authority and gifts I think was done in Scripture times and might have been after if it had not then And my judgement is that ordinarily every particular Church such as our Parish Churches are had more Elders then One but not such store of men of eminent gifts as that all these Elders could be such But as if half a dozen of the most judicious persons of this Parish were Ordained to be Elders of the same Office with my self but because they are not equally fit for publick preaching should most imploy themselves in the rest of the Oversight consenting that the publick preaching lie most upon me and that I be the Moderator of them for Order in Circumstantials This I think was the true Episcopacy and Presbytery of the first times From the mistake of which two contrary Errors have arisen The one of those that think this Moderator was of another Office in specie having certain work assigned him by God which is above the reach of the Office of Presbyters to perform and that he had many fixed Churches for his charge The other of them that think these Elders were such as are called now Lay-elders that is Vnordained men authorized to Govern without Authority to Preach Baptize or Administer the Lords Supper And so both the Prelatical on one side and the Presbyterians and Independents on the other side run out and mistake the ancient form and then contend against each other This was the substance of what I wrote to Mr. Vines which his subjoyned Letter refers to where he signifieth that his judgement was the same When Paul and Barnabas were together Paul was the chief speaker and yet Barnabas by the Idolaters called Jupiter Nature teacheth us that men in the same Office should yet have the preheminence that 's due to them by their Age and Parts and Interests c. and that Order should be kept among them as in Colledges and all Societies is usual The most excellent part of our work is publick preaching but the most of it for quantity is the rest of the Oversight of the Church in Instructing personally admonishing reproving enquiring into the truth of accusations comforting visiting the sick stablishing the weak looking to the poor absolving answering doubts excommunicating and much more And therefore as there is a necessity as the experienced know of many Elders in a particular Church of any great number so it is fit that most hands should be most imployed about the said works of Oversight yet so as that they may preach as need and occasion requireth and administer Sacraments and that the eminent Speakers be most employed in publick preaching yet so as to do their part of the rest as occasion requireth And so the former Elders that Rule well shall be worthy of double honour but especially these that labour in the Word and Doctrine by more ordinary publick preaching And such kind of seldom-preaching Ministers as the former were in the first times and should be in most Churches yet that are numerous Sect. 6. When I speak in these Papers therefore of other mens Concessions that there were de facto in Scripture times but One Bishop without any subject Presbyters to a particular Church remember that I speak not my own judgement but urge against them their own Concessions And when I profess my Agreement with them it is not in this much less in all things for then I needed not disspute against them but it is in this much that in Scripture times there was de facto 1. No meer Bishop of many particular Churches or stated worshipping Congregations 2. Nor any distinct Office or Order of Presbyters that radically had no Power to Ordain or Govern or Confirm c. which are the subject Presbyters I mean Sect. 7. Specially remember that by Bishops in that dispute I mean according to the Modern use one that is no Archbishop and yet no meer Presbyter but one supposed to be between both that is a Superior to meer Presbyters in Order or Office and not only in degree or modification of the exercise but below Archbishops whether in Order or Degree These are they that I dispute against excluding Metropolitans or Archbishops from the question and that for many Reasons Sect. 8. If it were proved or granted that there were Archbishops in those times of Divine Institution it would no whit weaken my Arguments For it is only the lowest sort of Bishops that I dispute about yea it confirmeth them For if every combination of many particular Churches had an Archbishop then the Governors of such Combinations were not meer Bishops and then the meer Bishops were Parish Bishops or Bishops of single Churches only and that is it that I plead for against Diocesan Bishops that have many of these Churches perhaps some hundreds under one Bishop of the lowest rank having only Presbyters under him of another Order Sect. 9. If any think that I should have answered all that is written for an Apostolical Institution of Metropolitans or of Archbishops or of the subject sort of Presbyters or other points here toucht I answer them 1. In the former my work was not much concerned nor can any man prove me engaged to do all that he fancieth me concerned to do 2. Few men love to be contradicted and confuted and I have no reason to provoke them further then necessity requireth it 3. I take not all that I read for an argument so considerable as to need Replyes If any value the Arguments that I took not to need an Answer let them make their best of them I have taken none of them out of their hands by robbing them of their Books if they think them valid let them be so to them Every Book that we write must not be in folio and if it were we should leave some body unanswered still I have not been a contemner or neglecter of the writings of the contrary-minded But voluminously to tell the world of that I think they abuse or are abused in is unpleasing and unprofitable Sect. 10. And as to the Jus Divinum of limited Diocesses to the Apostles as Bishops and of Archbishops Metropolitans c. I shall say but this 1. That I take not all for currant in matter of fact that two or three or twice so many say was done when I have either cross testimony or valid Reasons of the improbability I believe such Historians but with a humane faith and allow them such a degree of that as the probability of their report and credibility of the persons doth require 2. I take it for no proof that all that was done in all the Churches that I am told was done in some 3. I take the Law of Nature and Scripture to be the entire Divine Law for the Government of the Church and World 4. And therefore if any Father or Historian tell me that this was delivered by the Apostles as a Law to the Vniversal Church which is not contained in Scriptures
nor to be proved by them I will not believe them no more then I would have believed Papius and all his Millenary followers that pretended Tradition from Saint John nor any more then I would have believed the Asians or Romans that pretended different times for Easter as a Tradition Apostolical binding the whole Church 5. If it were proved that de facto the Apostles did thus or thus dispose of a circumstance of Government or Worship which yet is undetermined in Scripture I take it not for a sufficient proof that they intended that Fact for an Universal Law or that they meant to bind all the Churches in all ages to do the like no more then Christ intended at the Institution of his Supper to tie all ages to do it after Supper in an upper room but with twelve and sitting c. 6. Yea if I had found a Direction or Command from the Apostles as Prudential determiners of a Circumstance pro tempore loco only as of the kiss of love hair covering eating things strangled and blood c. I take it not for a proof that this is an universal standing Law One or two of these exceptions wil shake off the proofs that some count strong for the universal obligation of the Church to Diocesans or Metropolitans Sect. 11. That the Apostles had Episcopal Power I mean such in each Church where they came as the fixed Bishops had I doubt not And because they founded Churches according to the success of their labors and setled them and if they could again visited them therefore I blame not the Ancients for calling them the Bishops of those Churches But that each man of them was really a fixed Metropolitan or Patriarch or had his proper Diocess in which he was Governor in chief and into which no other Apostle might come as an equal Governor without his leave this and such like is as well proved by silence as by all that I have read for it of Reason or History that is the Testimonies of the Ancients I find them sometime claiming a special interest in the Children that they have begotten by their Ministry But doubtless when Paul Barnabas or Silas went together some might be converted by one and some by another within the same Diocess or City If any man shall convince me that any great stress doth lie upon this questioÌ„ I shal be willing to give him more of my reasons for what I say Sect. 12. And as to them that confidently teach that the Apostles suited the Ecclesiastical Government to the Politick and that as by a Law for the Church universally to obey All the confutation at present that I will trouble them with shall be to tell them that I never saw any thing like a proof of it to my understanding among all the words that are brought to that purpose and to tell them 1. That if Paul chose Ephesus Corinth and other the most populous places to preach in it was but a prudential circumstantiating of his work according to that General Law of doing all to Edification and not an obligation on all the Pastors or Preachers of the Gospel to do the same where the case is not the same 2. And if Paul having converted many in these Cities do there plant Churches and no other can be proved in Scripture times it follows not that we may plant no Churches but in Cities 3. And if the greatest Cities had then the most numerous Churches and the most eminent Pastors fitted to them and therefore are named with some note of excellency above the rest it followeth not that the rest about them were under them by subjection 4. Yea if the Bishops of the chief Cities for order sake were to call Provincial Assemblies and the meetings to be in their Cities and they were to be the Presidents of the rest in Synods with such like circumstantial difference it followeth not that they were proper Governours of the rest and the rest to obey them in the Government of their proper charges Nor that they had power to place and displace them 5. Much less will it prove that these Metropolitans taking the name of Diocesans might put down all the Bishops of two hundred Churches under them and set up none but Presbyters in order distinct from Bishops over the flocks besides themselves and so the Archbishops having extinguished all the first Order of Bishops of single Churches to take the sole Government of so many Churches even people as well as Presbyters into their own hands 6. And I do not think that they can prove that the Apostles did institute as many sorts of Church-Government then as there were of civil â—olicy in the world All the world had not the Roman form of Government Nor had lesser Cities the same dependence upon greater in all other Countryes 7. Was it in one degree of subordination of Officers only or in all that the Apostles suited the Ecclesiasticall Government to the Civil If in One how is it proved that they intended it in that one and not in the rest If in all then we must have many degrees of Officers more then yet we have Inferiors very many and Superiors some of all conscience too high then we must have some to answer the Correctors the Consular Presidents and the Vicars and Lieutenants the Pro-consuls and Prefects and the Emperor himself Even one to be Vniversal in the Empire that 's yet some Limit to the Pope and will hazzard the removing of the Supremacy to Constantinople by the Rule that the Apostles are supposed to go by And great variety must there be in the several Diocesses of the Empire which Blondell hath punctually described de primatu in Eccles. pag. 511. to 519. shewing the causes of the inequality of Bishopricks and Churches 8. According to this Opinion the form of Church must alter as oft as Emperours will change their Policy or Wars shall change them And upon every change of the Priviledges of a City the Churches Preheminence must change and so we shall be in a mutable frame Which if Basil and Anthymius had understood might have quicklier decided their controversie Yea according to this opinion Princes may quite take down Metropolitans at pleasure by equalling the priviledges of their Cities The best is then that it is in the power of our Civil Governours to dissolve our obligation to Metropolitans yea and to all Bishops too if Cities must be their only residence as I have shewed Sect. 13. As for them that pretend humane Laws for their form of Government that is the decrees of General Councils I answer 1. I disown and deny all humane Laws as obligatory to the Church Vniversal It is the prerogative of God yea the greatest point of the exercise of his Soraignty to be the Law-giver to his Vniversal Church There can be no Vniversal Laws without an Vniversal Law-giver and there is no Vniversal Law-giver under Christ in the world 2. And for General
Presbyters and then the Government of the Church will be such as you blame Ans. It is the thing I plead for that every Church may have such Bishops as they had in the Apostles days and not meer new devised Presbyters that are of another Office and Order Sect. 23. Object Bishops had Deacons to attend them in the Scripture times though not Presbyters therefore it follows not that Bishops had then but One Congregation Answ. Yes beyond doubt For Deacons could not and did not perform the Pastoral part in the whole publick worship of any stated Churches They did not preach as Deacons and pray and praise God in the publick Assemblies and administer the Sacraments It 's not affirmed by them that are against us therefore there were no more Churches then Bishops Sect. 24. Object But what doth your Arguing make against the other Episcopal Divines that are not of the opinion that there were no meer Presbyters in Scripture times Answ. 1. Other Arguments here are as much against them though this be not if they maintain that sort of Episcopacy which I oppose 2. They also confess the smalness of Churches in Scripture times as I have shewed out of Bishop Downam and that is it that I plead for Sect. 25. Object But if you would have all reduced to the state that de facto the Church Government was in in Scripture times you would have as but one Church to a Bishop so but One Bishop to a Church as Dr. H. Dissert 4 c. 19 20 21 22. hath proved copiously that is that Scripture mentioneth no assistant Presbyters with the Bishop and would that please you that think a single Congregation should have a Presbyterie You should rather as he teacheth you c. 21. p. 237. be thankful to Ignatius and acknowledge the dignity of your Office ab â—o primario defensore astrui propugnari Answ. As we make no doubt from plain Scripture to prove and have proved it that single Churches had then many Presbyters some of them at least So having the greatest part of Fathers and Episcopal Divines of our mind herein even Epiphanius himself we need not be very solicitous about the point of Testimony oâ— Authority 2. We had rather of the two have but one Pastor to a Congregation then one to a hundred or two hundred Congregations having a Presbyter under him in each authorized only to a part of the work 3. Either the distinct Office of the Presbyters is of Divine Institution to be continued in the Church or not If not Bishops or some body it seems may put down the Office If it be then it seems all Gods Vniversal standing Laws even for the species of Church Officers are not contained in Scripture And if not in Scripture where then If in the Fathers 1. How shall we know which are they and worthy of that name and honor 2. And what shall we do to reconcile their contradictions 3. And what number of them must go to be the true witnesses of a Divine Law 4. And by what note may we know what points so to receive from them and what not But if it be from Councils that we must have the rest of the Laws of God not contained in the Scripture 1. Is it from all or some only If from all what a case are we in as obliged to receive Contradictions and Heresies If from some only which are they and how known and why they rather then the rest Why not the second of Ephesus as well as the first at Constantinople But this I shall not now further prosecute unless I were dealing with the Papists to whom have said more of it in another writing 4. Ignatius his Presbyters were not men of another Office nor yet set over many Churches that had all but one Bishop But they were all in the same Churches with the Bishop and of the same Office only subject to his moderation or presidency for Vnity and Order sake and this we strive not against if limited by the general Rules of Scripture Sect. 26. Object Those that you have to deal with say not that There were no Presbyters in the Apostles days but only that in the Apostles writings the word Bishops always signifies Bishops and the word Elders either never or but rarely Presbyters But it is possible for them to be in the time of those writings that are not mentioned in those writings and the Apostles times were larger then their writings as you are told Vind. against the Lond. Minist p. 106. Ans. 1. The words I cited from Annot. in Act. 11. faithfully which you may peruse which say that there is no evidence that in Scripture times any of the second Order were instituted So that it is not Scripture writings only but Scripture times that 's spoken of And 2. If there be no evidence of it the Church cannot believe it or affirm it for it judgeth not of unrevealed things and therefore to us it is no Institution that hath no evidence 3. The Apostles were all dead save John before the end of Scripture times So that they must be instituted by John only And John dyed the next year after Scripture times as the chief Chronologers judge For as he wrote his Apocalypse about the 14 th year of Domitian so his Gospel the year before Trajan and dyed the next year being after the commoner reckoning An. D. 98. and some think more And what likelihood or proof at least that John did institute them the year that he dyed when the same men tell us of his excursion into Asia to plant Elders bâ—fore that year it 's like 4. And if they were not instituted in Scripture time then no testimony from Antiquity câ—n prove them then instituted But indeed if we had such testimony and nothing of it in the Scripture it self we should take it as little to our purpose For 5. doth Antâ—quity say that the Institution was Divine of Universal obligation to the Church or only that it was but a prudential limitation of the exercise of the same Office the like I demand of other like Testimonies in case of Diocesses Metropolitans c. If only the later it binds us not but proveth only the licet and not the oportet at least as to all the Church And then every Countrey that finds cause may set up another kind of government â—ut if it be the former that is asserted as from antiquity then the Scripture containeth not all Gods Vniversal Laws Which who ever affirmeth must go to Fathers or Councils instead of Scripture to day and to the infallibility of the Pope or a Prophetical Inspiration to morrow and next Sect. 27. Once more to them that yet will maintain that the Apostles modelled the Ecclesiastical form to the Civil and that as a Law to the whole Church we take it as their Concession that then we ow no more obedience to the Archbishop of Canterbury then to the Civil Magistrate of Canterbury and especially
