a Bishop the same paper contains both Characters but sure one Character doth not contain the other A. doth not contain B. nor doth B. contain A. So the same Soul may receive two Characters two Orders but if the two Orders be distinct how can they contain each other I understand no more then I do these Holy Characters If they can paint them out unto me in their proper figures perchance I may understand them better but as yet I ingeniously confess my ignorance I grant in a Metaphysical way of Abstraction the superiour species contains the inferiour genus A Man a rational creature contains the animality of a Horse the inferiour creature but doth not contain a real Horse in his belly nor can a man beget Horses or men when he pleases Nor can you truly say a man is a Horse I believe my Schoolmen would take it in snuff should I affirm any of them to be Horses c. But they affirm that a Bishop doth not only virtually contain the Priesthood but is really a Priest and can make Priests or Bishops as he please Whereby you may see this answer That the Superiour Order virtually contains the inferiour is a meer evasion it sounds as if it were something but really is nothing to our purpose at all for we are not now upon Metaphysical abstractions but real individual subsistencies two actual distinct Orders as they would have it two distinct indelible characters imprinted on mens souls by Ordination as A. and B. which can never be truly affirmed one of the other A. is not B. and B. is not A. a man is not a horse and a Horse is not a man so a Bishop ordain'd only Bishop is not a Priest nor a Priest a Bishop if they be distinct Wherefore I must beleive them one and the same Order especially seeing the Scripture applies the same name promiscuously to both which is the second argument of their identity to be one and the same Acts. 20. St. Paul sends to Ephesus to call the Presbyters of that Ghurch un-him at Miletum and speaking to them he calls them all Bishops in our Translation 't is Overseers Verse 28. So in his Epistle to the Phillippians he directs to all the Saints with the Bishops and Deacons both in the plural number so that by the word Bishops we must needs understand Presbyters for Bishops as we now take the word were never many in one City I pray observe also St. Paul Epis. to Titus 1. 5. For this cause left I thee in Crete that thou shouldest ordain Elders in every City if any be blameless for a Bishop must be blameless Is it not here evident that an Elder and a Bishop in St. Paul's Language is one and the same otherwise there were no coherency at all in St. Paul's speech If this be not convincing beyond all possible evasion I understand nothing of discourse Other such places are obvious in Scripture to every one I need mention no more only I desire to inform the Reader of a passage to this purpose in an Epistle of Clemens to the Corinthians This Clemens is mentioned in Scripture and is he whom St. Peter appointed his successor at Rome and who was of so great Authority that as St. Hierome tells us this his Epistle was read in Churches Now in this Epistle Clemens particularly sets forth the constitution of the Church by the Apostles and what Ministers they ordained in the Church to wit Bishops and Deacons he names no other which seems to me as full an evidence as can be that there were no other Orders in the Church in those daies but those two And yet we are sure there was then Presbiters in the Church for Peter and Iohn call themselves Presbyters and St. Peter calls them Presbiters to whom he wrote his Epistle so that if there were but two Orders to wit Bishops and Deacons Presbyters must be one and the same with Bishops or with Deacons not with Deacons therefore one and the same with Bishops One Order called by two names promiscuously in Scripture as hath been shewed before And I desire you to observe that of those two names Presbyter and Bishop if therebe any dignity and eminency exprest in one more then the other sure it is in the name of Presbiter not Bishop because the Apostles themselves and the chief of the Apostles as some would have it who stand highest on their Panâ—ables are in Scripture styled Presbyters or Elders as the word in our English Translation but never Bishops as I remember And therefore I can't but wonder why that haughty head of the Papists should not assume to himself the title of his pretended predecessor St. Peter Presbyter rather then Bishop unless it be by God's providential disposure to shew his blindness in this as well as in other things and make him confute himself by this name of Bishop which was never given to St. Peter no more then St. Peter gave unto him the Headship of the Church As to the interpretations and answers given to these and such like Scripture expressions sure I need not take any pains to confute them for they are so weak as that Petavius a late Writer and great stickler for the superiority of Episcopacy durst not trust to them nor would venture his credit to make use of them but sound out a new and rare conceit as he conceives That these Presters mentioned in Scripture and called by both names were all really Bishops and that the Apostles Ordained them so as most convenient for that time for the Congregations of the Faithful being small there needed no Priests under the Bishops to officiate and yet there was need of a Bishop in those small Congregations because there were several things to be done which were not within the power and capacity of Presbiters to act as he supposes viz. the laying on of hands and confirming the Faithful after Baptisme the veiling of devoted Women the reconciling of penitents the ordaining Deacons where there was need and adds moreover several impertinences as the making of Chrisme consecrating Church-Vessels c. And Petavius mightily applauds himself in this conceit as the only means to clear all difficulties Our Doctor Hammond also finding the usual interpretations of those places of Scripture above mentioned too weak to sustain the arguments builded on them for the Unity of Order goes along after Petavius a great way in the fore cited discourse though not in the later impertinances and affirms that the Presbyters then were all Bishops And so far I go with them that all were Presbyters all Bishops because all was one and one was all several names not several Orders as they would have it and this I humbly conceive firmly proved by my former Argument of one Ordination wherein two distinct Orders could not be conferred so that still I require them to shew me from Scripture where these Presbyter-Bishops were twice Ordained else it cannot be truly affirmed they were really
and actually Priests and Bishops As for that answer That though but one Order was conferred viz. Episcopal yet that being superior to the Priesthood contains this virtually in it first you are to prove Bishop to be superior to Presbiter which I deny the Apostles being peculiarly called Presbyters Secondly that one contains the other I suppose is already confuted and fully declar'd that it cannot be And as I mentioned before you do in effect confess it your selves by your practice for if the Superiour Order so contains the inferiour as to enable a Man thereby to act all things belonging to the inferiour it is a very impertinent thing to ordain a Man as you do first a Deacon then a Priest then a Bishop when you design to confer all upon him in the same day and hour And now I pray give me leave to examine a little Petavius his rare conceits which he conceives will satisfy all former objections and will meet with no news ones He confesses the Presbyters of the Apostles times were all of one Order viz. Bishops because the Pastors of each congregations might perform those several acts he mentions which a bare Presbyter is not capable of And why not capable of them how doth he prove this he brings not one tittle of proof for this cut of Scripture where there are good proofs to the contrary St. Peter and St. Iohn Presbyters could do all these and more Ergo Presbyters are capable of all But saith he The Apostles were Bishops also also is impertinent as signifying somewhat else whereas I say and prove 't is one and the same Order only another name it lyes upon him to prove this difference of Orders and how doth he prove it because Presbyters can't do the acts of a Bishop why this is the thing in question and thus he runs round to prove this by that and that by this and not one tittle out of Scripture for either I know full well by several Canons of Councils made some at one time some at another the Bishops reserved many things to themselves whereof most of them had been practised formerly by Presbyters and the Canons were made to prevent the like for the future for had there not been such a pactice there had been no need of such Canons whereby they reserved these things unto themselves and for their own greatness would needs perswade the World that Presbyters were not capable of them I grant that for decency and order in that sence some things may be reserved to some other things to other to perform but that the Order of Priesthood was not capable is even ridiculous that the Priesthood being capable to do the greatest things should not be capable to do the least he can consecrate the Souls of Men by Baptism and the Lords Supper yet for sooth can't consecrate their Oyl and their Cups and their Candlestiks which we never heard the Apostles did or dream'd of but are the fond dreams of doting Men just like the Pharisees washing cups and platters after the doctrines of Men. Really there needs no better confutation of their distinction and superiority of Episcopal Order then the mean ridiculous things which they ascribe unto their Bishops and debar Presbyters of which my thinks a Presbyter should contemn were they offered him and therefore such Arguments as these are not worth the small pains I have taken about them I proceed to somewhat that seems a little better Petavius tells us That the number of Christians encreasing and factions arising in the Church the Apostles at length towards the end of