministry the interest of the Gospel and the salvation of Souls are like to suffer the most visible prejudice and detriment For these are matters infinitely more precious and valuable than any Rules of external order and the very end those Rules aim at and are subservient to And if this be not granted it must be left to the pleasure of such corrupt Pastors whether the people who cannot joyn in communion with them shall enjoy the means of their salvation or be obliged to live like Atheists without any publick worship of God. And he that asserts this may next assert that God has left it to their pleasure whether the people shall be saved or damn'd and that 't is better they should be canonically damn'd than uncanonically sav'd I propose these Cases to shew the vanity and falsehood of that Notion some make such a noise about viz The necessity of an uninterrupted succession of Ordination And if that principle be false much more is theirs who assert the necessity of Successive prelatical ordination But tho in such extraordinary Cases The extraordinary call of God's providence is sufficient to authorize a man to the sacred â—ffice and supâ—lies the defect of Ministerial Ordination Yet the command of God which enjoyns such Ordination does oblige where it may be had and the neglect of it wou'd bring great confusion and disorder into the Church and expose it to the danger of being corrupted and divided by unqualâ—fied Intruders The only thing that remains to be consider'd under this Head is Who are entrusted with the power of ordination Or whom has Christ appointed to approve and invest others in the Ministerial office Answ Those are entrusted with this power and appointed to this woâ—k Who are themselves such Bishops or Elders or Pastors as the holy Scriptures describe He that denies this is oblig'd to acquaint us what other Officers the Apostles left in the Church to whom this sole power of ordination was entrusted then or what other officers claimed and exercised it in the primitive Church Which none that I know of ever pretended to do But now those whom the holy Scriptures call Bishops or Elders were the stated pastors of particular Congregations That the same persons are in Scripture call'd Bishops and Elders is too palpable to be denied However the Authors of the Preface to the Book of Ordination are pleased to say the contrary viz. That 't is evident to all men diligently reading the holy Scriptures and ancient Authors that from the Apostles time there have been these orders in Christs Church Bishops Priests and Deacons as several offices and even this palpable mistake among the rest we are required to declare our assent to Those who are 20 Acts. 17. called the Elders of the Church of Ephesus are commanded v. 28. to take heed to all the Flock over whom the holy Ghost had made them overseers or Bishops The description of a Bishop 1 Tim 3 ch and of an Elder 1 Tit. are the same And Titus when directed to ordain Elders must see that they be blameless for a Bishop must be blameless as the Steward of God v. 6 7. That these Bishops or Elders were Pastors of single congregations is evident from the Duties enjoyned them towards those under their care and from the Duties which the Flocks are required to pay them They are to labour among the people and admonish them And the people were to know and esteem them highly in love for their works sake 1 Thess 5 12 13. They were to rule their Flock speak the word of God to them and to watch over their Souls as those that must give an account 13 Hebr. 7 17 24. They were to take heed to all the Flock over whom the Holy Ghost had made them overseers 20 Acts 28. Wherein the Apostle proposes his own practice while he stay'd among them as their temporary pastor for their imitation viz That he taught them publickly and from house to house and ceased not to warn every one with tears day and night 20 Acts 20 31. v. They were to bee ensamples to the Flock who were to follow their Faith considering the end of their Conversation 1 Pet. 5. v. 3 compar'd with Heb 13.7 They were to visit the sick and pray for them James 5 14. see Dr. Hammond's Annotations on these places applying them to Bishops Now let us consider whether these mutual duties betwixt Pastor and Flock were to be performed betwixt the Pastor or Pastors of a single congregation and the congregation committed to their care or betwixt a Diocesan Bishop and so vast a Flock as his Diocess That one or more Pastors of a single congregation associated for personall communion are capable of performing these duties to their Flock and their Flock to them is past all doubt But can these mutual Duties be perform'd betwixt a Diocesan Bishop and his Diocess Is he capabâ—e of labouring amongst them in word and being esteem'd of them highly for his Works sake when very few comparatively of his Diocess ever saw him or heard him preach Can he watch over the souls of all in his Diocess as his Flock and warn them of their evil courses when he knows not one of them in many score thousands Can the Diocess follow the Faith of such Bishops and consider the end of their conversation and propose them as their patterns when not one in many thousands know any more of the life of their Bishop than if he lived at the other end of the World Are such Bishops obliged to visit the sick of their Diocess Can they rule them by the exercise of Church-discipline against the notoriously scandalous when perhaps there are forty or fifty thousand such in their Diocess Can they use all the due process of serious reproofs and perswasions that are requisite to be uâ—ed for reclaiming such sinâ—ers when there is so vast a number of them and those so remote in their habitations and the Bishops wholly
