of Christs Ministers have the same force towards his subjects That the power of a Pastor in binding and loosing as to the communion and external priviledges of the Church is more than declarative of the mind of Christ therein I yet discern not For tho the sentence of an erring judg in a Civil judicatory is valid till it be reversed yet the erring keys have no effect and the Church and the Members thereof are not bound by the unjust sentence of a Pastor to reject a godly person that hath not given just scandal or to carry themselves towards him as towards one unfit for Christian Communion but they are still to receive him as a brother Indeed the injured person may be bound to forbear the use of his right in some parts thereof as coming to the Church-Assembly in case a schism or disturbance would follow But this obligation doth not arise from any validity that is in the unjust sentence but from the duty of preserving peace and order The distinction of the power of Order and the power of jurisdiction is vain For the spiritual Pastor or Elder hath no other power than the power of the Keys and the full power of the Keys intrinsecally belongs to the order or office of a Pastor or Elder But if any pretend that the full power of the Keys doth not intrinsecally belong to the office of a Pastor or Elder but a part only or that there be two kinds of power of the Keys the one whereof belongs only to one superior kinâ— of spiritual officers and the other is common to all â—piritual â—astors let him prove such distinction and distribution from the Word of God § 5. Of the Delegation of Spiritual Power THE delegation of power is a derivation thereof from its ordinary subject to another who is not the ordinary subject thereof and who hath right to exercise it merely as authorized by the ordinary subject thereof as when a Bishop delegates his episcopal power to him who is no Bishop and who exercises the same merely by vertue of his delegation The office of a Bishop Pastor or Elder is a trust and that of the greatest consequence in the world and a trust may not be delegated by the receiver to another person without the express consent of the giver No subordinate officer can make a legal deputy unless he be authorized thereunto by law or in his commission or Charter from the supream power And Christ hath not exprest his consent to the transferring of this trust nor given authority to his Ministers to make such Delegation That Princes and Soveraign Powers bâ—ing Gods Trustees do transfer the work of their trust to Delegates and subordinate officers is no ground for Christs Ministers to do the like For first Christs Ministers are only authorized Ambassadors Heralds and not Spiritual Soveraigns under him as the supream Magistrates are Civil Soveraigns under God 2. It is in the nature of civil soveraignty to make delegates and subordinate officers of civil power and the due Government of the Civil State makes it necessary but there is no such thing in the nature of the pastoral office and no necessity for it in Ecclesiastical Government 3. The specification of magistracy or civil power is left to men but the spiritual power is specified by Christ and by him appropriated to officers of his own institution 4. Christ to provide for his flock hath taken another course than to authorize Bishops and Pastors to do their work by Delegates namely to command the ordaining of more Bishops or Elders as need requires The delegation of Episcopal Power is a repugnancy in it self For it is the power of the keys or of stewarship in Christs house of binding and loosing of remitting and retaining sins in Christs name by special authority from him And can any that is not Christs officer so authorized exert such power Besides if one part of the bishops proper work viz. The exercise of Ecclesiastical Government may be delegated to one that is no bishop why may not any other part of his work be so delegated as the ordaining of ministers And if it be replied ad ordinem pertinet ordinare by as good reason it may be said that it as incommunicably belongs to the order or office of Christs institution to exercise Christs Discipline as to ordain Ministers Indeed a Vicar being of the same sacred office or order may so exert the said power in the place of another as that his act is valid But it may well be questioned whether any bishop may make one or more vicarious bishops to execute his charge for every bishop hath received a trust from Christ to be fulfilled in his own person Col. 1.7 And I do not find that Christ hath granted a faculty to any bishop to fulfil his Ministry by a Vicar of his own order But I do not question but a bishop may have an assistant or assistants of his own order either occasionally in case of present disability or justifiable avocation or statedly when the flock that is under his personal oversight requires more work than one man can do And then the said assistants are not his Vicars but collegues performing each of them their own part in the work and service of their Lord Christ § 6. The identity of a Bishop and Presbyter IT is granted by the assertors of prelacy that the names Bishop and Presbyter are used promiscuously Now they that assert two distinct offices under promiscuous names had need bring clear proof for the distinction of those offices Howbeit I do not merely insist on the names as indifferently used but wheresoever the sacred office of Presbyterate is set forth in Scripture it is set forth as the office of a spiritual Pastor or Bishop which is to feed the Flock of God by teaching and ruling it And such a Presbyter as is a sacred officer of the Christian Church but not a Bishop or Pastor is not to be found in Scripture Tit. 1.5 7. shews not only an identity of name but of office To give order for the admission of none to the office of an Elder but one so qualified because a Bishop must be so qualified is not rational if the bishop be of a distinct office from the Presbyter and superior to him Act. 20 28 The Elders are called Bishops and have the whole Episcopal Power to feed the flock by government as well as by doctrine 1 Pet. 5.12 The elders are exhorted to feed the Flock of God which is among them and to take the oversight thereof and under the force of these two words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the bishops claim their whole power of government 1 Tim. 3. The Apostle immediately passeth from the Bishop to the Deacon and takes no notice of such an officer as a Presbyter below a Bishop and above a Deacon And neither this nor any other Scripture doth afford us the least notice of any qualification or ordination or any sacred
work and duty belonging to a Presbyter who is no bishop Not one place of Scripture doth set forth any Presbyter as less than a bishop Phil. 1 1. Paul makes mention of Bishops and Deacons in the Church at Philippi in the inscription of his Epistle but no mention of Presbyters that were not bishops And it seems by that Text that in the Apostles times there were more bishops than one placed in one city and 't is to be noted that Philippi was but a little City under the Metropolis of Thessalonica Thus bishop and elder in the places aforecited are names of the same office whatsoever it be and the Hierarchical Divines grant as much but are not agreed what office is there set forth by those names One part of them think that those Texts speak of or at least comprehend such Presbyters as are now so called The other part of them think they speak of such bishops as are now distinct from presbyters Now they that hold that the said Texts speak of or include such presbyters as are now so called must needs hold that such presbyters are pastors and bishops in the Scripture sence of those names and so an identity of the bishop and presbyter is confessed and it rests upon them to prove the divine institution of bishops of a higher order over such presbyters and they that hold that the said Texts speak of such bishops as are now distinct from presbyters must needs grant the qualification ordination and work of presbyters inferior to bishops is not set forth in Scripture If it be said that the order of inferior and subject presbyters is of divine institution and yet not defined or expressed in Scripture let a satisfactory proof be brought from some other authority of its divine institution and what its nature is If it be said that at first the function of a bishop and presbyter was one but afterwards it was divided into two and that the division was made by divine warrant the asserters are bound to prove it by sufficient authority To have the power of the keys of binding and loosing of remitting and retaining sins in Christs name as his commissioned Officer is to have Episcopal power and this power belongs to a Presbyter The Asserters of Prelacy answer this by distinguishing the power of the keys in foro interiore or the Court of Conscience within and foro exteriore in the exterior Court to wit that of the Church and say that the former belongs to the Bishop and Presbyter both and the latter to the Bishop only To which I reply 1. The Scripture makes no such distinction and where the Law distinguisheth not we may not distinguish 2. The distinction is vain for all power that belongs to the Pastors of the Church purely respects the conscience by applying to it the commands promises and threatnings of God and it respects the conscience as having the conduct of the outward man and that in reference to Church communion as well as other matters 3. If Presbyters may in the name of Christ bind the impenitent and loose the penitent as to the conscience in the sight of God which is the greater and primary binding and loosing then by parity of reason and that with advantage they may bind and loose as to Church-communion which is the lesser secondary and subsequent binding and loosing That Officer is a Bishop that hath power of authoritative declaring in Christs name that this or that wicked person in particular is unworthy of fellowship with Christ and his Church and a power of charging the Congregation in Christs name not to keep company with him as being no fit member of a Christian Society and also a power of Authoritative declaring and judging in Christs name that the same person repenting of his wickedness and giving evidence thereof is meet for fellowship with Christ and his church and a power of requiring the Congregation in Christs name again to receive him into their Christian fellowship For these are the powers of Excommunication and Ecclesiastical Absolution and a Presbyter hath apparently the said powers As he can undoubtedly declare and charge and judg as aforesaid touching persons in general so by parity of reason touching this or that person in particular all particulars being included in the general He hath undoubtedly a power of applying the word in Christs name as well personally as generally That a Presbyter hath the said powers is granted by the Church of England in the common usage of the Ecclesiastical Courts wherein a Presbyter is appointed to denounce the sentence of Excommunication tho the Chancellor doth decree it And the Excommunication is not compleat till a Presbyter hath denounced it in the congregation That the Apostles have no successors in the whole of their Office is confessed on all hands but if they have successors in part of their Office viz. in the Pastoral Authority in this respect the Presbyters if any are their successors Peter exhorting the Presbyters stiles himself their fellow-Presbyter which is to be understood in respect of the power of Teaching and Ruling The Pastoral Authority of Presbyters is further cleared in many passages in the publick forms of the Church of England touching that Order The form of Ordaining Presbyters in this Church lately was Receive the Holy Ghost whose sins thou remittest they are remitted and whose sins thou retainest they are retained and be thou a faithful dispenser of the word of God and of his holy Sacraments in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost Amen Now the former part hereof is intirely the words used by our Saviour John 20.21 22. towards the Apostles expressing their Pastoral Authority And the latter part is no derogation or diminution from the power granted in the former part If Presbyters are not partakers with the Apostles in the Pastoral Authority how could they have Right to that Form of Ordination Likewise this Church did in solemn form of words require the presbyters when they were ordained to exercise the discipline of Christ as the Lord hath commanded and this Realm hath received the same according to the commandment of God And that they might the better understand what the Lord hath commanded therein this Church did appoint also That at the ordering of Priests there be read for the Epistle that portion of Acts 20. which relates St. Paul's sending to Ephesus and calling for the Elders of the Congregation with his exhortation to them To take heed to themselves and to all the flock whereof the Holy Ghost hath made them overseers to rule the congregation of God Or else 1 Tim. 3. which sets forth the Office and due Qualifications of a Bishop These portions of Scripture this Church appointed to be read to the Presbyters as belonging to their Office and to instruct them in the nature of it And afterwards the Bishop speaks to them that are to receive the Office of Priesthood in this form of words
against the Episcopacy of a bishop infimi gradus over many Churches makes not against the right of an overseer of other bishops such as Titus must needs be if he were indeed bishop of Crete which contained a hundred Cities and where bishops or elders were ordained in every City If either Scripture or Prudence guided by Scripture be for such an office I oppose it not Now a bishop of bishops may be taken in a twofold notion either for one of a higher order that is to say of an office specifically different from the subordinate bishops or for one of a higher degree only in the same order I suppose our Archbishops of Provinces do not own the former notion of a bishop of bishops but the latter only But the bishop of a Diocess is de facto that which the Archbishop of a Province doth not own namely a bishop of bishops in a different order from the Presbyters of his Diocess who have been already proved from Scripture to be bishops Hereupon the present inquiry is Whether the Word of God doth warrant the office of a bishop of bishops in either of the said notions And in this inquiry I shall consider what kind of Government the Apostles had over the Pastors or Elders of particular Churches 2. The Episcopacy of Timothy and Titus much alledged by the Hierarchical Divines 3. The preeminence of the Angels of the seven Churches of Asia◠Apoc. 1. and 2. § 9. The BISHOPS Plen of being the Apostles Successors in their Governing-Power examined THO the Apostles in respect of that in them which was common to other officers call themselves Presbyters and Ministers but never bishops yet it is asserted by the asserters of Prelacy that bishops superior to Presbyters are the Apostles successors and thereupon have a governing-power over Presbyters Wherefore the Apostles governing-power and the said bishops right of succession thereunto is necessarily to be considered As touching this claimed succession in the governing power the defenders of prelacy say that Presbyters qua Presbyters succeed the Apostles in the office of governing But the Scripture doth not warrant this dividing of the office of teaching and governing And if the division cannot be proved in case there be a succession it must be into the whole and not into a part and so the Presbyters must succeed as well in ruling as in teaching Besides it hath been already proved that an authoritative Teacher of the Church is qua talis a Ruler The Apostles had no successors in their special office of Apostleship For not only the unction or qualification of an Apostle but also the intire Apostolick office as in its formal state or specifick difference was extraordinary and expired with their persons It was an office by immediate Vocation from Christ without the intervention of man by election or ordination for the authentick promulgation of the Christian Doctrine and the erecting of the Christian Church throughout the World which is built on the foundation of their Doctrine and for the governing of all churches wherever they came and it eminently contained all the power of ordinary bishops and pastors The continuation of teaching and governing in the Church doth no more prove that the office of teaching and governing in the Apostles was quoad formale an ordinary office than that the office of teaching and governing in Christ himself was so But their teaching and governing was by immediate call and authentick and uncontrolable and therefore extraordinary And I do not know that the bishops say they are Apostles tho they say they are the successors of the Apostles Moreover in proper speaking the ordinary bishops or elders cannot be reckoned the successors of the Apostles for they were not succedaneous to them but contemporary with them from the first planting of churches and did by divine right receive and exercise their governing-power And the bishops or elders of all succeeding ages are properly the successors of those first bishops or elders and can rightfully claim no more power than they had Nevertheless let the Apostles governing power be inquired into as also what interest the bishops of the Hierarchical state have therein And in this query it is to be considered That the Presbyters whom the Apostles ordained and governed were bishops both in name and thing and consequently their example of ordaining and ruling such Presbyters is not rightly alledged to prove that bishops as their successors have an appropriated power of ordaining and ruling Presbyters of an inferior order which in Scripture times were not in being Further it is to be considered Whether the said governing-power were only a supereminent authority which they had as Apostles and infallible and to whom the last appeals in matters of religion were to be made or an ordinary governing power over the Churches and the bishops or elders thereof I conceive it most rational to take it in the former sense For we find that the ordinary stated government of particular Churches was in the particular Bishops or Elders and we find not that any of the Apostles did take away the same from them or that it was superceded by their presence or that they reserved to themselves a negative voice in the government of the Churches Now if their governing power were only the said supereminent Apostolick authority they had no successors therein and tho teaching and ruling be of standing necessity and consequently of perpetual duration in the Church yet there is no standing necessity of that teaching and ruling as taken formally in that extraordinary state and manner as before expressed But if they exercised an ordinary governing-power over the Churches and bishops to be continued by succession such kind of Bishops over whom that power was exercised cannot claim a right of succession into the same but they must be officers of an higher orb Consequently if the Hierarchical Bishops claim the right of succession to the Apostles in their governing-power they must needs be of a higher orb than the first Bishops of particular Churches over whom that power was exercised And if this Hypothesis of the Apostles having an ordinary governing-power over the Churches and Bishops do sufficiently prove the right of the succession of Bishops of a higher orb in the same power I shall not oppose it But only I take notice that these higher Bishops are not of the same kind with those first bishops that were under that governing power and of which we read in Scripture That the Apostles should be Diocesan Bishops was not consistent with their Apostolick office being a general charge extending to the Church universal That any Apostle did appropriate a Diocess to himself and challenge the sole Episcopal authority therein cannot be proved The several Apostles for the better carrying on of the work of their office did make choice of several regions more especially to exercise their function in There was an agreement that Peter should go to the Circumcision and Paul to the Uncircumcision But as