their times chose out of these presbyter-Presbyter-Bishops some chief Men and placed them as Governors over the rest and reserved unto these principal Men the power of ordaining thus far I freely consent the Scripture declares it and it seems most Rational And I humbly conceive these Governors and Ordainers were Men of great prudence and moderation and probably had also that gift of the Holy Ghost The discerning of spirits and judging of Men a gift mentioned in Scripture among others that none might be admitted into the Priesthood but Men of meek and peaceable spirits But now I would ask Petavius when these Governing Ordaining Bishops were set over the rest of the Presbyter-Bishops when Titus was first settled with this Authority in Creete and when Timothy was thus placed at Ephesus where we find before were several Presbyter-Bishops what became of them were they un-Bishop'd and made simple Presbyters they must no more ordain nor govern but be subject to Timothy and Titus I am sure it was thought no small punishment in future Ages when Bishops were thus by decrees of Councel abased and cast down unto the Presbyter form and it was for some notorious crimes I pray what crime were all these Presbyter-Bishops guilty of to be thus handled and tumbled down into a lower form Truly Petavius deals hardly with them unless he can shew us their crime Or will he instead of accusing them excuse himself and say they were not un-Bishopt nor abased but only restrained from exercising that power their order was capable of had they been commissioned thereto Truly I must commend Petavius if he will thus ingeniously confess the truth for I shall by and by fully declare that 't is the diversity of Commission and not of Order that enables Men to act diversly and that a Bishop without commission can do no more than a Presbyter without commission and therefore I farâ—her begg of Petavius that till he can prove the contrary he would confess them also to be all of one single Order called only by divers names Priest or Bishop and one chosen out of the number not the rest abased but he exalted with authority to Govern This is the rational and common practice of all Societies Corporations Colledges Monasteries Conclave of Cardinals what not There is no new Order supposed in any of these but only a new Election and a new Authority given according to the fundamental constitution of each Society The Pope himself with his triple crown and triple dominion over all Patriarchs Arch-Bishops Bishops pretends to have no new order of Popeship but only the new Authority conferred by his Election why then may not Presbyters chosen to preside over the rest without any new Order do the like And for this very reason I conceive Iustin Martyr uses the name of President always for Bishop and St. Cyprian also a Bishop himself and most glorious Martyr he calls himself and other Bishops generally by the name of Praepositus as if this were the main distinction betwixt himself and his Presbyters that he was Praepositus only one of them placed with authority over them no more Nor doth the name of Bishop in the original Greek signify any more then an Overseer of the rest And as for the avoiding of Heresies and Factions they thought it meet to settle some Bishop of great soundness in faith and godliness of life with authority to
restrain and chastise disorderly Pastors Just so when whole Nations were converted and not only the Pastors but the Bishops also who had oversight of the Pastors encreased in number then for the same reason it was thought fit there should be an Overseer of the Bishops and be called an Arch-Bishop when the Arch Bishops were multiplied then another set over them and he called a Patriark and at last one over the Patriarks and he call'd Papa a Pope Catexochen though Papa before was a name attrributed to other Bishops Now as Pope Patriarck Arch-Bishop Bishop are all one and the same Order Papists themselves grant this so Bishop Elder Presbyter Priest all one and the same only one of these set over the rest and he now particularly call'd Episcopus that is Bishop Catexochen because he oversees the Overseers but this last constitution only is Apostolical the other of Arch-Bishop Patriark Pope are meer humane not at all mentioned in Scripture But now another Objection arises Petavius grants that all the Elders which the Apostles Ordained were Bishops and towards the end of the Apostles days they set some eminent amongst them over the rest to govern and ordain Elders in every City as Timothy and Titus and these Elders in every City were Bishops and thus the Apostles left the Church with Bishops only and Deacons And this is evident by what I brought before out of Clemens who lived after the Apostles days and mentions only Bishops and Deacons left by the Apostles This being so I desire to know who after the Apostles days began this new kind of Ordination of Presbyters or Elders not Bishops the Apostles Ordained none such who then and by what authority was this new Order set up the Scripture mentions it not when and by whom came it in A very bold undertaking without Scripture or Apostolical practice I will not boast my conceit as Petavius doth his only I wish the Reader to consider which is most practical most rational or rather most scriptural thereon I frame this wole Fabrick as the Rock and only sure Foundation humane Brain is too weak to erect and to support the Fabrick of the Church of God which the Romanists have made a very Babel with their humane inventions and multiplied Characters and Orders some of them would have nine several holy Orders in God's Church militant here on Earth because there are nine several Orders of Coelestial Spirits in the Church Triumphant in Heaven This is a castle of their own building in the Air a rare foundation for God's Church Others will have seven several Orders and Characters as seven Gifts of the Holy Ghost Hath the Holy Ghost then but seven several Gifts to confer on Men St. Paul 1 Cor. 12. counts unto us nine not as if these were all but only for example sake to shew us that many and divers Gifts are conferred on us by one and the same Spirit and in the conclusion of the same Chapter he mentions eight These things were uttered accidentally according to the occasion not as limiting the Gifts of the Holy Ghost to any set number But if you will further look into their application of these Gifts of the Holy Ghost and see to what kind of several Orders they appropriate them it would make a Man amazed to see sober Learned Men even that great Wit and Scholar Aquinas discourse in such wild manner as did you but stand behind a Curtain to hear and not see them you doubtless would conclude you heard some old Woman in the Nursery telling her Dreams to Children rather than Divine Doctors in School I 'le name but one or two of their Orders The Porter of the Church Door is one and he forsooth hath a Sacred Character imprinted on his Soul and his Gift is the discerning of Spirits that he may judge who are fit to enter into God's Church who to be shut out Another of their Orders is that of Acolouthi who are now antiently they were quite another thing certain Boys carrying Torches and attending on the Bishop saying Mass these have their Character also and their Gift of the Holy Ghost is the interpretation of Tongues signified no doubt on 't by the Light in their Hands but understand no more of Tongues than the Stick of their Torch I will not weary you with more of their Absurdities Our Episcopal Divines rejecting these chymerical fancies of Orders and Characters suppose it to be a certain Faculty and Power conferred by the laying on of hands for the exercise of Ministerial Duties and according to this purpose the Superior Order contains the Inferiour as the greater Power contains in it the less Thus Episcopacy being the superior Order contains in it Priesthood and Deaconship these three are their supposed distinct Orders They may suppose this if they please and. I may suppose the contrary But I would gladly know on what Scripture they ground this discourse that 's the thing I still require and there we find no larger Faculty or Power given to Bishops but rather to Presbyters as I have shewed the Apostles who had the greatest power being stiled Presbyters not Bishops And when our Bishops do Ordain Presbyters do not they use the very same form of words which our Saviour used when he Ordained the Apostles Receive ye the Holy Ghost whose sins ye forgive they are forgiven c. Do they not then by the same words conser the same power for I hope they use no Equivocation nor mental Reservation if the Power be the same the Order is the same by their own Rule Again let us examine their own Practice Do they not require a Man should be ordained first Deacon before he be ordained Priest and Priest before Bishop what needs this if the superiour contains the inferiour But in Scripture we find it otherwise Timothy who long officiated under St. Paul as a Presbyter when he was left at Ephesus and so when Titus was left at Creet both to be Bishops we find no new ordination were this requisite sure the Scripture would have given us at least some hint of it but not one tittle there But if the Scripture be defective in expressions you will supply it by the expressions and practice of the Church in first succeeding Ages Before you go on and take much pains to shew me this give me leave to tell you that I shall not easily recede from Scripture in fundamentals either of Faith or Church-discipline in things indifferent of themselves or in more weighty matters very doubtfully express't in Scripture I shall always most readily submit to the interpretation of the Primitive and Universal Church I require both Primitive and Universal for I shewed before that in matters of Faith there were some errors very Primitive yet not continued by the Universal Church but rejected in succeeding Ages And at the time of the Evangelical Reformation by Luther Melancton Calvin c. I can shew some errors generally received in most if