Just Mart. ibid Constit Apost c. 27. Apost Can. 5 e See Cypr Ep. passim Tertull. Apol. c. 39. and many more in Blondel de Jure plebis c. f See Albasp Observ p. 254 255. g See Tolet de sacerd lib. 5. cap. 4. n. 15. and Pad Paul Sarpi's Tract of Church-benefices translated by Dr. Denton h Constit Apost c. 57. Counc Carth. 4 Can 35 i 1 Phil. v. 1. Clem. Rom Ep ad Cor p 54 55 Pius in Ep Justo Episc Biblioth Patr Tom 3 p 15 Constit Apost c 30 44. k Ignat Ep. ad Smyrn forequoted Constit Apost c. 28 l Albasp Observ p. 254 255. m Ignat. Ep ad Philad forecited Cypr. Ep 40 72 73. The ancient description of a Church is well known Plebs Episcopo coadunata See Dr. Still Iren. p. 416. That the Bishop was chosen by the Suffrages or Votes of the people he took the charge of n and as was said before administred Church-censures in the presence of his Flock whose judgment he consulted o That Presbyters did but sedom preach publickly in the two or three first Ages except in Alexandria or some few Churches that had Presbyters of more than ordinary Learning and Abilities Chrysostom's preaching at Antioch and Austin's at Hippo while Presbyters are noted as unusual That every City had its Bishop is granted by all and Dr. Hammond and Grotius own many had two nay some had more as might appear by many instances were it needful And every Town of any bigness was then called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or City and the number of Christians did not of a long time even in the larger Cities exceed that of our larger Parishes Nor were Bishops confin'd to Cities or Towns for the Countrey Villageâ— where three were any tolerable number of Christians to mâ—ke a Church or Congregation had long their Bishops also who were not put down till Ambition had begun to deprave the Church and for a reason agreeable to the humour of those that did it ne vilescat nomen Episcopi p If we consider the nearness of Episcopal See's of which we read many that were much nearer one another than our Market-Towns perhaps one two or a few more miles distant q If we observe all the small inconsiderable pâ—aces that were the See's of many famous ancient Bishops not half so big as our lesser sort of Perishes r If we consider the vast number of Bishops mentioned within a narrow compass of ground n See Cypr. Ep. 68 forecited and many more testimonies in Baxter's Church-History Answer to Stillingfl from p. 128 to 133. and in Blondel de Jure plebis c. a See Blondel ibid. p Concil Laod. Can. 57. q To give a few instances In Palestine Diospolis or Lydda was but six miles from Joppa Joppa four miles from Janmia Rhinccoruca four miles from Anthedon and Anthedon not three miles from Gaza and Gaza twenty furlongs from Constantia anciently called Majuma So in Egypt Nicopolis was twenty furlongs from Alexandria and Taposiris Canopus Heraclia and Naucratis not much farther from one another and yet all these Episcopal See's r Mr. Thorndike Right of Churches reviewed tells us p. 53. that in Africa Bishops were so plentiful that every good Village must needs be the Seat of an Episcopal Church and the African Church as Dr. Stillingfleet tells us Iren. p. 373. longest retain'd the primitive simplicity and humility Binnius tells us of Sylvester calling together 284 Bishops of which 139 were out of Rome or not far from it A Council of Donatists at Carthage had 270 Bishops as Austin tells us Ep. 68 about the year 308 and yet they were the smaller number and complain'd of Persecution Victor Vtic in Persec Vand. acquaints us that in that part of Africa 660 Bishops fled besides the great number murdered and imprisoned and many toâ—erated The 6th Provincial Council of Carthage had 217 Bishops And to give an instance of later date which we are more capabâ—e to judge of even Patrick is said to have founded here in Ireland 365 â—hurches ordain'd so many Bishops besides 3000 Presbyters Vsher de Eccles Brit. Primord p. 950. If we add hereto the late date of Parâ—hâ—s as distinguished from the Bishops Church The Government of the Cathedrall by the Bishop with the Dean and chapters being a Relict of the ancient Episcopal Government From these evidencies and many more might be added duly weigh'd Wee may easily judge what the ancient Churches and Bishops were A primitive Bishop had no more then one Church or assembly capable of personal Communion under his Charge which he rul d with the joynt concurrence of