may put forth acts of Discipline in his own Church without the concurrence of Ruling Elders that are not Ministers THERE is no necessity of adding the above-named Ruling Elder to the Ministers of the Gospel in the Government of the Church For Christ hath committed to his Ministers the keys or stewardship of his house and he hath committed the same to them not only as to a Presbytery constituted of many but also to each of them as single Presbyters And where there is but one Presbyter in a Church his acts of Discipline are as lawful and valid in his own Church as those that are done by many in a Church where there are many Presbyters And the contrary opinion is precarious and not founded in Scripture As for that passage 2 Cor. 2.6 Sufficient to such a man is this punishment that was inflicted by many from thence to infer that a Church-censure may not be administred by one Minister is to draw a general conclusion from one instance or because a censure was inflicted by many in the Church of Corinth where there were many Ministers therefore it ought to be so in all Churches even where there is but one Minister Moreover if the true nature of a Church-censure were considered there would be no reason to doubt of its being lawfully or validly administred by one person For it is no more than authoritative declaring and judging in Christs Name that such a one is unmeet for fellowship with Christ and his Church and a charging of the Congregation in Christs Name to avoid him Indeed those words of our Saviour Mat. 16. Tell the Church are to be considered and cleared For it is from hence argued that the Church being a collective name betokens a number and therefore not one but many are to hear and censure matters of scandal To which argument it may be first replyed That a Presbytery or company of Presbyters is in Scripture no more called the Church than one Minister But the answer is that by the rule of interpretation words and names must be limited with respect to the matter treated of and so the word Church in the said text is to be understood of the Church as governing and therefore respects not the governed but the governing-part thereof which is but one person in a Church that hath but one Bishop or Presbyter The Apostle wrote his first Epistle to the Corinthians to the whole Church and saith chap. 5. v. 4 5. When ye are gathered together to deliver such a one to Satan v. 13. Put away from yourselves that wicked person Now in these places he doth not explicitely direct his speech to the Elders but in all reason it must be expounded with respect to the governing-part of that Church the company of Presbyter Tho there be no necessity of a Ruling Elder distinct from a Minister of the Gospel to the acts of Church-Discipline yet in point of expedience and prudence such as are no spiritual rulers or have no power formally spiritual may either by the appointment of the Magistrate or by the consent of Pastor and People be joyned with the Pastor for counsel and assistance and more satisfactory management of Church-affairs Act. 15. The Church of Antioch sent some from among themselves with Paul and Barnabas to be present at the deliberation of the Apostles and Elders at Jerusalem and the said Apostles and Elders joyned some of the brethren with them to consider of the matter that was brought before them from the Church of Antioch And Christian Emperors appointed some secular persons as Assessors with the Bishops in Councils But nothing is to be attributed to these Lay-persons so adjoined that belongs to the power of the keys committed by Christ to the Pastors only § 16. Of the Office of a Deacon THE Scripture makes mention of two Holy Orders 1. Presbyters who are also Bishops 2. Deacons as Phil. 1.1 To the bishops and deacons and the third chapter of the first Epistle to Timothy having set forth the Office of a bishop passeth immediately to the deacon without taking notice of a presbyter of a middle order between a bishop and deacon And the mention of a middle order is no where found in Scripture Clemens Romanus in his Epistle mentions but two orders bishops and deacons And Dr. Hammond grants That it cannot be proved that in Scripture-times there were any subject-presbyters and concludes that the churches were then governed by bishops assisted with deacons and without presbyters vid. his Annot. on Acts 11.30 and his Dissertation p 208 c. They that are agreed that there is such an office as a Deacon by divine right are not agreed what it is yet all are agreed that it is an inferior order of ministry assistant to the bishop or elder in the affairs of the church but in what kind of assistance there is diversity of opinion Some hold that this office is to take care of the poor in receiving and distributing among them the churches Alms. Others hold that a deacon may preach and baptize and assist the bishop or elder in administring the Sacrament tho he may not consecrate the Sacramental bread and wine nor lay on hands or ordain In the 6. chap. of the Acts if the institution of this office be there related we find no other ministry there expresly mentioned but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 v. 2 3. and in Phil. 1. the name only is mentioned without any specification of the office In 1 Tim. 3.8 c. the due qualification of this officer is more set forth than the nature and work of the office yet something thereof may be signified v. 13. They that have used the office of a deacon well purchase to themselves a good degree Let it be considered whether by degree is not meant a degree in the Sacred ministry and a step to a higher order therein Acts 8.5 we find that Philip one of the seven preached the Gospel in Samaria and his acts there are related as if he also baptized the converts v. 38. he baptized the Ethiopian Eunuch and v. 40. he passed through and preached in all the cities till he came to Cesarea Now whether Philip did not these things not meerly by the common duty of a Christian but by determinate ordination thereunto it may be considered Some make two sorts of Deacons the deacon of tables and the deacon of the word But this distinction seems not to be allowed by the Church of England because it appoints to be read at the ordaining of Deacons both that part of Acts 6. that relates the ordaining of the seven for ministring unto tables and also that part of 1 Tim. 3. that speaks of the office of a Deacon as a degree in the Holy ministry immediately after the bishop Concerning this office I assent to Grotius That the deacons did serve the Presbyters as the Levites the Priests but the most laborious part of the deacons office is the care of the poor and
death of Mark and in other places by that example And it plainly shews as the Apostle Paul doth That the Churches were governed by the Common Council of Presbyters who were also Bishops The Testimony of Irenaeus It is clear that this Father makes the presbyters to be the same with bishops and the successors of the Apostles and with him the succession of bishops is all one with the succession of presbyters Lib. 4. c. 43. We must obey those presbyters which are in the Church who together with the succession of Episcopacy have received the gift of truth Id. l. 3. c. 2. Unto that tradition which is in the church by the succession of presbyters we challenge them that say they are wiser not only than the presbyters but the Apostles Id. l. 3. c. 3. declaring the tradition of the greatest and ancientest church and known to all even the church of Rome founded by Peter and Paul at Rome that which it hath from the Apostles and the Faith declared to men and coming to us by the succession of bishops c. Id. lib. 4. c. 4. We must forsake unjust Presbyters serving their own lusts and adhere to those who with the order of presbytery keep the doctrine of the Apostles found and their conversation without offence unto the information and correction of the rest The church nourisheth such presbyters whereof the Prophet speaks I will give thee princes in peace and thy bishops in righteousness Id. lib. 4. c. 63. The true knowledg of the doctrine of the Apostles and the ancient state in the whole world according to the succession of bishops to which they gave the church which is in every place which is come even to us From these citations it is evident that this Father doth express one and the same order of Episcopacy in all presbyters If any do use this evasion that he calls all those that were true bishops by the name of presbyters let them shew where he mentions presbyters of another order or makes two different orders of Episcopacy and Presbyterate Here I will take notice of the words of Irenaus concerning those Elders of the church mentioned Acts 20. lib. 3. c. 14. viz. In Miletum the bishops and presbyters which were from Ephesus and other the next Cities being convocated Tho it seems most reasonable by the Elders of the church there sent for by Paul to understand the elders of that particular church of Ephesus to which the Apostle then sent and indeed if they had been from other Cities also it would have said according to the Scripture way of expression the elders of the churches yet admitting what this Father saith hereof observe we that he speaks of bishops and presbyters as congregated in the meeting and he might mention two names of the same office And the Apostle speaks to all those presbyters that there convened as those whom the Holy Ghost had made bishops of the flock And suppose they were the bishops of Asia as some would have it yet it cannot be proved that they were any other than bishops of single Congregations or that they were such bishops as had subject presbyters of a lower order under them The Testimony of Clemens Alexandrinus He thus writes Stromat lib. 6. p. 667. He is really a presbyter of the church and a true Deacon of the will of God if he teach the things of the Lord not as ordained by men nor esteemed just because he is a presbyter but taken into the presbytery because he is just Here in the Church are progressions of bishops presbyters deacons imitations as I think of the Angelical glory and of the heavenly dispensation which the Scripture speaks they expect who treading in the footsteps of the Apostles have lived in the perfection of righteousness according to the Gospel These the Apostle writes being taken up into the clouds shall first be made deacons and then shall be taken into the presbytery according to the progress of glory Here this Father first mentions only two orders presbyters and deacons afterwards a progression of bishops presbyters and deacons as imitations of the heavenly dispensation but in the close applying the similitude to blessed men taken into heaven he makes the progress to be only in being first as deacons then as presbyters mentioning no higher order Hence I conceive may be inferred that he speaks of presbyters and deacons as of two different orders and of bishops but as a higher degree in the order of presbyters This also may be further confirmed Stromat lib. 7. p. 700. where distinguishing of a twofold 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or employment in secular affairs viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he saith that presbyters hold that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which makes men better and the deacons that which consists in service His meaning is that as in the Civil State there are two orders the one governing and the other ministring so there are likewise in the Church the Presbyters holding the one and the deacons the other These passages of this Author I thought fit to mention and have not found in him any more relating to the distinct ministers of the church The Testimony of Jerome This Father also speaks of presbyters as the same with bishops and successors of the Apostles On the Epistle to Titus c. 1. he saith As presbyters know that they are by the custom of the church subject to him that is set over them so let the bishops know that they are greater than presbyters rather by custom than by the verity of the Lords appointment He also testifies that they did and ought to rule the church in common and that imparity came in by little and little In his Epistle to Evagrius he shews that the presbyters of Alexandria from Mark till Heraclas and Dionysius had always one chosen out of them and placed in a higher degree and named bishop as if an Army made an Emperor and Deacons chose one whom they knew industrious and called him Arch-deacon Here he mentions no other making of bishops than by presbyters And that the presbyters made the bishop is an argument brought by him to prove the identity at first and afterwards the nearness of their power And he ascribes to presbyters the making of their bishop and placing him in a higher degree and naming him bishop And he distinguisheth the ancient way of making bishops by presbyters from that way of making them which followed the times of Heraclas and Dionysius which was by Episcopal ordination This evidence is confirmed by the testimony of Eutichius Patriarch of Alexandria who out of the Records and Traditions of that Church in his Arabick Originals saith according to Seldens Translation in his Commentary p. 29 30. That the presbyters laid hands on him whom they elected till the time of Alexander Patriarch of Alexandria for he forbad the presbyters any longer to create the Patriarch and decreed that the Patriarch being deceased bishops should
provinces of narrower circuits of ground And how doth it appear that an Oecumenical council rightly so named can be For suppose it be not necessary to consist of all the bishops in the world but of some as delegates in the name of all yet it must consist of so many proportionably delegated from all in the several quarters as may signifie the sence and consent of all Hereupon let it be considered whether there be a possibility of such assemblies much more whether there be a possibility of the continuation or of the succession of them in such frequency as would be requisite in case such an assembly were Head of the Church Nor doth it stand with reason that an Oecumenical council in case it were existent can possibly execute the authority that belongs to the head of the Universal Church in overseeing all in receiving appeals from all in making authoritative determinations for all either immediately by it self or mediately by subordinate councils judicatories and ministers to be superintended regulated and determined by it in their proceedings Nor is there any notice given of the said headship of a General council more than of the Popes or any other bishops universal headship in the primitive and authentick records of the Charter that Christ hath given to his Church to wit the Holy Scriptures Nor is any rule given therein for the constitution of a General council whether it shall be made up only of the Clergy or only of such bishops as are of a higher order thâ—â— Presbyters or of all such bishops of the Catholick Church or if of some in the name of all what number there must be either definite or indefinite and proportionate to the number of those that are represented It is evident de facto that the officers of the Catholick Church as the particular bishops or pastors and the associations and conventions of them do not derive their spiritual authority from a General council Nor doth it appear that de jure they should derive their power from it any more than from the Pope § 11. The infallibility of the Catholick Church examined THE Romanists assert an insallibility about matters of faith somewhere seated within the Catholick Church as the perpetual priviledg thereof some of them place it in the Pope and others in a General council Hereupon this priviledg is to be considered whether it be and what it is The meaning of the term is a being not liable to be deceived or to deceive about those matters about which it is said to be That the catholick church is infallible in the essentials of the christian religion is a most indubitable truth for every member of the catholick church so remaining is infallible so far it involves a a contradiction that any such should err therein for it were as much as to be a christian and no christian The Query therefore is whether it be liable to errour in the integrals aâ—d accidentals of Religion Now the church remaining such is not necessarily or in its nature infallible so far and therefore if it be infallible it must be so from the free grant of Christ But it doth not appear in the Holy Scripture that any such grant is made to the church What was the Apostles doctrine and consequently the doctrine of the Church in their days obedient to their authority we know what the church universally held in any one age touching all the integral parts of religion much more concerning accidentals I conceive extreamly difficult if not impossible to be known But that the church hath de facto if not universally yet very generally erred in the same errour about some integrals of religion appears by the ancient general practise of some things now generally accounted erroneous as for instance the giving of the Lords Supper to infants Moreover it is evident that the whole Church in its several parts hath erred some in one point some in another and that no part thereof hath been found in which hath appeared no error in some point of Religion or other And if all the parts may variously err in several points why may not they also harmoniously err all of them in one and the same point If the Catholick Church be not infallible in all doctrines of Faith much less is any such Council infallible as was ever yet congregated or is ever like to be congregated Hereupon it follows that in all Controversies of doctrine we cannot stand finally to the decision of the Catholick Church if it were possible to be had or to the decision of any the largest Council that can possibly convene We cannot tell what the Catholick Church is nor what particular Churches or persons are sound parts thereof but by the holy Scriptures For what Criterion can be brought besides them Mens bare testimony of themselves is not to be rested on How can we know that the first Nicene Council was orthodox in its determination about the Sacred Trinity and the second Nicene Council erroneous in its determination for Image-worship but by finding that the former was consonant and the latter dissonant to the Scripture in their aforesaid determinations If it be said That of Councils called General those that consist of greater numbers of bishops must carry it against those that consist of lesser numbers let some proof either from Scripture or Reason be given for it What ground is there from either to conclude that in the time of the Arrian Heresie the major part of bishops in the Roman Empire or the major part of those that assembled in Council and for instance in the first Council at Nice might not possibly have been Arrians Moreover if the major part were to carry it in the first six Centuries why not also in the ten last That promise of Christ Mat. 28. I am with you always to the end of the world may imply That there shall be a successive continuation of Bishops or Pastors in the Catholick Church to the worlds end that shall be Orthodox in the Essentials yea and in the Integrals of Religion yet it doth not imply that they shall be the greater number of those that are called and reputed bishops or pastors within Christendom nor that the greater number of those being convened in Councils shall not err in their Conciliar determinations about matters of Faith § 12. Of the Indefectibility of the Catholick Church CHRIST hath promised the perpetuity of the Church in general in saying that he would build it on a Rock and the gates of Hell should not prevail against it and I am with you always to the end of the world but how far and in what respect this perpetuity and indefectibility is promised ought to be enquired into lest we expect or insist upon more than the promise hath ensured That which Christ hath promised cannot be less than that there be always upon earth a number of true believers or faithful Christians made visible by their external profession of Christianity successively