Orders of Episcopacy and Presbytery I now proceed to the third pretended Spitual Order that of Deaconship Whether this of Deaconship be properly to be called an Order or an Office I will not dispute but certainly no Spiriritual Order for their Office was to serve Tables as the Scripture phrases it which in plain English is nothing else but Overseers of the Poor to distribute justly and discreetly the Alms of the Faithful which the Apostles would not trouble themselves withal least it should hinder them in the Ministration of the Word and Prayer But as most matters of this World in process of time deflect much from the original constitution so it fell out in this business for the Bishops who pretend to be successors to the Apostles by little and little took to themselves the Dispensation of Alms first by way of Inspection over the Deacons but at length the total Management and the Deacons who were meer Lay-Officers by degrees crept into the Church-Ministration and became a reputed Spiritual Order and a necessary degree and step to the Priesthood of which I can find nothing in Scripture and the Original Institution not a word relating to any thing but the ordering of Alms for the Poor And the first I find of their officiating in Spiritual matters is in Iustin Martyr who lived in the second Century he relates that when the Bishop had consecrated the Bread and Wine for the Lords Supper the Deacons took it from him and delivered it to the Lay-Communicants there present and carried it also to the Faithful that were absent hindered I guess from coming by sickness or some other good excusing cause In the beginning when the Congregations of the Faithful were small the Bishop himself delivered the Communion to them but at length encreasing to great numbers it would have taken too much of their time for the Bishop to have delivered it to the whole Congregation so the Deacons were made use of as fit Persons for this matter for in those days there was always a Communion in the Assemblies on the Lords-Day and the Laity that Day brought their Alms and Presents with them which were delivered unto the Deacons to dispose of to the Poor by the Bishops direction and therefore the Deacons receiving from their hands their charitable Benevolence were thought the fittest to return again to their hands the consecrated Mysteries being part of their Offerings But 't is evident this was not yet come to be the general practice of all Churches but only in Greece where Iustin Martyr lived for Tertullian who lived in Africk some years after Iustin declares that the custom there was to receive the Blessed Sacrament from the hands of the Bishop only whom he calls the President that is whosoever was chief in the Assembly whether Bishop or Presbyter But yet I confess that this custom of the Deacons delivering the Blessed Sacrament or at least one part of it viz. the Chalice by degrees became the custom in most Churches in after Ages and so passing from one thing to another in time they came to administer the Sacrament of Baptism and at last to the Ministration of the Word the business which the Apostles peculiarly reserved to themselves and which the Bishops also for a long time reserved so entirely to themselves as it was thought a great insolency for any even for the Presbyters to take upon them to preach in presence of the Bishop Valerius Bishop of Hippo as Possidius relates was sharply rebuked by his fellow Bishops for suffering St. Austin then but a Presbyter to preach before him I know sometimes it was suffered also in other Churches but very rarely where the Bishop himself was of weak abilities for the Work and had some Presbyters under him very eminent And so it was with Bishop Valerius and St. Austin a Person of great note in those days And thus you see in process of time how strangely things alter from their original Institution the Bishops omit preaching and become servants of Tables and the Deacons for serving of Tables step up into the Pulpit and became Preachers But Petavius takes upon him to prove Deaconship a Spiritual Order and brings us a more early Author for it than Iustin that noble Martyr mentioned before Ignatius who in his Epistle ad Tralli calls Deacons as Petavius conceives Ministers of the Mysteries of Christ. Here I find that which I often lament Learned Men to go on in a track one after another and some through inadvertency some through partiality take many Passages of ancient Authors quite different from their meaning as here all following the first erroneous Interpreter of Ignatius Whoever first translated this Epistle of Ignatius sure this fancy of Deacons ran much in his head otherwise he could never have found them here for 't is evident the word Diaconus in this place relates to the Presbytery newly before mentioned telling the People they ought to be obedient to the Presbyters as to the Apostles of Christ then follows You must therefore please them in all things being Ministers of the Mysteries of Christ. Mark I beseech you You must therefore Is not Therefore a Particle relating to what went before viz. to the Presbyters otherwise the Speech is very absurd Should I say Presbyters are as the Apostles of Christ therefore you must in all things please the Deacons were it sence no but just Deus in Coele ergo baculus in Angulo but to say the Presbyters are as the Apostles therefore you must please them in all things being the Ministers of the Mysteries of Christ as the Apostles were this is very good coherent sense and so run the words of Ignatius but the weak Interpreter mistaking the word Diacanus ran into this error and many learned Men without any consideration have run after him I grant the word Diaconos is often set for Deacons specifically distinguisht from Presbyters but 't is very often set for all Ministers in general Apostles Bishops Presbyters as you find frequently in Scripture St. Paul in one Epistle viz. the 2d Cor. twice stiles himself and other Apostles Diaconous And I do the more wonder at the Interpreters mistake in this place because by the following words Ignatius here excludes the specifical Deacons saying Not the Ministers of meats and drinks Now we know the specifical Deacons were Ministers of meats and drinks to the Poor it was their proper work for this very end they were chosen and for no other as appears evidently in the Acts and therefore Ignatius saying Not the Ministers of meats and drinks directly excludes such Deacons and the word Diaconous must necessarily be taken in the larger sence and relate to the Presbyters before mentioned therefore please them in all things being the Ministers of the Mysteries of Christ not of meats and drinks for the Poor Whoever understands the Greek and will see must needs see the truth of what I affirm But Petavius intoxicated with this spiritual Order of Deaconship
particulars and you will find a small remainder that preach piously and edifying also very few to equal the Compilers of our Homilies and then calmly consider the great use yea the great necessity of such Homilies But if you can furnish all our Churches with pious discreet edifying preaching Pastors I am abundantly satisfied and do you seal up the Book of Homilies till a new dearth of spiritual food which God in his great mercy prevent Amen Concerning Bishops and Priests WHoever unbiass'd reads the Scripture thence proceeds to the first Christian Writers and so goes on from Age to Age can't doubt but that the Church was always governed by Bishops that is by one Elder or Presbyter or President or what else you please to call him set over the rest of the Clergy with authority to Ordain to Exhort to Rebuke to Judg and Censure as he found cause no other form of Government is mentioned by any Authority for Fifteen hundred years from the Apostles downwards Now who can in reason and modesty suspect those Primitive Bishops who lived in the days of the Apostles chosen by them into the Church succeeded them in Church Government yea and in Martyrdom also for the Faith as Clemens Ignatius Polycarpus and others who I say can suspect them to be prevaricators in Church Discipline and take upon them another form of Episcopal Government contrary to Apostolican Institution These great Masters of Self-denyal who gave their Lives for the Truth would they transmit unto Posterity a Church Government contrary to the Truth let who will believe it I can neither believe it nor suspect it And there is yet another thing very observable that all the Orthodox Church dispersed all the world over some parts having no correspondence at all with the other by reason of distance some by Warrs divided and made cruel Enemies yet all agreed in this form of Government and not only the Orthodox but also the Schismaticks and Hereticks who separated from hated and persecuted the Orthodox Church they likewise retained still this form of Government as if all were of necessity compelled to acknowledg this having never known heard nor dream'd of other And therefore nothing but necessity if that can excuse those who first set up another form of Government to their own Masters let them stand or fall I will not presume to censure them I will only say That from the begining it was not so and I thank God 't is not so with us but as it was in the beginning so it is now with us and ever shall be I trust in God Amen But notwithstanding all this yet 't is very much to be doubted whether they were of any distinct superiour order from and above the Presbyters or one of the same order set over the rest with power to ordain Elders to exhort rebuke chastise as Timothy and Titus were constituted by St. Paul For though they were of the same order with the other Elders and Pastors yet there was great reason for some to be placed with greater Authority to rule over the rest The Scripture tells us That even in the days of the Apostles there were several seducing teachers leading the people into errors and heresies and more were to follow after the Apostles times grievous wolves in sheeps clothing and therefore it was very necessary to pick out some of eminent soundness in faith and godliness of life and