his Presbyters or Elders The first that set up more Assemblies under one Bishop were Rome and Alexandria and no other Church can be prov'd to have done so for near 300 years nor many Churches for 4 or 5 hundred And even those Assemblies did but long make up one communicating Church and were but to the Bishops Church as Chappels of ease are to our larger Parish Churches But for Diocesan Churches and Bishops 't is evident from these few remarks That they are entire strangers to the primitive Church in its first and purest Ages 'T was only Ambition striving to modell the Ecclesiastical Government by the Civil that first gave rise to them and from the same ambition in the Empire sprung up Metropolitans Patriarks and Popes The last of these long claiming only a Primacy of order among the rest of the Bishops in the Empire for which Constantinople long vy'd with them 't is but of late they have emprov'd their pretensions into a claim of Supremacy over the Catholick Church as the Vicars of Christ And 't is too observable in Church History that as the Seats of Bishops swell'd and their power encreast by engrossing to themselves that work which a score or hundred Bishops cou'd hardly discharge so all true Discipline was gradually disus'd and lost and the Church miserably deprav'd by the corruption of it as well as divided by the Contentions of aspiring Bishops about their primacy and usurped power If you dâ—sire further satisfaction on this head I referr you to Mr. Baxters Treatise of Episcopacy who in the 2d part 5 6 7 ch has given as Satisfactory an account of the ancient Episcopacy as can be expâ—cted of any matter of fact at that distance The few slender exceptions produc't by Dr. Stillingfl in his Vnreason of Seper which yet do not reach the two first Centuries are so clearly invalidated and expos'd by Mr. Baxters Answer to Dr St. p. 100 101 c. and by Mr. Clerkson in his No evidence of Diocesan Churches in Antiq c that I shall take it for granted that Diocesan Bishops and Churches are Strangers to Antiquity and shall look on that cause as desperate and lost unless some of its Patrons cou'd disprove that full stream of evidence he has brought against it from the most ancient Christian writers in the foremention'd
Treatise There are few considerable defenders of Prelacy whose writings he has not animadverted on And t is strange to observe how farr the most of them mistake the true state of the controversie Some go about to prove a sort of general superintendents Arch-Bishops or Metropolitans who had some inspection over the Bishops of particular Churches within their Province and presided in their Synods but did not put down the Government and exercise of Church-Discipline in those particular Churches as if this were a proof of those Diocesan Bishops that do cast out all Government and exercise of Discipline by the Bishops or Pastors of particular Churches and pretend to be the sole Pastors of the Diocess And yet the jurisdiction of such Metropolitans is of no very ancient date and quite contrary to the judgment of Cyprian who disowns any Bishop of Bishops and owns only Bishops or Overseers of Flocks or Churches Others take a great deal of pains to prove the stated presidency of one by the name of Bishop in a Consessus or Bench of Presbyters who had but all one Communicating Church under their charge which is not deny'd to have begun early in the Church as a Remedy of Schism But that difference of Bishop and Presbyters when both were but joynt-rulers of a Congregation is so far from being a proof of modern prelacy that such Diocesan Bishops have put down the primitive parish-Parish-Bishops and monopoliz'd the power of many score or hundreds of such Bishops to themselves and thereby rendred true Church-government impracticable Nay that very difference betwixt the Bishop and Presbyters of a particular Church seems to have had it's rise wholly in the notorious disparity of his gifts learning age c. above the rest but was never esteemed by them a difference in office or power nor is it ascrib'd to any higher Original â—hen Human Constitution by Jerome Auâ—â—in Ambâ—ose Sedulius Primasius Chrysostom Theodoret c. not to mention â—â—der writers If then Ordination belong to Scripturall Bishops and such be the Pastors of particular Churches 〈◊〉 none else diâ— orâ—â—â—â— in the Primitive Church in its purest Ages Then a l suâ—h Bâ—shops have that power Nor indeed have any power to orâ—â—â— but on the account of their being such Scriptural Bishâ—â—s â—hâ— office of Diocesan Prelates being a manifest Usurpation in thâ— Church which had it's rise in human Ambition That Uâ—u pation cannot rightfully deprive the true Bishops or Pastors oâ— that power of Church-government which is as essential to their office as the power of teaching or being guides in worship And whatever may be said for parish-Parish-Bishops submitting for peace sake to the usurpation of a Diocesan ex gr when he claims the sole power of Ordination where the true ends of it are attain'd yet they have no reason to submit to it when Diocesan