Treatise There are few considerable defenders of Prelacy whose writings he has not animadverted on And t is strange to observe how farr the most of them mistake the true state of the controversie Some go about to prove a sort of general superintendents Arch-Bishops or Metropolitans who had some inspection over the Bishops of particular Churches within their Province and presided in their Synods but did not put down the Government and exercise of Church-Discipline in those particular Churches as if this were a proof of those Diocesan Bishops that do cast out all Government and exercise of Discipline by the Bishops or Pastors of particular Churches and pretend to be the sole Pastors of the Diocess And yet the jurisdiction of such Metropolitans is of no very ancient date and quite contrary to the judgment of Cyprian who disowns any Bishop of Bishops and owns only Bishops or Overseers of Flocks or Churches Others take a great deal of pains to prove the stated presidency of one by the name of Bishop in a Consessus or Bench of Presbyters who had but all one Communicating Church under their charge which is not deny'd to have begun early in the Church as a Remedy of Schism But that difference of Bishop and Presbyters when both were but joynt-rulers of a Congregation is so far from being a proof of modern prelacy that such Diocesan Bishops have put down the primitive Parish-Bishops and monopoliz'd the power of many score or hundreds of such Bishops to themselves and thereby rendred true Church-government impracticable Nay that very difference betwixt the Bishop and Presbyters of a particular Church seems to have had it's rise wholly in the notorious disparity of his gifts learning age c. above the rest but was never esteemed by them a difference in office or power nor is it ascrib'd to any higher Original â—hen Human Constitution by Jerome Auâ—â—in Ambâ—ose Sedulius Primasius Chrysostom Theodoret c. not to mention â—â—der writers If then Ordination belong to Scripturall Bishops and such be the Pastors of particular Churches 〈◊〉 none else diâ— orâ—â—â—â— in the Primitive Church in its purest Ages Then a l suâ—h Bâ—shops have that power Nor indeed have any power to orâ—â—â— but on the account of their being such Scriptural Bishâ—â—s â—hâ— office of Diocesan Prelates being a manifest Usurpation in thâ— Church which had it's rise in human Ambition That Uâ—u pation cannot rightfully deprive the true Bishops or Pastors oâ— that power of Church-government which is as essential to their office as the power of teaching or being guides in worship And whatever may be said for Parish-Bishops submitting for peace sake to the usurpation of a Diocesan ex gr when he claims the sole power of Ordination where the true ends of it are attain'd yet they have no reason to submit to it when Diocesan Bishops shall so abuse that usurped power as to corrupt and deprave the Ministry by imposing sinful terms and hazard the ruin of Souls by neglecting to provide a number of faithful Pastors suitable to their real necessities The Ordination therefore of the Pastors or Bishops of particular Churchâ—s is more agreeable to the holy Scripture and primitive Antiquity and consequently more unexceptionably Valid then that of a single Diocesan From whence it follows That the ordination of Pastors in the Presbyterian Churches is Valid because either they are ordain'd by Diocesan Bishops who had power to ordain on the account of that office they have in common with scriptural Bishops tho they have none as Diocesan or they are ordain'd by a concurrence of scriptural Bishops to whose office the power of Ordination was annext by divine Institution and and cannot be alienated by any humane usurpation For Christ has given none power to change his Institutions Nor can the will of the Ordainers debar his Officers from any part of that Authority which his Charter conveys to them And if the validity of Ordination by such scriptural Bishops be deny'd the Church had no ordained Ministers for a Century or two at least Having laid down these Notions about Mission I come to examine D M's Quest's Quest 1 What priesthood or holy Orders had the first Reformers but what they received from the hands of Roman Catholick Bishops Answ If D M mean that their priesthood or ministerial office was convey'd to them by the Bishops as the Givers of it they receiv'd it from none at all nor has any that power to give 't is given by Christ in his Charter But if he mean that the Roman Catholick or Popish Bishops did invest them in that office 'T is own'd that most of the Reformed Ministers were ordain'd by them and 't is not material whether they were R man Catholick Bishops of the same rigid stamp as those of the present Age or no for the validity of their Ordination depends on the Essentials of the Pastoral office retain'd and not on their horrid corruption of it And as Mr. K. well observes they ordain'd as Christian not as Roman Bishops But what if some of the Reformers became Pastors to the people upon their necessities and call who durst not comply with the sinful terms of Ordination