more prevalently in their judgment and practice in their hearts and lives than the superadded errors and corruptions and are ready to Renounce those errors and corruptions if they saw their inconsistence with the essentials are true Christians otherwise they are not such The same church may be a true and a false church in different respects or formal considerations In respect of the essentials of Christian Faith Worship and Ministry it may be a true church and in respect of some devised Church-form superadded by which over and above the said Essentials it is constituted and denominated it may be in that distinct formal consideration a false church OF THE MINISTRY § 1. The Nature of the holy Ministry in general THE Holy Ministry is a state of Authority and Obligation to perform some special Holy Works and Services in the Name of Christ for the edifying of the church So that whosoever is in a holy order or office is qua talis authorized and obliged to the work and service that is appropriated to it and whosoever statedly and de jure doth the work and service appropriated to a holy order is really in or of that order altho men may not give him the name thereof Whether the Magistratical and Ministerial Offices may reside together in the same person is not here considered but if it were granted that they may they would essentially differ from each other For the Magistrate as such hath received no authority formally ministerial nor hath any minister as such the power of a civil magistrate Some thus distinguish between the magistratical and ministerial authority that the one is directive and the other imperative I take not this to be a competent distinction for that authority that infers an obligation on the subject to obey is properly imperative and the ministerial authority doth so as the Scripture speaks expresly Heb. 13.17 Paul was no Magistrate but as a Minister he speaks 2 Cor. 10.6 Having in readiness to revenge all disobedience and he expresly declares his ministerial authority to be imperative Phil. v. 8. The I might make hold in Christ to injoyn thee that which is convenient c. and v. 21. having confidence in thine obedience I wrote unto thee Now they had rightly distinguished if instead of imperative they had put coercive coactive or imperial For all directive authority by special office is imperative Whosoever doth by special office direct unto duty in the name of his King and according to his will as a Minister doth in the name of Christ doth therein command But a coactive power is something more and belongs not to a Minister as such The Magistrate rules by the Sword and the Minister by the Word § 2. Of the efficient cause of the Ministry and its Authority AS Christ alone hath the power of appointing the work or works of the holy ministry to be done in his name either towards believers or the unbelieving towards the church jointly or toward particular persons severally so he alone hath the power of appointing the holy orders or offices that contain an authority and obligation to perform the same And seeing Christ hath already appointed all the ministerial works and appropriated the same to certain ministerial orders no new order or office of the holy ministry can be instituted by men for they cannot institute other ministerial work to be done in Christs Name than what he hath appointed But the circumstances and accidental modes and subservient offices about the work of the ministry are of that nature as that they well may be appointed by men and accordingly the officers for the management thereof may be so appointed and such modes and circumstances being necessarily subject to great variation in regard of the great diversity of occasion cannot well be pre-defined The holy ministry and power belonging to it is conferred neither by Magistrate nor by Prelate nor by any spiritual officer or officers as the proper givers thereof but by Christ alone And tho Christ give it in some respect by the mediation of men yet not by them as giving the office power but as instruments either of designing the person to whom he gives it or of the solemn investiture of that person therein as the King is the immediate giver of the power of a Mayor in a Town corporate when he gives it by the mediation of the Electors not as giving the power but designing the person to be invested with it or by the mediation of some other officers as instruments of the solemn investiture Neither Magistrate nor Prelate nor any spiritual officer or officers can dsiannul or take away that spiritual office whereof they are not the authors nor in proper sence the givers Nor can they inlarge or lessen it as to its essential state or define it otherwise than Christ hath defined it And if the ordainer in conveying the holy office or order should use any any words or actions that import the lessening thereof in its essential state they are void and null as if a Minister that joyns a Man and Woman in marriage according to the true intent of that ordinance shall add some words that forbid the Husband the government of his Wife that addition is a nullity § 3. Of the Office of a Bishop Elder or Pastor THE Ministry of Gods appointment is either extraordinary and temporary as that of the Apostles and Prophets and Evangelists also if so be they were only the itinerary assistants of the Apostles or ordinary and perpetual as that of Pastors and Teachers The words Elder Bishop Pastor are names of the same Sacred Office as appears Acts 20.17 28. where their Ministry towards the Church is set forth in Pauls words to the Elders which he sent for from Ephesus to Miletum Take heed to your selves and to all the flock over which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers to feed the Church of God which he hath purchased with his own blood The Apostles besides their extraordinary Office of Apostleship had also the ordinary Office of Bishops pastors and Elders or to speak peradventure more properly they had these ordinary offices included in their Apostleship Christ saith to Peter Feed my sheep And Peter calls himself an Elder 1 Pet. 5.1 And John in his second and third Epistles so calls himself And indeed if it were not so they could have no successors or partakers Howbeit the Scripture gives us no evidence of their being fixed Bishops or Pastors to particular Churches As for the meaning of these names the word Bishop imports an Overseer Elder is a name of Authority borrowed from age and applied to a Ruling-officer The word Pastor is metaphorical signifying that this Officer is to the Congregation of God as a Shepherd to a Flock of sheep to feed them This feeding consists in teaching and ruling so that every Pastor is in the nature of his office a Teacher and he feeds by doctrine And indeed Pastoral Ruling is by
You have heard brethren as well in your private examination as in the exhortation and holy lessons taken out of the Gospel and the writings of the Apostles of what dignity and how great importance this Office is whereto ye are called that is to say The Messengers the Watchmen the pastors and stewards of the Lord to teach to premonish to feed to provide for the Lords Family I acknowledg the passages here alledged are taken out of the old Book of Ordinanion that was established in this Church till the late alteration made Anno 1662. If those Alterations signifie another meaning about the several Holy Orders than what was signified in the Old Book then the sense of the Church of England in these times differs from the sense of the same Church in all times preceding the said Alterations But if they signifie no other meaning than what was signified in the old Book my Citations are of force to shew what is the sense of this Church as well of the present as of the former times about this matter And let this be further considered That the form of ordaining a Bishop according to the Church of England imports not the conferring of a higher power or an authorizing to any special work more than to what the Presbyter is authorized The old form was Take the Holy Ghost and remember that thou stir up the grace of God that is in thee by imposition of hands for God hath not given us the spirit of fea◠but of power and of love and of soberness What is there in this form of words that might not be used to a Presbyter at his ordination Or what is there in it expressive of more power than what belongs to a Presbyter The new form since the late alteration is Receive the Holy Ghost for the work and office of a Bishop in the Church of God now committed to thee by imposition of our hands in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost Amen And remember that thou stir up the grace of God that is given thee by this imposition of our hands f r God hath not given us the spirit of fear but of power and of love and of soberness And what is there in this form that is expressive of any office power that the Presbyter hath not unless these words for the work and office of a bishop Now both the name and work and office of a bishop belongs to the Scripture-presbyter who is of divine institution and the presbyter to whom it doth not belong is but a humane creature or an ordinance of man § 7. Of the present Diocesan Bishop A Diocesan Bishop according to the hierarchical state is a Bishop of the lowest degree having under him Parish-Ministers that are Presbyters or Priests but not accounted Bishops and by divine right claiming to himself alone the Episcopal Authority over all the Parish Churches and Ministers within his Diocess which may contain a hundred two hundred five hundred or a thousand parishes For an Episcopacy of this kind I discern no Scripture-Warrant nor Divine Right Every particular Church should have its proper pastor or Bishop and particular Churches with their proper pastors are so evidently of divine right that some eminently learned men in the Church of England have declared their judgment that no form of Church-Government besides the mere pastoral office and Church-Assemblies is prescribed in the Word of God but may be various according to the various condition and occasion of several Churches But if it be said that parochial Congregations are not Churches but only parts of the Diocess which is the lowest political Church I desire proof from Scripture that such Congregations as our parishes having their proper presbyter or presbyters invested with the power of the keys are not Churches properly so called The reason of demanding this proof is because the Scripture is a perfect rule for the essential constitution of Churches though the accidents thereto belonging may be regulated by humane prudence And it is most evident in Scripture that a particular congregation of Christians having their proper pastor or pastors presbyter or presbyters are Churches properly so called and a parochial Minister I conceive to be a pastor presbyter or elder according to the Scripture Moreover if a Diocess containing many hundred or perhaps a thousand parishes as it doth in England do constitute but one particular Church and the parishes be not properly to be accounted Churches but only so many parts of that one diocesan Church why may not ten thousand yea ten times ten thousand parishes be likewise accounted but one particular church and brought under one man as the sole bishop or pastor thereof Nor do I discern how it is possible for one man to do the work of a bishop towards so many parishes which is to oversee all the flock to preach to them all to baptize and confirm all that are to be baptized and confirmed to administer the Lords Supper to all to bless the congregation publickly and privately to admonish all as their need requires to excommunicate the impenitent to absolve the penitent and that upon knowledg of their particular estate for all these are pastoral or episcopal acts And let it here be noted that I speak of the work of a bishop infimi gradus or under whom there are no subordinate bishops If such a Diocesan bishop saith it sufficeth that he perform all this to the flock by others namely by the parish ministers as his Curates and by other officers his substitutes It is answered 1. The pastoral Authority is a personal trust 2. He is to shew his commission from Christ the prince of pastors to do his work by others for I am now enquiring what is of divine and not of humane Right 3. None but a bishop can do the proper work of a bishop and consequently the presbyters by whom the Diocesan doth his work either are bishops or their act is an usurpation and a nullity It is matter of divine Right only that is here considered As for the humane Rights of a Diocesan bishop to wit his dignity and his jurisdiction under the King as Supreme and to which he is intituled by the Law of the Land I intermeddle not therewith § 8. Of a Bishop or Bishops THE Divine Right of a bishop infimi gradus Ruling over many churches as their sole hishop or pastor hath been considered and now it is to be considered Whether there be of divine institution such a spiritual officer as hath the oversight of Bishops or is a Bishop of Bishops The Diocesan Bishop is really of this kind tho he will not own it for he is a bishop of Presbyters who are really bishops if they be that kind of Presbyters that the Scripture mentions But if the Presbyters which in the hierarchical state are subject to the Diocesan Bishop be of another kind they are not of Christs institution What hath been already said
it doth not hence follow that Peter was a fixed Bishop of the Jews and Paul of the Gentiles no more were any of the Apostles fixed Bishops in those places where they were more especially imployed and we know that they made frequent removes §. 10. Of the Episcopacy of Timothy and Titus THE Name of Bishop is not given either to Timothy or Titus except in the Postscripts of the Epistles But those Postscripts are taken for no part of Canonical Scripture For if they were free from the objected Errors about the places from which the Epistles were written they cannot in reason be supposed to be Pauls own words and written by him when the Epistles were written Moreover the travels of Timothy and Titus do evidently shew that they were not diocesan bishops nor the setled Overseers of particular churches And those passages 1 Tim. 1.3 I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus and Tit. 1.5 For this cause I left thee in Crete shew an occasional and temporary employment And whatsoever stress may be laid upon these texts to prove they were bishops of those places yet they do not sound like the fixing of them each in their proper diocess The name of an Evangelist is expresly given to one of them 2 Tim. 4.5 and the work enjoined both of them and accordingly performed by them being throughout of the same kind there is all reason to believe that they had the same kind of office Now by several texts of Scripture compared together we find the work of Evangelists to be partly such as belonged to the Apostles whose Agents or Adjuncts they were and partly such as was common to Pastors and Teachers whose office was included in theirs Their work in common with the Apostles was the planting and setling of churches by travelling from place to place and in this regard they have been well called Apostles of the Apostles And in doing this Vice-apostolick service they did also that which was common to pastors and teachers in teaching and ruling but with this difference that the ordinary pastors did it statedly in those churches where they were fixed but these transiently in several churches which they were sent to erect or establish or to set things in order therein as the Apostles saw need Or if Timothy and Titus were not in an office essentially divers from the ordinary pastors and teachers yet they were in extraordinary service as being the Apostles Agents and being in that capacity might have their intrinsick spiritual power enlarged to a greater extent and higher pitch of exercise than the ordinary Ministers Howbeit I rather judg that they had an office specifically different from that of the ordinary pastors because in the enumeration of the several sacred offices Paul mentions the office of an Evangelist as a distinct kind from the rest But if it can be proved that the Superiority of Timothy and Titus over bishops or elders of particular churches was not as they were the Apostles assistants or as extraordinary and temporary officers but as ordinary superiors it will indeed follow that Archbishops or bishops of bishops are of divine Right Nevertheless the Episcopal authority of bishops or presbyters of particular churches such as the Scripture-bishops were remains unshaken § 11. Of the Angels of the Churches ANother allegation for the divine right of bishops of an higher order than presbyters is from the Angels of the seven Churches Apoc. 1. and 2. To which many things are said by those of the other persuasion As that those Angels are not called Bishops nor any where implied to be bishops in the present Vulgar sense of the word That the denomination of Angels and Stars in the judgment of ancient and modern Writers do belong to the Ministers of the Word in general That in mysterious or prophetick Writings and Visional Representations a number of things or persons is usually expressed by singulars and that it is very probable that the term Angel is explained under that plurality you distinguished from the rest Apoc. 2.24 but to you and the rest in Thyatira c. and to be a collective name expressing all the Elders of that church Also some observe that it might be expressed in the same manner as Gods providence in the administration of the World by Angels is expressed wherein one being set as chief over such a countrey the things which are done by many are attributed to one Angel president It is further to be considered that in the church of Ephesus one of the seven the Scripture makes mention of many bishops who were no other than presbyters Acts 20.28 Against this some say That the Elders there mentioned were not the presbyters of the church of Ephesus but the bishops of Asia then gathered together at Ephesus and sent for by Paul to Miletum But 1. This is affirmed altogether without proof 2. The text saith Paul sent from Miletum to Ephesus to call the elders of the church which in rational interpretation must be the Elders of the church to which he sent 3. If the bishops of all Asia had been meant it would have been said the Elders of the churches For in Scripture tho we find the Christians of one city called a church yet the Christians of a Region did ever make a plurality of churches as the churches of Judea the churches of Galatia and the churches of Asia 4. There is not the least hint given of the meeting of the bishops of Asia at Ephesus when Paul sent for the elders of the Church 5. The asserters of prelacy hold that Timothy was the first bishop of Ephesus now Paul did not send for him for he was already present with him and accompanied him in his travels Nor did he commit the charge of the church to him but to the Elders that were sent for 6. It could not be the sence of the church of England that those Elders who are declared to be bishops were bishops in the Vulgar meaning of the word when she appointed that portion of Scripture to be read at the ordination of Presbyters to instruct them in the nature and work of their Office Some say That by the Angel of the church is meant the Moderator or President of the Presbytery who might be either for a time or always the same person and the Epistle might be directed to him in the same manner as when the King sends a Message to the Parliament he directs it to the Speaker Now such a Moderator or President makes nothing for bishops of a higher order than Presbyters § 12. A further Consideration of the Office of an EVANGELIST and of a general Minister COncerning the Office of Evangelists such as Timothy and Titus the query is Whether it was temporary or perpetual An eminent Hierarchical Divine saith That Evangelists were Presbyters of principal sufficiency whom the Apostles sent abroad and used as Agents in Ecclesiastical Affairs wherâ—ver they saw need Now this description doth not make them of a specifically