Bishops shall so abuse that usurped power as to corrupt and deprave the Ministry by imposing sinful terms and hazard the ruin of Souls by neglecting to provide a number of faithful Pastors suitable to their real necessities The Ordination therefore of the Pastors or Bishops of particular Churchâ—s is more agreeable to the holy Scripture and primitive Antiquity and consequently more unexceptionably Valid then that of a single Diocesan From whence it follows That the ordination of Pastors in the Presbyterian Churches is Valid because either they are ordain'd by Diocesan Bishops who had power to ordain on the account of that office they have in common with scriptural Bishops tho they have none as Diocesan or they are ordain'd by a concurrence of scriptural Bishops to whose office the power of Ordination was annext by divine Institution and and cannot be alienated by any humane usurpation For Christ has given none power to change his Institutions Nor can the will of the Ordainers debar his Officers from any part of that Authority which his Charter conveys to them And if the validity of Ordination by such scriptural Bishops be deny'd the Church had no ordained Ministers for a Century or two at least Having laid down these Notions about Mission I come to examine D M's Quest's Quest 1 What priesthood or holy Orders had the first Reformers but what they received from the hands of Roman Catholick Bishops Answ If D M mean that their priesthood or ministerial office was convey'd to them by the Bishops as the Givers of it they receiv'd it from none at all nor has any that power to give 't is given by Christ in his Charter But if he mean that the Roman Catholick or Popish Bishops did invest them in that office 'T is own'd that most of the Reformed Ministers were ordain'd by them and 't is not material whether they were R man Catholick Bishops of the same rigid stamp as those of the present Age or no for the validity of their Ordination depends on the Essentials of the Pastoral office retain'd and not on their horrid corruption of it And as Mr. K. well observes they ordain'd as Christian not as Roman Bishops But what if some of the Reformers became Pastors to the people upon their necessities and call who durst not comply with the sinful terms of Ordination in the Church of Rome and yet could have no other They would not be in this case destitute of a true Mission For the evident necessities of the peoples souls who earnestly desir'd to have the Truths of the Gospel purely preach'd and divine Worship purely celebrated and who could not with a safe conscience continue in the Communion of the Roman Church and their Qualifications for so necessary a work were a sufficient signification of the will of Christ that they should undertake it For the precept about the ordinary regular way of Admission to the Ministry did not oblige where it cou'd not be lawfully observed and where there was a far greater necessity of a pure untainted Ministry then of that positive point of Order For else on supposition no Pasâ—oâ—s had embraced the Reformation The people who did woud have been obliged to have lived like Aâ—heists without publick worship 2 Q Who authorized the first Reformers to preach their Protestant Doctrine and administer their Protestant Sac aments Answ It does not belong to the Ordainers to determine what Doctrine the person ordained shall preach but to Christ who has determined that matter already And therefore if the Doctrine which our first Reformers preacht and the Sacraments they administred be Christ's as Mr. K. well argues 't is ridiculous to ask who authoriz'd them to preach the one or administer the other Christ did and no men can authorize any to preach any other Doctrine or administer any other Sacraments The Bishops or Priests in the Roman Church had no right or Mission from Christ to preach Popish Doctrine or administer Popish Sacraments or celebrate Popish Woâ—shâ—p so far as these are contrary to the Doctrine Sacraments and Worship contain'd in the Gospel These were gross corruptions of their office
them their Office. Many of them try'd his remedy they represented these things to their Ecclesiastical Superiors as Luther to the Archbishop of Mentz and the Bishop of Brandenburg and the Pope himself But they soon learnt by dear experience how averse the Court of Rome was to any Reformation and how little it was to be expected from the Prelates who either had no will or no courage to attempt a Reformation against the will of the Pope Luther and all his followers in stead of prevailing with those that had the conduct of the Church were excommunicated as Hereticks Now according to Mr. K's principle these Reformers being censured and suspended by the Prelates to whom they were subject were discharged from the execution of their Office and should no more have made a Schism in the Church to regain it than one must make a Rebellion in the State to regain a Civil Office. And since they did not desert their Office but went on to preach against the Constitution of the Romish Church and the will