Churches must remain polluted and ungoverned through the unavoidable absence of those twelve or thirteen men The Apostles therefore did admonish Pastors to do their duties and when themselves were present had power to do the like and to censure Pastors or people that offended but they did not take on them the full Government of any Church nor keep a Negative vote in the Government Prop. 15. It seems utterly untrue that Christ did deliver the Keyes only to the twelve Apostles as such and so only to their Successors and not the seventy Disciples or any Presbyters For 1. The seventy also were General unfixed Officers and not like fixed Presbyters or Bishops and therefore having a larger Commission must have equal power 2. The Apostles were not single Bishops as now they are differenced from others but they were such as had more extensive Commissions then those now called Arch Bishops or Patriarchs If therefore the Keyes were given them as Apostles or General Officers then they were never given to Bishops For Bishops as fixed Bishops of this or that Diocess are not Successors of the Apostles who were Geneâ—al unfixed Officers 3. It is granted commonly by Papists and Protestants that Presbyters have the power of the Keyes though many of them think that they are limited to exercise them under the Bishops and by their Direction and Consent of which many School-men have wrote at large 4. The Key of Excommunication is but a Ministerial Authoritative Declaration that such or such a known Offendor is to be avoided and to charge the Church to avoid Communion with him and him to avoid or keep away from the Priviledges of the Church and this a meer Presbyter may do he may authoritatively Declare such a man to be one that is to be avoided and charge the Church and him to do accordingly The like I may say of Absolution if they belong to every authorized Pastor Preacher and Church guide as such then not to a Bishop only but to a Presbyter also And that these Keyes belong to more then the Apostles and their Successors is plain in that these are insufficient Naturally to use them to their Ends. An Apostle in Antioch cannot look to the censuring of all persons that are to be Censured at Athens Paris London c. so that the most of the work would be totally neglected if only they and their supposed Successors had the doing of it I conclude therefore that the Keyes belong not only to Apostles and their Successors in that General Office no nor only to Diocesan Bishops for then Presbyters could not so much as exercise them with the Bishops in Consistory which themselves of late allow Prop. 16. The Apostles were fallible in many matters of fact and consequently in the Decisions that depended thereupon as also in the Prudential determination of the time and season and other Cirumstances of known duties And thence it was that Paul and Barnabas so disagreed even to a parting where one of them was certainly in the wrong And hence Peter withdrew from the uncircumcision and misled Barnabas and others into the same dissimulation so far that he was to be blamed and withstood Gal. 2. Prop. 17. In such Cases of misleading an Apostle was not to be follownd no more is any Church-Governor now but it is lawful and needful to dissent and withstand them to the face and to blame them when they are to be blamed for the Churches safety as Paul did by Peter Galatians 2.1 Prop. 18. In this Case the Apostles that by Office were of equal Authority yet were unequal when the Reasons and Evidence of Gods mind which they produced was unequal so that a Presbyter or Bishop that produceth better Reasons is to be obeyed before another that produceth less Reason or that Erreth And the Bishop of another Church that produceth better Evidence of Gods mind is to be obeyed before the proper Bishop of that same Church that produceth weaker and worse Evidence Yea a private man that produceth Gods Word is to be obeyed before Bishops and Councils that go against it or without it in that case where the word bindeth us so that in all cases where Scripture is to determine he that bringeth the best Scripture proof is the chief Ruler that is ought chiefly to prevail Though in the determination of meer Circumstances of duty which Scripture determineth not but hath left to Church-Guides to determine pro re natâ it may be otherwise so that the Apostles power in determining matters of faith was not as Church-Governors but as men that could produce the surest Evidence Prop. 19. It is not easie to manifest whether every Presbyter in prima instantia be not an Officer to the Church Universal before he be affixed to a particular Church and whether he may not go up and down over the world to exercise that office where ever he hath admittance And if so what then could an Apostle have done by vertue of his meer office without the advantage of his extraordinary abilities and priviledges which the Presbyter may not do May an Apostle charge the people where he comes to avoid this or that seducer or heretick so may any Preacher that shall come among them and that by authority May an Apostle Excommunicate the very Pastor of the place and deprive him why what is that but to perswade the people and Authoritatively require them to avoid and withdraw from such a Pastor if the Cause be manifest And so may any Pastor or Preacher that comes among them For if as Cyprian saith it chiefly belong to the people even of themselves to reject and withdraw from such a Pastor then a Preacher may by Authority perswade and require them to do their own duty Yet I shall acknowledge that though both may do the same duty and both by Authority yet possibly not both by equal Authority but an Apostle Majore authoritate and so may lay a stronger obligation on men to the same duty but the rest I determine not but leave to enquiry Prop. 20. In making Laws or Canons to bind the Church which are now laid down in Scripture the Apostles acted as Apostles that is as men extraordinarily Commissioned illuminated and enabled infallibly to deliver Gods will to the world And therefore herein they have no Successors In Conclusion therefore seeing that matters of meer Order and Decency depending on Circumstances sometime rationally mutable sometime yearly daily hourly mutable are not to be determined Vniversally alike to all the Church nor to all a Nation nor by those that are at too great a distance but by the present Pastor who is to manage the work and being intrusted therewith is the fittest Judge of such variable Circumstances and seeing for standing Ordinances that equally belong to all ages and places Gods word is perfect and sufficient without the Bishops Canons and seeing that Scripture is a perfect Law of God and Rule of Christian faith and seeing that
Institution not by inspired Apostles but by Ordinary Bishops then 1. They make all Presbyters to be jure Episcopali and Bishops only and their Superiours to be jure Divino as the Italians in the Council of Trent would have had all Bishops to depend upon the Pope But in this they go far beyond them for the Italian Papists themselves thought Presbyterie jure Divino 2. Either they may be changed by Bishops who set them up or not If they may be taken down again by man then the Church may be ruined by man and so the Bishops will imitate the Pope Either they will Reign or Christ shall not Reign if they can hinder it Either they will lead the Church in their way or Christ shall have no Church If man cannot take them down then 1. It seems man did not Institute them for why may they not alter their own institutions 2. And then it seems the Church hath universal standing unchangeable Institutions Offices and binding Laws of the Bishops making And if so are not the Bishops equal to the Apostles in Law making and Church Ordering and are not their Laws to us as the word of God and that word insufficient and every Bishop would be to his Diocess and all to the whole Church what the Pope would be to the whole 3. Moreover how do they prove that ever the Apostles gave power to the Bishops to institute the order of Presbyterie I know of no text of Scripture by which they can prove it And for Tradition we will not take every mans word that saith he hath tradition for his conceits but we require the proof The Papists that are the pretended keepers of Tradition do bring forth none as meerly unwritten but for their ordines inferiores and many of them for Bishops as distinct from the Presbyters but not for Presbyters themselves And Scripture they can plead none For if they mention such texts where Paul bids Titus ordain Elders in every City c. they deny this to be meant of Elders as now but of Prelates whom Titus as the Primate or Metropolitane was to ordain And if it be meant of Elders then they are found in Scripture and of Divine Apostolical Institution 4. If they were Instituted by Bishops after the Scripture was written was it by one Bishop or by many If by one then how came that one to have Authority to impose a new Institution on the universal Church If by many either out of Council or in if out of Council it was by an accidental falling into one mind and way and then they are but as single men to the Church and therefore still we ask how do they bind us If by many in Council 1. Then let them tell us what Council it was that Instituted Presbyterie when and where gathered and where we may find their Canons that we may know our order and what Auâ—hors mention that Council 2. And what authority had that Council to bind all the Christian world to all ages If they say it bound but their own Churches and that age then it seems the Bishops of England might for all that have nulled the Order of Presbyters there But O miserable England and miserable world if Presbyters had done no more for it then Prelates have done I conclude therefore that the English Prelacy either degraded the Presbyters or else suspended to ally an essential part of their office for themselves called them Rectors and in ordaining them said Receive the Holy Ghâ—st Whose sins thou dost remit they are remitted whose sins thou dost retain they are retained And therefore they delivered to them the Power of the Keyes of opening and shutting the Kingdom of Heaven which themselves make to be the opening and shutting of the Church and the Governing of the Church by Excommunication and Absolution And therefore they are not fit men to ask the Presbyters By what authority they Rule the Church by binding and loosing when themselves did expresly as much as in them lay confer the Power on them And we do no more then what they bid us do in our Ordination Yea they thereby make it the very work of our office For the same mouth at the same time that bid us tâ—ke authority to preach the word of God did also tell us that whose sins we remit or retain they are remitted or retained and therefore if one be an Essential or true integral part at least of our office the other is so too From all which it is evident that if there were nothing against the English Prelacy but only this that they thus suspend or degrade all the Presbyters in England as to one half of their offâ—ce it is enough to prove that they should not be restored under any pretence whatsoever of Order or Unity Argum. 5. THat Episcopacy which giveth the Government of the Chuâ—ch and management of the Keys of Excommunication and Absolution into the hands of a few Layâ—men while they take them from the Presbyters is nâ—t to be restored under any pretence of Vnity or Peace But such was the English Prelacy therefore c. The Major is plain because it is not Lay-men that are to be Church Governours as to Ecclesiastical Government This is beyond Question with all save the Congregational and they would not have two or three Lay men chosen but the whole Congregation to manage this business The Minor is known by common experience that it was the Chancelor in hâ—s Court with his assiâ—â—ants and the Register and such other meer Lay-men that managed this work If it be said that they did it as the Bishops Agents and Substitutes and therefore it was he that did it by them I answer 1. The Law put it in the Chancellors and the Bishopâ— could not hinder it 2. If the Bishops may delegate others to do their work then it seems Preaching and Ruling Excommunicaâ—ing and Abâ—olving may as well be done by Lay-men as Clergy men Then they may commission them also to administer the Sacraments And so the Ministry is not necessary for any of these works but only a Bishop to depute Lay-men to do them which is false and confusive Argum. 6. THat Episcopacy whâ—ch necessarily overwhelmeth the souls of the Bishops with the most hainous guilt of neglecting the many thousand souls whose charge they undertake is not to be restored for Order or Peace For men are not to be oveâ—whelmed with such hainous sin on such pretences But such is the English Prelacy and that not accidentally through the badness of the men only but unavoidably through the greatness of their charge and the Natural Impossibility of their undertaken work How grievous a thing it is to have the blood of so many thousands charged on â—hem may soon appear And that man that undertakes himself the Government of two or three or five hundred thousand souls that he never seeth or knoweth nor can possibly so Govern but must needs leave it undone except the shadow
intimations of Scripture and the discord of these reporters among themselves Only it is certain that nature it self would so restrain them that as they could be but in one place at once so they could not be in perpetual motion and prudence would keep them longest in those places where most work was to be done And therefore Pauls three years abode at Ephesus and the neighbouring parts of Asia did not make him the fixed Diocesan Bishop of Ephesus And what I say of the Apostles I say also of many such Itinerant unfixed Ministers which were their helpers as Silas Apollo Barnabas Titus Timothy c. For though Timothy be called by some Anâ—ients the first Bishop of Ephesus and Titus of Crete yet it is apparent they were no such fixed Ministers that undertook a Diocess durantâ— vita as their proper charge which were then called Bâ—shops but they were â—tinerant helpers of the Apostles in gathering planting and first ordering of Churches And therefore Titus was left in a whole Nation or large Island to place Bishops or Elders in each City and set things in order and this but till Paul come and not to be himself their fixed Bishop and Timothy is proved by Scripture to have been unsetled and itinerant as a helper of Paul after that he is by some supposed to be fixed at Ephesus I will not needlesly actum agere let any man that is unsatisfied of this read impartially Mr. Prins unbishoping of Timothy and Titus and note there the Itinerary of Timothy from Scripture Texts If therefore our Bishops would have been of the Apostles and their General helpers race they should have gone up and down to gather and plant Churches and then go up and down to visit those which they have planted or if they live where all are Enchurched already they should go up and down to preach to the rudâ—r sort of them and by the power of the word to subdue men further to Christ anâ— to see that all Ministers where they come do their duty reproving and admonishing those that neglect it but not forbidding them to do it as a thing belonging only to them And by Spiritual weapons and authority should they have driven Ministers to this duty and not by meer secular force of which more anon 2. And as for the fixed Bishops of Apostolical Institution our English Prelacy are not like them For the fixed Bishops established by the Apostles were only Overseers of one particular Church But the English Prelates were the Overseers of many particular Churches Therefore the English Prelates were not the same with the old Bishops of the Apostles institution The course that the Prelates take to elude this argument is by giving us a false definition of a particular Church That we may not therefore have any unprofitable strife about words I shall signifie my own meaning By a Particular Church I mean an Associated or combined company of Christians for Communion in Publick Worship and Furtherance of each other in the way to heaven under the Guidance of Christs Church Officers one Elder or more such as are undivided or Churches of the first order commonly called Ecclesiae Primae as to existence and which contain not divers Political Churches in them A family I mean not for that 's not a Political Church having no Pastor An accidental company of Christians I mean not For those are no Association and so no Political Church Nor do I mean a National or Diocesane or Classical Church or any the like which are composed of many particular Churches of the first order conjunct It is not of Necessity that they alway or most usually meet in one Congregation because its possible they may want a capacious convenient room and its possible they may be under persecution so that they may be forced to meet secretly in small companies or there may be some aged weak people or children that cannot travail to the chief place of Meeting and so may have some Chappels of ease or smaller meeting But still it must be a number neither so big nor so small as to be uncapable of the ends of Association which enter the definition how ever weaknâ—ss age or other accidents may hinder some members from that full usefullness as to the main end whith other members have So that they which are so many or live at such a distance as to be uncapable of the ends are not such a Church nor are capable of so being For the number will alter the species In a word it cannot I think be proved that in the Primitive times there was any one fixed Bishop that Governed and Oversaw any more then one such particular political Church as was not composed of divers lesser political Churches nor that their Churches which any fixed Bishop oversaw were more then could hold Communion in Worship in one publick place for so many of them as could ordinarily hear at once for all the families cannot usually come at once they were not greater then some of our English Parishes are nor usually the tenth part so great I have been informed by the judicious inhabitants that there are fourscore thousand in Giles Cripple-gate Parish in London and about fifty thousand in Stepney and fourty thousand in Sepulchres There cannot any Church in Scripture be found that was greater nor neer so great as one of these Parishes No not the Church at Ierusalem it self of which so much is said No not if you admit all the number of moveable Converts and Sojournours to have been of that particular Church which yet cannot be proved to have been so I know Bishop Downam doth with great indignation Dispute that Diocesses were beâ—ore Parishes and that it was more then one Congregation that was contained in those Diocesses We will not contend about the name Diocess and Parish which by the Ancients were sometime used promiscuously for the same thing But as to the thing signified by them I say that what ever you call it a Diocess or a Parish there were not near so many souls as in some English Parishes nor take one with another their Churches commonly were no more Numerous then our Parishes nor so numerous A Diocess then and a Parish were the same thing and both the same as our particular Churches now are that is the Ecclesiae primae or Soceities of Christians combined under Church-Rulers for holy Communion in Worship and Discipline And there were no otherwise many Congregations in one Church then as our Chapples of ease or a few meeting in a private house because of rainy weather are many Congregations in one Parish The foresaid Learned and Godly though angry Bishop Downame saith Def. li. 2. cap. 1. page 6. that Indeed at the very first Conversion of Cities the whole Number of the people converted being some not much greater then the Number of the Presbyters placed among them were able to make but a small Congregation Call that Church then a Diocess or a Parish I