Christ indeed hath instituted a ministry for the compleating of his church unto the consummation of all things he hath also promised his Apostles and his ministers successively in them that he will be with them alway to the end of the world But I find no promise of an uninterrupted succession of regularly ordained ministers That which is delivered by ordination is the sacred ministerial office at large as respecting the universal Church to be exercised here or there according to particular calls and opportunities § 21. Of Prayer and Fasting and Imposition of Hands in Ordination PRAYER is such a duty as is requisite to the sanctifying of all other duties as the preaching of the Word administration of Baptism and the Lords Supper and therefore is necessary to this sacred action of ordaining ministers Fasting is a service expressive of solemn humiliation and a necessary adjunct of extra ordinary prayer for the obtaining of more special mercy and therefore a necessary preparative and concomitant in this solemnity And we have Scripture Examples for prayer and fasting in the mission of persons to the work of the ministry Luke 6.12 13. Act. 13.2 Act. 14 23. What imposition of hands imports and the moment of it is to be considered from the use of it both in the Old and New Testament In the Old Testament 't was used 1. In solemn benediction the person blessing laid his hand on the person blessed Gen. 48.14 2. In offering Sacrifice as a sign of devoting it to the Lord by him that offered it Lev. 1.4 3. In ordaining to an office as a sign of setting apart therunto Numb 27.18 20. In the New Testament it is used 1. in blessing Mark 10.16 2. In curing bodily diseases Mark 16.18 Luke 13.13 Acts 19.11 3. In conveying the miraculous gifts of the Holy Ghost Acts 8.17 Acts 19.6 4. In ordaining ministers Acts 6.6 1 Tim 4.14 The meaning of imposition of hands spoken of Heb. 6.2 is diversly taken some take it as used for the remitting of sins as they also do 1 Tim. 5.22 and say that Baptism refers to the making of proselytes and laying on of hands to the absolving of penitents Others take it for confirmation Others conceive that the whole ministry is by a synecdoche therein comprehended From the various uses of this Rite we collect that it was a sign of conveying a benefit or of designing to an office or of devoting one to the Lord and particularly of authoritative benediction and designation to the office of the ministry and of devoting to the Lord in that kind There is no sufficient reason to make it but a temporary Rite and to limit the use of it in ordination only to the times of miraeles there being no circumstance in any Text to shew that it was done only for the present occasion And we read not that miraculous gifts were given by imposition of hands in ordination § 22. The power of Ordaining belongs to the Pastors of the Church SOme give this reason why the power of Ordination is not in the people but in the Pastors because the act of ordaining is a potestative or authoritative mission which power of mission is first seated in Christ and from him committed to the Apostles and from them to the Bishops or Elders But this Reason must be taken with a grain of salt or in a sound sense because Bishops or Elders have spiritual power formalier but not efficienter and they do not properly make or give the ministerial power but are only instruments of designation or application of that power to the person to whom Christ immediately gives it by the standing-act of his Law That the power of ordaining belongs not to the people but to the Church officers first appears by Scripture-authority for that in all the New Testament there is no example of ordination by any of the Laity but contrariwise it is therein expresly committed to spiritual officers 2. By Reason for that the Pastors of the Churches are better qualified for the designation of a person to the Holy ministry and for performing the action of solemn investiture as also for that ordination includes an authoritative benediction and that is to come from a Superior as the Scripture saith The less is blessed of the greater and not the greater of the less as it would be if the Pastor were to be ordained by the people that are governed by him Some argue for a popular ordination because election which is the greater belongs to the people But 1. Election is not greater than Ordination in the ministerial Call For in ordination investiture in the Function it self is given but in the peoples election no more is given than the stated exercise of the ministry in that Congregation 2. In case Election were greater than Ordination yet the consequence holds not Several parties may have each their own part divided to them and he that may do the greater may not always do the lesser unless the lesser be essentially included in the greater which is not in this case It is likewise urged for popular ordination That in the consecration of the Levites the children of Israel laid their hands upon them Numb 8.11 To this it is answered That the Levites were taken by God instead of the first born of all the children of Israel which the Lord claimed as his own upon the destroying of the first-born of the Egyptians and so the imposition of hands by the first-born upon the Levites was not strictly an ordaining of them to their office but an offering of them as a sacrifice in their own stead to make an atonement for them as he that brought a sacrifice laid his hand on the head of it Tho in Timothy's ordination the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery be mentioned and where many Presbyters were they joined in this action yet I see not any thing in Scripture or Reason to gainsay the validity of ordination by a single Bishop or Presbyter Nevertheless ordination by the imposition of many hands is more unquestionable and the use thereof most laudabl◠and in no case to be omitted where it may be had according to the custom of the Church in all ages § 23. The Validity of Presbyterian Ordination IF a Bishop and Presbyter of divine institution be the same as hath been before proved the controversie about ordination by Presbyters is at an end And if the Bishop that now is be another kind of officer than the Scripture Presbyter there is no proof of his divine institution That the Presbyter that now is hath the Pastoral or Episcopal office hath been already proved by the form of their ordination and by the nature of that power of the keys that is granted to reside in them If the Prelates have invested them with an office that is truly Episcopal it matters not whether in express terms they gave them the power of ordaining or no or whether they expresly excluded the power of ordaining for not
they but Christ makes the office and not they but Christ gives the power that belongs to the office from which they cannot detract The ordination of Timothy is said to be by the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery 1 Tim. 4.14 If it be said that by the Presbytery is meant a company of Bishops it it granted that Presbyters and Bishops were all one If it be said they were a company of none but Diocesan Bishops that had subject-presbyters of an inferior order under them let it be proved from Scripture It is said by some That only the Diocesan Bishops ordain authoritatively and the Presbyters concomitantly founding the distinction on those two Texts 2 Tim. 1.6 and 1 Tim 4.14 it being said in the one That Timothy received the gift by the putting on of Paul's hands and in the other by the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery To this it is answered 1. That the imposition of hands mentioned 2 Tim. 1.6 might be in confirmation for the first receiving of the Holy Ghost after Baptism and the following effects of the spirit of love power and of a sound mind argue so much 2. If any of a higher state than Presbyters laid hands on Timothy in his ordination yet the phrase of Presbytery argues that they did it as presbyters 3. If it was Paul that ordained Timothy authoritatively and the presbytery but concomitantly our bishops cannot thence claim the sole authoritative ordination for Paul was of an order above them and was no otherwise a bishop than as having Episcopal power eminently contained in his Apostolick office 4. If the presbytery there mentioned be a company of bishops of an order superior to presbyters it will follow by this distinction that such a bishop ordains not authoritatively but concomitantly 5. The said Texts afford no ground for the distinction of authoritative and concomitant ordination According to the hierarchical principle the bishop is enabled to give orders not by his power of jurisdiction but by his power of order Now a presbyter hath as much of the Character and Sacrament of order as a bishop and the consecration of a bishop is not held a distinct Sacrament of order from the ordination of a presbyter and the truth is the form of consecrating a bishop according to the English Ordinal is expressive of no more power of order than is given to the presbyter in the form of his ordination in the said Ordinal The conjunction of Presbyters with the Bishop in the present form of ordination shews that the order is conveyed by them as well as by the bishop Their imposition of hands is an authoritative benediction and dedication of the party ordained Let any instance be produced of the imposition of hands by any such as had no power of conveying that which was signified by that ceremony I mean of conveying it so far as mans act can reach unto To say it is only a sign of their giving consent is a poor evasion for the people give consent also If presbyters are at any time allowed to ordain by commission from a Bishop they cannot do it rightly if they have not an intrinsick power of doing it For the Bishops commission or license cannot give a new spiritual power to a Presbyter which was not in him before at least radically or habitually § 24. Of a valid Ministry AS Christ allows the Church to receive such to Baptism and the Lords Supper as he doth not receive so he allows the Church to call some to the Ministry whom he doth not call For it is his prerogative to be the Searcher of the Hearts and men can judg but by appearance Such as Christ doth not allow the Church to call to the Ministry may by his permission through the Churches mal-administration be called thereunto and being so called they abide therein by his permission till they be cast out by due reformation and so long their calling is valid as to external order And such are Ministers to others tho not to their own good and Chrsts ordinances by them administred are valid and effectual to those intents for which he appointed them The whole current of Scripture shews that Gods ordinances are not made void by the close hypocrisie or gross impiety of the dispensers thereof and the contrary opinion tends to unchurch Churches and to deny the Christendom of the Christian World for the most part As we must distinguish between miscarriages in admission and the nullity of the office so between defects or corruptions in the office it self and the nullity thereof The Priesthood and Worship in the Temple at Jerusalem was often much corrupted yet it was true for the substance thereof but the Priesthood appointed for the Calves at Dan and Bethel was false for the substance and a nullity Tho the sacrificing Priesthood at Dan and Bethel were a nullity yet the Ten Tribes had the substance of the true religion and some external acts of worship true and valid as circumcision and so retained something of a Church So now among the Papists there is the substance of the Christian Religion and some thing of a Church and Ministry and ordinances The Ministry of the Popish Priests with reference to the Sacrifice of the Mass is a nullity but as ordained to preach the Gospel and Baptize and to any other parts of the proper work of the Ministry it is not a nullity but their administration in those things is valid § 25. Of the Magistrates Power in Ecclesiastical Affairs MAgistratical and Ecclesiastical power are in their nature wholly divers and they are not subordinate but collateral powers yet Ministers are subject to Magistrates and Magistrates to Ministers in divers respects according to the nature of the power that is seated in either of them The Magistratical power is Imperial the Ecclesiastical is ministerial and so the pastor is under the magistrate as his Ruler by the sword not only in civil but in sacred things and the magistrate is under the pastor as his Ruler by the word or his authoritative teacher The pastors power over the magistrate is no dimunution to his right for it takes away none of his authoritty nor doth it hinder the exercise and efficacy of it but it is his benefit because it is an authoritative administring to him the mercies of the Gospel in Christs Name and if he be not under that authoritative administration he is not under the blessing of the Gospel Howbeit the pastoral discipline may not be so exercised towards the supream magistrate as by dishonouring him to make him less capable of improving his office to the common good which the excommunicating of him would do but if magistrates whether of higher or lower rank be excommunicated nevertheless they must be obeyed The magistrates power over the pastor is no diminution to his spiritual authority for it is not given to hinder but to further the efficacy and exercise thereof So that both powers are mutually
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the 57th Canon of the Laodicean Councel do shew that bishops with their Churches had been constituted in villages tho in some dependance on the City-bishop Mr. Beverege in his Annotations on Council Anchyram c. 13. shews that the the Chorepiscopi were truly bishops tho the exercise of some Episcopal functions were denied them by the Canons and by the Canon last mentioned they were not absolutely forbidden to ordain presbyters and deacons but that they should not do it without the permission of the City-bishop under whom they were § 3. Of divers Cities having two Bishops at once THERE are many instances in the antiquity of two bishops allowed at once in the same City Narcissus and Alexander were bishops of Jerusalem at the same time Euseb Hist l. 6. c. 9 10. Ignatius and Euodius were both bishops of Antioch at the same time Clemens const l. 7.46 At Rome Linus and Clâ—tus were fellow bishops in Peters days Platina in the life of St. Peter Epiphanius heresy 68 concerning Meletius saith Alexandria had not anciently two Bishops as other Cities had Austin was made Bishop of Hippo in the days of Valerius and joined with him as his colleague in the Episcopal function Aug. Epist 34. to Paulinus And some learned men of the hierarchical way conceive that Peter and Paul were bishops of Rome at the same time the one of the Circumcision and the other of the Uncircumcision The Nicene Council was the first that decreed that universally there should be but one bishop in a City Can. 8. If any that come from the Novations to the Catholick Church be a bishop let him have the dignity of Priesthood unless it please the Catholick bishop to give him also the honour of the Episcopal Name If it doth not please him let him find a place for him that he may be a Chorepiscopus in the parish or a presbyter in the Clergy that there may not seem to be two bishops in one City As concerning the Catalogues of the ancient bishops in great Cities wherein the succession is by one single person after another It may be considered That Historians being of later ages had respect to the custom of their own times wherein the Episcopacy resided in one And when anciently there were two or more equal in the name and authority of a Bishop the survivor was reckoned the successor whenas he was indeed but the surviving colleague Some do thus labour to remove the contradictions of Historians touching the order of the succession of the first bishops of Rome Linus Cletus Anacletus c. by supposing that these or some of them were presbyters or bishops at the same time ruling that Church in common and that the following writers fancying to themselves such bishops as were set up in the Church in their times fell into those diversities of tradition § 4. Of the more late Erection of many Parishes under one bishop IT is acknowedged by all parties that Christians in great Cities were not divided into divers fixed Congregations or Parishes till long after the Apostles days And tho when they were multiplied they had divers meeting-places yet those places were promiscuously frequented and the people were taught and governed by all the Presbyters in common and were called but one Church It is observed by Epiphanius Heres 68. n. 6. That it was the Custom only at Alexandria to have one president in the whole City and to distribute the presbyters to teach severally vid. Grot. Annot. on 1 Tim. 5.17 Seldens Comment on Eutych Origin Alexand. p. 85. And most agree that it was two hundred and sixty years