of their Superiors the Popish Prelates they were no better than Schismaticks and Church-Rebels Nay if his Notion of the Catholick Church be true the people that separated from the Popish Prelates and adher'd to their excommunicated Pastors ceast to be members of the body of Christ And how great a part of the Reformed Churches and their Pastors fall under this heavy charge And will Mr. K. own all these unavoidable consequences upon mature deliberation What if we should once more have a Popish Convocation in England and these should restore the Romish Religion and suspend aâ—l the present Parish-Ministers whom Mr. K. thinks now lawful Pastors According to his Principle they being but Presbyters and the Bishops Subjects must not preach against the Constitution of the Church of England declaring her judgment by a Convocation in whom the supreme Government of the Church is lodg'd they must therefore cease their Ministry and no more make a Schism by the exercise of it than they must make a Rebellion in the State to regain a Civil Office. Nay to separate from such Governors of the Church of England will prove those that do it no Catholick members of the Church The same principles may be apply'd to the Arrians who got Imperial Councils and consequently the Government of the Imperial Church into their hands and for such Pastors as Athanasius to preach against Arrianism which was then the Doctrine of the Church was Schism and Church-Rebellion In a word According to these Principles 'T is in the power of a Convocation to damn many thousand souls by suspending an Orthodox and substituting a corrupt Ministry and for those Orthodox Pastors when suspended to endeavour their salvation by the exercise of their Ministry is to be Schismaticks and Church-Rebels And what is this less than to set up the will of such Church-Governors above the will and laws of Christ above the Salvation of Souls and above the Interest of Truth and Holiness Therefore 3. Let us examine the Grounds of this strange Assertion viz. Because there is a regular way for reforming abuses And for particular Presbyters to do it against the will of the Bishops whose Subjects they are is like reforming abuses in the state in spight of the King a remedy generally worse then the disease c. Answ 1. All that these reasons prove is that Reformation shou'd be first sought by humble addressing to our Superiors But Mr. K. plainly leaves it impossible if they refuse 2. They are founded on this wretched mistake that the Authority of Bishops in the Church does resemble that of a King in the State and so to reform abuses in the Church against their will is like reforming abuses in the State in spight of the King. Whereas t is Christ's Authority in the Church that does resemble the King 's in the State. And therefore if he wou'd rightly state the comparison it runs thus Christ the King of his Church requires all his Officers to preach the pure Doctrine and administer the pure institutions deliver'd in his Gospel which is his universal law Let us suppose there are in this or that particular part of the Church dangerous corruptions crept in The law of Christ obliges these his officers to disown them and reform them but the Major part of these will not but presume to silence those that do it according to his command Now the Quest is whether those that obey the command of Christ be the Rebells against him or those that neither will obey his commands themselves nor allow others to do so One wou'd think that such as refuse to reform and silence all that in their own place attempt it according to the tenour of their Commission are like to prove the Church Rebells But no doubt the Pastors of a Church may disown and excommunicate one that abuses his office to the perverting the Church and for him to continue to p rvert the Church by such male-administration is to Rebell against Christ and his laws The charge of Rebellion therefore must arise from the vioâ—ation of Christ's Authority not mens which the Major part of Pastors may be guilty of in a Nation as well as the lesser 3 He seems to confound a private and a publick Reformation 4. The Reason given why a Bishop or Presbyter when censur'd is discharg'd from his Office viz. Because to regain it is like making a Rebellion to regain a Civil Office does suppose two great mistakes 1. That the Ordainers give a Spiritual office in the Church as the King gives a Civil office in the State And this is no less a mistake then to set the Ordainers in the place of Christ T is his Charter gives the sacred office as the King 's does the Civil and the Ordainers do but for orders sake approve and ceremonially invest the person as the Recorder does the Mayor of a Town whom the Burghesses choose And herein Mr. K. seems to own that very error which is the ground of all Mr. M's impertinent Questions 2. He supposes that the Bishops who ordain Presbyters have equal power to depose them from their Ministerial office as the King has to take away a Civill Commission And thus p 27. he teâ—ls us That the present Dissenters were the Bishops subject accountable to them as their Superiors and liable to be discharg'd from their office and the benefits of the Communion of the Church by their Censure Whereas T is plain that it is the Charter of Christ gives the sacred office as the King 's does the Civil And as none can take a Civil Commission given by the King to any Subject but by the King's orders and Command So none can take away that spiritual Commission Christ has given any officer in his Church but by his orders But now he has given none leave or Authority to depose his officers but for evident Male-administration as preaching Heresie gross scandal c. And if in any part