in the Church of Rome and yet could have no other They would not be in this case destitute of a true Mission For the evident necessities of the peoples souls who earnestly desir'd to have the Truths of the Gospel purely preach'd and divine Worship purely celebrated and who could not with a safe conscience continue in the Communion of the Roman Church and their Qualifications for so necessary a work were a sufficient signification of the will of Christ that they should undertake it For the precept about the ordinary regular way of Admission to the Ministry did not oblige where it cou'd not be lawfully observed and where there was a far greater necessity of a pure untainted Ministry then of that positive point of Order For else on supposition no Pasâ—oâ—s had embraced the Reformation The people who did woud have been obliged to have lived like Aâ—heists without publick worship 2 Q Who authorized the first Reformers to preach their Protestant Doctrine and administer their Protestant Sac aments Answ It does not belong to the Ordainers to determine what Doctrine the person ordained shall preach but to Christ who has determined that matter already And therefore if the Doctrine which our first Reformers preacht and the Sacraments they administred be Christ's as Mr. K. well argues 't is ridiculous to ask who authoriz'd them to preach the one or administer the other Christ did and no men can authorize any to preach any other Doctrine or administer any other Sacraments The Bishops or Priests in the Roman Church had no right or Mission from Christ to preach Popish Doctrine or administer Popish Sacraments or celebrate Popish Woâ—shâ—p so far as these are contrary to the Doctrine Sacraments and Worship contain'd in the Gospel These were gross corruptions of their office
because they prefer those Pastors who teach his Doctrine and administer his Sacraments and discipline according to the Rules of the Gospel before those who grossly corrupt them and impose those corruptions He must have a very odd understanding that can assent to so senseless not to say so wicked an assertion For this were no better than to set up a point of meer human Order in opposition to the interest of Truth and Holiness I might here instance again in the Arrian Bishops who had not only the countenance of the Emperors but got Imperial Councils call'd General as that of Armini and Syrmium on their side and according to this Principle they were the only lawful Pastors and those that separated from them were no part of the Catholick Church I know not how Mr. K. will like these consequences But he cannot avoid them unless he will say That where there are in a Nation two divided parties of Christians fixt under different Pastors those are the only lawful Pastors who are on the side of Truth in the Points controverted betwixt them whether they have the Civil Magistrates countenance or no. And if he say this 't will follow on the other hand that in those Popish Kingdoms where there are any Protestant Ministers they are the only lawful Pastors and the Popish Churches that live not under them no part of the Catholick Church Nay in those parts of Germany where there are Lutherans and Calvinists if the Calvinists be in the right the Lutherans for separating from the Calvinist Ministers forfeit all relation to the Catholick Church And to add no more if the Non-Conformists be in the right in the matters debated betwix them and the Conformists about Church-Government c. they are the only lawful Pastors and the Prelatical Churches no part of the Catholick Church Or lastly Must the Laws of Christ determine who are lawful Pastors then those are the only lawful spiritual Governors in his Church whose Office he has instituted who have all the Qualifications requir'd 1 Tim. 3. ch 1 Tit. Who are ordain'd to their Office by such as he has entrusted the power of Ordination to where such Ordination can be had and who have the consent of that Flock they take the oversight of If these be the laws of Christ as it were easy to prove if that were deny'd then all Diocesan Prelates must be cashier'd from the number of lawful Pastors unless they can prove their Office instituted by Christ and so must all the Parish-Ministers who want the Qualifications mention'd 1 Tim. 3. or who are impos'd on the people without their consent nay too often against it And if Mr. K's Notion of the Catholick Church be true then all the Churches that live under Diocesan Prelates as their spiritual Governors or such unqualifi'd obtruded Parish-Ministers are no part of the Catholick Church So that if he retract not this new description of the Catholick Church 't is like to fall heavy on his own Party and because I would not be so uncharitable to the Church of England as he is to the Churches of Dissenters I advise him the next time he undertakes to define the Catholick Church to leave out this dangerous mark of it At least he ought to apply this mark to the Papists as well as Dissenters whereas among the Latin Questions The 14th is Whether that be a true Church which has not lawful Pastors And Mr. K. thus