after Christ before parishes were distinguished And there must be a distinction of parishes before there could be a union of them into Diocesses § 5. That Bishops and Presbyters are of the same order The Testimony of later times concerning it THat this is not the opinion only of those who are now called Presbyterians let the testimonies both of ancient and later times touching this point be considered I begin with those of later times The French and Belgick Confessions assert the parity of order of all Ministers of the Gospel Reynold Peacock bishop of Chichester wrote a book de Ministrorum aqualitate which the Papists caused to be burnt Vid. Erasmus his Annotations on 1 Tim. 4. Cassanders consult Article 14. saith It is agreed among all that of old in the Apostles days there was no difference between bishops and presbyters but for orders sake and avoiding of schism a bishop was put before a presbyter This his opinion he delivered to the Emperor of Germany being sent for by him to inform his conscience about such questions In the time of King Henry the Eighth there was published a book by Cranmer and others called the bishops book wherein is affirmed that the difference of bishops was a device of the ancient fathers not mentioned in Scripture An. 1537. In the book called the Institution of a Christian man made by the Clergy in a provincial synod and set forth by the Kings Authority and approved by the Parliament it is asserted That the Fathers of the succeeding Church after the Apostles instituted certain inferior degrees of Ministry yet in the New Testament no mention is made of any degrees or distinctions in orders but only of Deacons or Ministers and of presbyters or bishops The Parliament Divines at the Treaty in the Isle of Wight in their Answer to the King say This doctrine of the sameness of the order of a bishop and presbyter was published by King Henry the Eighth An. 1543. to be received by all the subjects and was seen and approved by the Lords both spiritual and temporal and by the lower house of Parliament The words of the book are The Scripture mentions these two orders only to wit Presbyters and Deacons and the Apostles confirming them by prayer and imposition of hands Mr. Mede discourse 5. on 1 Cor. 4 1. saith there are properly but two orders Ecclesiastical Presbyters and Deacons the rest are but divers degrees of these two Dr. Hammonds opinion concerning bishops and presbyters is thus declared in his Annotations on Acts 11. Altho the Title of Elders hath extended to a second order in the Church and now is in use only for them yet in the Scripture-times it belonged principally if not alone to the bishops there being no evidence that any of that second order were then instituted in the Churches Now if in Scripture-times presbyters of an inferior order to bishops were not instituted as this learned man supposeth it is evident that all those Church-officers called presbyters mentioned in Scripture were bishops and if this inferior order of presbyters be not to be found in Scripture I desire to know what proof can be made of its divine institution Many if not most Papists acknowledg that presbytery is the highest order in the ministry and that Episcopacy is but a different degree of the same order And it is
no resolved point of faith among them whether bishops differ from presbyters only in degree or in order and office Catalogus Testium veritatis Tom. 2 reports that Wicklief held but two orders of ministers Walsing Hist. in Rich. 2 p. 205. saith That it was one of Wickliefs errors that every priest rightly ordained had power to administer all Sacraments Dr. Reynolds in his Epistle to Sir Francis Knolls shews That they who had laboured for Reformation of the Church for five hundred years past held that all pastors be they intituled bishops or priests have equal authority by the Word of God Ockham a great Schoolman faith that by Christs institution all priests of whatsoever degree are of equal authority power and jurisdiction Catal. Test Verit. Richardus de Media Villa in 4 Sent. distinct 24 q. 2. saith That Episcopacy is to be called not an order which is a Sacrament but rather a certain dignity of an order Council Colon. Enchirid. Christ Religion Paris edit An. 1558. p. 169. of holy orders saith bishops and presbyters were the same order in the primitive church as all the Epistles of Peter and Paul and Jerom also and almost all the Fathers witness Richardus Armachanus l. 9. c. 5. ad quest Armen saith There is not found in the Evangelical or Apostolical Scripture any difference between bishops and simple priests called presbyters It. lib. 11. q. Arm. c. 5. Johan Semeca in his gloss dist 95. c. Olim saith In the first primitive church the name and offices began to be distinguished and the prelation was for the remedy of Schism Gratian distinct 60 c. null ex urb pap saith The primitive church had only those two holy orders presbyterate and diaconate And Dr. Reynolds saith That this was once enrolled in the Canon-Law for sound doctrine Peter Lombard the father of the Schoolmen Lib. 4. distinct 24. tit 1. saith the same and that of these two Orders only we have the Apostles precept Sixtus Senensis heaps up the testimonies of others upon his own to the same thing § 6. The Testimony of Antiquity for the identity of Bishops and Presbyters HERE I first observe by way of preface That Michael Medina de Sacr. Orig. accusing Jerome of holding the sameness of bishops and presbyters saith that Ambrose Austin Sedulius Primasius Chrysostome Theodoret Oecumenius Theophylact were in the same Heresie as Bellarmine reports him lib. 4. de Eccles Milit. c. 9. The same Medina gives this reason why Jerome Austin and others of the Fathers fell into this Heresie as he calls it because this point was not then clearly determined of Hist of the Council of Trent lib. 7. p. 570. And Bellarmin de clero l. 1 c. 15. saith that this Medina assures us That St. Jerome was of Aerius his opinion in this point Touching Aerius Whitaker Controv. 2. q. 5. saith that he was not accounted an Heretick by all but by Eustathius who opposed him Dr. Reynolds in his Epist to Sir Francis Knolls shews out of bishop Jewel that Chrysostome Jerome Ambrose Austin Theodoret Primasius Sedulius Theophylact and most of the ancient Fathers held that bishops and presbyters are one in Scripture with whom Oecumenius and Anselm of Canterbury and another Anselm and Gregory and Gratian agree The Testimony of Clemens Romanus Clemens in his Epistle to the Corinthians mentions but two Orders Bishops and Deacons Pag. 96. The Apostles preaching through Regions and Cities did constitute their first fruits proving them by the Spirit to be bishops and deacons to those which should afterward believe With him bishops and presbyters are every where the same Ib. p. 4. Ye walked in the Laws of God subject to them that have the rule over you 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and giving due honour to the Presbyters among you ye warned the young men that they should follow things moderate and grave Ib. p. 100. Our Apostles foreknowing there would be contentiona bout the name of Episcopacy for this cause having received certain foreknowledg appointed the aforesaid Episcopacy and gave Ordination 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that if they dyed other approved men might successively receive their Ministry 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It will not be a light sin to us if we eject out of thier Episcopacy those that have unblameably and holily offered that gift blessed are those presbyters who are gone before who have received a fruitful and perfect dissolution for they fear not lest any one should cast them out of the Charge wherein they are set Ib p. 108. Base things very base and unworthy of Christian conversation are reported That the most firm and ancient Church of Carinth for one or two persons doth move sedition against the presbyters Ib. p. 120. Who then is generous among you and let him say if the sedition and contention and schisms be risen because of me I will depart whithersoever ye will and do the things commanded by the multitude only let the flock of Christ be in peace with the presbyters set over it Ib. p. 128. You therefore that have laid the foundation of schism be subject to the presbyters be instructed unto Repentance c. These are the passages in that Epistle relating to the point here in question And who cannot see that here are only two Orders of Ministers bishops and deacons and not three bishops priests and deacons Also Presbyters and those in the Episcopacy and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are evidently the same And here is no mention of any office above the presbyters and to them the church were required to be subject As concerning that passage p. 7. To the High Priest proper ministrations were appointed to the priests their own place was assigned and upon the Levites their proper ministry lay and the Laick man bound to Laick precepts I conceive that it alone affords no argument for three Orders of ministry or essentially different offices in the Gospel-church For it respects the present matter but only in way of similitude and no more is signified thereby than as under the Mosaical Oeconomy there were several orders and several ministrations pertaining to them so it is also in the Gospel-church but it may not be used in argumentation beyond what is plainly designed in it much less may it be urged to prove any thing contrary to the tenor of the whole Epistle besides the High-priests office was not of another kind from the priests but a higher degree in the same office for some particular ministrations which also in time of his incapacity might be ordinarily performed by another priest And let the comparison be forced to the utmost it will shew no greater difference between a bishop and a presbyter than between an Archbishop and an ordinary bishop It is Grotius his argument That this Epistle of Clemens is genuine because it no where makes mention of that excessive authority which began to be afterwards introduced or was at first introduced at Alexandria by the custom of that church after the
his Diocess who are the proper and immediate Pastors of their several Churches and really bishops according to the true import of that name and office as it is in Scripture 4. The Presbyters of the Church of England if they be not bishops are not of the same order with the presbyters mentioned in Scripture for all presbyters therein mentioned were bishops truly and properly so called Now if they be not of the same order with the Scripture presbyters they are not of divine but meerly humane institution but if it be acknowledged that they are of the same order as indeed they are why are they denied to be bishops of their respective Charges And why are they bereaved of the Episcopal or pastoral Authority therein 5. The bishops of the first Ages had no greater number of souls under their Episcopacy than of which they could take the personal oversight But the present bishops have commonly more souls under their Episcopacy than a hundred bishops can personally watch over The ordinary work of the ancient bishop was to preach give thanks administer the Eucharist pronounce the blessing and exercise discipline to the people under his charge But the bishops of the present age neither do nor can perform these ministries to the people that are under their charge 6. The ancient bishop did exercise his Episcopaâ—y personally and not by Delegates or Substitutes But the present bishop doth for the most part exercise it not personally but either by his Delegates who have no Episcopal authority of themselves but what they derive from him alone or by Substitutes whom he accounts no bishops 7. The ancient bishops did not govern alone but in conjunction with the presbyters of his Church he being the first presbyter and stiled the Brother and Colleague of the presbyters But the present bishop hath in himself alone the power of jurisdiction both over the Clergy and Laity 8. The ancient bishop did not and might not ordain Ministers without the counsel of his Clergy But the present bishop hath the sole power of ordination Tho some presbyters whom he shall think fit join with him in laying on of hands yet he alone hath the whole power of the act without their consent or counsel 9. To labour in the word and doctrine was anciently the most honourable part of the bishops work and it was constantly performed by him in his particular Church or Congregation But now preaching is not reckoned to be the ordinary work of a bishop and many bishops preach but rarely and extraordinarily 10. The ancient bishops were chosen by all the people at least not without their consent over whom they were to preside And when a bishop was to be ordained it was the ordinary course of the first ages for all the next bishops to assemble with the people for whom he was to be ordained and every one was acquainted with his conversation But the present bishops entrance into his office is by a far different way 11. Anciently there was a bishop with his Church in every City which had a competent number of Christians But in the later times many yea most Cities have not their proper bishops I mean bishops in the Hierarchical sense tho they be as large and populous as those that have It is to be noted that the manner was not anciently as now that a Church and its bishop did cause that to be called a City which otherwise would not be so called but any Town-corporate or Burrough was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a City according to the ancient use of the word 12. Because in the first ages the Christians of a City and its adjacent Villages did ordinarily make up but one competent Congregation There was commonly but one Church in a City and that City-church took in all the Christians of the adjacent Villages who were but one stated Society all the members whereof might have personal communion one with another But the dividing of the bishops Cure into such parts as are now called Parishes came not in till long after the Apostles times and when that division first took place they were but as Chappels of Ease to the City-church Here it is to be noted That till Constantine's time it cannot be proved that there were above four or five Churches in all the world that consisted of more people than one of 〈◊〉 parishes nor of half so many as some of them 13. In the beginning of Christianity Cities or Towns were judged the â—ittest places for the constituting of Churches because in them the materials of a Church to wit believers were most numerous and in them was the greatest opportunity of making â—ore Converts with other advantages which the Villages did not afford Yet when the number of Christians encreased in a Region Churches having their proper Bishops were constituted in Villages or places that were not Cities one proof whereof is in the Chorepiscopi who were bishops distinct from ordinary presbyters Thus it was in the first ages But in the following times when the worldly grandure of Episcopacy was rising decâ—â—ed were made that bishops might not be ordained in Villages or small Cities lest the name and authority of a bishop should â—e contemptible 14. Tho it hath been decreed by Councils That there be but one bishop in a city and the custom hath generally prevailed yet there in manifold proof that in the first ages more bishops than one were allowed at once in the same city yea in the same church Indeed the Ecclesiastical Historians now extant being comparatively but of later ages and having respect to the government of their own times set down the succession of the ancient bishops by single persons whereas several bishops presiding at the same time the surviving and most noted Colleague was reckoned the Successor 15. The ancient bishops exercised discipline in a spiritual manner by the sword of the Spirit which is the word of God and by arguments deduced from it sought to convince the judgment and awe the conscience according to the true nature of Ecclesiastical discipline But the present bishops have their Courts which are managed like Secular Courts to compel men to an outward observance of their decrees by the dread of temporal penalties annexed to excommunication 16. The present bishops say of their Church-government that without secular force none would regard it But the ancient bishops thought it a reproach to Christs discipline to declare to the world that it is a powerless thing of it self and insufficient to obtain 〈…〉 unless the temporal sword inforce it 17. The Episcopal or Pastoral authority is now commonly exercised by a Lay-chancellor and tho an ordinary priest be present in the Court to speak the words of excommunication yet the Chancellor as Judg decrees it And excommunications and absolutions pass in the bishops name and authority when he never had the hearing of the cause but anciently it was not so In this case I enquire Whether Christ hath authorised any