of his Church The Major number of Pastors shou'd depose the Minor for doing their duty or without a just cause their doing so is a bold and wicked usurpation for which they may expect their Lord will call them to an account as he threatens the evil servant who unmindfull of his Lord 's coming begun to smite his fellow servants 24. Matth. 48 49 But for the innocent Pastors thus wrongfully deposed to disobey their usurping deposers is to obey Christ who never warranted them to desert their office and bâ—tray Souls because they are unjustly forbidden to do what his charter has made their duty 'T is therefore the unjust deposers are the Rebells against Christ and their usurpation is as if the Mayor of a County town shou'd without any orders from the King presume to turn out all the Mayors of the particular Corporations in that County at his own pleasure and I imagine the King wou'd in all probability take him for the Rebell who wou'd thus under pretence of his Authority usurp a power never given him and exercise it to the violation of his Charter and the Laws of the Land. This is the true state of the Case and Mr. K's mistakes about it are so palpable that 't is a wonder how a man of his judgment cou'd fall into them And I must needs add here that as the Dissenters were never the Bishops Subjects as they are any officers of Christ and Mr. K will never prove them to be so So they will be more afraid of submitting to their usurpation if they arrogate to themselves such an unlimited power of deposing his undoubted officers particular Church Bishops and claim a blind obedience to their deposing Sentence be it right or wrong And 't is but fidelity to our Lord to disown such palpable and dangerous usurpation The grounds then of Mr. K's principles being false they will not serve him to condemn the Presbyterian Ministers as either Schismaticks or Church-Rebels and the charge is likelier to faâ—l heavy on those that presum'd to suspend them against the known laws of Christ from whom they received their Commission Mr. K. very gravely takes for granted what he will never prove 1. That the Convocation are by the laws of Christ the Supreme Governours of all the Christians in England 2. That either the Convocation did justly according to the laws of Christ suspend the Nonconfâ—rming Ministers or that an absolute obedience was due to their Censure whether just or unjust 1. He takes it for granted That the Convocation are by the Laws of Christ the supreme Governours of all the Christians in England Does not Mr. K. know that the Divines of his own Church are not agrâ—ed about this matter The Reverend Dr. Stilling when posed by Mr. Baxter about this Quest Who was the Ecclesiastiâ—al governing Head of the Church of England as one body politick Uureas of Seper p 127 128. does very fairly deny that the Church of England has any such Head or Regent part nay denies the necessity of such an Head. So that according to him the Church of England can be no Politicall Church made up of a Governing and a governed part And consequently all the noise of it's Government Constitutions and Laws as such a politicall Church is at an end But now Mr. K. comes and tells us without Scruple That the supreme Government of our Church has always been in a National Councel or convocation of our Clergy If so I wou'd gladly know whether Mr. K does think that the laws or Canons of a Convocation wou'd obâ—ige the Consciences of all the Christians in England tho they were not enacted and ratified by the civill Authority If they wou'd nor 't is evident that the Church of England has no Ecclesiastical Head of Government because none that can make laws obligatory to all the Christians in England And so the Convocation are but the King 's Ecclesiastical Council which is indeed the true Notion of them to advise him what Laws he shall establish by civil Authority relating to Church Government If he say the Canons of the Coâ—vocation wou'd oblige whether the civil Authority ratified them or no I ask Quo jure All obligation to obey any Church-governors as such must arise from the command of Chrisâ— Now where has he commanded that in every Nation such a small part of the Clergy as our Convocation consists of shall be supreme Governours of all the rest When perhaps they are as unfit to represent the judgment of all the Pastors not to mention the people in England as â—he Council of Trent all the Churches in