set them up on high with great Authority as fixed Stars in the Heavens so styled Revel 1. to whom all might have regard in dangerous times as Marriners observe in their Sea-faring journies But the Scripture no where expresses any distinction of order among the Elders we find there but two orders mentioned Bishops and Deacons Of Deacons we shall treat afterwards Let us now proceed to the Order of Bishops and Priests which the Scripture distinguishes not for there we find but one kind of Ordination then certainly but one Order for two distinct Orders can't be conferred in the same instant by the same words by the same actions They who think Deaconship and Priesthood distinct the one subservient to the other though they intend in the same hour to consecrate the same Man Deacon and Priest do they not first compleat him Deacon then Priest I pray let any Man shew me from Scripture as I said Timothy or Titus or any one ordained twice made first Priest then Bishop which is absolutely necessary if they be distinct characters and 't is generally affirmed though I humbly conceive they scarce understand what they affirm I mean they understand not what these characters are whether Greek Hebrew or Arabick or what else But let that pass I desire them only to shew me how a Man can make two characters with one stroke or motion A. and B. at the same instant If then neither Timothy nor Titus nor any other were but once ordained whence can we gather these two distinct characters these two distinct Orders We find the Apostles themselves but once ordained those by the Apostles but once ordained and so on When St. Paul left Titus in Creete to ordain he mentions only one ordination that of Presbyters so the word in Greek no other ther 's no commission given him to ordain Bishops and Presbyters Who then was to ordain Bishops there not Titus he had no such command we do not find that St. Paul himself did And sure you will not grant that the Presbyters which Titus ordained that they could ordain Bishops there for you will not allow them to ordain so much as Presbyters Yet Bishops you will needs have in every City and in Creete were very many who ordained Bishops for them all Truly I can't find nor you neither I believe But you will say The superior order contains in it virtually the inferior order let this pass at present doth Presbyter then virtually cantain Bishop If so then all Presbyters are Bishops No say you Bishop is the superior order and that contains in it Presbyter You say so but by your leave you are to prove so or give me leave to say otherwise especially seeing I have Scripture for my saying and you have none for yours But should I grant Bishop the superior what then we find Titus ordained not any but Presbyters as he was commanded by St. Paul so we are still at a loss for our Bishops we find not their Ordination Or did St. Paul mistake in his expression and meaning Bishops in every City said Presbyters in every City let this pass also and I pray let us see what you mean by this The superior order virtually contains the inferior Do not you say they are two distinct Orders two real distinct indelible characters imprinted in the Soul as the School-men affirm give me leave to talk their Language though I understand it not If I take a fair paper and make an A. upon it for the character of Presbyter and then make a B. upon it for the Character of
Bishops have the authority of Ordination more than Presbyters A Man may smile to see this used as an Argument for the preheminency of Bishops which is directly against it for St. Hierom having discourst of the equality and Identity of Presbyters and Bishops and having brought many Arguments from Scripture to prove that Bishop and Presbyter was only two names for one and the same Office for a further confirmation hereof asks this question I pray what doth a Bishop do more than a Presbyter except Ordination plainly intimating thereby that this could make no such distinction of eminency in them above Presbyters I beseech you consider Do not Presbyters perform Offices of a higher nature than Ordination Presbyters are ordained Embassadors for Christ to preach his Holy Gospel for the Salvation of Souls they are under Christ Mediators between God and the People to make intercession for them they administer the Sacrament of Baptism wherein the Children of Warth are regenerated and made the Children of God and Heirs of eternal Life yea they administer the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper also the most transcendent act of Religion and Christian Dignity whereby we are made partakers of the Body and Blood of Christ And what doth a Bishop more than these except Ordination which being no Sacrament sure is inferiour in dignity to the other mentioned Acts and therefore cannot elevate them to a higher degree Judge now I beseech you whether this question makes pro or con Are not such questions always tending to disparagement When any Man is boasting his Power and Authority should I come and ask What can you do more than others unless it be in this or that poor business not worth speaking of would he not take this as an affront Wherefore it cannot enter into my head that St. Hierom intended by this Question to express any superiour Order above the Priesthood but plainly the contrary v z. That Bishops having no other power distinct from Priests but Ordination this could be no Argument for a distinct and superior Order And now I desire my Reader if he understand Latin to view the Epistle of St. Hierom to Evagrius and doubtless he will wonder to see Men have the confidence to quote any thing out of it for the distinction between Episcopacy and Presbytery for the whole Epistle is to shew the Identity of them Before I chanced to read this Epistle I was of the crroneous Opinion that Bishops were a distinct Order but so convinc'd by this Epistle as I was forced to submit to a change And I farther desire my Reader to observe the various fate of St. Hierom and Aerius Aerius is reviled as an Heretick for affirming this Identity of Order Hierom passes for a Saint and a great Doctor of the Church though he affirms the very same as fully as Aerius or any Man can do and therefore it may be my fate to be reviled as Aerius was but our Saviour bids us rejoyce and be exceeding glad when we are reviled for his Names sake or for his Words sake sure all is one for great is our Reward and so I proceed But there lies yet a great Objection made by our good Bishop Hall he tells us how that Collutbus a Presbyter of Alexandria took upon him to ordain others and that afterwards in a Council of a hundred Bishops in Aegypt their Ordination was declared null because ordained by a Presbyter From this and some other such Instances the Bishop would prove that the Order of Presbyters is not capable to ordain therefore Bishops are a distinct Order I am sorry so good a Man had no better a proof for his intended purpose It seems he quite forgot how that the famous Council of Nice consisting of above three hundred made a Canon wherein they declare That if any Bishop should ordain any of the Clergy belonging to another Bishop's Diocess without consent and leave had of that Bishop to whose Diocess they did belong their Ordination should be null You see then the irregular Ordination of a Bishop is as null as the irregular Ordination of a Presbyter therefore the irregular Bishop and the irregular Presbyter are of the same Order of the same Authority neither able to Ordain Is it not most evident by this that 't is not their Order but Commission that makes them capable to Ordain sure an irregular Bishop is of the same Order with the regular Is the Line of his Diocess like a Conjurers Circle within it he is a Bishop without it he is none No but within it he hath Commission given him to Ordain without it no Commission no nor to act in his own Diocess beyond his Commission which is to ordain only the Clergy of his own Diocess and within his own Diocess Can any thing be plainer Cellutbus then being but a Presbyter and under the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Alexandria his taking upon him to ordain Presbyters was highly irregular and insolent and therefore most justly declared null I desire the Papistical School-Divines with their manifold indelible Characters to observe here how easily the Councils dasht out the indelible Character of Presbyter imprinted on the Souls of these Men irregularly ordained they made a clear rasure not one tittle of it left And could they so easily cancel the Gift of the Holy Ghost I leave my Schoolmen to find out how this rare feat was done And I proceed to add a Canon taken from a Council at Antioch concerning Chorepiscopi much to our purpose When the Apostles had settled Bishops in every City with authority of ordaining and governing the several Churches or Congregations within the Circuits of those Cities some were very large and therefore in process of time when more were converted to the Faith and the Congregations encreased more in number and at greater distance than the Bishop himself could well have the overfight of the Bishop chose some principal Men for his assistance and dividing his great Circuit into several lesser Circuits placed these Men as Overseers under him and these were called Chorepiscopi that is Country Bishops and were much after the manner of our Rural Deans Those Chorepiscopi Country Bishops being thus setled in authority to govern the Pastoral Priests in their Circuits took upon them to ordain more Priests when occasion required which the chief Bishops took very ill at their hands as a great lessening to their Supream Authority And to prevent it for the future a Canon was made in the Council of Antioch about the year 340. to forbid these Country Bishops to ordain any Priests Now I pray you observe These Chorepiscopi were either really ordained in the Order of the Chief Bishop or not if they were as full Bishops as he as really they were why might they not ordain Priests as well as he The Chief Bishop answers Because he gave them no Commission Whereby you see that the power of ordaining Priests was annexed no more to Bishops than to Priests