bishop to delegate his Episcopal power to a Lay-man yea or to a Clergy-man if that Clergy-man be not as Christs commissioned Officer authorized to exert that power 18. The sentence of excommunication is denounced for any non observaâ—ce of the judgment of the Court tho in cases of doubtful right and in the smallest matters But no proof of such practice can be produced from the first ages And let the bishops themselves judg howsoever contempt may be pretended in the case Whether many who are usually so sentenced either upon doubtful or trivial matters do indeed deserve to be adjudged to such a state as that sentence duly administred doth import 19. The Parish Minister is bound to denounce in his Church the sentence of Excommunication decreed by the Court tho he have no cognizance of the cause and tho he know the sentence to be unjâ—st But no such practice was known in the ancient church 20. Ministers at their Ordination receive that Office which essentially includes an Authority and Obligation to teach their flocks yet they may not preach without a license from the bishop in their own proper charges or cures tho they perform other Offices of the Ministry But anciently it was not so 21. The present bishops require of their Clergy an Oath of Canonical obedience but let any proof be given that the ancient bishops did ever impose such an Oath or that the presbyters ever took it 22 The Parish minister hath not the liberty of examining whether the Infant brought to Baptism be a capable subject thereof that is Whether he be the child of a Christian or Infidel but he must baptize the child of every one that is presented by Godfathers and Godmothers who commonly have little or no interest in the Infant nor care of its education and who not seldome are but Boys and Girls 23. Confirmation is to be administred only by the bishop and yet it is in an ordinary way impossible for him to examine all persons to be confirmed by him within his Diocess Consequently it cannot be duly administred to multitudes of persons that are to be presented thereunto and they that are confirmed are few in comparison of those that are not But the ancient bishops being bishops of one particular Church were capable of taking the oversight of every particular person of their flocks and did personally perform the same 24. A great part of the adult members of Parish-churches are such as understand not what Christianity is but the ancient churches were careful that all their members might be competently knowing in the Religion which they professed as appears by their discipline towards the Catechumeni and the long time before they admitted them to baptism 25. The Parish ministers have no remedy but to give the Sacrament to ignorant and scandalous persons that offer themselves thereunto they can but accuse the openly wicked in the Chancellors Court and but for one time deny the Sacrament to some kind of notorious sinners but then they are bound to prosecute them in the Court and to procure a sentence against them there where not one notorious sinner of a multitude is or can be brought to a due tryal in regard of the way of proceeding in Ecclesiastical Courts and the multitude of souls in every Diocess The consequent hereof is the general intrusion of the grosly ignorant and profane who pollute the communion of the Church and eat and drink damnation to themselves 26. All parishioners that are of age are compelled to receive the Sacrament how unfit or unwilling soever they be by the terrors of penalties subsequent to excommunication and those that have been excommunicated for refusing to receive are absolved from that sentence if being driven thereunto they will receive the Sacrament rather than lye in Gaol And the Parish-ministers are compelled to give the Sacrament to such 27. Many Orthodox Learned and Pious men duly qualified for the Ministry are cast and kept out of it for not declaring an unfeigned assent and consent to all and every thing contained in the Liturgy and Book of Ordination Let any proof be given that ever any of the ancient Bishops or Churches thought all the points contained in those books so necessary to be assented and consented to or that any of them so severely required the like conformity to opinions forms and ceremonies of the like nature and reason 28. The present bishops debar all Christians from the Lords Supper who through unfeigned scruple of conscience refuse to kneel in the act of receiving the Sacramental bread and wine and they debar from baptism the children of those Parents who judg it unlawful for them to permit the signing of their children with the sign of the Cross But the ancient bishops did not so nor doth the practise of Antiquity warrant the same 29. The greatest severity of the present Church-discipline is directed against Ministers and people who observe not full conformity to the Rules Forms Rights and Ceremonies prescribed in the Liturgy and Canons But the ancient bishops exercised it against those who subverted the Christian faith by damnable Heresies or enormously transgressed the Rules of soberness righteousness and godliness prescribed of God in his word 30. The Oath imposed upon the Church-wardens to make their Presentments according to the Book of Articles framed by the bishop hath had this consequence which ought to be laid to heart that commonly they would rather overlook their Oath than become accusers of their honest neighbours not only those who withdraw from but those who hold communion with the Parish churches 31. The requiring of the reordination of those ministers who have been ordained by presbyters is contrary to the practise of the ancient Church it contradicts the judgments of many Eminent bishops and other Divines of the Church of England who have maintained the validity of Presbyterial ordination it nullifies the ministry of all the Foreign Reformed Churches and of most if not of all the Lutheran churches and it advances the Church of Rome above them for the priests of the Church of Rome upon their conversion are received without reordination whereas those that come from the Foreign Reformed churches must be reordained before they be admitted to the ministry in the church of England And all this is done when in Scripture the office of a bishop and presbyter is one and the same and the difference between them came in afterwards by Ecclesiastical custome It is commonly said That Churches and Bishops being now delivered from their ancient low and distressed state under the tyranny and persecution of the Heathen powers and enjoying the patronage and bounty of Christian Rulers should not be consined to their ancient meanness narrowness and weakness but be enlarged in opulency amplitude and potency answerable to the Civil State Ans It is freely granted that the state Ecclesiastical should in reasonable proportion partake of the prosperity of the Civil state But the question still remains 1. Whether
for the encrease of the wealth power and splendor of bishops and other chief Clergy-men or for any political considerations the essential form of a bishops church constituted by the Apostles who were immediately commissioned from Christ should be changed from a single Congregation or Society of which the bishop took the personal oversight to a diocess consisting of many yea commonly of many hundred stared congregations having each of them their proper presbyter and all of them but one bishop to whom it is impossible to take the personal oversight of the souls therein and to perform towards them all the duties which were the ordinary work of the ancient bishop 2. Whether the office of a bishop or elder of one single church instituted by the Holy Ghost should be changed into mother essentially different office viz. of a bishop of many yea many hundred single churches each whereof have their proper pastors or presbyters who according to the Scripture are the same with bishops 3. Whether the office of presbyter or elder of divine institution who according to the Scripture is truly and properly a bishop should be changed into an office essentially different viz. of a presbyter who is no bishop but only the bishops subject substitute or Curate And whether the said office should be statedly bereaved of the power of discipline which is essential to it 4. Whether the office of a bishop which is a trust given by Christ to be personally discharged by him that receives it should be executed by delegation to a Lay-man yea or to a Clergy-man who is held to be no bishop 5. Whether the ancient government of the Church by a bishop in conjunction with his presbyters should be changed into a government by the bishop alone and by his Chancellor and Officials whose authority is derived from him Concessions concerning Episcopacy I Hold it lawful and expedient that the elders or pastors of a particular Church should statedly defer to one that is ablest among them a guiding power over them in ordination and discipline and other church affairs I hold it not unfit that this person should for distinctions sake have the title of bishop given him tho he be not of an essentially different order from the rest of the pastors but only of a superior degree in the same holy Order Some Nonconformists think upon probable grounds that tâ—â—â—e should be a general sort of bishops who should take care of â—â—he common government of particular churches and the bisâ—â—ps thereof and that they should have a chief hand in the ordaining and placing and displacing of the pastors or bishops of particular churches And from this I dissent not A Consideration of the present state of Conformity in the Church of England IN considering the terms of Conformity now injoined I am not forgetsul of the reverence due to Rulers I do not herein presume to judg their publick acts but I only exercise a judgment of discretion about my own act in reference to their injunctions which surely they will not disallow To consider the lawfulness of those things of which an unfeigned approbation is required is an unquestionable duty If I should profess what I believe not or practice what I allow not my sin were heinous and inexcusable The Reasons of my dissent are here expressed as inoffensively as can be done by me who am to shew that it is not nothing for which I have quitted the station which I formerly held in the Church I have no reason nor will to lay a heavier yoke upon my self than the Law doth or to set such bars in my own way as the Law doth not I therefore admit that more restrained sense of the Declaration which is thought by many to make the enjoined terms more easie I am concerned to take notice of smaller as well as greater matters because as well the one as the other are alike to be owned Tho I would not differ with the Church about little things yet I may not profess an allowance of any little thing which I believe is not allowable I desire to proceed in this enquiry with good judgment and to do nothing weakly but however it be I had rather be thought to be injudicious and overscrupulous in making objections than want a sufficient clearness in a business of this nature I take no pleasure in making objections against the book of Common prayer but I do it by constraint that I may give an account of that Nonconformity to which by an irresistible force of Conscience I am necessitated If all things contained and prescribed in the said book be right and good I heartily wish that I and all men were convinced of it I joyn with the Congregation in the use of the Liturgy and I acknowledg that by joyning in it I declare my consent to the use of it as in the main an allowable form of Worship But this doth not as I suppose signifie my allowing of all things therein contained Of the Declaration of unfeigned Assent and Consent required by the Act of Vniformity THE true intent of this Declaration is to be considered By the form of words wherein it is expressed it seems to signifie no less than assent to and approbation of the whole and of every thing contained and prescribed in and by the Book of Common-prayer c. so that no man can make this Declaration that is not satisfied of the truth of every thing contained and the lawfulness and allowableness of every thing prescribed in the said book Nothing is more evident to me than that I ought not to dissemble or lye in matters of Religion but so I do if I declare my unfeigned assent and consent to those things contained and prescribed in the Liturgy from which I really dissent But this meaning thereof is not acknowledged by many and very judicious persons among the Conformists They grant indeed that the words will not only bear this sense but would seem to incline to it if the meaning of them were not evidently limited by the Law it self and that in the very clause wherein it doth impose it That the Law doth expresly determine this assent to the use of the Liturgy they say is evident from these words He shall declare his unfeigned assent and consent to the use of all things in the said book contained and prescribed in these words and no other I A. B. do here declare c. Now by all rules of interpreting laws we are directed say they to understand what is said more generally in any law according to the limitation which the law it self gives especially if it be in express words I admit this later and more restrained sense of the Declaration as probable and in this disquisition I proceed accordingly taking the declared assent and consent as limited to the use of things Nevertheless it must necessarily extend to the use of all things contained and prescribed in the Liturgy And thereupon I judg that not only all
Christs Church Bishops Priests and Deacons Between the Orders of bishops and deacons there is unquestionably an essential difference But if by the orders of bishops and priests be meant several Orders or Offices specifically or essentially different and not several degrees of superiority and inferiority in the same office the essential nature whereof is in both I cannot by subscription declare that the said assertion is not contrary to the word of God Upon diligent reading of the Holy Scripture I cannot find therein the office or order of a presbyter that is no bishop Nor can I consent to this passage in the said Preface No man shall be accounted or taken for a lawful Priest or be suffered to execute the function except he be called according to this form or hath had formerly Episcopal Ordination I am no way satisfied in the disabling or degrading of so many Ministers as are ordained only by Presbyters Of the promissory part of the second Article of Subscription in these words That he himself will use the form in the said book prescribed in publick prayer and administration of Sacraments d n one other Can. 36. THE last words and none other taken in their most obvivious sense seem to exclude all other form of prayer used by the Minister before or after Sermon whether conceived at the present or precomposed For prayer before and after Sermon is publick prayer Now it is expresly promised by the Subscriber that he will use no other form in publick prayer than what is prescribed in the said book I know many Conformists do practise otherwise than is here expressed But I know also that some do urge this and another Canon against their practise and I now enquire into the plain force of the words which ought to be regarded by a considerate Subscriber I suppose it will be granted by all That the Church intends hereby to engage against using any other form whatsoever in the administration of Sacraments and thereupon one would think that she intended hereby to engage also against using any other form whatsoever in publick prayer seeing in the words of the promise the engagement against the use of any other form both in publick prayer and administration of Sacraments is alike expressed If any sufficient reason or good warrant can be produced for restraining the words to the excluding only of the use of any other publick Liturgy as for example the Mass-book or of any other publick Directory of Worship instead of the Common-prayer nevertheless it were to be wished that men might not be enjoined to make a promise in those words which in their plain sense do express an engagement which is not thereby intended I have considered many particulars which come within the compass of the Declaration of unfeigned assent and consent injoined by the Act of Uniformity and the Subscription required by the Thirty sixth Canon In all which my desire and design is not to disaffect any persons to the Book of Common prayer but to receive satisfaction if it may be had concerning the things wherein I am dissatisfied For I own the said form of worship to be in the main sound and good for the matter of it and I sincerely join with the Congregation in the same tho I take it to be less perfect than is to be desired It is not therefore the use of a Liturgy in the publick Worship of God nor the reading of the Common-prayer in the ordinary daily service that makes me a Nonconformist But the high strain of the Declaration and Subscription and the strict observation of all things prescribed are difficulties which I cannot overcome This consideration of the present state of Conformity hath proceeded according to the limited sense of the Declaration as restrained to the use of things which being a probable limitation I have willingly admitted for peace sake But there be those who will not allow it saying that the true intendment of the said Declaration is to be taken from the plain signification of the form of words wherein it is expressed which is no less than a full justification of all things whatsoever contained and prescribed in and by the Book of Common-prayer c. as right and good I confess I am not able with a judgment of certainty to determine which of these two explications doth truly and rightly expound the full intendment of this Declaration And tho I have admitted the more restrained meaning thereof as probable yet the truth is I have not found that it doth any great matter to make the way of Conformity easie or passable as appears by the foregoing examination of many things contained and prescribed in the Liturgy But if the other opinion of the more comprehensive meaning be true the way is yet more difficult for then the Declaration doth imply an acknowledgment of the truth of all assertions any where contained in this Book also of the truth lawfulness and goodness of all expressions not only in the divine Service it self but in all the directing-Rules viz. Rubricks Calendar and Tables also of the lawfulness and fitness not only of the use of things injoined but of the very injunction or imposition the said directing Rules being so many injunctions strictly requiring us to observe the things prescribed in them But as I have before observed if the sense of the Declaration be restrained to the use of things it doth not appear that the injoined Subscription is to be so restrained As I have said I consent to the use of the Common-prayer as a tolerable Form of Worship but that doth not imply my allowing of all and every thing therein contained Upon the review of the whole matter let it be impartially considered whether a Declaration of so high a strain about a book of meer humane and fallible composition containing in it many hundreds of propositions and consequences should be so rigorously exacted If some recognition in this kind be thought necessary it were to be desired that it might be contrived in a form of words less p rplexing and ensnaring yet sufficiently engaging Of the Renouncing of the Obligation of the COVENANT Required by the Act of Vniformity THis Covenant was not meerly a League between men confirmed by an Oath but a Vow to God of several things directly respecting him And tho its intent were to engage men one to another yet that was not the whole nor chief intent thereof but its chief intendment was to engage all the Covenanters jointly to God Howsoever it be called an Oath yet so far as it is an Oath of things which directly and immediately respect God or that are to be performed towards him it hath the nature of a Vow To invalidate the Obligation of an Oath or Vow made to God is a thing of a high nature and had need to be done with a clear judgment One point of this Oath or Vow was to endeavour Church-Reformation according to our Places and Callings And no Reformation