of any other Church Congregation or Elders De facto this is plainly yielded Well this much being yielded and we having come so far to an agreement about the actual Church Constitution and Government of the Scripture times we desire to know some sufficient reason why we in these times may not take up with thaâ— Government and Church order which was practised in the Scripture times And the Reason that is brought against it is this Because it was the Apostles intention that this single Bishop who in Scripture times had but one Congregation and Governed no Presbyters should after Scripture times have many settled Congregations and their Presbyters under them and should have the power of ordaining them c. To this I answer 1. The Intentions of mens hearts are secret till they are some way revealed No man of this age doth know the Apostles hearts but by some sign what then is the revelation that Proveth this Intention Either it must be some Word or Deed. For the first I cannot yet find any colour of proof which they bring from any word of the Apostles where either they give power to this Presbyter or Bishop to Rule over many Presbyters and Congregations for the future Nor yet where they do so much as foretell that so it shall be As for those of Paul to Timothy and Titus that theâ— rebuke not an Elder and receive not accusation against them but under two or three Witnesses the Reverend Author affirmeth that those Eâ—ders were not Presbyters under such Bishops as we now speak of but those Bishops themselves whom Timothy and Titus might rebuke And for meer facts without Scripture words theâ—e is none that can prove this pretended Intention of the Apostles First there is no fact of the Apostles themselves or the Churches or Pastors in Scripture time to prove it For Subordinate Presbyters are confessed not to be then â—nstituted and so not existent and other fact of theirs there can be none And no fact after them can prove it Yet this is the great Argument that most insist on that the practice of the Church after Scripture times doth prove that Intention of the â—pâ—stles which Scripture doth not for ought is yet proved by them that I can find at all express But we deny that and require pâ—ooâ— of it It is not bare saying so that will serve Is it not possible for the succeeding Bishops to err and mistake the Apostles Intentions If not then are they Infallible as well as the Apostles which is not true They might sin in going from the Institution And their sin will not prove that the Apostles intended it should be so de jure because their followers did so de facto If they say that it is not likely that all the Churches should so suddenly be ignorant of the Apostles Intention I answer 1. We must not build our faith and practice on Conjectures Such a saying as this is no proof of Apostolical intentions to warrant us to swerve from the sole practised Government in Scripture times 2. There is no great likelihood that I can discern that this first practised Government was altered by those that knew the Apostles and upon supposition that these which are pretended were their intents 3. If it were so yet is it not impossible nor very improbable that through humane frailty they might be drawn to conjecture that that was the Apostles intents which seemed right in thier eyes and suited their present judgements and interests 4. Sure we are that the Scripture is the perfect Law and Rule to the Church for the Establishing of all necessary Offices and Ordinances and therefore if there be no such intentions or Institutions of the Apostles mentioned in the Scripture we may not set up universally such Offices and Ordinances on any such supposed intents De facto we seem agreed that the Apostles settled One Pastor over one Congregation having no Presbyters under his Rule and that there were no other in Scripture time but shortly after when Christians were multiplied and the most of the Cities where the Churches were planted were converted to the faith together with the Country round about then there were many Congregations and many Pastors and the Pastor of the first Church in the City did take all the other Churches and Pastors to be under his Government calling them Presbyters only and himself eminently or only the Bishop Now the Question between us is Whether this was well done or not Whether these Pastors should not rather have gathered Churches as free as their own Whether the â—hristians that were afterward converted should not have combined for holy Communion themselves in particular distinct â—hurches and have had their own Pastors set over them as the first Churches by the Apostles had They that deny it and Justifie their fact have nothing that we can see for it but an ungrounded surmise that it was the Apostles meaning that the first Bishops should so do But we have the Apostles express Institution and the Churches practise during Scripture times for the other way We doubt not but Christians in the beginning were thin and that the Apostles therefore preached most and planted Churches in Cities because they were the most populous places where was most matter to work upon and most disciples were there and that the Country round about did afford them here and there a family which joyned to the City Church Much like as it is now among us with the Anabaptists and Separatists who are famed to be so Numerous and potent through the Land and yet I do not think that in all this County there is so many in Number of either of these sects as the tenth part of the people of this one Parish nor perhaps as the twentieth part Now if all the Anabaptists in Worcestershire or at least that lived so neer as to be capable of Church communion should be of Mr. T 's Congregation at Bewdley or of a Church that met in the chief City Worcester yet doth not this intimate that all the space of ground in this County is appointed or intended for the future as Mr. T 's Diocess but if the successive Pastor should claim the whole County as his charge if the whole were turned to that opinion no doubt but they would much cross their founders mind And if the comparison may be tolerated we see great reason to conceive that the Ancient Bishops did thus cross the Apostles minds When there were no more Christians in a City and the adjoyning parts then half some of our Parishes the Apostles planted fixed Governours called Bishops or Elders over these particlar Churches which had constant communion in the worship of God And when the Cities and Countreyes were converted to the faith the frailty of ambition co-working thereto these Bishops did claim all that space of ground for their Diocess where the members of their Church had lived before as if Churches were to be measured by the
Certainly if subject Presbyters were not till after Scripture times nor any settled Worshipping Church without a Presbyter unless the people preached and administred the Sacraments then there could be no Worshipping Church that had not their own proper Governour nor any such Governour fixed that had more Churches then one Reason 4. The contrary opinion feigneth the Apostles to have allotted to each Bishop a space of ground for his Diocess and to have measured Churches by such spaces and not by the number of souls But this is unproved absurd 1. Unproved For there is no place in Scripture that giveth the Bishop charge of all that space of ground or of all the Christians that shall be in that space during his time Indeed they placed a Bishop in each City when there was but a Church in each City But they never said there shall be but one Church in a City or but one Bishop in a City much less in all the Country region 2. And its absurd For it s the number of souls that a Church must be measured by and not a space of ground so they do but co-habite For if in the same space of Ground there should be twenty or an hundred times as many Christians it would make the number so great as would be uncapable of personal communion and of obtaining Church Ends. If a Schoolmaster have a School in the chief City or Town of this County and there come as many from many miles compass as one School can hold and there be no more there so long all that space may belong to his School not for the space sake but the number of Schollars For if there be afterward an hundred times as many in that space to be taught they must set up more Schools and it were no wise part in the old Schoolmaster to maintain that all that Country pertaineâ—h to his School because that it was so when there were fewer So that to measure our the matter of Churches by space of ground and not by number of souls is plainly against the Reason of the Relation Reason 5. The opposed opinion doth imply that God more regardeth Cities then Country Villages or that Churches are to be measured according to the number and greatness of Cities rather then according to the number of souls For they suppose that every City should have a Bishop if there be but twenty or fourty or an hundred Christians in it but if there be five hundâ—ed Country Parishes that have some of them many thousand souls in them these shall have no Bishops of their own but be all ruled by the Bishop of the City Now how unreasonable this is methinks should not be hard to discern For 1. What is a City to God any more then a Village that for it he should make so partial an institution Doth he regard Rome any more then Eugubium or Alexandria more then Tanis for their worldly splendor or priviledges No doubtless it is for the multitude of inhabitants And if so its manifest that an equal number of inhabitants elsewhere should have the same kind of Government 2. Is it probable that God would have twenty thousand or an hundred thousand people in a Diocess and in some a Million to have but one Church-Ruler and yet would have every small congregation in a City to have one though there be none else under him What proportion is there in this way of Government that an hundred or fifty men shall have as many Governours as a Million as if ten thousand or an hundred thousand Schollars ouâ— of a City shall have no more Rulers then an hundred in a 〈◊〉 and all because one part are in a City and the other not Or a Physitian shall have but an hundred Patients to look to in a City and if there be a Million in that City and Country he shall also upon pain of Gods everlasting wrath undertake the care of them all Let them that strive for such a charge look to it I profess I admire at them what they think 1. Of the needs of men souls 2. Of the terrours of Gods wrath 3. And of their own sufficiency for such a work Were it my case if I know my own heâ—rt at all I should fear that this were but to strive to damn thousands and to be damned with them by undertaking on that penalty to be their Physitian under Christ when I am sure I cannot look to the hundreth man of them and I had rather strive to be a gally-slave to the Turks or to be preferred to rid Chaâ—els or the basest office all my dayes Reason 6. According to the opposâ—d opinion it is in the power of a King to make Bishops to be either Congregational or Diocesan to make a Bishâ—p to haâ—e a Million of souls or a whole Nation in charge or to have but aâ— few For if a King will but dissolve the Priviledge and title and make that no City whâ—ch was a City though he diminish not the number of souls and if he will do thus by all the Cities save one in his dominion then must there be but one Bishop in his dominion And if he will but make every countrey Town that hath four or five hundred or a thousand inhabitants to be incorporate and honour it with the title and priviledges of a City thâ—n shall they have a Bishop Moreover thus every Prince may de jure banish Episcopacy out of his Dominions without diminishing the number of Christians if he do but defranchise the Cities and be of the mind as I have heard some men have been that Cities are against the Princes interest by strengthening the people and advantaging them to rebellions Also if there be any Indian Nations so barbarous as to have no Cities though they were converted yet must they have no Bishops Also it would be in the Princes power de jure to depose any of those Bishops that the Apâ—stles or their Successors are supposed to set up For the Râ—man Emperour might have proclaimed Antioch Alexandria or any of the rest to be no Cities and then they must have no longer have had any Bishops And what Bishâ—ps shall Antioch have at this day Now how absurd all this is I need not manifest that whole Contreâ—eâ— shâ—ll have no Government for want of 〈◊〉 that Kings shall so alter Church Officers at their pleâ—sure â—hen they intend it not meerly by altering the Civil Priviledgâ—s of their people that a King may make one Diocess to become an hundred and an hundred become one by such means And yet all this doth undenâ—ably follow if the Law be that every City and only every City shall be a Bishops Sea where there are Christians to be governed Reason 7. There is no sufficient Reason given why subject Pâ—â—sâ—byters should not have been set up in the Scripture times as well as after if it had been the Apostles intent that such should be instituted The Necessity pretended was