turns all this round quite another way according to the working of his fancy And so he doth some places of Scripture as little to his purpose as this He tells us out of the Acts that Philip and Stephen both Deacons were Preachers of the Word that is a Spiritual work therefore belongs to a Spiritual Order I would gladly know who informed Petavius that Philip who Preacht to the Eunuch and afterwards went about Preaching to others was Philip the Deacon and not rather Philip the Apostle as seems to me far more probable for Philip the Deacon was by his Office to reside at Ierusalem and take care of the Poor thither the Alms of the Faithful were sent to relieve the Saints at Ierusalem But you farther urge Surely Stephen was a Deacon and let Philip also if you please it signifies little to the purpose Sure I can shew out of Scripture Preachers that were in no Spiritual Order neither Presbyters nor Deacons neither as Aquilla and Priscilla his Wife too and Apollo likewise to whom they both Preached and instructed him more fully sure they did not ordain Apollo a Deacon nor can I believe any of the Apostles ordain'd him Deacon and sent him forth to Preach before he was well catechized in the Word he was not so much as Baptized in Christ but knew only the Baptism of Iohn if not Baptized surely not ordained Deacon yet he prevailed and mightily convinced the Iews It is in reason strange though in practice common to see how Men wedded to an Opinion think whatever they read speaks to that so Fathers Doctors all clink as they think In the Primitive time all both Men and Women did Preach the Gospel taken in a large sence as St. Peter calls Noah a Preacher of Righteousness that is they endeavoured to instruct all they conversed with in the Faith of Christ and Godliness for which many both Men and Women suffered Martyrdom Wherefore though Philip the Deacon and Stephen Preach the Gospel it signifies nothing to the Spirituality of the Deaconship seeing that thousands of Lay-men and Women also did the like And so the Apostles laying their hands on those chosen to be Deacons signifies as little to this purpose Do not we find that Paul laid his hands on the converted Disciples at Ephesus and they received the Holy Ghost and Prophesied yet none of them ordained either Presbyter or Deacon And sometimes the Apostles laid their hands on those that were already ordained both Presbyters and Apostles also as on Barnabas and Paul when they were sent forth to Preach This laying of hands was a Ceremony used on several occasions I need not mention more they are obvious to any that read the Scripture 'T is evident then from Scripture that the first institution of Deacons was a meer Lay-Office I will not say a prophane Office as some too grosly and irreverently have termed it but a pious and honourable Office in the Church of God to serve Tables to take care of God's Poor but as I have shewed in process of time it became quite another thing and so different from the Original Institution as it made Chrysostome and divers other great and good Men doubt whether the Apostles did not constitute two sorts of Deacons some for this Lay-Office some for Spiritual-Offices Had Chrysostome consulted only Scripture he would never have doubted nor dream't of two sorts of Deacons there being no mention at all but of one but he seeing the practice of the Church which he was unwilling to condemn so different from that one Apostolical Institution of Deacons this so confounded the good Man that he knew not well what to make of it and willing to piece Scripture and the present practice together to put a new patch upon an old Garment made the rent the wider rending the Deaconship in two pieces which of old was but one only to serve Tables which Office he that used well purchased to himself a good degree a good esteem and so it might be a recommendation to the degree of Priesthood though no necessary step to it And so we find that holy Deacon and most renowned Martyr St. Lawrence was made a Priest but continued afterwards in that same Office of Deacon unto Death which he suffered in a most cruel manner laid on a Gridiron over Coals rather than he would give up the Treasury of the Church and Alms of the Poor to the covetous cruel Tyrant This holy Deacon Petavius brings to prove that Deacons by virtue of that Order only did minister in holy things telling us that St. Ambrose mentions how he did distribute in the Lords Supper the Blood of Christ to the Communicants under Bishop Xistus Whereas St. Ambrose tells us how he Consecrated the Blood of Christ which plainly shews how untruly Petavius deals with us and that St. Laurence was a Priest not a bare Deacon for neither Petavius nor ever any allowed Deacons the Consecration of these sacred Mysteries Wherefore seeing the Scripture allows Deacons as Deacons no more then serving of Tables for the Poor whatever else Ministration is allowed them is by humane Authority not Divine and their Office or Order which you please to call it being about Temporal things must be Temporal not Spiritual And so I leave them to their proper Office of serving Tables not finding in Scripture any thing more belonging to them Concerning Confirmation Confirmation or some such thing is so necessary that for want of due execution thereof Persons extreamly unfit are admitted to the holy Table of the Lords Supper I fear a quarter of the Communicants of this Nation do not sufficiently understand the true meaning of these holy Mysteries the due preparation for them the benefits the damages in worthily or unworthily receiving them This I affirm upon experience having by way of discourse questioned many both of low and high degree where one would little expect such Ignorance And by reason of this gross Ignorance in due preparing and conscientious receiving this blessed Cordial and Medicine of the Soul of power in it self to cure all our diseases if rightly applied is turned into our destruction and damnation of the Soul For this holy Sacrament rightly apprehended would strike a terror into the Soul and a dread of Sin but Men receiving it without any regard into their sinful souls the beams of Grace which this Sun of Righteousness brings with it harden their dirty hearts and make them afterwards unsensible of any horrid abomination whatsoever And all this is occasioned by the want of some fit Person of authority to examine youth of all degrees ever so high or ever so low before they are admitted to the Lords Table For there being many poor ignorant Curates many unconscientious careless Ministers many over-awed by the superior quality of their Parishioners some cannot some will not some dare not search into the requisite abilities of persons to be admitted All which was prevented in the Primitive times of Christianity
both Learned and Religious who would lay down their lives for the truth they profess and yet are divided in opinion meerly by education having in their youth so imprinted their own opinions in their mind as you may sooner separate their body than their opinion from their Soul Nay I have heard that among the Turks there are many wise and moderate persons that are as zealous to maintain their ridiculous Alcaron as we our Bible which cannot proceed from any thing but the strong bias of education which so wheels about and intoxicates their brain And to say somewhat more particular of our own Nation here Those that have been educated in that way as to sit at the Communion and baptize their Children without the Cross had rather omit these Sacraments than use kneeling or the Cross and those that have been educated in kneeling and crossing though they acknowledg they are meer Ceremonies indifferent yet had rather omit the Sacraments than omit the Ceremonies just as if a man had rather starve than eat bread baked in a Pan because he hath used bread baked in an Oven So that Religion in many is really hut their humor fancy passeth for reason and custome is more prevalent than any argument This is the thing which makes me fear I shall meet with very few that will calmly and indifferently consider what I write but will presently startle at it as new and cross to their Genius or to their interest or their reputation which they value above all I mean the esteem and kindness of their best friends and acquaintance whose taunts and reproach they cannot bear but I humbly beseech them to pause a while and lay it by till the passion be over 'till they have mastered all these difficulties I beseech them to set before their eyes the beauty the honour the stedfastness of Truth the comfort the delight the everlasting felicity of a clear and rectified Conscience then resume it and consider again But they cry Pish 't is not worth it 't is a ridiculous toy and savours something of the Sectarian I grant there are some things among the Sectarians I approve of I will not reject and condemn any truth uttered or any good action performed though said and done by the Devil I consider the things and if good embrace them whoever utters them though I detest his errors in other things You will say the same then I heseech you do the same consider what I say simply in it self whether the Papists or Anabaptists say the same it matters not I hope you will not reject Christ because they both profefs him But if after all your serious patient unbiast consideration you find it an erroneous contemptible Pamphlet yet contemn not the person that wrote it in the sincerity of his heart lest you receive the same measure again from Christ who hath assured us that shalt be his rule to meet unto us the like Christ died for the salvation of my poor soul as well as yours contemn it not therefore but endeavour to rectifie it if God hath given you more knowledg and wisdome than me be not high-minded but fear and let him that stands take heed lest he fall Thus I pray for you do you the like for me and however we differ in Opinion let us accord in Charity and in Christ Iesus the Redeemer of us all Amen Concerning Articles of