Euroâ—e I am confident besides the 2000 silenced Ministers the far greater part of the Conforming Clergy would never have consented to all the late excommunicating Canons had thâ—ir Vote been requir'd And the chief members of the Convocation are so far from being Christ's Officers that I despâ—ir thâ—ir ever defending the lawfulness and much more the divine r ghâ— of their Office against Mr. Baxter's Arguments in his forâ—said Treatise of Episcopacy Neither the light of nature nor general laws of Scripture wou d suggest such an Assâ—mbly as the governing Head of the Church of England A duly â—l cted Synod of Pastors in a Nation to endeavour the nearest Unity and Concord of the particular Churches as far as 't is to be expected on earth by their amicable consultations we grant to be most desirable and eligible wherever it may be had and the judgment of such a Synod should be comply'd with in all things not râ—pugnant to the word of God. But we cannot say so of an Assembly compos'd chiefly of men whose Office is not only an Usurpation but such as renders true Church-government impossible and whose interest and grandure inclines them to keep up the divisions and corruptions which they have made And to such a Convocation's being entrusted by Christ with the National Church-government which Mr. K. is pleased to assert I oppose the judgment of the truly learned Archbishop Vsher which he often profest to Mr. Baxter viz. That Church-Councils are not for Government but for Vnity Not as being in order of Government over the several Bishops but that by consultation they may know their duty more clearly and by agreement maintain Vnity and to that end they were anciently celebrated 2. Mr. K. takes it for granted also That either the Convocation did justly according to the laws of Christ suspend the Non-conforming Ministers or that those Ministers were bound however to obey their sentence whether right or wrong For the first If he will indeed prove their silencing to have been just i. e. that the Non-conforming Ministers were guilty of such male-administration as forfeited their office and warranted the Prelates by the laws of Christ to depose them I will assure him they will quit their office rather than rebel against Christ or any just deposing sentence of men But I have already prov'd the sentence to be unjust And
these debates with deep regret that I am put on so unhappy necessity not only of opposing Mr. K. but saying so much against the present Church-Goverment in order to the Vindication of the Reformed Churches both at home and abroad and the Truth it self But as these principles I have here reflected on have been the fatal Engines of Church Tyranny and divisions these many Ages and belong to the Roman Arsenall so t is the necessary work of a Peacemaker who proposes a Catholick Unity and Love as his great aim to batter them down I had not so long delay'd the sending this paper but that I still hoped some abler pen would have undertaken what mine is so unfit for However I hope I have asserted nothing contrary either to Truth or Peace or if I have I am willing to receive better Information I am Sir. Your most humble c. A POSTSCRIPT THe person to whom the Letter was address'd desiring me to publish it I thought it requisite upon a review of it to add a few things relating to some passages in it The opposition of Mr. K's Notion of the Catholick Church to the Articles of the Church of Ireland and the agreeableness of mine to them is observ'd in the Preface To what is said about Mr. K's mark of the Catholick Church viz. living under lawful spiritual Governors I add that this renders the relation of all true Christians to our blessed Lord as his members as questionable as the title of the Pastor under whom they live and consequently exposes their right to all the benefits of the Gospel even to the Kingdom of Heaven it self to the same uncertainties and doubts as the regularity of his Admission to his Office. And if those ancient Canons repeated in so many Councils be of any force which declare all Elections of the Clergy by Magistrates or without the consent of the people void what a desperate case has almost all the Christian world been in ever since the old way of Elections was alter'd Nay the Church of England it self where the Bishops are chosen by the King and Parsons by Patrons is in a miserable plight So severe is this mark of the Catholick Church on those for whose secular interest Mr. K. seems to have calculated it and so over-favourable to those whom he design'd to exclude from the Catholick Church by it For what is said on behalf of all the Reformed Churches p. 11 c. It is not intended to include the Socinians who deny an essential Article of the Christian Faith the Deity of Christ and all the Doctrines of his Satisfaction c. that depend on it Against Mr. K's Notion of the Supreme Government over all the Christians in England being lodg'd in the Convocation touch'd on p. 57th I add this Argument ad hominem The General-Assembly in Scotland have equal pretensions to the Supreme Government