Bishops who gathered as many as they could under their own Government when they should have erected new Churches as free as their own Reason 12. If the Description of the Bishops settled in the New Testament and the work affixed to them be such as cannot agree to our Diocesan Bishops but to the Pastors of a single Church then was it never the mind of the Holy Ghost that those Bishops should degenerate afterwards into Diocesan Bishops But the Antecedent is certain therefore so is the Consequent I here still suppose with Learned Dr. H Annot. in Act. 11. passim that the name Presbyter in Scripture signifieth a Bishop there being no Evidence that in Scripture time any of that Second Order viz. subject Presbyters were then instituted Though I am far from thinking that there was but one of these Bishops in a Church at least as to many Churches Now as we are agreed de facto that it was but a single Church that then was under a Bishop and not many such Churches for that follows undenyably upon the denying of the existence of subject Presbyters seeing no such Churches can be nor the worshipping Assemblies held without a Bishop or Presbyter so that it was the mind of the Apostles that it should so continue is proveed by the Desciption and work of those Scripture Bishops Argument 1. From Acts 20.28 29 31. The Bishops instituted and fixed by the Holy Ghost were and are to take heed to all the Flock over which the Holy Ghost hath made them overseeers to feed the Church of God and to watch against Wolves and to warn every one night and day But this cannot be done by Diocesan Bishops nor any that have more then one Church Therefore Diocesan Bishops are not the Bishops that the Holy Ghost hath so fixed and instituted such as Paul describeth were to continue and that 's such as can do that work Argument 2. The Bishops that the Holy-Ghost settled and would have continue and had the Power of Ordination given them were such as were to be Ordained in every City and every Church Acts 14.23 Tit. 1.3 4 5. See Dr. Hammonds Annotat. But it is not Diocesan Bishops that are such for they are over many Churches and Cities therefore it is not Diocesan Bishops that were settled by the Holy Ghost nor meant in those texts Ar. 3. The Bishops which were instituted by the Holy Ghost and are meant in Scripture were to watch for their peoples souls as those that must give account Ruling over them and to be obeyed by all and speaking to them the word of God Heb. 13.7 17 24. But this cannot be done by a Bishop to a whole Diocess nor will they be willing of such an account if they be wise therefore it is not Diocesan Bishops that are meant in Scripture Argument 4. The Bishops settled for continuance in Scripture were such as all the people were to know as labouring among them and over them in the Lord and admonishing them and to esteem them very highly in love for their work sake 1 Thes. 5.12 13. But this cannot be meant of our Diocesan Bishop whom the hundreth part of the flock shall never see hear nor be admonished by therefore it is not such that were settled for continuance in the Church Argument 5. The Bishops settled by the Holy Ghost must by any that are sick be sent for to pray over them But this a Diocesan Bishop cannot do to the hundreth or thousandth person in some places therefore it is not Diocesan Bishops but the Bishops of a single Church that are capable of these works that are meant by the Holy Ghost to continue in the Church and consequently to whom the power of Ordaining was committed If any question whether the Texts alleadged do speak of subject-Presbyters or Bishops I refer them to the foresaid Reverend Doctor with whom I am agreed that there were no subject-Presbyters instituted in Scripture times Reason 13. It was not one or two or all Churches for a year or two or more in their meer fieri or infancy before they were well formed that consisted only of one settled worshipping Assembly and its guides but it was the formed and stablished state of the particular Churches To prove this I shall briefly do these three things 1. I shall shew it in respect to the Jewish Synagogues 2. As to the Churches in the Apostles dayes after many years growth even of every Church that 's mentioned in the New Testament as a particular Political Church 3. As to some of the Churches after the Apostles dayes mentioned by the ancients 1. It is apparent that the Jews Synagogues were particular Congregational Churches having each one their several Rulers and as many Learned men suppose they had an Ecclesiastical Judicature of Elders belonging to each of them where fit men could be found and this distinct from the Civil Judicature Or as others think they had a Sanhedrim which had power to judge in both Causes and one of these was in every City that is in Places of Cohabitation For in every City of Israel which had one hundred and twenty families or free persons say others they placed the Sanhedrim of twenty three And in every City which had not one hundred and twenty men in it they set the smallest Judicature of three Judges so be it there were but two wise men among them fit to teach the Law and resolve doubts See Aâ—nsworth on Numb 11.16 citing Talmud Bab. Maimonides more at large And doubtless many of our Country Villages and almost all our Parishes have more then 120. and every Country Village may come in in the lesser number below 120. which are to have three Elders and that say some was every place where were ten men And that these were under the great Sanhedrim at Ierusalem is nothing to the matter For so we confess that such particular Churches as we mention have some such General officers over them de jure as the Apostolical men were in the Primitive Church but not that any of these Synagogues were under other Synagogues though one were in a great City and the other but in a small Town And that these Synagogues were of Divine institution is plain in divers texts particularly in Lev. 23.1 2 3. where a convocation of holiness or a holy Convocation is commanded to be on every Sabboth in all their dwellings which most plainly could be neither the meeting at Ierusalem at the Temple nor yet in single families and therefore it is not to much purpose that many trouble themselves to conjecture when Synagogues began and some imagine it was about the Captivity For as their controversie can be but about the form of the meeting place or the name so its certain that some place there must be for such meetings and that the meetings themselves were in the Law commanded by God and that not to be tumultuary confused ungoverned Assemblies If the scourging in
Oratoriâ—s then one though their Altar were but one there namely where the Bishop was Die solis saith Justin Martyr omnium qui vel in oppidis vel ruri degunt in eundem locum conventus fit Namely as he there tells us to celebrate and participate the holy Eucharist Why was this but because they had not many places to celebâ—ate in and unless this were so whence came it else that a Schismatical Bishop was said constituere or collocare aliud Altare and that a Bishop and an Altar are made correlatives See S. Cyprian Epist. 40.72 73. de unit Eccles. And thus perhaps is Ignatius to be understood in that forequoted passage of his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Unum Altare omni Ecclesiae unus Episcopus cum Presbyterio Diaconis So far Mr. Mead. I hope upon the consent of so admirable a Critick and learned man it will not be so much blame-worthy in me if I speak somewhat the more confidently this way and say that I think that the main confusion and Tyranny that hath overspread the Churches hath been very much from the changing the Apostolical frame of Churches and setting up many Altars and Congregations under one Bishop in one pretended particular Church I had three or four passages ready to cite out of Ignatius but these are so express that I apprehend the rest the less necessary to be mentioned The next therefore that I shall mention shall be the forementioned words of Iustin Martyr Apol. 2 cited by Mr. Mead and by others frequently to this purpose In which I observe all these particulars full to the purpose 1. That they had but one Assembly each Lords day for Church communion for one Church 2. That this was for reading and prayer and the Eucharist 3. That the President who is commonly by those of the Episcopal judgement said to be here meant the Bâ—shop did preach and give thanks and administer the supper so that it was administred but to one Congregation as under that Bishop of that Church for he could not be in two places at once 4. That to the Absent the Deacons carried their portion after the consecration so that they had not another Meeting and Congregation by themselves for that end This is all so plain that I shall think it needeth no Vindication So that were there but these two Testimonies I should not marvail if Bishop Downam had extended his confession a little further when he acknowledgeth Dâ—f li. 2. cap. 6. page 104. that At the first and namely in the time of the Apostle Paul the most of the Churches so soon after their Conversion did not each of them exâ—eed the proportion of a populous Congregation And then we are not out in so interpreting the words of Paul and other writers of the holy Scripture The next that I shall mention whoever was or when ever he lived is Dionys. de Eccles. Hierarch cap. 4. where he tells us that the Praefect who was the Bishop if there were any did Baptize those that were converted and the Presbyters and Deacons did but assist him And abundance of work he mentioneth whâ—ch they had with all that they Baptized and they called all the Congregation together who joyned in Prayers with the Bishop at the Baptism All which shews that he was then the Bishop but of one particular Church which ordinarily Assembled together for publick worship For 1. If he had many such Churches or Congregations under him he could not be thus present to celebrate Baptism in them all Nor would one only be mentioned as his charge 2. Nor is it possible that one Bishop should with so long a way of Baptisme as is there described be able to Baptize all the persons in a Diocess such as ours or the twentieth part of them much less in those times when besides the Infants of Believers the most eminent sort of Baptism and greatest labour was about the multitudes of Adult Converts that by the Gospel were daily added to the Church Gregory Thaumaturgus was as by force made Bishop of Neocesarea and yet his whole Diocess or City had but seventeen â—hristians in it at his entrance though when he died he found upon enquiry but seventeen Pagans so great a change was made by the Gospel and by Miracles But by this Diocess of seventeen souls we may conjecture what the Churches were in those times though we should allow others to be an hundred times as great they would not be so great as the tenth part of many Parishes in England See the truth of this passage in Greg. Nissen Oratio in Greg. Thaumatur twice over he recites it And Basil. Mag. l. de Spir. Sanc. c. 19. And Roman Breviar Die 15. Novemb. And the Menolog Graec. mentioned before Greg. Neocesar works Printed ad Paris 1622. But I shall return to some before Gregory The next that I shall cite is Tertullian that well known place in his Apolog. c. 39. Corpus sumus de conscientia Religionis Discipline unitate spei federe Coimus in coetum Congregationem ut ad Deum quasi manu facta precationibus ambiamus orantes Cogimur ad divâ—narum literarum Commemorationem Certè fidem sanctis vocibus pascimus spem erigimus fiduciam figimus disciplinam praceptorum nihilominus inculcationibus densamus ibidem etiam exhortationes Castigationes censura Divina nam judicatur magno cum pondere ut apud certos de Dei conspectu summumque futuri judicii praejudicium est siquis ita deliquerit ut à communicatione Orationis conventus omnis sancti commercii relegetur Praesident probati quiq seniores c. If I be able to understand Tertullian it is here plain that each â—hurch consisted of one Congregation which assembled for Worship and Discipline at once or in one place and this Church was it that had Presidents or Seniors to guide them both in Worship and by Discipline So that if there were any more of these Assemblies in one particular Political Church then there were more Bishops then one or else others besides Bishops exercised this Discipline But indeed it s here plainly intimated that Bishops were then the Guides of Congregations single and not of Diocessâ—s consisting of many such I shall put Tertullians meaning out of doubt by another place and that is de Corona Militis cap. 3. Eucharistiae Sacramemtum in tempore victus omnibus mandatum à Domino etiam antelucanis ritibus nec de aliorum manu â—uam praesidentium sumimus And if they received this Sacrament of none but the Presidents and that every Lords day at least as no doubt they did then they could have no more Congregations in a Church then they had Presidents And though Pamelius say that by Presidents here is meant also Presbyters yet those that we now dispute against understand it of the Prelates And if they will not so do then may we will interpret the foresaid passage Apol. to be
in other passages of Scripture had the power of Ordination and that it belonged not only to the Apostles and Evangelists and such as they call Archbishops but that the fixed Bishops of particular Churches had it Sect. 3. The Minor I prove thus that our Ordination is by Scripture Bishops The Scripture Bishops were the Pastors of Particular Churches having no Presbyters subject to them Most of our Ordainers are such Pastors therefore most of our Ordainers are Scripture Bishops Sect 4. The Major is asserted at large by the foresaid 〈◊〉 Dr. H. H. Annot. in Art 11. b. p. 407. Where he shews 〈◊〉 though this title of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elders have been also 〈◊〉 second Order in the Church is now only in use for them under 〈◊〉 name of Presbyters yet in the Scripture times it belonged princâ—pally if not only to Bishops there being no evidence that any of 〈◊〉 second order were then instituted So that the Scripture Bishops were the Pastors of single Churches having no Presbyters under them for there were no inferiour Presbyters that had not the Power of Ordination instituted in those times This therefore may be taken as a granted truth Sect. 5. And that our Ordainers are such is commonly known 1. They are Pastors it is but few of the Prelates that denyed this They are Rectors of the People and have the Pastoral charge of souls 2. They are Pastors of Particular Churches 3. They have for the most part at least no subject or inferiour Presbyters under them therefore they are Scripture Bishops Sect. 6. Object The difference lyeth in another point The Scripture Bishops had the Power of Ordination Your Pastors have not the Power of Ordination thereefore they are not the same Answ. That is the thing in Question I am proving that they have the power of Ordination thus In Scripture times all single Pastors of single Churches had the Power of Ordination there being no other instituted But our Ordainers are the single Pastors of single Churches and of Christs institution therefore they have the Power of Ordination If the Pastors now are denyed to be such as were instituted in Scripture times 1. Let them shew who did institute them and by what authority 2. The sole Pastors of particular Churches were instituâ—ed in Scripture times But such are ours in question therefore c. Sect. 7. There is no sort of Pastors lawfull in the Church but what were instituted in Scripture times But the sort of Pastors now in question are lawfull in the Church therefore they were instituted in Scripture times The Minor will be granted us of all those that were Ordained by Prelates They would not Ordain men to an office which they thought unlawful The Major is proved thus No sort of Pastors are lawful in the Church but such of whom we may have sufficient evidence that they were instituted by Christ or his Apostles But we can have sufficient evidence of none but such as were instituted in Scripture times that they were instituted by Christ or his Apostles therefore no other sort is lawfull The Major is proved in that none but Christ and such as he committed it to have power to institute new Holy Offices for Worship in the Church But Christ hath committed this to none but Apostles if to them therefore c. Whether Apostles themselves did make any such new Office I will not now dispute but if they did 1. It was by that special Authority which no man since the planting of the Churches by them can lay claim to or prove that they have 2. And it was by that extraordinary guidance and inspiration of the Holy Ghost which none can manifest to have been since that time communicated Sect. 8. Moreover if there were a Power of instituting new Offices in the Church since Scripture times it was either in a Pope in Councils or in single Pastors But it was in none of these not in a Pope for there was no such Creature of long time after much less with this authority Not in a Council For 1. None such was used 2. None such is proved 3. Else they should have it still Not in every Bishop as will be easily granted Sect. 9. If such a Power of instituting New Church-Offices were after Scripture times in the Church then it is ceased since or continueth still Not ceased since For 1. The Powers or officers then lâ—â—t continue still therefore their authority continueth still 2. There is no proof that any such temporary power was given to any since Scripture times Nor doth any such continue still Otherwise men might still make us more New Offices and so we should not know when we have done nor should we need to look into Scripture for Christs will but to the will of men Sect. 10. Argument 2. No men since Scripture times had power to change the Institutions of Christ and the Apostles by taking down the sort of Pastors by them established and setting up another sort in their stead But if there be lawful Pastors of particular Churches that have not power of Ordination then men had power to make such a change For the sort of Pastors then instituted were such as had but one Church and were themselves personally to guide that Church in actual Worship and had the power of Ordination and there was no subject Presbyters nor no single Pastors that had not the Power of Ordination All single Pastors of particular Churches had that Poâ—er then But all or almost all such single Pastors of particular Churches are by the Dissenters supposed to be without that Power now Therefore it is by them supposed that Christs form of Church Government and sort of Officers are changed and consequently that men had power to change them for they suppose it lawfully done Sect. 11. Argument 3. The Pastors of City Churches may ordain especially the sole or chief Pastors Many of our present Ordainers are the Pastors of City Churches and the sole or chief Pastors in some Places therefore they may Ordain The Major is proved from the doctrine of the Dissenters which is that every City Church should have a Bâ—shop and that every Bishop is the chief and sometimes only Pastor of a City Church If they say that yet every Pastor though the sole Pastor of a City Church is not a Bishop I answer that then they will infer the same power of changing Scripture Institutions which I mentioned and disproved before Let them prove such a Power if they can Sect. 12. The Minor is undenyable and seen de facto that many of our Ordainers are such Pastors of City Churches and that of two sorts some of such Cities as have both the Name and Nature of Cities And some of such Cities as have truly the nature but in our English custom of speech have not the name such as are all Corporations in the several Market Towns of England Sect. 13. Argument 4. Those Pastors that have Presbyters