answers It may be a true Church witness the Church of Rome which has had so many haeretical schismatical simoniacal ones who were not all lawful Pastors But did there therefore cease to be a Chureh at Rome But I perceive this is a true mark when he would vent his spleen against the Presbyterian Churches at home and abroad but a false or uncertain one when it would unchurch the Papists The best of it is if it be a true mark the Papal and Diocesan Churches are most concern'd in the dangerous consequences of it All therefore I shall add on this Head is a brief Answer to Mr. M's Question What that Holy Catholick and Apostolick Church is which we profess to believe in the Creed Answ We need go no farther for the resolution of this Question than the Text quoted by Mr. K. 4 Eph. 3 4 5. Only I must premise that the Catholick Church in its true extent includes the Church Triumphant as well as the Church Militant nay all the Saints that have been are or shall be on earth to the end of the world see Mr. Claud's Reponse au livre de Mon sr l' Evesque de Meaux c. p. 7 8 9 c. But if we speak of the Catholick Church as militant on earth it must be considered either as measured by the judgment of God which discerns the truth of things from all hypocritical disguises or as measur'd by the judgment of humane Charity As measur'd by the judgment of God 't is according to the fore-quoted Text One body or society animated by one holy Spirit having one heavenly hope subjected to one Lord Jesus believing the same revealed Doctrine as to all necessary Articles and devoted by one Baptismal Covenant to one heavenly Father This Body is call'd Invisible or Mystical from that internal Faith and Holiness which are invisible and 't is also Visible by the external profession of that true Faith and Holiness And this is that Church which we profess to believe in the Creed in which alone we can expect to find the true Communion of Saints And to this Church alone all promises of saving Blessings are made in the holy Scriptures * The judgment of several Fathers to this purpose and particularly St Aug see quoted in that forecited discourse of Mr Claud from p 45 to 68 But the Catholick Church as measur'd by the judgment of human Charity comprizes all that make a credible profession of Christian Faith and Holiness For we are incapable to distinguish the true and living members of the Church from those that only appear to be so And therefore the Catholick Church as estimated by our charity is more large and comprehensive than the real Body of Christ For Hypocrites are no true members of his Body tho mixt with them in the same external Society by their external Profession or as St. John distinguishes they are among them but not of them 1 Joh. 2. v. 19. They are but blasted Ears not the true Wheat they are members of the Church Catholick in appearance not in reality The Church Catholick as measur'd by our charitable judgment is I know commonly call'd the Church-Catholickâ— Visible i. e. the Church Catholick as estimated by an external or visible profession But I wou'd choose rather for avoiding confusion to call it the Visible Church Catholick mixt For the Church Catholick in the proper sense as constituted of its living or as the Schools speak its univocal members real Saints is also Visible because its members not only
and therefore when any of them embrac'd the Reformation when they begun to preach the Gospel more purely and to celebrate divine Worship more free from the idoâ—atrous and superstitious mixtures that had prevail'd in the Roman Church they restor'd their Ministry to its true use and so far purg'd it from that wretched depravation And in this debate Mr. K need not be asham'd to defend either Luthâ—r or Calvin or Zuinglius For S cinus or hâ—s followers they can produce no Mission to preach against the Divinity and satisfaction of the Son of God no more than D. M. to preach uâ— the worship of Images or Invocation of Angels and Saints or Adoration of the Host c. For the 3d and 4th Qu. I shall joyn them Whether Cranmer and his Associates could condemn the Church of Rome by pretence of the Mission they received from her Bishops If so whether a Presbyterian Minister having â—eceived Orders from a Protestant Bâ—shop can by vertue of such Orders pronounce the Church of England a corrupt Church 'T is evident both these Questions are founded on this ridiculous fancy that the person Ordained is obliged to conform his Ministrations to the judgment or humour of the Ordainers 'T is true indeed if in any Church the Ministers that are Ordained be obliged to subscribe a Confession of Faith or observe any publick Rules in their Worship they ought not to be Ordain'd on these terms if they think any thing in the Doctrine of that Church or the Ruâ—es of its worship contrary to the Doctrine of Christ or the Gospel Rule of Worship Much less should they enter into that obligation with a design to break it afterwards This were odious dissimulation But if any have been Ordain'd in a Church that has obliged them to subscribe certain Articles of Faith and