of all Christians in that Nation as the Convocation has in England Now if the laws of the Convocation would oblige the Consciences of all the Christians in England as the laws of the Church whether ratified by the Civil Authority or no then the Acts of the General Assembly in Scotland have the same force there Now that General Assembly which sat there in the year 1639. whose Acts were also ratified afterwards by King Ch. the First in person present in his Parliament there abolisht Prelacy and set up the Presbyterian Government there The Prelates were according to Mr. K's Principles discharg'd from their Office and since they regain'd it not only without the allowance of any General Assembly but against the Acts or Laws of all that sat there since they were therein guilty of Schism or Church Rebellion Mr. K's Notions are as unmerciful to the Bishops there as to Presbyters here So little does he regard where those envenom'd darts may fall which he levels against his Dissenting Brethren The Contents of the Letter MR. M's 1 Quest in the Preface What is meant by the Catholick Church Mr. K's Answer consider'd and evidenc'd to be obscure narrow and consequently schismatical and dangerous from p. 2 to p. 7. The true Answer to that Question p. 7 8 9 10. Mr. M's 2d and 3d Questions Mr. K's Answer enlarg'd to make it more Catholick and comprehensive p. 10 11. Mr. M's 4th Quest Whether by the Catholick Church be meant the variety of all Protestants since they deny her essential mark Vnity The true Catholick Answer proposed p. 11 12 13. Mr. K's Answer to that Question consider'd His three marks of the Catholick members of the Church examin'd His first Embracing the Catholick Faith allow'd His second Living in Charity with their neighbour Churches excludes the Papists Mr. Dodwel and himself and a great part of the Christian world in the present and former Ages His third mark Making no separation from their lawful Governors founded on his schismatical Notion of the Catholick Church Two Questions propos'd on that Head. 1. Whether the separation of the Presbyterians c. supposing it to be sinful will exclude them from being Catholick members of the Church That it does not prov'd from the nature of their separation being only a breach of humane Vnity The contrary Assertion excludes the English Convocation the Papists and the greatest part of the Christian Church in every Age from being Catholick members c from p. 16. to p. 20 2 Vpon what grounds does Mr K assert that the Presbyterians have made a sinful separation from their lawful Governors Some difficulties propos'd on that Head That the Presbyt Ministers are lawful Pastors to the Churches under their oversight prov'd from p 21 to p. 30 The Q's in the Pamphlet about Mission The true Notion of Mission stated The Authority and Obligation of Pastors to the duties of their Office derived from Christ's Charter The use of Pastoral Ordination It s absolute necessity to the being of the Ministry disprov'd The power of Ordination belongs to scriptural Bishops Such Bishops prov'd to be the Pastors of single Congregations not Diocesses from Scripture and Antiquity The Ordination of Presbyt Ministers at home and abroad hence vindicated from p. 38. to p 48 These promis'd Mr. M's 1 Qu. What Priesthood or holy Orders had the first Reformers but what they received from Rom. Cath. Bishops Answered p 48 49 His 2 Q. Who authorized the first Reformers to Preach their Protestant Doctrine and administer their Protestant Sacraments Answered and retorted on the Church of Rome p. 49 His 3d and 4th Q's Whether Cranmer and his Associates could condemn the Church of Rome by vertue of the Mission derived from her Bishops If so whether a Presbyt Minister having received Orders from a Protestant Bishop can by vertue of such Orders pronounce the Church of England a corrupt Church Answered p 50 51 Mr. K's Answer examined His Concession to D. M. That a Bishop or Presbyter ought not to preach against the Constitution of the Church he is a member of and if he be censured or suspended he is discharg'd c. consider'd The consequences of it pernicious to a great part of the Reformed Churches and to our own had we a Popish Convocation The grounds of it absurd and false The silenc'd NC Ministers not chargeable with Schism or Church-Rebellion the charge more likely to fall heavy on the unjust silencers unless Mr K. can prove both the divine right of the Convocation to be the Ecclesiastical Head of the Church of England and the equity of their silencing sentence from p 51 to p. 59 5 Q Whether an Act of Parl c Answered p 59 60 Some general Remarks on the rest of Mr K's Answer p. 60 61 62 Reflections on the whole from p 62 to the end A Postscript FINIS ERRATA PAge 7 l 21 r Arimini To line 24 add And not the Catholick Church as visible or as measur'd by a Judgment of Charity as the Papists assert and Mr K with them contrary to the stream of protestant writers on that Controversie p 9 l 15 after commandment add an c p 23 l 30 r 7th v p 40 l ult r prelacy p 59 l 28 r 5th Q p 63 l 17 blot out a