to the end of the world in a way of assistance and owning of our Labours answerable to our engagements for him and service to him Were we deeplier engaged for Christ and did with Peter cast our selves into the Sea or walk on the Waters at his Call we should find Christ acting as if he were answerably engaged for our indemnity or at least for our eminent encouragement and reward If ever we might expect Miracles again it would be upon our engagement in the antient work though I know that even for this they are now no more necessary nor I think promised § 18. And 10. We do hereby seem to accuse Christ unjustly of Mutability supposing that he had setled one sort of Ministry and Government in his Church for one Age only and then changed it for another that is ever after to continue alone I know the extraordinary work of that age to plant Churches by new doctrine and Miracles and reveal the new Articles of Faith and Practice in Scripture to the world did require such enablements thereto which ordinary works do not require and therefore the Apostles as immediatly sent and as inditing Scriptures and working Miracles and Prophetically bringing new Revelations have no Successors But the Apostles as preaching to the Nations and as planting Churches and as setling them and taking care of their prosperity after they had planted them and as exercising their Ministry itinerantly as not fixed to a special charge thus they have Successors the work being ordinary and such as should be done now as well as then and must continue while the necessity of it doth continue § 19. There needeth no other proof of this then by observing that it was not Apostles only but all the Ministry at first that was thus unfixed and itinerant and that the Apostles assumed such to their assistance and employed them all their dayes in this work § 20. The seventy Disciples as well as the Apostles were at first by Christ sent forth in this Itinerant way for the Conversion of the inhabitants of Iudaea And thus Iohn the Baptist had preached before them And after Christs Resurrection and Ascension it was not only the Apostles but it was they that were scattered abroad that went everywhere preaching the Word Act. 8.4 And who were these Act. 8.1 They were all scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judaea and Samaria except the Apostles And the Evangelists of those times are confessed to have exercised this Itinerant Ministry so did Barnabas Silas Mark Epaphroditus Tychicus Trophimus Timothy Titus Luke and others ordinarily It was the first and most ordinary way then of exercising the Ministry § 21. And if we lived our selves in Heathen or Infidel Countreys we should be soon taught by experience that this must be still an ordinary work For what else is to be done till persons be converted and brought into the Church They must be made Disciples before they can be used as Disciples and caught to observe all things that Christ hath commanded § 22. But against this it is objected 1. That the Apostles were extraordinary Officers and therefore have no Successors To which I answer 1. That I have before shewed in what they were extraordinary and in what not in what they have no Successors and in what they have As Apostles sent immediatly by Christ to Reveal a new doctrine and confirm it by Miracles they have no Successors but as general Ministers of Christ to convert souls plant Churches and take a care of many they have Successors call them by what name you please 2. And what if the Apostles have no Successors Had the seventy Disciples none Had Apollo Titus Timothy Silas Barnabas c. none Had all the Itinerant converting Ministers of those times none that were not affixed as Pastors to a particular Church § 23. Obj. 2. But at least in the extent of their charge the Apostles were extraordinary in that they were to preach the Gospel to all Nations I answer in point of exercise being furnished with tongues and Miracles for the work they were obliged to go further or to more Nations then most particular Ministers are now obliged to go but that is not because we want Authority if we had ability and opportunity but because we want ability and opportunity to exercise our Office The Apostles were not bound to go into every Nation of the world inclusively but to avoid none but go to all that is to as many as they could Otherwise they had sinned in not going to Mexico Peru Brasile the Philippine or Molucc◠Islands to Iapon China c. And it is our duty to extend our Ministry for the Conversion of as many as we have Ability and opportunity to do That which was common to the planting and waetering Ministry in the Apostles dayes was not proper to the Apostles but to go up and down the world to Convert and Baptize and plant and water Churches was then common to such as Apollo Silas c. therefore c. § 24. Obj. 3. But say others the Apostles were not at last such unfixed Ministers as you imagine but fixed Diocesan Bishops Peter was Bishop of Antioch first and of Rome after Paul was Bishop of Rome James of Jerusalem c. Ans. That any Apostle was a fixed Bishop taking on him durante vita the special Pastoral charge of one particular Church or Diocess as his peculiar is 1. Barely affirmed and therefore not to be believed 2. And is contrary both to the tenor of their Commission and the History of their Ministrations And 3. Is also contrary to Charity it self and therefore is not worthy of any credit The Apostles were not so lazy or uncharitable as to affix themselves to Parishes or Diocesses and leave the Nations of the world in their unbelief and to cease the work that they were first sent out upon before the necessity of it ceased Peter and Paul were Bishops of Rome as they were of other Churches which they planted and watered and no more even as Paul was Bishop of Ephesus Philippi Corinth c. And Iames was either no Bishop of Ierusalem or no Apostle but as many think another Iames. Indeed pro tempore not only an Apostle but other Itinerant Ministers were Bishops of the places where they came that is were Officers of Christ that might exercise any act of their Office Teaching Governing administring Sacraments c. to any people that gave them a Call or so far as opportunity and need required And so I doubt not but every Minister now may do in any Church on earth If he be invited to stay a day or week or month among them and do the work of a Minister yea or if he be invited but to preach a Sermon to them he may do it not as a private man but as a Minister in general and as their Teacher or Pastor pro tempore ad hoc that give him the invitation For though the first Call to
granted that are unlawfully and upon mistake desired § 37. Lastly understand also that when I speak of yielding to this Negative voice in Ordination to the President of such an Association I intend not to exclude the Presbyterie of a particular Church where it is sufficient from the said Power and exercise of Ordination of which I am to speak in the the following Chapter which is of the President of such a Presbyterie CHAP. IV. It is Lawful for the Presbyters of a particular Church to have a fixed President during life § 1. I Come now to the most Ancient fixed Bishop that the Church was acquainted with except the meer Episcopus Gregis the Overseer of the flock and that is A President of many Elders in one particular Church The Diocesan Bishop was long after this The first Bishops if you will call them so in the Church were the first mentioned Itinerant Bishops that were sent abroad to convert souls and gather Churches and afterward took care to water and confirm them The next sort of Bishops and the first so called were the fixed Pastors of particular Churches that cannot be proved to have any superiority over Presbyters The third sort of Bishops in time and the first fixed Bishops that were superiours to other Pastors were these Presidents of the Presbyteries of particular Churches And these are they that now we have to speak of And I shall prove that it is not unlawful to have such § 2. But first I must tell you what I mean and shew you that such may be had among us I have in one of the former Disputations defined a particular Câ—urch It should ordinarily consist of no more then may hold personal Communion together in Gods publick Worship But yet take notice 1. That it tendeth to the strength and honour of it that it be not too small but consisting of as many as are well capable of the Ends. 2 And it is lawfull for these to have some other meeting places for part of the Church besides the principal place which is for the whole Chappels of ease may lawfully be made use of for the benefit of the weak and lame and aged that cannot alwayes or often come to the common Assembly And where such Chappels are not it is lawfull to make use of convenient houses Yea if there were no Place to be had sufficiently capacious of a full Assembly or else if persecution forbad them to meet it might still be but one Church though the members met in several houses ordinarily as five hundred in one and three hundred in another or one hundred only in several places every one going to which house he pleased and having several Pastors that in Society and by Consent did guide them all But though somewhat disorderly may be born with in cases of Necessity yet 1. As it is Necessary to the Ends and so to the Being of a particular Church that they be a Society capable of personal Communion and the personal Teaching Guidance and Oversight of the same Pastors So 2. It is desirable as much tending to Order and Edification that all of them that are able do frequently meet in one Assembly for the Worshipping of God with one heart and mouth And this is the Church I speak of § 3. It is not of Necessity to the Being of such a particular Church that it have more Pastors then one And when one only is the Pastor or Governour that one alone may do all the works of a Pastor or Governour For what else is his Office but the state or Relation of a man obliged and authorized to do such works The Learned Dr. H. H. thinketh that the Apostles planted none in Scripture times but single Pastors or Bishops called also Presbyters in every Church with Deacons under them without any other Presbyters subject or assistant over that Church This I conceive cannot be proved nor so much as the probability of it nay I think at least a probability if not a certainty of the contrary may be proved of some Churches But yet it is most likely that it was so with many Churches And reason tells us that the thing being in it self indifferent was suted by the Apostles to the state of the particular Churches that they planted A small Church might well have a single Pastor when a large Church especially in times of persecution when they must assemble in several houses at once required more Some places might have many persons fit for the Office and some but one Which cases must needs have some Variety § 4. Where there are more Pastors in such a Church then one I know of no Necessity that one should have any superiority over another nor can I prove that it was so from the beginning Some Divines of the Prelatical Judgement think that this was an Ordinance of the Apostles at the first planting of such Churches Others of them think that it was of their appointment but not actually existent till after Scripture times Others of them think that as Hierom saith it began when factions rose in the Church not by Divine Ordination but Ecclesiastical agreement for the preventing or cure of schism § 5. The first Church that we find it in in History is that of Alexandria And Alexandria was a place exceedingly given to sedition tumults and divisions the contentions between Cyril and Orestes the murder of Hypatia by Peter and his company the assault made upon Orestes by Ammonius the other Nitrian Monks and many such feats in the dayes of Theophilus Dionysius and up to the beginning do shew what they were And Socrates saith of them expresly li. 7. cap. 13. that The people of Alexandria above all other men are given to Schism and contention for if any quarrel arise at any time among them presently hainous and horrible offences use to follow and the tumult is never appeased without great blood-shed such were the Alexandrians § 6. But yet it is certain that the Original of this custom of setting up one as President or chief Presbyter in a particular Churâ—h cannot be found out so as to say by whom and when it was first brought in But if it began upon the death of Mark at Alexandria it must needs be long before the death of Iohn the Apostle in that Church what ever other Churces did But it seems that there was then a difference and indifferency in this point and that other Churces did not presently imitate the Churches of Alexandria and Rome herein He that reads Clemens Epistle to the Corinthians without partiality I think will be of Grotius mind before cited Epist. ad Gal. ad Bignon that Clemens knew not any such Prelacy among the Corinthians when he wrote that Epistle And so we may say of some other Witnesses and Churches in those times and afterwards in many places § 7. It is not another Order of Ministers or Office that was in such Churches distinct from the Presbyters that assisted them
was no Grotian or he was a Papist Again I profess that it is far from the desire of my soul to raise so much as the least suspicion on any that own not the Doctrine and Design of Grotius Disclaim it and we are satisfied Dr. Heylin was taken for as hot an antipuritan as most in England and yet in a moderate Letter to me he disclaimeth Grotianism which I mention partly lest any by my naming him on another occasion in that Book misconceive me to have accused him of this and principally to discourage the defenders of Grotius when such men as Dr. Heylin and Dr. Steward are against them The CONTENTS DISPUATION 1. WHether it be Necessary or Profitable to the right Order or the Peace of the Churches of England that we restore the extruded Episcopacy Neg. Peace with Episcopal Divines to be sought pag. 2 3. The Nature of Church-Government opened pag. 5. to 14. Twelve sorts of Bishops to be distinguished pag. 14 15. Which of these may be admitted for Peace pag. 16. Vnfixed General Ministers to do the Ordinary part of the Apostles work are to be continued proved pag. 21 22. What Power Apostles had over other Ministers p. 23 to 30. The Authors Concessions for Episcopacy pag. 30 31. Arguments against the English Prelacy 1. It destroyeth Government and its end pag. 32. 2. It gratifieth Satan and wicked men pag. 36. 3. It unavoidably causeth divisions pag. 37. 4. It suspendeth or degradeth all the Presbyters pag. 38. 5. It maketh Lay men Church-governors 6. And oppresseth the Bishops with guilt pag. 44. 7. It is the product of pride pag. 45. 8. It gratifieth lazy Ministers pag. 46. 9. It is not of Gods Institution pag. 48. 10. 〈◊〉 is contrary to Gods word pag 51. 11. It is unsafe as never used in Scripture times How fully the supposition is granted us pag. 58 59. Many Reasons proving that the Apostles who de facto are confessed by Dr. H. to have setled no subject Presbyters in Scripture times but one Bishop over one stated Congregation intended not the changing of this Order afterwards pag 63. to 74 c. More Arguments that Diocesan Bishops are no Scripture-Bishops pag 75. They are contrary to the Iewish and Apostolical Government pag. 76 77. Proved by two Arguments more pag. 83 84. The Confession of Episcopal writers pag. 85 86. Against Diocesan Bishops of many Churches the Testimony of Clemens Romanus p. 87. with Grotius's exposition pag 88. Of Polycarps and Ignatius who is full against them pag. 88. Of Iustin Martyr and Gregory Neocaesaâ—iensis pag. 92 93. Tertullian pag. 93 94. Of Clemens Alexandr and from the late division of Parishes pag. 96. Ninius testimony cited by Mr. Thorndike of 365. Bishopricks planted by Patrick in Ireland pag. 96 97. More cited by Usher pag. 97. The Testimonies of Councils pag. 98. to 103. Many weighty Consequents of the proved point pag. 103. DISPUTATION 2. THose who Nullifie our present Ministry and Churches which have not the Prelatical Ordination and teach the people to do the like do incur the guilt of grievous sin A Preface to the Dissenters pag. 109. One Letter of a Minister of another County that openeth the Necessity of this Disputation pag. 127. Chap. 1. A Minister of Christ defined pag. 130. Whether special Grace be Necessary to the being of a Minister pag. 130 131. What Qualifications are Necessary pag. 132. Ministers Christs Officers pag. 133. Must be separated to the work pag. 134. Who are the true objects of the Ministry pag. 134 c. Whether the Pastors or Church be first p. 136. Whether a particular Church or the Vniversal be first ibid. The Pastors work in a particular Church p. 137. How far Intention is Necessary to the Validity of an administration p. 138. A Call to exercise after a Call to Office p. 139. Chap. 2. Of the Nature and Ends of Ordination shewing what it is that is the Ordainers work and what not p. 141. Chap. 3. Humane Ordination not of Constant Necessity to the Being of the Ministry fully proved p. 150. Chap. 4. An uninterrupted Succession of Regular Ordination is not of Necessity p. 168. proved Chap. 5. Ordination by such as the English Prelates not Necessary to the Being of the Ministry proved p. 178. Objections Answered Chap 6. Ordination especially at this time by English Prelates is unnecessary p. 190. Chap. 7. The Ordination used now in England and in other â—rotestant Churches is valid and agreeable to Scripture and the practice of the antient Church p. 198. fully proved and so our Ministry vindicated by twenty Arguments Chap. 8. The greatness of their sin that are now labouring to perswade the people of the Nullity of our Ministry Churches and Administrations Manifested in forty aggravations p. 240. Chap. 9. The sinfulness of despising or neglecting Ordination p. 252. The distinct power of Pastors People and Magistrates to our Call p. 253. Approbation of Pastors must be sought p. 258. What Pastors should be sought to for Ordination p. 266. DISPUTATION 3. AN Episcopacy desirable for the Reformation Preservation and Peace of the Churches p. 274. Chap. 1. Of General unfixed Bishops or Ministers p. 275. Chap. 2. Of fixed Pastors that also participate in the work of the unfixed p. 286. Chap. 3. It is lawful for the several Associations of Pastors to choose one man to be their President durante vita if he continue fit p. 297. What power shall such have p. 301. Chap. 4. It is lawful for the Presbyters of a particular Church to have a fixed President for life p. 307. Chap. 5. Objections against the forementioned Presidency answered p. 316. Chap. 6. The summ of the foregoing Propositions and the Consistency of them with the principles of each party and so their aptitude to reconcile p. 335. Chap 7. Some Instances proving that moderate men will agree upon the forementioned terms p. 339. Bishop Hâ—lls full Consent p. 340 341. Dr. Hide of the new party stigmatizeth his book with the brand of irrational Separatism and Recusancy p. 342 343. Bishop Usheâ—s full Consent to us p. 344. with Dr. Holdâ—worths and Dr. Forbs The Presbyterians Consent to the same terms Mr. Gaâ—akers Mr. Gerees the London Province Beza's Calvins Mr. Rich. Vines in two Letters Bishops can have no other power over Pastors of other Churches then the Synods have p. 347 348. Presbyterians for a Church of one Congregation p. 348. The Polonian Protestants Government p. 353. DISPUTATION 4. WHether a stinted Liturgy or Form of worship be a desirable means for the peace of these Churches Proposition 1. A stinted Liturgy is in it self lawful p. 359. Prop. 2. A stinted Liturgy in some parts of publick holy service is ordinarily necessary p. 365. Prop. 3. In those parts of publick worship where a form is not of ordinary necessity but only Lawful yet may it not only be submitted to but desired when the peace of the Church doth accidentally require it p. 367. Prop.