Rules of Worship which at their Ordination they had no scruple against and shall upon deeper study find many of those Articâ—es were gross and dangerous Errors and those Rules of Worship idolatrous or superstitious they are not obliged to preach those Errors or practice those Rules against the dictates of their own conâ—cience Nay if those errors and corruptions endanger the salvation of their Flock they ought to preach against them and warn souls of their danger And not to do this is to betray those souls to desert the cause and testimony of Christ and fail of that fidelity he expects in the discharge of their office They ought to do all in their sphere towards a Reformation and if they should be suspended for the doing that which Christ has made their duty the suspension is unjust and null as being opposite to the laws and interest of Christ and is indeed a Rebellion against him If therefore the Doctrines and Worship of the Roman Church were pernicious and endangered the salvation of souls and our Reformers had just ground to account them such they were bound by the laws of Christ to preach against them and warn the people of them and in their sphere attempt a Reformation Nor would any suspension or excommunication of those Popish Bishops that Ordain'd them justify their deserting their Ministry and betraying the interest of Christ and souls And they might do this without assuming any Authority over the Church of Rome they only refused subjection to her unjust impositions And so may Presbyterian Ministers refuse subjection to the sinful impositions of those Prelates that Ordain'd them and are not obliged to lay down their Office when ever their Ordainers shall unjustly silence them as we proved before But Mr. K. I perceive likes not this Answer and therefore chooses to justify the Church of Engl. upon narrower grounds And therefore in his Reply to these Questions 1. He grants that A Presbyter or Bishop ought not to preach against the Constitution of the Church whereof they are Members 2. He asserts This was not the Reformers Case and therefore he founds the lawfulness of the Reformation entirely upon its being made by the Convocation in whom he supposes the supreme Church-Government lodged in this Nation Had Mr K. only argued that the Reformation in England was not only lawful but effected in the most regular way with the concurrence of the Civil Magistrate upon the advice of so considerable a part of the Clergy none could have blam'd him for taking in all the considerations that prove the Reformation in England to have been the most unexceptionably regular and orderly But that in his eager zeal to defend the Prelates of the Church of England in silencing their brethren he should make such a Concession to the Papists as may be used against the Reformation elsewhere with so great advantage was not ingenuous But we must excuse him that he had rather wound the Reformed Churches abroad than not gratify his spleen against the Presbyterians at home and car'd not whom he made Schismaticks provided he fastned that character on his Brethren Let us therefore examine this Concession of his p. 27. A Presbyter or Bishop ought not to preach against the Constitution of that Church of which they are members The reason he gives is Because there is a regular way wherein they may endeavour a Reformation viz. If they find any thing amiss in her Doctrine or Discipline they may make their application for the redress of it to those that have power to reform it but must not presume being subjects to uâ—urp their Governors power But what if their Governors refuse to reform and silence those that desire or in their own sphere attempt it All the answer is But if such a Bishop or Presbyter be censur'd and suspended he is thereby discharg'd from the execution of his Office and he must no more make a Schism to regain it than one must make a Rebellion in the State to regain a Civil Office. This we urge and I think with reason against the Presbyterians and other Sects among us that either have no Ordination or appointment to their Offices from the Church of England or Ireland or else abuse the power against her which was once given them by her and from which they are again legally suspended And as we urge this against them so likewise against D. M. c. Let us briefly consider the Consequences of this Concession and the grounds of it 1. Its Consequences The first Protestant Pastors in France and most other parts of Europe were before the Reformation members of those Churches where they lived and subject to their Governors they had received Ordination by the hands of Popish Prelates God was pleased so to bless their studies and search after truth that they begun to discover abundance of gross and pernicious errors in the Doctrine and a wretched mixture of Idolatry and Superstition in the worship of the Church they lived in What should they do they were but particular Presbyters and therefore should not according to Mr. K's principle preach against the Constitution of the Church which gave
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