different Order from the ordinary presbyters and it seems to confine their Ministry to the Apostles times Grotius saith they were presbyters tyed to no place and that many such Evangelists were ordained long after and thereupon concludes that not to ordain without a title to some particular place is not of divine right Indeed if the office of an Evangelist be no other than that of a general Minister or a presbyter tyed to no place it seems not only to have been requisite in the Apostles times but to be of standing conveniency if not of necessity in the church And his not being limited to one church is but the extending of the common office of a presbyter or bishop and not the making of a new office For this more extensive power of a general Minister is only the having of that in ordinary exercise which every Minister hath in actu primo by vertue of his relation to the Catholick church in which Teachers and Pastors are set 1 Cor. 12.28 and into which his ministerial acts of teaching and baptizing have influence yea which he hath by vertue of his relation to Christ as a steward to an housholder in his Family and as a delegate to the chief pastor for the calling of the unconverted as well as for the confirming of Converts Now the more or less extensive exercise of an Office is a matter of humane prudence and variable according to time and place But that a general Minister be of a higher order than fixed bishops or presbyters is not of standing or perpetual necessity Nor is it always necessary that he be in a state of superintendency over them Nevertheless if a superintendency be granted to him by the consent of the churches and pastors for the common good or by the Magistrate as to his delegate in his authority in Ecclesiastical affairs I cannot condemn it but rather judg that it may be sometimes not only expedient but necessary Yet it is not of divine right but of prudential determination § 13. A further Consideration of the Angels of the Churches and of a President bishop AS touching the Angel of a Church it being a mystical expression in a mystical book it may be rationally questioned Whether it be meant of one person or of a number of Colleagues as may appear by what hath been already noted But if it be meant of one person it is not necessarily to be understood of one that is the sole pastor and bishop of a Church Nay by what hath been already noted it may with as great if not greater probability be understood of a Prefident bishop who is not of a superior order to the rest of the bishops but the first or chief in degree of the same order and like the Moderator of an Assembly a Chair-man in a Committee and Mayor in a Court of Aldermen And for such a presidency there needs no divine institution it being not a holy order or office of a different species from that of the rest of the Pastors but a priority in the same office for orders sake For it is orderly and convenient that where there are many Presbyters or elders of a particular Church that for concords sake they consent that one that is ablest among them should statedly have a guiding power among them in the ordering of Church-affairs § 14. Of the Office of Ruling Elders THESE have been commonly called Lay-Elders but some have disliked that name alledging that they are sacred officers but they own the name of Ruling Elders Now it is to be noted that the asserters of the divine right of this office make it not an office of total dedication to sacred imployment as the office of a Minister but allow such as bear it to have secular imployments not only occasionally but as their stated particular calling also that they make it not an office of final dedication to sacred imployment as the office of a Minister is but grant that such as bear it may cease from it and again become no Elders Also they make not these Elders to have office power in all Churches as Ministers have actu primo but only in their own particular Churches and in Classical and Synodical assemblies nor do they ascribe unto these Elders the power of the keys of binding and loosing of remitting and retaining sins which belong to Ministers nor do they solemnly ordain these Elders by prayer and imposition of hands as Ministers are ordained Now the Query is whether Christ hath instituted in his Church such a spiritual officer as this ruling Elder who is not totally nor finally dedicated to sacred imployment but statedly left to secular callings and hath no office power no not in actu primo in the church at large but only in his own church or in such an assembly as that Church helps to make up nor hath the power of the keys of binding and loosing of remitting and retaining sins nor is ordained by prayer and imposition of hands I say whether Christ hath instituted such an officer and authorized him in his name as his steward to admit into or cast out of his Family the Church I find nothing in Holy Scripture to warrant his divine right nor can I see in reason how one destitute of the above nanamed capacities can put forth acts of spiritual Discipline or of binding and loosing in Christ Name In the New Testament there be three significations of Presbyter the first belonging to age the second to Magistracy in the greater or lesser Sanhedrim the third to ministers of the Gospel The only place that hath a shew of mentioning the ruling Elder in the Church that is not a Minister of the Gospel is 1 Tim. 5.17 The Elders that rule well c. But this hath nothing cogently to evince two different kinds of officers but that of those in the same office some may be imployed more especially in one part of the work thereof and others in another part and that the being more abundantly imployed in the Word and Doctrine hath the preeminence The Emphasis lies in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifying that some did more especially or abundantly labour therein but not implying that others did not meddle therewith And learned men observe that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is maintenance which is not used to be given to this kind of officer we are now inquiring of For they are such as have secular imployment to live by The Enumerations of divers gifts Rom. 12.6 doth not infer the institution of divers offices For as he that giveth and he that sheweth Mercy may be the same man so he that teacheth and he that exhorteth and he that ruleth may be the same For they are all proper acts of the pastoral office Likewise in 1 Cor. 12.28 those two expressions Helps and Governments do necessarily infer the institution of two Functions no more than Miracles and Gifts of healing there also mentioned do infer the same § 15. That a single Presbyter
are not immediately inspired of God have sufficiently certain evidence in reason to the discerning and chusing of infallible guides that are immediately inspired § 15. Whether Infallibility admit of degrees and in what respect EVery truth is equally impossible to be false for all things that imply a contradiction are equally because utterly impossible All are alike infallible in that wherein they are infallible and therein they cannot be more infallible because therein it is utterly impossible that they should be deceived and so it cannot be more impossible than it is already Nevertheless there are different degrees of evidence for being infallible in such or such a matter Likewise there are different degrees of clear apprehension of being infallible and so the sure knowledg of being infallible admits of degrees That knowledg that is sufficiently certain may be advanced to be abundantly certain and that which is abundant may be advanced to yet more abundant Whereupon I conclude that though infallibility in its formal reason admits of no degrees yet there are different degrees of the evidence and the clear apprehension thereof Moreover infallibility is in a more noble and perfect state in one subject than in another And so the infallibility of a superior intellect as that of Angels is in a more perfect and excellent than the hypothetical and the unlimited than the limited In the same subject infallibility may be in a more perfect state at one time than another according to the rising or falling of the evidence thereof § 16. Of the Infallibility of Sense THAT which is agreeable to sense rightly circumstantiated is impossible to be false and that which is repugnant to sence rightly circumstantiated is impossible to be true For that the one should be false and that the other should be true implies a contradiction supposing the sensitive faculty to be true And if the sensitive faculties be not true it infers that impious and absurd opinion that God cannot or will not govern the material world but by falshood The Popish opinion of Transubstantiation is no deception of the sense but of the understanding for they that have persuaded themselves to believe it do not say they see or tast or feel Christs body and blood but acknowledg what they see feel and tast to be the accidents of the bread and wine which they say remains after Transubstantion Wherefore the imposing is not upon the senses but upon the understanding which ought to judg by sense of matters that are the proper objects of sense § 17. Of Infallibility of Reason IF Sense may be the subject of Infallibility why may not the Understanding be so which is a more excellent Faculty in the kind of perception or knowledg If the Understanding be the subject of Certainty why not also of infallibility in that limited sense as hath been before explained The proper object of Certainty is not that which may or may not be but that which must be or which is known to be such An indubitable Certainty is acknowledged and from an indubitable Certainty properly so called I think a good inference is made unto an infallible Certainty To be indubitable in a matter is to be sure that I am not therein deceived And I cannot rationally be sure that I am not deceived unless I am sure that it cannot be that the thing be otherwise than I apprehend And if I am sure that it cannot be otherwise than I apprehend I am as to that particular infallible Because men in their most confident persuasions are commonly deceived by prejudice from passion interest education and the like it follows not that none can be secure from deception that is to know that it cannot be that they should be deceived in such or such a matter Certainly an impartial and unbiassed judgment may be found § 18. Logical Physical Moral and Theological Conclusisions as well as Mathematical admit of demonstrative Evidence UPON the foregoing enquiries I judg it very disadvantageous to the cause of Religion to speak as some do of a lower evidence for it than demonstration and such as the matter is capable of whereas I suppose there is not surer and clearer Evidence for any thing than for true Religion Not only Mathematical but Logical Physical Moral and Theological Conclusions admit of demonstrative evidence Whereas some say the existence of God is not Mathematically demonstrable because only Mathematical matter admits such kind of evidence if it be meant of that special evidence that is in the Mathematicks it is nothing to the purpose but if it be meant of evidence in general as demonstrative as Mathematical evidence it is false for this Truth admits the clearest and strictest demonstration This Proposition That God is is demonstrative in the strictest sense by a demonstration a posteriori viz of the necessary cause from the effect it being evident that the existence of God is absolutely necessary to the existence of the World for that we cannot attribute the being of the Phanomena or visible things in the world to any other cause than such a Being as we conceive God to be but we must offer violence to our own faculties This Proposition That every word of God shall be fulfilled according to the true and full intent of it is demonstrative in the strictest sense a priori from the veracity of God it being as evident that God is true as that he is As the Existence so the Attributes of God have demonstrative Evidence unless you had rather call them indemonstrable principles as having the greatest self-evidence From the Essence and Attributes of God and mans dependance on him and relation to him Moral and Theological Truths of demonstrative evidence are inferred as touching Gods moral law the good of conformity and the evil of inconformity thereunto and a just retribution to men according to that difference § 19. Of the infallible knowledg of the truth of the Christian Religion and Divine Authority of the Scripture UPON the grounds here laid as the Existence and Attributes of God and mans dependance on him and relation to him and his obligations thence arising may be demonstrated so also that the Christian Religion and the Holy Scriptures are of God as the Author and that the contrary would involve a contradiction And I take this to have been demonstrated by learned men and need not here be largely insisted on Only I shall set down a little of that much that hath been written by Mr. Baxter We may infallibly know the Christian Doctrine to be of God by his unimitable image or impression which is upon it supposing the truth of the historical part Likewise the truth of the historical part namely that this doctrine was delivered by Christ and his Apostles and that those things were done by him and them which the Scriptures mention we may know infallibly The Apostles and other first witnesses knew it infallibly themselves by their present sense and reason with the concomitance of
supernatural help in remembring and attesting it The first Churches received the Testimony from the first witnesses upon naturally certain and infallible evidence it being impossible that those witnesses could by combination deceive the world in such matters of fact in the very age and place when and where the things are pretended to be done and said And these Churches had the concomitance of supernatural attestation in themselves by the supernatural gifts of the Holy Ghost and by miracles wrought by them The Christians or Churches of the next age received the testimony from those of the first with a greater evidence of natural infallible Certainty for that the Doctrine was delivered to them in the records of sacred Scripture and both the miracles and reporters were more numerous and they were dispersed over much of the world and with these also was the supernatural evidence of miracles We of the present age receive it insallibly from the Churches of all precedent ages successively to this day by the same way with greater advantages in some respects and with lesser in others not upon the Churches bare authority but the natural Cerainty of the infallible tradition of the Holy Scriptures or records of this religion and of the perpetual exercise thereof according to those records in all essential points wherein it was naturally impossible for the precedent ages to impose falshoods upon the subsequent And this rational evidence of the Churches tradition was in conjunction with the histories of heathens and the concessions of the Churches enemies infidels and hereticks all which did acknowledg the verity of the matters of fact There is natural evidence of the impossibility that all the witnesses and reporters being so many of such condition and in such circumstances should agree to deceive and never be detected for there is no possible sufficient cause that so many thousand believers and reporters in so many several countries throughout the world should be deceived or be herein mad or sensless and that those many thousands should be able in these matters unanimously to agree to deceive more than themselves into a belief of the same untruth in the very time and place where the things were said to be done And no sufficient cause can be given but that some among so many malicious enemies should have detected the deceit especially considering the numbers of Apostates and the contentions of Heriticks Besides all this there is a succession of the same spirit of Wisdom and Goodness which was in the Apostles and their hearers continued to this day and is wrought by their Doctrine § 20. Of the infallible Knowledg of the Sense of Scripture AS we may be infallibly certain of the Divine Authority of the Holy Scripture so likewise of the sence of the Scripture at least in points fundamental or essential to the Christian Religion and that without an infallible Teacher We may certainly know that an interpretation of Scripture repugnant to the common reason of mankind and to sense rightly circumstantiated is impossible to be true if we can certainly know any thing is impossible to be true and consequently we may infallibly know it The sence of Scripture in many things and those most material to Christian faith and life is so evident from the plain open and ample expression thereof that he that runs may read it if his understanding be notoriously prejudiced And if we cannot know the said sense to be necessarily true we can know nothing to be so and so we are at uncertainty for every thing It will surely be granted by all that we may as certainly know the sense of Scripture in things plainy and amply expressed as the sense of any other writings as for instance of the Writings of Euclide in the definitions and axioms in which men are universally agreed If any say the words in which the said definitions and axiomes are expressed may possibly bear another sense it is answered That they may absolutely considered because words which have their sense ad placitum and from common use being absolutely considered may have a divers sense from what they have by common use but those words being respectively considered as setled by use cannot possibly bear another sense unless we imagine the greatest absurdity imaginable in the Writer Besides they that pretend the possibility of another sense I suppose do mean sense and not nonsense And how a divers sense of all those words in Euclide that is not pure nonsense should arise out of the same words and so conjoined is by me incomprehensible But if the possibility of the thing be comprehensible or so great an absurdity be imaginable in a Writer led only by a humane spirit it is not imaginable in Writers divinely inspired That the Holy Ghost should write unintelligibly and wholly diversly from the common use of words in things absolutely necessary to salvation is impossible If an infallible Teacher be necessary to give the sense of Scripture in all things and no other sense than what is so given can be safely rested in then either the right sense of that infallible Teachers words if he be at a distance cannot be known but by some other present infallible Teacher or else that pretended infallible Teacher is more able or more willing to ascertain us of his meaning than the Holy Spirit of God in Scripture To speak of seeking the meaning of Scripture from the sense that the Catholick Church hath thereof is but vain talk For first the Catholick church never yet hath and never is like to come together till the day of judgment to declare their sense of the things in question nor have they written it in any book or number of books 2. Never did any true Representative of the Catholick Church or any thing like it as yet come together or any way declare what is their sense of the Scripture and the things in question nor is ever like to do 3. Tho it be granted that the Catholick Church cannot err in the essentials of Christian Religion as indeed no true member thereof can for it would involve a contradiction yet there is no assurance from Scripture or Reason but that a great if not the greater part of the Catholick Church may err in the integrals much more in the accidentals of Religion yea there is no assurance from Scripture or Reason but that the whole Catholick Church may err at least per vices in the several parts thereof some in one thing some in another And all this is testified by experience in the great diversities of opinions about these things in the several parts of the Catholick Church yea and by the difference of judgment and practise of the larger parts thereof even from those among us who hold this principle of the necessity of standing to their judgment Wherefore shall we think that God puts men upon such dissiculties yea impossibilities of finding out the true meaning of the Holy Scriptures at least in the main points of