belong to the Office of a Presbyter when yet he might not exercise it The Bishops in the Ordination of Presbyters enabled them to preach the Gospel And yet they were after that forbidden to preach till they had a License and it was put into the Visitation Articles to present those Ministers that preached without License If they will deny us the exercise of the Power that they first confess belongeth to our Office we are not answerable for their self-contradictions 2. By Discipline I suppose they mean but our Instruction and our publishing their Orders for Penance Excommunication or Absolution 3. They were the Judges of the sense of the Laws as far as the executâ—on required And the Vniversal Practice of England with their writings shewed us to our cost their judgement What good would it do us if the Law had been on our side while the Concurrent Iudgement and Practice of the Governors denyed it and went against it 4. He that had kept a man from the Sacrament according to the plain words of the Rubrick was to have been accountable for it at their Courts and so likely if he had been a man of serious piety and not a persecutor of Puritans to have been undone by it and was like to make so little of it as to the Ends of Discipline all men being compelled by the Presentments to receive the Sacrament that I never knew one to my best remembrance in 25 years time that I lived under the Bishops that was kept from the Sacrament except a Puritan that scrupled to take it kneeling And what was this to true Church-Government Sect. 17. Object But either they did it according to the established Law or not If they did the fault was in the Law and not in them If they did transgress the Law then the fault was in mens abuse and the Law and Order cannot be blamed Answ. A sad case to poor ignorant miserable souls that they must be left in obstinacy and deprived of Gods means of Reformation without Remedy because either the Law or Iudges must be excused The Iudges are the mouth of the Law to us that is Law in the issue to us which they unanimously call Law If the fault were in the Law it was time it should be altered if it was in the Bishops universally it was time they should be altered Let us but have a Remedy and enjoy Gods Ordinances which he that is the Churches Head and King hath appointed for our benefit and we have done Sect. 18. Object But may not Bishops when they Ordain Delegate what measure of Ministerial Power they please and if you never received more why should you use it Answ. A poor relief to the forsaken Church Deprive her of Government and then tell us that we had no power Is the Power desirable to us if the Ordinance were not desirable to the Church 2. What Power have Bishops and whence did they receive it to change the Office of Christs institution or his Apostles If so they may turn the three Orders which the Papists themselves say the Pope cannot alter into as many more Then they may create an Office for Baptizing only and another for the Lords Supper only and another for praying only and so of the rest which is worse then making Lay-elders or then taking away the Cup in the Sacrament Hath Christ by his Spirit instituted Church-offices and are they now at the Bishops power to transform them 3. If they had power to distribute the work in the exercise part to one and part to another yet they have no power to deprive the particular Churches of the whole or any part but one or more must do it and the Office must be the same and the power exercised to the edification and not the confusion and corruption of the Church Sect. 19. Object But the Keys were given only to the Apostles and not to the seventy Disciples nor to Presbyters Answ. 1. If the seventy were only Disciples and not Church-officers the Ancients and the English Bishops have been much mistaken that have so much urged it that Presbyters succeed them as Bishops do the Apostles But if they be Officers then they have the Keys 2. The Episcopal Divines even the Papists commonly confess that part of the Keys are given to the Presbyters and Christ gave them together 3. Were they given only to Apostles for themselves or to convey to others If to themselves only then no one hath them now If to convey to others then either to Apostles only as their Successors but there 's none such or to Patriarchs or Primates or Metropolitans or Archbishops only but none of this will please the Bishops or to Bishops only which I grant taking Bishops in the Scripture sense And I desire to see it proved that it was not a presumptuous Innovation in them whosoever they were that after the days of the Apostles Ordained a new sort of Presbyters in the Church that should have no power of the Keys 4. They that must use the Keys must have Power to use them But Parish Bishops must use them as the nature and necessity of the work doth prove Therefore Parish Bishops must have the Power If only one man in a Diocess of an hundred or two hundred Churches shall have the power of the Keys we may know after all the talk of Discipline what Discipline to expect Sect. 20. Object Why blame you Lay-chancellors Registers Proctors c. when you set up Lay-elders we are as well able to call Chancellors Ecclesiastical as you can call Lay-elders so Answ. I never pleaded for Lay-elders If other men erre will it justifie your error But I must tell you an unordained man in a single Parish having power only to assist the Pastor in Government is far unlike a Lay-Court to Govern all the Churches of a Diocess Sect. 21. Object Do not your Arguments against Bishops for excluding Discipline make as much for the casting out of Ministers of whom you complain in your Reformed Pastor for neglect of Discipline Ans. 1. The Nature of Prelacy as set up in England â—here only one man had the Government of so many Churches unavoidably excludeth it if the best men were Bishops till it be otherwise formed But the nature of a Parochial Episcopacy is fitted to promote it 2. Those Presbyters that I blamed for neglecting the higher acts of Discipline do yet keep away more prophane persons from the Lords Supper in some one Church then ever I knew kept away in all places under the Prelates 3. If Ministers sinfully neglect Discipline yet as Preachers and Guides in publick worship c. they are of unspeakable need and value to the Church But few Bishops of England preached ordinarily And 4. We are desirous that Bishops shall continue as Preachers but not as Diocesan excluders of Parochial Church-Discipline Sect. 22. Object By pretending to agree with them that say there were no Presbyters in Scripture times you would put down
were Churches And the Text saith that they ordained them Elders in every Church or Church by Church and therefore Cenchrea being a Church must have such Elders ordained to it according to the Apostles Rule And that it was a Parish with one Presbyter subject to Corinth is all unproved and therefore to no purpose 5. Yet I prove that the English Prelacy on their own grounds is not Iure Divino in that it is against the word of God according to their own interpretation of which next Argum. 10. THat Episcopacy which is contrary to the wâ—rd of God or Apostolical Institution according to their own interpretation is not to be restored But such is the late English Episcopacy therefore c. I prove the Minor for the Major needeth none according to their own interpretation of Tit. 1.5 and other Texts Every City should have a Bishop and if it may be a Presbytery And so many Councils have determined only when they grew greater they except Cities that were too small but so did not Paul But the late Episcopacy of England is contrary to this for one Bishop only is over many Cities If therefore they will needs have Episcopacy they should at least have had a Bishop in every City and though we do not approve of confining them to Cities yet this would be much better then as they were for then 1. They would be nearer their charges and within reach of them 2. And they would have smaller charges which they might be more capable of overseeing for there would be ten or twenty Bishops â—or one that be now If they say that except Bath and Wells Coventry and Licâ—fiâ—ld or some few they have but one City I answer it s not so For every Corporation or Burrough-Town is truly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and therefore should have a Bishop Let them therefore either prove that a Market-Town a Burrough a Corporation is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or else let every one of these Towns and Burroughs have a Bishop to govern that Town with the Neighbouring Villages by the consent and help of the Presbyters of these Vilâ—ages according to their own grounds And if it were so they would be no more then Classical Bishops at most Perhaps they 'le say that while we pretend to take down Bishops we do but set up more and would have many for one while we would have every Corporation or Parish to have a Bishop To which I answer its true but then it is not the same sort of Bishops which we would exclude and which we would multiply we would exclude those Bishops that would undertake two or three hundred mens work themselves and will rule a whole Diocess alone or by a Lay Chancellor when every conscionable man that hath faithfully tryed it doth feel the oversight of one Congregation to be so great a burden that it makes him groan and groan again We would exclude those Bishops that would exclude all others in a whole Diocess that they may do the work alone and so leave it undone while they plead that it belongs to them to do it If they will come into the Lords Harvest and exclude from the work of Government the Labourers of a whole County or two we have reason to contradict them But this is not to bring in more such Bishops as they that will shut out others but to keep in the necessary labouring Bishops whom they would shut out Nor do we shut out them themselves as Labourers or Rulers but as the excluders of the Labourers or Rulers If we have a Church to build that requireth necessarily two hundred workmen and some Pillars in it to Erect of many hundred tun weight if one of the workmen would say that it belongs to him to do it all himself or at least when the materials are brought to the place prepared to rear and order and place every stone and pillar in the building I would no oâ—herwise exclude the vain pretender then by introducing necessary help that the work may be done and I should think him a silly Civiller â—hat would tell me that while I exclude him I do â—ut multiply such as he when his every fault consisted in an hinderance of that necessary multiplication I know that some will say that we feign more work then is to be done and we would have the sentence of Excommunication pass upon every light offence I answer that its a thing that we abhor we would have none Excommunicated but for obstinacy in hainous sin when they will not hear the Church after more private admonition But there 's much more of the work of Government to be done on men that are not Excommunicable to bring them to Repentance and open confession for manâ—feâ—â—aâ—ion of that Repentance to the satisfaction of the Church but what need we plead how great the work is which every man may see before his eyes and experience putteth beyond dispute Furthermore that the English Episcopacy is dissonant from all Scripture Episcopacy I prove thus The Scripture knoweth but two sorts of Episcopacy the one General unfixed as to any Church or Country or Nation which was not called Episcopacy in the first times the other â—ixed Overseers of determinate Churches appropriated to their special charge these were called Bishops in those times whereas the former were some called Apostles from their immediate mission and exâ—raordinarâ— Priviledges or Evangelists or Fellow labourers and heâ—pers of the Apostles or by the like titles signifying their unlimited indeterminate charge But our English Bishops are neither of these therefore not any of Scripture appointment but different from them 1. They are not of the Apostolical Order of General Ministers for 1. Their principal work was Preaching to convert and congregate and then order Churches but our Bishops seldom preached for the most part 2. They were not tyed to any particular Church more then other save only as prudence directed them pâ—o tempore re nat for the succeâ—s of their work for the Church Unâ—veâ—sâ—l nor were they excluded or restrained from any part of the world as being another mans Diocess save only as prudence might direct them for the common good to distribute themselves pro tempore This is apparenâ— 1. by Christs Commission who sendeth them into all the world only by certain advantages and particular calls sitting Peâ—er more for the Circumcision and Paul for the Uncircumcision when yet both Petâ—r and Paul and all the rest did preach and look to both Circumcision and Uncircumcision 2. By the History of their peregrinations and labours which shew that they were not so fixed whatever some writers may ungroundedly affirm Eusâ—bius discrediting by fabulous mixtures the lighter sort of his Testimonies and censured by some rejection by Gelasius and others and some with him do tell us of some such things as some Apostles being fixed Bishops but with no such proofs as should satisfie a man that weighs the contrary
acres of Land and not by the number of souls whereas they should have done as the Bee-hives do when they are ready to swarm so that the old hive cannot contain them all the swarm removes and seeks them another habitation and makes them a New hive of their own So when a Church grows big enough for two Churches one part should remove to another meeting place and they should become two Churches and the later be of the same sort as the former and as free and not become subject to the former as if men had right to be Rulers of others because they were Converted before them or because they dwell in a walled City and others in the Villages This Error therefore was no contrived or suddain thing but crept on by degrees as Countries were Converted and Churches enlarged we are agreed therefore de facto that it was otherwise in the Apostles daies and that soon after in some places it came to that pass as the Prelates would have it in some degree But whether the Apostles were willing of the change is the Question between us we deny it and expect their better proof And till they prove it we must needs take it for our duty to imitate that Government which themselves confess was only practised in Scripture times supposing this the safest way BUt yet though the proof lye on their part who affirm the Apostles to have had such Intentions that Pastors of single Congregations should afterward become the Pastors of many I shall ex super abundanti give them some Reasons for the Negative 1. And first we are most certain that the holyest Pastors of the Church had so much Pride and Ambition that might possibly make them guilty of such a mistake as tended to the â—ncrease of their own power and rule We find even the twelve Apostles contending in Christs own presence for the Primacy till he is put sharpâ—ly to rebuke them and tell them the Necessity of humility and teach them better the state of his Kingdom Paul met with many that contended against him for a preheminence and put him upon all those defences of the dignity of his Apostleshipâ— which we find him using Peter found it necessary to warn the Pastors that they should not Lord it over Gods Heritage And Iohn did meet with a Lording Diotrephes that loved to have the preheminence While they lay under the Cross the Bishops were aspiring and usurping authority over one another or else Victor of Rome had not presumed to Excommunicate the Asian Bishops for not conforming to his opinion What abundance of unworthy contentions did the Bishops of the first ages fill the Churches with and much about superiority who should be greatest what should be the priviledges of their several Seas c. Their pride no doubt was a great cause of their contention and those contentions necessitated the interposition of Emperors to reconcile them that could not agree of themselves If the Emperors called a Council to that end even the Council it self would fall to pieces and make all worse if the Magistrate did not moderate them Had not Constantine burnt the Nicene Schedules and done much to maintain an Union among them the success of that Council might have been such as would have been no great encouragement to succeeding ages to seek for more What bitter quarrels are there between the most eminent of all the Fathers and Bishops of the Church between Chrysostom and Epiphanius Chrysostom and Theophilus Alexandrinus Hierom and Iohn of Ierusalem Ierome and Ruffinus besides his quarrels with Chrysostom and Augustine I open not the concealed nakedness of the Saints but mention those publike doleful tragedies which made the Church an amazement to it self and a scorn to the Heathens that lived about them witness the well known censure of Ammianus Marcellinus when so many people shall be murdered at once in contention for a Bishoprick as were at the choice of Damasus ambition was too predominant The mentioning of the contentions of those most excellent Bishops and the first four general Councils makes Luther break out into so many admiring exclamations in his Treatise de Conciliis that ever such men should so ambitiously quarrel about toyes and trifles and childish things and that even to the disturbing of all the Churches and setting the Christian world on a flame Of the two Churches of Rome and Constantinople he saith Ita hae â—uae Ecclesiae ambitiose râ—â—atae sunt de re nihili vanissimis nugacissimis naeniis doneâ—â—â—ndem utraque horribiliter vastata deleta est pag. 175. This caused Nazianzen who complaineth so much himself of the â—dium or displeasure of his fellow Bishops to profess himself to be so affected that he would avoid all Assemblies of Bishops because he had never seen a good end of any Synod and which did not rather increase the evils than remove them and his reason is not as Bâ—llarmine feigneth only because they were all Arrians but because The desire of contending and of preheminency or principality and their emulation did overcome reason which Luther mentioning ib. pag. 225. wondereth that for these words he was not excommunicated as an arrant heretick Who knoweth not that knoweth any thing of Church history how the Church hath been torn in pieces in all ages except the first by the dissention of the Bishops till the Pope drew part of them to unite in him And who knoweth not that knoweth any thing of the present state of the Christian world into how many fractions it is broken at this day and almost all through the Division of these Guides If therefore we shall imagine that the Pastors of the Church could not be tainted with so much ambition as to inlarge their own Diocesses and gather the new Chuches under themselves when they should have formed them into the same order and freedom as were the first we shall shut our eyes against the most full experience of the Christian world especially when the change was made by degrees 2. The second Reason that perswadeth me to stick to the sole practised Government in Scripture times and not to alter it upon pretended Intentions of the Apostles is this Nothing that intimateth temerity or mutability is to be charged upon the Holy Ghost but to institute one frame or species of Church-government for Scripture times and to change it presently into another species to all succeeding ages doth intimate temerity or mutability or at least is so like it that therefore without good proof it is not to be charged on the Holy Ghost That they are two distinct species of Government is plain one is the Government of a Particular Congregation without any other Congregations or Elders under that Government the other is the Governing of many Elders and Churches by one supereminent Prelate and if these be not two differing sorts of Government then let the Prelates confess that the Government which we would continue is of the same