Faith THat which we commonly call the Apostles Creed if it were not Composed by them yet certainly by Primitive and Apostolick Men and proposed as the Summe of Christian Faith the Summe total necessary to Salvation It can't be supposed they lest out any thing which they thought necessary to Salvation they might as well have omitted half or all as one Commandment broken is the same in effect with all so one necessary Principle of Faith denyed Cancels all and shuts outfrom Heaven When I speak of believing the Apostles Creed I do not mean that we believe all there contained with a Divine Faith because it is there contained for we have no assurance that the Apostles Composed that Creed but we are sure all that is in that Creed is evident in Scripture to any common understanding therefore we believe all with a Divine Faith But I mention this Creed onely to shew that the Primitive Church received this as the sum total of Faith necessary to Salvation why not now Is the state of Salvation altered If it be compleat what needs any other Article You would have men improve in Faith so would I but rather intensivè than extensivè to confirm it rather than enlarge it One sound grain of Mustard-seed is better than a bushel of unsound chaffie stuff 'T is good to know all Gospel-Truths and to believe them no doubt of that but the Question is not what is good but what is necessary I pray remember the Treasurer to Candace Queen of Ethiopia whom Philip Instructed in the Faith his time of Catechising was very short and soon proceeded to Baptism But Philip first required a Confession of his Faith and the Eunuch made it and I beseech you Observe it I believe that Iesus Christ is the Son of God and straitway he was Baptized How no more than this No more this little grain of Faith being sound believed with all his heart purchased the Kingdom of Heaven Had he believed the whole Gospel with half his heart it had been of less value in the sight of God 't is not the Quantity but the Quality of our Faith God requireth But sure the Eunuch was more fully Instructed it may be you are sure of it but I could never yet meet with any assurance of it nor any great probability of it I am sure he saw Philip no more and I am sure Philip required no more but baptized him on this and had the Eunuch departed this Life in the same instant that Philip parted from him I believe I have better assurance that this faith would have saved the Eunuch than any Man hath that he ever was taught more See 1 Iohn 4. 2. Every spirit that confesseth that Iesus Christ is come in the Flesh is of God but the more the better still I grant though no more necessary Hast thou more Faith have it to thy self before God happy is he who condemneth not himself in the thing which he alloweth happy is he who is thankful to God for having received much and despiseth not him that hath received little God dispenseth his gifts and graces according to his free Will and Pleasure nor doth he require more of any Man than according to the proportion he hath given no more should we Nothing hath caused more mischief in the Church than the establishing new and many Articles of Faith and requiring all to assent unto them I am willing to believe that zealous men endeavoured this with pious intentions to promote that which they conceived Truth but by imposing it on the diffenters caused furious Warrs and lamentable
Blood-shed among Christians Brother Fighting against Brother and Murthering each other Can there be any thing more irrational than to endeavour to promote the truth of the Gospel contrary to the Laws of the Gospel to break an evident Commandment to establish a doubtful Truth I say doubtful to him on whom it is imposed though seeming clear to him that imposes it If it were fully express'd in Scripture-words there would need no new Expression no new Article if it be not fully exprest in Scripture but deduc'd from Scripture-Expressions then what one Man thinks clearly deduc'd another may think not so I mean not another ignorant and weak but as learned and as able VVhat more common than in Divinity and Philosophy Schools One crys this is a clear Demonstration another crys no such matter but flatly denies it Mens understandings are as various as their Speech or their Countenance otherwise it were impossible there should be so many understanding and moderate yea and conscientious Men also Papists Lutherans Calvinists all in such Opposition one against another all believing Scripture yet so differing in the deductions from Scripture Truly I think him very defective in Charity however he abound in Faith who thinks all Papists or Lutherans or Calvinists malitiously or wilfully blind As for my part I think nothing can be more clearly deduc'd from Scripture nothing more fully express'd in Scripture nothing more sutable to Natural Reason than that no Man should be forc'd to believe for no Man can be forc'd to believe you may force a Man to say this or that but not to believe it First as to Reason If you bring a Man an evident Demonstration and he hath a Brain to understand your Demonstration he can't but assent to it If you hold a clear Printed Book with a clear Candle to a Man of clear Eyes and able to read he will certainly read but if the Print be not clear or the Candle or his Sight not clear or he not Learned to read can your force make him read And just so it is with our understanding which is the eye of our Soul and a demonstration being as a candle to give light if then your demonstration or deduction or his understanding be not clear or he not learned you may with a club dash out his brains but never cleer them He then that believes the Scripture can't but believe what you cleerly demonstrate from Scripture if he hath cleer brains if he hath not your force may puzle and pudle his brains more by the passion of anger and hatred make him abhor you and your arguments but never lovingly embrace you or them and thus you may hazard his Soul by hatred and your own Soul also by provoking him to it but never save his Soul by a true belief But perchance you will conclude he doth not believe the Scripture because he doth not believe your arguments from Scripture a strange conclusion but what then would you can you force him to believe the Scripture can you drive saith like a nail into his head or heart with a hammer nay 't is not in a mans own power to make himself believe any thing farther then his reason shews him much less divine things this is the peculiar work of Grace and if Faith be the gift of God your Argument cannot give it nor your Hammer force it Arguments may be good Inducements and if right will prevail with those to believe whom God hath ordained to Eternal Life but no other Preaching the Word is the means God himself hath appointed but as for force I can't find in the Gospel either commandment or countenance given for it If the Scripture command to speak the truth in love to instruct our Brother in the spirit of meekness if we are to pray and beseech him to receive the grace of God can any thing be more contrary to Scripture Rule then force and violence to what purpose then is force since it cannot make him believe the Gospel and if he doth believe the Gospel he will I am sure he cannot chuse but believe what you cleerly shew him is contained there supposing his brain to be clear and I am also sure if he believe what is cleerly contained he need not believe any thing else The Scripture is our Rule of Faith compleat and full the Scripture it self tells us so Iohn 20. 31. These things are written that you might believe and believing ye might have life and our Saviour tells us That in them we have Eternal Life Iohn 5. 39. and the 2d Tim. 3. 15. St. Paul tells us The Scriptures are able to make us wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Iesus all Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine for reproof for correction for instruction in righteousness that the man of God may be perfect throughly furnished unto all good works And I beseech all men further to consider what is said Deut. 12. 32. Thou shalt not add thereto nor diminish from it and likewise how they will avoid the Curse in the last of the Revelation if they add to the words there written and surely 't is the same Crime to add to any other Book of Scripture If it be answered They do not require us to believe it to be Scripture I reply They require men to believe it as Scripture with Divine Faith which is as bad they make their own words equal with Gods word or if they say they require not Divine Faith then I am sure it is no matter of Salvation whether I believe it or no humane Faith cannot save Thus you see how impertinent how irrational how impious it is to require a man to believe any thing more than is cleerly contained in Scripture and if it be cleerly contained there he that believes Scripture and sees it cleerly contained there can't but believe it if he do not see it cleerly contained there you can't force either his sight or his Faith Your force may make him blinder but never see cleerer may make him an Hypocrite no true Convert Again I desire all men soberly to consider Are not the prime and most necessary Principles of Faith the Trinity three Persons and one God the Incarnation of Jesus Christ the same person to be God and Man the Resurrection of the Dead that we shall rise with the same Body when one body may be eaten and converted into several bodies and such like Are they not things far above the highest reason and sharpest understanding that ever had Man yet we believe them because God who cannot lye hath declared them is it not then a strange thing for any man to take upon him to declare one tittle more of them then God hath declared seeing we understand not what is declared I mean we have no comprehensive knowledge of the matter declared but only a believing knowledge our Faith not our Reason reaches it the Apostles by the Scriptures teach us this not