Calendar yet in other chapters appointed to be read this person who speaks that which was untrue is set forth for a holy Angel And c. 7.3 both the Angel and Tobias are reported to say to Raguel that which was false on the Angels part viz. that they were of the sons of Naphtalim who were captives in Niniveh Tho we read in Scripture that Angels were sometimes taken to be men and so called by them that took them to be such yet we do not read therein that any Holy Angels affirmed that they were men and such particular men by name Tob. 12.15 The Angel is reported to say I am Raphael one of the seven holy Angels which present the prayers of the Saints and which go in and out before the glory of the Holy one The presenting of the prayers of the Saints before God looks like a mediatory act And suppose it here signifies but an act of ministry not of mediation yet I question whether it be right to consent to the use of such a passage as seems to imply the mediation or intercession of Angels for us and which may give an occasion to believe it and be made use of to prove that opinion The story of Bell and the Dragon is thought to be fabulous and there may be some regret in consenting to its being appointed to be read at a time when it being omitted the first Chapter of Isaiah would come in course to be read Moreover the reading of the Apocrypha hath been excepted against as it excludeth much of the Canonical Scriptures and taketh in such Books in their stead as are commonly reputed fabulous yet read for real History Of the Tables and Rules for Holy dayes and times IN this Book is contained the appointment of divers Festivals and other solemn times Now tho I scruple not to join in the publick Worship of God performed in those days yet I hesitate about the expresâ— declaring of assent and consent to the use of Tables and Rules directing to the solemnizing thereof It is to me doubtful whether any humane power may lawfully institute such times and days as some of these are I confess there be arguments for the lawfulness of such institution which I cannot well answer and there be other arguments against it which also I cannot well answer and this later sort I crave leave to propound in this place The occasions of these days and times were existent in the Apostles times and if God would have had these days appointed he could as easily and fitly have done it by his Apostles and have left it recorded in Scripture as he did other like things If the institution of these days and times were necessary it is equally necessary in all ages and parts of the Catholick Church and is the matter of an universal Law and so belongs to the Universal Lawgiver If the Universal Lawgiver hath reserved any thing to his own power it can be no less than the making of such Laws and Ordinances as are universally and perpetually necessary To affirm such institution to be universally necessary when God hath made no Law concerning it in Scripture is to overthrow the sufficiency of Scripture as a Catholick Rule of divine faith and worship For men to institute Ordinances of Worship supposed to be universally and perpetually necessary to the Church supposeth a defect in the divine universal and perpetual Ordinances to be made up by adding other Ordinances by way of supplement The fourth Commandment being one of the Decalogue seems to be of so high a nature that man may not presume to make the like The Table of all the Feasts to be observed begins All Sundays in the year so it calls the Lords day which it seems to put upon the same level with feasts of humane institution And there seems as great a sacredness if not greater conferred upon some of the high festivals as upon the Lords day which is of divine appointment The Lords day doth sufficiently answer the ends for which those festivals that relate to our Saviour are appointed for that being in memory of his Resurrection implies a memorial of all things done for mans redemption If such Institutions as these be not prohibited Deut. 4 2. Deut. 12.32 I enquire of what sort is the prohibited addition there spoken of The prohibition seems to me to be not meerly of adding to the Rule to wit the written law but of doing more than that Rule required as the precept is not of preserving the Rule but observing what is commanded in it I do not question the lawfulness of such humane institutions in divine Worship as are in meer subordination to divine institution and serve for the more convenient modifying and ordering thereof and which indeed are not properly additions thereunto because they are not of the same nature and use but are meerly accidentals of worship But I doubt of such humane Ordinances of divine worship as are coordinate with the divine Ordinances and express the same nature reason end and use with them and are additions properly so called The festival days appointed by the Church of England are in the Table of feasts set in coordination with the Lords day and they are not meerly the accidentals but very important integral parts of divine service in this Church In reason it must needs be that God hath sufficiently provided for his honour in the worship which he hath instituted as much as belongs to the reason and end of those things which he hath instituted Thereupon I enquire Whether it be not a presuming of our own against the divine wisdom to add to the divine Ordinances by way of supplement humane ordinances of the same reason and intent with the divine There is no question of the lawfulness of appointing some certain times besides the Lords day either fixed or variable to be spent in publick worship wherein God is to be glorified for Jesus Christ and the work of redemption wrought by him There is no question of the lawfulness of appointing days of humiliation and thanksgiving either for once or anniversarily upon special occasions and that besides the special occasions of those days things of universal and perpetual concernment ought to be minded in the religious exercises then performed In these cases the appointed days and times are only adjuncts of worship which as all other things must be performed in some certain time and they are for the worship but the worship is not for them and they are not intrinsecally holy but only by extrinsick denomination from the holy worship then solemnizâ—d But these concessions do not infer as I suppose the warrantableness of days appropriated to the same use and ends for which the Lords day is designed of God and made intrinsecally and permanently holy and sanctifying the worship as well as sanctified by it so that it were profaneness to alienate them to other uses Now as I assuredly believe that the Lords day is intrinsecally and
of his name in our abject and forlorn state and posture And the Scripture expresly takes notice of a kind of Will-Worship in a certain voluntary abasement and neglect of the body Col. 2.23 § 14. The nature of Monastick Vows of Obedience Poverty and Chastity considered THat the formale of these Vows as of all others is Divine Worship is not doubted the inquiry therefore is of the subject matter thereof By the matter of these Vows the asserters thereof intend a special religious state over and above the general religious state which is Christianity it self which special state contains an obligation to certain offices and works to be done intended for the direct and immediate honouring and serving of God and that in a more sublime and perfect way than Christianity in general and so they are made direct matter of devotion or Worship But the matter of those Vows may be so intended and managed as to be religious only reductively as being for the advancement of Religion namely for vacancy to holy exercises for more Freedom in the Christian warfare upon which account Caelibate or single life was commended by St. Paul not that he commended the Vow thereof but a constant purpose thereof for those ends in case of the gift or power to continue therein Now whether they be fit matter of Vows in this later sense is afterwards to be considered The like may be said of abstinence as of Caelibate § 15. Of Decency and Order adjuncts of Divine Worship THE Apostles rule Let all things be done decently and in order is of the law of nature and would have obliged the Churches of Christ tho it had not been written in the Holy Scripture Decency as such is no part of Worship but an adjunct it is the convenient setting it off or a mode thereof agreeable to its dignity And it is not proper to it alone but common to all Civil matters and Humane actions of a grave nature viz. that it be performed in a meet habit and posture of Body and Furniture and other like significations of due respect to a holy action Order likewise is an adjunct of Worship and is not to be extended to the making of new Worship for that it is no other than the due disposing of what is already made and the convenient setting and ranking of the several parts thereof for Method Measure Time Place and other circumstances And it belongs to Divine Worship not on a peculiar but common reason as to all humane actions wherein order is both beautiful and advantageous and disorder is deformed and prejudicial The Apostles said Rule intends that necessary Decency and Order the want whereof is undecency and disorder but not Gaudy dresses Theatrical ornaments Pompous formalities Imagery and Various flourishes affected by the sensual fancy Such Decency is injoyned as is suitable to things of a holy and reverend Nature We may know what is injoyned in a Law by what is therein forbidden Now in this Law nothing is forbidden but undecency and disorder and therefore nothing is injoyned but the necessary Decency and Order opposite thereunto And in plain reason whatsoever is not undecent is decent and whatsoever is not disorderly is orderly I mean in a capable subject of these adjuncts Most Matters of Decency and Order are simply necessary only in genere but not in specie any further but that some species or other under the genus is to be made use of according to prudence Some particular species of Decency are in themselves necessary when they are possible and they are those whose opposites are undecent from the nature of the things Some are necessary from extrinsecal circumstances as from custome of the Time and Place the Quality and Condition of persons c. The former kind may be called Natural the later Civil or Customary And the later sort are necessary even by the Law of Nature yet not immediately but mediately such circumstances being supposed But this sort admits of much variety and alteration Less decent hath the nature of undecent when it it chosen in opposition to more decent as less good hath the nature of evil when it is chosen in opposition to greater good But here it is not fit nor safe to contend about magis and minus nor to strain to the uttermost pitch in things that are matter of Controrvesie or Scruple or Jealousie but it is best to take up with that which is most passable among all provided there be no simple undecency For then in that case no necessary Decency is neglected § 16. Of Time and Place considered as Adjuncts or as matter of Worship TIME and Place in general are necessary Adjuncts or Circumstances of Divine Worship For no action Natural or Moral can be performed without them And they are meer Adjuncts when they attend Divine Worship in a way and reason common to it with other humane Actions and are appointed and used about it according to convenience for the due performance of it And then they are only for the Worship performed therein but the Worship is not from them But Time and Place in Gods Worship sometimes have a higher state and become the matter thereof as the old Sabbath and the Lords day and the Tabernacle and Temple under the Mosaical dispensation For as God by his Institution did make those Times and Places not occasionally but statedly holy and a means of sanctifying his people so his people in their submission to his appointment and their very Dedication and Observation or Sanctifying of those Times and Places did perform special Acts of Worship being an Oblation to God and an immediate giving of honour to him And those Times and Places were not only sanctified by the duties therein performed but the duties were partly sanctified and made acceptable by those Times and Places Howbeit those sacred Times and Places that have been advanced to be matter of Worship are also in that state of advancement Adjuncts to that Worship to which they appertain and are appropriated For there is that inferiority and superiority in several parts of Worship that some may be rightly accounted adjuncts to others As God by his Institution can make Times and Places that of themselves are but meer Adjuncts to be matter of his Worship and hath done it in the forementioned instances so men also may by their Institutions make Times and Places statedly or permanently Holy and matter of Worship and an Oblation to God How lawfully they may do so is afterwards to be considered but however the dedicating and observing thereof hath the Nature of Worship in it For the efficient cause Whether it be God or Man is extrinsecal to the formal nature of Worship which lies in the formal Reason and direct and proper end and use of the action by whomsoever instituted Here it may be considered Whether every Adjucnt of Worship instituted of God doth by that Institution become a matter or part of Worship which otherwise it
of the Cross in Baptism are these 1. That it is not a meer circumstance but an Ordinance of Worship as important as an external rite can be 2. That being a solemn and stated Symbolical sign of a Divine Mystery and devised of men it is of that classis or rank of things which are not necessary in genere and so not allowed to be determined and imposed by men as things necessary in genere are allowed 3. That either the whole nature of a Sacrament or at least a part thereof is in it That it is a Sacrament is thus proved It is an outward and visible sign of inward and spiritual Grace The outward sign is the representation of the Cross the instrument of Christs sufferings and the inward spiritual Grace is fortitude in the Christian warfare according to the words of the Liturgy Here is a signification of Grace to be given us of God and of our duty according to that Grace Likewise this sign hath assigned unto it the moral efficacy of a Sacrament for working Grace by teaching and exciting us to the spiritual warfare and minding us of Christ crucified Also it signifies and seals our Relation to Christ or the Grace of being a Christian And the Liturgy so speaks We receive this Child into the Congregation of Christs Flock and sign him c. in token c. The pretence that no rite can be a Sacrament but what God hath instituted is answered before Sect. 4. And tho the imposers thereof say it is not a Sacrament yet if they so declare its meaning as to be of the formal nature and reason of a Sacrament they make it to be one indeed tho in word they deny it If it were granted that it hath not the compleat or intire nature of a Sacrament yet there is one essential part of a Sâ—crament most apparently in it that is to be an ingaging sign on our part in the Covenant For we use it as a token of ingaging our selves to Christ crucified as our Captain and Saviour by his Cross and to perform the duties of his Soldiers and Servants to our lives ends And as Baptism dedicates to Christ so doth the sign of the Cross according to the express words of the Canon viz. It is an honourable badg whereby the party Baptized is dedicated to the Service of him that dyed on the Cross So it hath that in it which is essential to a Sacrament and part of the nature thereof at least Besides it seems to be an Ordinance of that nature and kind which Christ our Lawgiver hath reserved to himself from the reason in Sections 3 4 5. § 12. Of Holy-days THAT some time of every day is to be spent in Religious exercises and that whole days of Humiliation and Thanksgiving are to be kept upon special occasions and that there may be an Anniversary commemoration of great Mercies or Judgments is little doubted I see no reason why it is not lawful for a Nation or People to institute an Anniversary Commemoration of some eminent person sent of God as a great light among them as the first propagator of the Gospel or great Restorer of true Religion among them as of Luther among the Germans and Calvin among the French Protestants For scarce a greater blessing doth arise to a Nation Mr. R B. saith That an Apostolical Ministry being so eminent a mercy he can see no reason why the Churches of all succeeding Ages may not keep an Anniversary day for Peter or Paul c. but he saith also that whether it be lawful to separate an Anniversary for the commemoration of Christs Nativity Circumcision and such like things c. which were equally existent in the Apostles days and the reasons for observing them then equal with the following times is hard for him to determine being not able to prove it lawful and yet not seeing a plain prohibition of it Yet he gives these reasons of doubting their lawfulness First the occasions of these days were existent in the Apostles times and if God would have had these days observed he could as easily and fitly have done it by his Apostles in the Scripture as he did other like things 2. If it were necessary it would be equally necessary in all Ages and parts of the Catholick church and therefore must be the matter of an universal Law and God hath made no such Law in Scripture and therefore to say it is necessary is to overthrow the sufficiency of Scripture as the Catholick Rule of Faith and Universal Divine obedience 3. God himself hath appointed a day for the same purposes as these are pretended for the Resurrection implies all the rest of the Works of the Redeemer 4. The Fourth Commandment being one of the Decalogue seems to be of so high a nature that man is not to presume to make the like He accounts it plainly unlawful for any Earthly Power to appoint a Weekly day in commemoration of any part of our Redemption and so make another stated Weekly Holy-day because it is the doing of the same thing for one day which God hath done by another and so seems an usurpation of power not given and an accusation of Christ and the Holy Ghost as if he had not done his Work sufficiently I think it also an usurpation of Power not given for any Human Authority to make any day or time permanently and unmovably holy as a perpetual oblation to God and not only sanctified by the duties therein performed but also sanctifying the duties and making them the more acceptable But as to the observation much more to the imposing of the observation of Holy-days of human institution regard is to be had not only to what is lawful but also to what is expedient And it is as easie to offend by excess as by defect in the instituting of set-times and days appropriated to Divine Worship § 13. Of a LITVRGY ANY particular form whether stinted or free is not of the essence of prayer but only its accidental shape or mode and pertains to it not as to a holy action but as to an action in general And for that no action can be performed but in some particular mode or other this holy action cannot otherwise be performed Now neither Scripture nor the nature of the thing hath made either a stated and stinted or a free and extemporal form in it self necessary and therefore either the one or the other may be used as expedience requires according to due choice and judgment As on the one hand they are too weak and ill advised that reject all set-forms so they on the other hand are too opinionative that reject all immediately conceived yea or preconceived forms that are not prescribed And both of them shew that they are too much addicted to their Parties § 14. Of Religious Austerities as acts or matter of Divine Worship THere are Austerities inconvenient in their kind such as the self cutting and lancing of Baals Priests and