no necessiâ—y and the Non-necessity is but preâ—ended First it is preâ—eâ—â—ed that there were so few fit men that there was a Necessity of forbâ—arance But this is not so For 1. The Church had larger gifts of the Spirit then then now and therefore proportionable to the flocks they might have had competent men then as well as now 2. They had men enough to make Deacons of even sâ—ven in a 〈◊〉 And who will believe then that they could find none to make such Elders of Was not Stephen or Philip sufficiently qualified to have been a subject Elder 3. They had many that prophesied and interpreted and spake with tongues in one Assembly as appears 1 Cor. 14. And therefore its manâ—fâ—st that there were enough to have made Ruled Elders At least sure the Church at Ierusalem where there were so many thousands would have afforded them one such if it had been requisite But secondly its pretended not to have been Necessary because of the fewness of the people But I answer 1. The same persons say that in Ignatius his time all Churches had such Presbyters And its manifest that many Churches in the Scripture times were more populous or large then many or most beside them were in Ignatius time 2. Did the numerous Church at Ierusalem ordinarily meet on the Lords dayes for holy communion or not If they did then it was but a Church of one Congregation which is by most denyed If not then the several Assemblies must have several Presbyters for several Bishops they will not hear of Doubtless they did not celebrate the holy communion of the Church and Ordinances of God by meer Lay-men alone 3. What man that knows the burden of Pastoral Oversight can say that such Churches of thousands as Ierusalem Rome Alexandria c. had need of no more than one man to Teach them and do all the Pastoral work and so that assisting Ruled Presbyters were then needless If they were needless to such numerous Churches then let us even take them for needless still and set up no new orders which were not seen in Scripture times Reas. 8. The Apostles left it not to the Beshops whom they established to make new Church-offices and orders quoad speciem but only to ordain men to succeed others in the offices and orders that themselves had by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost appointed or else Christ before them A Bishop might make a Bishop or a Deacon perhaps because these were quoad speciem made before and they were but to put others into the places before appointed But if there were no such creature in Scripture times as a subject Presbyter that had no power of Ordination and Jurisdiction then if the Bishops afterward should make such they must make a new office as well as a new officer So that either this new Presbyter is of the institution of Christ by his Apostles or of Episcopal humane institution If the former and yet not institututed in Scripture times then Scripture is not the sufficient rule and discoverer of Divine Institutions and Church Ordinances and if we once forsake that Rule we know not where to fix but must wander in that Romane uncertainty If the latter then we must expect some better proof then hitherto we have seen of the Episcopall or any humane power to make new Offices in the Church of Christ and that of universal and standing necessity Till then we shall think they ought to have made but such Presbyters as themselves Reason 9. If there be not so much as the name of a Ruled Presbyter without power of Ordination or Iurisdiction in all the Scripture much less then is there any description of his Office or any Directions for his ordination or the qualifications prerequisit in him and the performance of his office when he is in it And if there be no such Directory concerning Presbyters then was it not the Apostles intent that ever any such should be ordained The reason of the consequence is 1. Because the Scripture was written not only for that age then in being but for the Church of all ages to the end of the world And therefore it must be a sufficient directory for all The second Epistle to Timothy was written but a little before Pauls death Surely if the Churches in Ignatius daies were all in need of Presbyters under Bishops Paul might well have seen some need in his time or have foreseen the need that was so neer and so have given directions for that office 2. And the rather is this consequence firm because Paul in his Epistles to Timothy and Titus doth give such full and punctual Directions concerning the other Church-officers not only the Bishops but also the Deacons describing their prerequisite qualifications their office and directing for their Ordination and conversation Yea he condescendeth to give such large Directions concerning Widows themselves that were serviceable to the Church Now is it probable that a perfect Directory written for the Church to the worlds End largely describing the qualifications and office of Deacons which is the inferiour would not give one word of direction concerning subject Presbyters without power of Ordination or Rule if any such had been then intended for the â—hurch No nor once so much as name them I dare not accuse Pauls Epistles written to that very purpose and the whole Scripture so much of insufficiency as to think they wholly omit a necessary office and so exactly mention the inferiour and commonly less necessary as they do Reason 10. The new Episcopal Divines do yield that all the texts in Timothy Titus and the rest of the New Testament that mentitn Gospel Bishops or Presbyters do mean only such as have power of Ordination and Iurisdiction without the concurrence of any superiour Bishop The common Inerpretation of the Fathers and the old Episcopal Divines of all ages of most or many of those texts is that they speak of the office of such as now are called Presbyters Lay both together and if one of them be not mistaken they afford us this conclusion that the Presbyters that now are have by these texts of Scripture the power of Ordination and Iurisdiction without the concurrence of others And if so then was it never the Apostles intent to leave it to the Bishops to ordain a sort of Presbyters of another order that should have no such power of Ordination or Jurisdiction without the Bishops Negative Reason 11. We find in Church History that it was first in some few great Cities especially Rome and Alexandria that a Bishop ruled many settled worshipping Congregations with their Presbyters when no such thing at that time can be proved by other Churches therefore we may well conceive that it was no Ordinance of the Apostles but was occasioned afterwards by the multiplying of Christians in the same compass of ground where the old Church did inhabite and the adjacent parts together with the humane frailty of the
as his judgement that the Scotch Ministers then to be Consecrated Bishops were not to be reordained because the Ordination of Presbyters was valid Sect. 5. These Novel Prelatical persons then that so far dissent frrom the whole stream of the Ancient Bishops and their adherents have little reason to expect that we should regard their judgement above the judgement of the English Clergy and the judgement of all the Reformed Churches If they can give us such Reasons as should conquer our modestie and perswade us to condemn the judgement of the Plelates and Clergy of England all other Churches of the Protestants and adhere to a few new men of yesterday that dare scarcely open the face of their own opinions we shall bow to their Reasons when we discern them But they must not expect that their Authority shall so far prevail Sect. 6. And indeed I think the most of this cause is carried on in the dark What Books have they written to prove our Ordination Null and by what Scripture Reasons do they prove it The task lieth on them to prove this Nullity if they would be Regarded in their reproaches of the Churches of Christ. And they are not of such excessive Modesty and backwardness to divulge their accusations but sure we might by this time have expected more then one volume from them to have proved us No Ministers and Churchess if they could have done it And till they do it their whsperings are not to be credited Sect. 7. Argument 2. If that sort of Prelacy that was exercised in England was not necessary it self yea if it were sinfull and tended to the subversion or exceeding hurt of the Churches then is there no Necessity of Ordination by such a Prelacy But the Antecedent is true therefore so is the consequent The Antecedent hath been proved at large in the foregoing Disputation Such a Prelacy as consisteth in the undertaking of an impossible task even for one man tâ— be the only Governour of all the souls in many hundred Parishes exercising it also by Lay men and in the needful parts not exercising it all all a Prelacy not chosen by the Presbyters whom they Govern yea suspending or degrading â—he Presbyters of all those Churches as to the governing part of theâ—â— office and guilty of the rest of the evils before mentioned is not only it self unnecessary but sinful and a disease of the Church which all good men should do the best they can to cure And therefore the effects of this disease can be no more Necessary to our Ministry then the burâ—ing of a feaver or swelling of a Tympany is necessary to the body Sect. 8. No Bishops are Necessary but such as were in Scriture times But there were none such as the late English Bishops in Scripture times Therefore the English Bishopâ— are not necessary He that denyeth the Major must go further in denying the sufficiency of Scripture then I find the Papists ordinarily to do For they will be loth to affirm that any office is of Necessity to the Being of the Church or of Presbyters that is not to be found in Scripture or that was not then in Being Therefore so far we are secure Sect. 9. And for the Minor I prove it thus If the English Bishops were â—either such as the unfixed General Ministers nor such as the fixed Bishops of particular Churches then were they not such as were in Scripture times But they were neither such as the unfixed General Ministers nor such as the fixed Bishops of particular Churches therefore c. Sect. 10. Besâ—des these two sorts of Ministers there are no more in the New Testament And these aâ—e diversified but by the exercise of their office so far as they were ordinary Ministers to continue The unfixed Ministers whether Apostles Evangelâ—sts or Prophets were â—uch as had no special charge of any one Church as their Diocess but were to do their best for the Church in general and follow the direction and call of the Holy Ghost for the exercising of their Ministry But it s known to all that our Engsish Bishops were not such They were no ambulatory itinerant Preachers they went not about to plant Churches and confirm and direct such as they had planted but were fixed to a City and had every one their Diocess which was their proper charge but Oh how they discharged their undertaking Sect. 11. Object The Apostles might agree among them selves to divide their Provinces and did accordingly James being Bishop of Jerusalem Peter of Rome c. Answ. No doubt but common reason would teach them when they were sent to preach the Gospel to all the world to disperse themselves and not be preaching all in a place to the disadvantage of their work But 1. It s one thing to travail several ways and so divide themselves as itinerants and another thing to divide the Churches among them as their several Diocesses to whâ—ch they should be fixed Which they never did for ought is proved 2. And its one thiâ—g prudently to disperse themselves for their labour anâ— another thing to claim a special power over a Circuit or Diocess as their charge excluding a like charge and power of others So far as any man Apostle or other was the Father of souls by their conversion they owned him a special honour and love which the Apostles themselves did sometimes claim But this was nothing to a peculiar Diocess or Province For in the same City a Ierusalem some might be converted by one Apostle and some by another And if a Presbyter convert them I think the adversaries will not therefore make them his Dâ—ocess not give him there an Episcopal Power much less above Apostles in that place Nor was this the Rule that Diocesses could be bounded by as now they are taken Sect. 12. Nor do we find in Scripture the least intimation that the Apostles were fixed Diocesan Bishops but much to the contrary 1. In that it was not consistent with the General charge and work that Christ had laid upon them to go into all the world and preach the Gospel to every creature How would this stand with fixing in a peculiar Diocess Sect. 13. And 2. We find them answering their Commission in their practice going abroad and preaching and planting Churches and sometimes visiâ—ing them in their passage but not sâ—tling on them as their Diocesses but going further if they had opportunity to do the like for other places Yea they planted Bishops in the several Cities and Churches which they had gathered to Christ. Though Paul staid three years at Ephesus and other adjacent parts of Asia yet did not all that abode prove it his peculiar Diocess And yes its hard to find again so long an abode of Paul or any Apostle in one place Elders that were Bishops we find at Ephesus Acts 20. and some say Timothy was their Bishop and some say Iohn the Apostle was their Bishop but its clear that it was
no peculiar Diocess of Paul Sect. 14. And 3. We still find that there were more then one of these general itinerant Ministers in a Place or at least that no one excluded others from having equal power with him in his Province where ever he came Barnabas Silas Titus Timotheus Epaphroditus and many more were fellow-labourers with Paul in the same Diocess or Province and not as fixed Bishops or Presbyters under him but as General Ministers as well as he We never read that he said to any of the false Apostles that sought his contempt This is my Diocess what have â—ou to do to play the Bishop in another mans Diocess Much less did he ever plead suâ—h a Power against Peter Barnabas or any Apostolical Minister Nor that Iames pleaded any such prerogative at Ierusalem Sect. 15. And therefore though we reverence Eusebius and other Ancients that tell us of some Apostles Diocesses we take them not as infallible reporters and have reason in these points partly to deny them credit from the word of God The Churches that were planted by any Apostle or where an Apostle was longest resident were like enough to reckon the series of their Pastors from him For the founder of a Church is a Pastor of it though not a fixed Pastor taking it as his peculiar charge but delivering it into the hands of such And in this sence we have great reason to understand the Catalogues of the Antients and their affirmations that Apostles were Bishops of the Churches For Pastors they were but so that they had no peculiar Diocess but still went on in planting and gathering and confirming Churches Whereas the Bishops that were setled by them and are said to succeed them had their single Churches which were their peculiar charge They had but one such charge or Church when the Apostles that lead in the Catalogues had many yet none so as to be limited to them And why have we not the Diocess of Paul and Iohn and Mathew and Thomas and the rest of the twelve mentioned as well of Peter and Iames Or if Paul had any it seems he was compartner with Peter in the same City contrary to the Canons that requireth that there be but one Bishop in a City Sect. 16. It s clear then that the English Bishops were not such Apostolical unfixed Bishops as the Itinerants of the first age were And yet if they were I shall shew in the next Argument that it s nothing to their advantage because Archbishops are nothing to our question And that they were not such as the fixed Bishops of Scripture times I am next to prove Sect. 17. The fixed Bishops in the Scripture times had but a single Congregation or particular Church for their Pastoral Charge But our English Bishops had many if not many hundred such Churches for their charge therefore our English Bishope were not of the same sort with those in Scripture The Major I have proved in the former Disputation The Minor needs no proof as being known to all that know England Sect. 18. And 2. The fixed Bishops in the Scripture times had no Presbyters at least of other particular Churches under them They Governed not any Presbyters that had other associated Congregations for publick Worship But the English Bishops had the Presbyters of other Churches under them perhaps of hundreds therefore they are not such as the Scripture Bishops were There is much difference between a Governour of People and a Governour of Pastors Episcopus gregis Episcopus Episcoporum is not all one None of us saith Cyprian in Concil Carthagin calleth himself or takes himself to be Episcopum Episcoporum No fixed Bishops in Scripture times were the Pastors of Pastors as least of other Churches Sect. 19. This I suppose I may take as granted de facto from the Reverend Divine whom I have cited in the foregoing Disputation that saith Annotat. in Art 11. that Although this Title of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elders have been also extended to a second order in the Church and now iâ— only in use for them under the name of Presbyters yet in the Scripture-times it belonged principally if not alone to Bishops there being no Evidence that any of that second Order were then instituted though soon after before the writing 〈◊〉 â—gnatius Epistles there were such instituted in all Churches So that he granteth that de facto there were then no Presbyters but Bishops and that they were not instituted and therefore Bishops had no such Presbyters to Govern nor any Churches but a single Congregation For one Bishop could guide but one Congation at once in publick worship and there could be no Worshipping Congregations in the sence that now we speak of without some Presbyter to guide them in performance of the worship Sect. 20. So saith the same Learned man Dissertat 4. de Episcop page 208 209. in quibus plures absque dubio Episcopi â—uere nullique adhuc quos hodie dicimus Presbyteri And therefore he also concludeth that the Churches weâ—e then Governed by Bishops assisted by Deacons without Presbyters instancing in the case of the Church of Ierusalem Act. 6. and alledging the words of Clem. Roman 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. How Grotius was confident that Clemens was against their Episcopacy shewed before To the same purpose he citeth the words of Clemens Alexandrinus in Euseb. of Iohn the Apostle concluding Ex â—is ratio constat quare sine Presâ—yterorum mentione intervenientâ— Episcopis Diaconi immediate adjiciantur quia scilicet in singulis Macedoniae civitatibus quam vis Episcopus esset nondum Presbyteri constituti sunt Diaconis tantum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ubique Episcopis adjunctis Dissertat 4 cap. 10. Sect. 19 20 21. So also cap. 11. Sect. 2. alibi passim Sect. 21. Object But though de facto there were no Bishopâ—â—uling Presbyters then nor ruling any more then a single Worshâ—pâ—ing Church yet it was the Intention of the Apostles that they should afterwards enlarge their Diocess and take the care of many Churches and that they should ordain that soâ—t of subject Presbyters that were not instituted in Scripture-times Answ. Do you prove the secret Intention of the Apostles to be for such a Mutation and then we shall be satisfied in that But till then it is enough to us that we have the same Government that de facto was set up by the Apostles and exercised in Scripture times And that it s granted us that the office was not then instituted which we deny For it is the office of such subject Presbyters having no Power of Ordination that we deny Sect. 22. Object But though in Scripture times there were no Bishops over many Churches and Presbyters yet there were Archbishops that were over many Answ. Because this objection contains their strength I shall answer it the more fully And 1. If there were no subject Presbyters in those times then Archbishops could rule none But there were