their Judgments but receive their Opinions as agreeing with their Judgments this is evidently true and clearly rational and fully agrees with the Rules given by some of the Fathers as St. Cyprian and St. Austin two as generally and as deservedly reverenced as any in the Christian Church St. Cyprian tells us that the very Praepositus which we call Bishop is to be guided by his own reason and conscience and is responsible only to God for his Doctrine St. Austin tells us that he submits to no Doctor of the Church ever so learned ever so holy any further than he proves his doctrine by Scripture or reason and desires none should do otherwise by him this is plain and rational dealing had the Evangelical Doctors taken this course in the beginning they had saved themselves from many intricate troubles which their in-bred over-revence to antiquity entangled them in But sure they needed not have been so scrupulous in this matter seeing there is scarce any one Father whose authority the Papists themselves do not in some particular or other reject though other whiles when he speaks for them they try it up to that height as if it were even a matter of damnation not to submit unto it I say not this as if I would have antiquity wholly rejected by no means but to consult the Fathers with great regard as Expositors of Scriptures and attentively observe what they shew us from thence I am not of those who admire the great knowledge in divine matters revealed in this later Age of the world I do not think there are any now so likely to discover the truth of Gospel mysteries as those of antient dayes As for that saying A Pigme set on a Giants shoulder may see more than the Giant pardon me if I call it a shallow and silly fancy nothing to our purpose for our question is not of seeing more but of the clear discerning and judging those things we all see but are in doubt what they mean if a Pigme and a Giant see a Beast at a miles distance and are in dispute whether it be a Horse or an Oxe the Pigme set on the Giant shoulder is never the nearer discerning what it is which depends on the sharpness of sight not the height of his shoulders Now that the antient and holy Fathers of the Church were more spiritual and consequently sharper sighted in spiritual things than we carnal creatures of this later age is evident by their Spiritual holy Lives The natural Man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God neither can he know them because they are spiritually discerned 1 Cor. 2. 14. And how natural how carnal how purblind we are is too too visible Besides a purblind man near the object will discern it better than a much sharper sight at greater distance as we are For if you ask those lofty conceited Pigmes why they give more credit to the Fathers of the second and third Century than to those of the sixth or seventh they answer Because those that lived nearer the dayes of Christ and his Apostles are like lyer to know their minds better than those of remoter and corrupted Ages the reason is good but mightily confounds those who live at the very foot of the Hill in the valley of darkness and all Iniquity and therefore not so likely to discern the truth of the doctrine of Christ preach't on the top of Mount Sion as those who lived in higher ascents Wherefore I shall alwayes hearken with due reverence unto what those Primitive Holy Fathers deliver and the more holy and more antient doubtless more to be regarded And yet seeing that Irenaeus and before him Papiâ—â— held to be a Disciple of St. Iohn the Apostle taught the error of the Millenaries rejected now by all the Church why might not others do so as well as they and therefore there can be no certainty of their Doctrine farther than they shew us clearly from Scripture which ought to be our only Rule of Faith as I shewed before But in any point of Religion either of Faith or Discipline if after diligent and humble search of Scripture the matter be doubtful then certainly I would so much reverence antiquity as to embrace what I found approved of by the greater number of antient Fathers and what I found generally approved by them though my own judgement did much incline to the contrary yet I would receive it unless it appeared to me flatly opposite to Scripture which we believe to be the Word of God then it were damnation in me to forsake that and hearken to the words of Fathers on earth or Angels coming from Heaven till they could make me understand their word agreed with Gods Word I must be saved by Faith in God and Christ and not by faith in Men or Angels And now I shall be bold to make this assertion That the Man who reads Scripture humbly and attentively fasts and prayes to God earnestly consults his Pastors and Teachers carefully and modestly and yet after all continues in some error by blind ignorance and mistake of Scripture if such a thing was or ever will be suffered by the infinite goodness of God that Man shall sooner be saved than he who receives a true opinion from the authority of Men which he soberly conceives to be contrary to Scripture for 't is all one to him as if it were really so all things are unclean to him that believes them unclean so all things are damnable to him that believes them damnable as he must do who believes them flatly contrary to Scripture Let no Man count me a libertine in faith because I would neither compel nor be compelled to submit to the Doctrines of Men. I trust in God no Man shall out-go me in zealous contending for the Faith once delivered to the Saints once for all never to receive any new Doctrine any other Gospel than that preached by Christ and his Apostles herein I am no Libertine by God's gracious assistance neither Men nor Angels shall make me recede from one tittle of this nor to embrace with divine faith one tittle more than this for doubtless it is far greater Idolatry to believe in Man than to sacrifice to Man more to give him my heart than my hand And yet notwithstanding all this no Man is forwarder than my self to receive from others humane doctrine as humane that is I believe it is not only possible but probable also that another may have more natural understanding more acquired learning than my self and so may find out that in Scripture or from Scripture or by reason which I cannot do my self but yet I can have no possible assurance that the Doctrine he delivers to me is absolutely true because I have assurance that 't is possible for him to erre and then I can have no assurance but that he may erre in that very Doctrine he now delivers me There is no Man I ever yet heard or read of to
scripture so plainly declares that nothing so covers the multitude of our sins as an act of charity nothing so acceptable unto God so joyful to his holy Angels as conversion of a sinner Yet these men will most passionately and pardon me if I say most uncharitably and irreligiously cry A way with these Idiot Sectaries and mad Phanaticks let them wander and perish in their own wild imaginations we will not leave one Ceremony nor any one line of our Common Prayer Book to gain thousands of them No if you alter that wee will rather leave the Church and go to the Papists Mass. If these be not as simple Sectaries and mad Phanaticks as any whatsoever let God and his holy Angels judge But as for you my Reverend Fathers of the Church I hope you will consult with Scripture in this weighty Affair and model all according to the rules of meekness charity and compassionate tenderness to weak ones there set down and endeavour with prudent admonitions to rectifie the errors of these too zealous Ceremonists with fatherly bowels of condescention to win the hearts of blind and wilful Separatists Certainly the more understanding and powerful Leaders of them will not cannot have the face to stand off after your charitable condescention their populous pretences will be so confuted their mouths so stopped their faces so confounded as for meer shame if not for reason and religion they must come into our Church and their Pastors coming in the Sheep will follow though some stand a while and gaze but at length having no men of ability to lead them on in their perverse wayes the Shop-prating Weavers and Coblers will soon be deserted and made heartless seeing their own naked folly And then shall we all joyn and joyfully sing Te Deum in our Churches and the holy Angels in the Heavens And then I shall most gladly sing with good old Simeon Lord now let thy servant depart in peace for mine eyes have seen thy salvation Concerning Preaching IT remains that I now handle this great business of Preaching wherein I fear I shall displease many there being but few who use it according to the original Institution and yet I had rather they should Preach as they do then quite omit it for certainly 't is a necessary work for a Minister of the Gospel to Preach the Gospel St. Paul tells us That some Preach the Gospel out of envy yet he was pleased that Christ should be so preached rather then not preached and so I say of Preaching Christ out of vanity as 't is evident many do preaching themselves and their own abilities at least as they think ablilities though often great weaknesses and conceited impertinences I beseech you tell me did not Christ and the Apostles Preach the best way and are not we to follow their example Who dare say otherwise yet many do otherwise they take ere or there a sentence of Scripture the shorter and more abstruse the better to shew their skill and invention this they divided and subdivided into generals and particulars the quid the quale the quantum and such like quack salving forms then they study how to hook in this or that quaint sentence of Philosopher or Father this or that nice speculation endeavouring to couch all this in most elegant language in short their main end is to shew their Wit their Reading and whatever they think is excellent in them No doubt rarely agreeing with that of St. Paul I determined not to know any thing among you save Iesus Christ and him crucified And my speech and my preaching was not with inticing words of man's wisdom but in demonstration of the Spirit and of Power 1 Cor. 2. And I verily believe this is the reason why Preaching hath so little effect in these days because they labour to speak the wisdom of this world which is foolishness with God nor do they Preach in demonstration of the Spirit but in demonstration of their Learning I know full well this unapostolick way of Preaching was used by some of the Antient Fathers especially the Greeks always fond of nicities and curiosities and being now become Christians as I said before transplanted their beloved Rhetorical flowers of humane learning into Christian Gardens which proved rather Weeds to over-run the seed of sound and plain Apostolick Doctrine humane nature being a soyl apter to give nourishment and vigor to humane principles then divine But when did ever any Learned Witty Rhetorical harang or cunning Syllogistical discourse convert the tythe of St. Peter's or St. Paul s foolish Preaching as he tearms it but the wisdom of God to those that are perfect and sound in the faith Who is ignorant of that famous passage at the Council of Nice whither resorted with divers others one Eminent Heathen Philosopher offering himself as the manner of those vain-glorious Sophisters was to dispute with the Christian Doctors some Bishops of greater Repute for Learning undertook him and as they thought cleerly Confuted but no way Converted him at last rises up a grave antient Bishop of small Learning but of great Faith and Piety and with great dissatisfaction of his Brethren fearing some gross baffle should befal this good man comes up to the Philosopher and with great Magisterial Authority recites unto him the Apostolick Creed I believe in God the Father Almighty and in the close calls to him O Philosopher believest thou all this The Philosopher answered I believe not being able to resist the demonstration of spirit and power wherewith he uttered those Divine Mysteries as he confess 't before them all You will say this was a Miracle of great rarity I grant it but many such Miracles should we see had we the Faith and powerful Spirit of this Holy Bishop and would indeavour to imitate Apostoliâ—al Preaching not Philosophical Arguing nor Rhetorical declaiming We see plainly the Apostolical Preaching was either Catechistical Instructions or Pious Admonitions not tying themselves to any form but past from one matter to another as the Auditors condition required not as the Preachers fancy and reading prompt just as the Roman Emperour Caligula who when Delinquents came before him to be judged condemned or acquitted them as agreed best with the current of his Oration So these men shape their discourse more to the applause then edification of the hearers And so much time is spent in composing these Oratory Sermons as the Minister hath not leisure to perform a quarter of his Parochial Duty of visiting the Sick of admonishing the scandalous of reconciling the janglers of private examining and instructing the poor ignorant souls thousands in every Country as ignorant as Heathens who understand no more of most Sermons then if in Greek so that the Sermon is rather a Banquet for the Wantons that are full then instruction to those who are even starved for want of spiritual food the plain and saving Word of Christ not the nice conceited word of Man which may nourish
commited to their management and judicature The Civil Law is that whereby most of the civilized World is govern'd and if we will have commerce with them 't is fit we should have able Civilians to deal with them which will never be unelss they have profitable and honourabl places to encourage them for it all that I beg of them is that they would contain themselves within their own Sphear of activity and not intrude into spiritual and sacred matters committed by Christ and his Apostles to the Priesthood And so I beg of Priests that they would not intermeddle in Lay and Temporol officer In the time of Popery when Spiritual and Temporal affairs were all intermingled and horribly confounded as the Pope took upon him Secular and Imperial authority directly contrary to the Word and Constitutions of Christ so the Bishops and Priests under him intermeddled in all Secular Affairs and offices and in this Nation Bishops were frequently Lord Keepers Treasurers Chief Justices Vice-Royes what not which is strangely un-Apostolical and unlawful their vocation being wholly Spiritual as Men chosen out of the World should have no more to do with it than of meer necessity for food and rayment Wherefore to take upon them any Lay-Office which must needs take them off much from the Ministry of the Word and Prayer is doubtless very sinful For Acts 6. we find the Apostles gave themselves continually to these and would not endure to have these interrupted by that charitable Office of taking care for the Poor certainly then they would have much less endured yea abominated to be taken off by temporal and worldly Offices And on this occasion let me speak a word to those of the inferiour Clergy who take upon them to study and practice Physick for hire this must needs be likewise sinful as taking them off from their spiritual employment had they studied Physick before they entered Holy Orders and would after make use of their skill among their poor Neighbours out of charity this were commendable but being entered on a spiritual and pastoral Charge which requires the whole man and more to spend their time in this or any other study not spiritual is contrary to their vocation and consequently sinful and to do it for gain is sordid and unworthy their high and holy Calling But Necessitas cogit ad turpia the maintenance of many Ministers is so small as it forces them even for food and rayment to seek it by other Employment which may in some measure excuse them but mightily condemn those who should provide better for them Whether this belongs not to King and Parliament I must humbly beseech them in Christs name seriously to consider I crave pardon for this I hope useful Digression and return to the Business of Excommunication This Sacred Authority of Excommunication being committed by Christ to the Apostles by them to their Successors was used in weighty and very scandalous matters very few examples of it in Scripture The incestuous Corinthian Hymenus and Alexander scarce another clearly exprest The Apostles being fully guided by the Holy Ghost in all things did exercise this power singly themselves but the succeeding Bishops having not the Spirit of that full measure used the assistance of the principal Clergy in their Diocess that the act might be more solemn and authentick the person excommunicated if he conceived the act injurious appealed to one or more neighbouring Bishops who assembled together and discussing the matter either confirmed or reversed the Act as they found cause And sometimes the matter proceeded so far as to cause an Assembly of the whole Province But each Bishop or Praepositus as St. Cyprian calls him and declares that he was absolute in his own Diocess to exercise his power and none condemned for using it but only for abusing it contrary to reason and conscience there were the only rules they proceeded by at first Afterwards when Bishops on this or other occasions met in Assemblies Provincial or General they made it divers Canons which passed for Rules and Laws to govern the Church by which doubtless are very good helps to bridle the extravagant passions of particular Men very apt in this corrupt age to prevaricate yet I cannot conceive them so far oblidging but new emergent circumstances may justly cause new and different Decrees yet so as every particular Bishop is oblidged for peace sake to submit to or at least to acquiesce in the General Decree of that Nation where he lives I said They are not bound entirely to submit to the Decrees of former Councils either Provincial or General because as I have shewed before all their Decrees are humane not Divine and all humane Ecclesiastical Laws are alterable according to the time and occasions by other General Councils As to the bounds of each Bishops Diocess they were occasioned several wayes The Apostles for the better spreading of the Gospel Preach't it first in the principal Cities which generally had great influence upon the adjacent parts by reason that the occasions of most call them thither and in these Cities they settled the chief Pastors of the Church with power to ordain Presbyters and Pastors in other lesser Cities and Towns round about as the Congregations of the Faithful encreased and all those Churches that were erected and Pastors establish't in them by these Apostolick Men in the chief Cities I humbly conceive in reverence of their worth and Apostolick authority were freely observant and subject to them which afterwards out of custom grew into a kind of right challenged by their successors Sometimes the authority of the Pastor or Bishop of a City was enlarged according to the temporal authority of the same it being the Metropolitan of this or that Countrey for so we find in the Council of Nice and other Councils the chiefest and largest authority given to the Bishop of old Rome because it was the first Imperial City to Constantinople as the second Imperial City to Alexandria as the chief City of that part of Africa to Antioch Ierusalem Ephesus Corinth Phillipi c. where you see that though Ierusalem were the first City from whence the Gospel issued forth Antioch the second City where the Gospel was planted and where the Faithful were first called Christians yet Rome Constantinople and Alexandria were preferred before them and had far larger Jurisdiction so that it is a meer humane temporal matter and Men have no farther obligation to it in conscience than for Peace sake and Order which in like manner obliges every Man to be subject to all Magistrates within their respective Jurisdictions There are yet two things more to be considered in this business First Where the Apostles first planted the Gospel in Cities with authority over the adjacent part it was in rich populous Countries where Cities were much nearer together than in these Northen parts and the circuit of each City was much less in compass so that the Bishop might well have the inspection