and therefore Novelty must not be permitted to exclude them Answ. 1. Let Scripture be the Rule for deciding this which is the chief witness of Antiquity and let the oldest way prevail 2. Forms were at first introduced in Variety and not as necessary for the Churches Unity to Agree in one And they were left to the Pastors Liberty and none were forced to any forms of other mens composing When Basil set up his New forms of Psalmodie and other Worship which the Church of Neocaesarea were so offended at he did not for all that impose it on them but was content to use it in his Church at Caesarea Object 10. No man can now say what is the worship of God among us because there is no Liturgy but its mutable as every person pleases Answ. We have a Liturgy and are agreed in all the parts of worship To have forms or no forms is no part of it but a circumstance or mode THE summ is this 1. We have already a stinted Liturgy 1. A form of Doctrine in Scripture 2. Real forms in Sacraments 3. A verbal form in Baptizing 4. A form in delivering the Lords Supper 5. A Creed used at Baptism as a form of confession 6. We Read the Psalms as Liturgical forms of praise and prayer 7. We have forms of singing Psalms 8. We have a form of blessing the people in the End 9. And of Excommunication see the Government of the Church c. 10. And of Absolution 11. And of Marriage 12. And Ministers preparation makes much of their Sermons a form 13. And they are at liberty to pray in a form if they Please 2. No more is necessary of it self unless accidentally Authority or Peace c. require it 3. If Peace c. require a form let it be one by common Agreement as neer as may be taken out of Scripture even in words and as much of the old as is consistent with this Rule retained 4. Let it not contain any doubtfull or unnecessary things but be as much certain and necessary for the matter as may be 5. Let none be forced to use it but such as by Ordainers or Approvers are judged insufficient to worship God without it and yet are allowed or Tolerated in the Ministry 6. Let no Tolerated Ministers be Absolutely forbidden to use it 7. Let none be suffered to lay the Vnity and Peace of the Church on it and suspend excommunicate or reproach all that dissent from them in using or not using it 8. In times of Liberty let none use it constantly but the unable before excepted But let the weaker use it ofâ—â—er and the abler seldomer yet sometimes voluntarily and caeteris paribus still looking to the state of their flocks and fitting all to their Edification 9. When Magistrates command it or the Agreement of Pastors and Peace of the Churches though accidentally by mens infirmity require it let none refuse the frequent use of lawfull forms 10. But let none desire or endeavour the introducing of any such Necessity of this or any indifferent thing that is not first Necessary by some considerable antecedent occasion to the Edification of the Church This much will please the moderate but not the self conceited FINIS The Fifth DISPUTATION Of Humane CEREMONIES Whether they are necessary or profitable to the Church and how far they may be imposed or observed By Richard Baxter LONDON Printed by Robert White for Nevil Simmons Bookseller in Kederminster Anno Dom. 1658. Qu. Whether Humane Ceremonies be Necessary or Profitable to the Church CHAP. I. Distinctions and Propositions in order to the Decision § 1. THE discussion of the Controversie about the Etymologie of the word Ceremony is unnecessary to our ends and would be more troublesome then usefull Whether it be derived ab oppido Caere or à carendo or à Caritate or à Cerere as several mens conjectures run or rather as Scaliger and Martinius think from Cerus which in veteri lingua erat sanctus it sufficeth us that it signifieth a sacred rite Servius saith that all sacred things among the Greeks were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and among the Latines Ceremoniae But by Ceremonies we mean only external Rites or Orders in or about the worship of God And by Humane we mean such as are devised and appointed to be used by men without any special Revelation from God or any extraordinary inspiration of his Spirit by which the institution might have been justly ascribed to God as the certain principal cause § 2. There is so much ambiguity partly in the terms and partly in the supposed or implyed passages that will rise before us in the dispute that I judge it necessary to make the way to the true decision of the controversie and your right understanding of it by these distinctions following and then to lay down the truth in certain Propositions § 3. Dist. 1. We must distinguish between such Ceremonies as God hath left to humane determination in his worship and such as he hath not so left but hath either 1. Expresly forbidden them in particular 2. Or in a General prohibition forbidden them or 3. Hath given no man authority to institute them So great difference is there between things that commonly go under the name of Ceremonies that they are not in this Controversie to be confounded if we would not lose the truth § 4. Dist. 2. We must distinguish between Ceremonies commanded by man as in Gods name and by pretence of a Commission from him and such as are only commanded in mens own names or at least on pretence of nothing but a General Power § 5. Dist. 3. We must distinguish between Ceremonies commanded by men as necessary duties or means of worship and such as are only commanded as indifferent things § 6. Dist. 4. We must distinguish between Ceremonies imposed by a Lawfull Magistrate or Church-Governours and such as are imposed by usurpers or men without authority § 7. Dist. 5. We must distinguish between Ceremonies imposed as Vniversally to be practised by all ages or all people in the Church at least and such as are imposed only on some one Congregation or Nation by their proper Governours and that as things mutable that upon special occasion were taken up and may so be laid aside again § 8. Dist. 6. We must distinguish between Ceremonies commanded as things necessary to the being of the Church or Worship or only necessary to the Order and convenient administration and better being of them in the judgement of the imposers § 9. Dist. 7. We must distinguish between the absolute command of Governors imposing such ceremonies upon grievous penalties or without tolerations and the simple recommending them or requiring them to be used with expressed or implyed exceptions § 10. Dist. 8. We must very much difference the several Countreys where such things are imposed and the several sorts of People on whom and the several seasons in which they are
of his Government and Justice And the laying the hand upon the Book or Kissing it is but a Professing sign of my own Intentions such as my words themselves are and therefore is left to humane choice and a lawfull thing And I have met but with very few among all our Ceremonies that questioned this § 45. 5. And for Organs or other instruments of Musick in Gods worship they being a Help partly natural and partly artificial to the exhilarating of the spirits for the praise of God I know no argument to prove 〈◊〉 simply unlawfull but what would prove a cup of wine unlawful or the tune and meeter and melodie of singing unlawful But yet if any would abuse it by turning Gods worship into carnal Pomp and levity especially by such non-intelligible singing or bleating as some of our Choristers used the Common people would have very great reason to be weary of it aâ— accidentally evil § 46. 6. And as for Holy daies there is great difference between them Those are lyable to most question that are obtruded on the Church with the greatest confidence As for such daies as are appointed upon some emergent occasions that arose since Scripture was indited and are not common to all times and places of the Church there is no more question whether the Magistrate may command them or the Pastors agree upon them then whether a Lecture-day or fast-day or thansgiving-day may be commanded or agreed on some time for Gods worship besides the Lords Day must be appointed And God having not told us which the Magistrate may on fit occasions And this is no derogation from the sufficiency of Scripture For the occasion of the day was not exâ—stent when the Scripture was written such occasions are various according to the various state of the Church in several ages and Countries And therefore to keep an Anniversary day of Thanksgiving such as we keep on the fifth of November for our deliverance from the Papists powder plot is no more questionable then to keep a â—ecture Nor for my part do I make any scruple to Keep a Day in Remembrance of any eminent servant of Christ or Martyr to praise God for their doctrine or example and honour their Memorial But the hardest part of the Question is whether it be lawfull to keep daies as holy in celebrating the memorial of Christs Nativity Circumcision Fasting Transfiguration Ascention and such like And the great reasons of the doubt are 1. Because the occasions of these holy daies was existent in the Apostles daies and therefore if God would have had such daies observed he could as easily and fitly have done it by his Apostles in the Scripture as he did other the like thingâ— 2. And this is a business that if it were Necessary would be Equally necâ—ssary to all Ages and Parts of the Catholick Church And therefore it cannot be necessary but it must be the Matter of an universal Law And God hath made no such Law in Scripture And â—o Scripture sufficiency as the Catholick Rule of faith and universal Divine obediâ—nce is utterly overthrown which if we grant and turn Papists to day we shall have as strong temptations to make us turn Infidels to morrow so poor is their evidence for the supplemental Traditional Law of God 3. And God himself hath already appointed a day for the same purposes as these are pretended for For the Lords Day is to commemorate the Resurrection as the great Triumphant act of the Redeemer implying all the rest of his works so that though it be principally for the Resurrectiâ—n above any single work of Christ yet also for all the work of Redemption And the whole is on that day to be commemoraâ—ed with holy Joy and Praise Now when God himself hath set apart one day in every week to commemorate the whole work of Redemption it seems an accusing of his Institutions of insufficiency to come after him to mend them and say we must have an anniversary day for this or that part of the work 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 Else why may we not turn the ten commandments into twenty or a hundred But it seems a doing the same or of like nature to what God hath done in the fourth commandment if any will make a necessary staâ—ed holy day to the universal Church 5. And it seems also that these Holy daies excepting Easter and Whitsontide and other Lords daies are but of later iâ—troduction Many passages of Antiquity seem to intimate that Christmas Day it self was not of many hundred years after Christ. I remember not any before Gregory Nâ—zianzene that seem to speak of it The allegations out of spurious authors and that of later date such as the counterfeit Clement Dionysius Cyprian c. are brought to deceive and not to convince 6. Yea more the time was a matter of controversie among the Churches of the East and West for many â—undred years after Christ Epiphanius and the Churches of Iudaea and all those Eastern parts took the sixth of Ianuary to be the day see Casaubones Exercitat on this and Cloppenburgius more fully in Thâ—s Chrysostome saith it was but ten years before he wrote that Homilie that the Church at Constantinople was perswaded by them at Rome to change their account of the day And is it possible that when for about four hundred years or more the Churches were utterly disagreed of the day that it was then Commonly kept as an Holy day The keeping oâ— it would sure have kepâ— a common knowledge of the day Or at least the difference of observation would have raised conâ—ention as the difference about Easter did can any believe that the famous Council of Nice and the vigilant Emperour that were so exceeding impatient of a diversity of observations of Easter would have let a diverse observation of Christmas alone without once thinking or speaking of it when they were gathered about the like work if the Church had commonly observed it then as a Holy day Or was the Church of Iudaea where Christ arose in any likelyhood to have lost the true account of the day if it had been observed by Apostolical Tradition from the beginning 7. And it seems that God did purposely deny us the observation of this Day in that he hath certainly kept the time unknown to the world The confidence of some bewrayes but their ignorance Chronologers are never like to be agreed of the year much less of the moneth or day some think we are four years too late some two years c. Many think that Christ was born about October as Scaliger Broughton Beroaldus c. and many still hold to the old Eastern opinion for the Epiphany being the Nativity on Ian. 6. and others are for other times but none are certain of the time 8. Sure we are where there is no Law there is
9. As for them that cry out of Confusion and Sacriledge and irreligiousness and I know not what if Ceremonies be not constantly used and all forced to them but be used with an indifferency the distempers of their own souls contracted by such Customs is a sufficient argument to move a sober considerate man to desire that the Church may be delivered from such endangering customs They do but tell us that custom hath made cerâ—monies become their very Religion And what a kind of Religion is that CHAP. XIV Reasons against the Imposing of our late Controverted Mysticall Ceremonies as Crossing Surplice c. § 1. HOW far Ceremonies are lawfull or unlawfull to the users I have shewed sufficiently already and therefore may omit the fourteenth Proposition as discussed before But so eager are the minds of men to be exalting themselves over the whole world and puting yoaks on their Brethrens necks even in the matters of God and setting up their own wills to be the Idols and Law-givers to all others that I take it for the principal part of my task to give in my Reasons against this distemper and to try if it be possible to take men off from Imposing or desiring the Imposition of unnecessary things I durst not desire the Imposing of our Mysticall Ceremonies but had rather they were abolished or left indifferent for these followings Reasons § 2. Reas. 1. To impose 〈◊〉 symbolical Rites upon the Church which Christ hath not imposed doth seem to me to be an usurpation of his Soveraign power It belongeth to him to be the Law-giver of his Church No man hath Power to make him a new worship Officers are but to see his Laws executed and to determine only of such circumstances as are needfull for the well executing them To make new Symbols or instituted signs to teach and excite Devotion is to make new humane Ordinances whereas it belongs to us only to use well such as he hath made and to make no Laws but such as are thus needfull for the executing of his Laws But of all this I have more largely spoken already § 3. Reas. 2. The imposing of these Mystical Rites doth seem to accuse Christ of ignorance or negligence in that he hath not himself imposed them when he hath taken upon him that Royall office to which such Legislation doth belong If Christ would have such Rites imposed on the Churches he could better have done it himself then have left it to man For 1. These being not mutable circumstances but the matter of standing Laws are equaâ—ly necessary or unnecessary to this age of the Church as to that in which Christ lived upon earth and to those Countreys in which he conversed as to these If Images Crossing significant garments c. be needfull to be imposed in England why not in Iudaea Galatia Cappadocia 〈◊〉 c. And if they are needfull now why not then No man can give a rational cause of difference as to this necessity If therefore Christ did neither by himself nor by his Apostles who formed the first Churches and delivered us his mind by the Spirit institute and impose these Rites then either the imposing of them is needless and consequently noxious or else you must say that Christ hath omitted a needfull part of his Law and worship which implies that he was either ignorant what to do or careless and neglective of his own affairs which are not to be imagined Moses left nothing out of the Law that he delivered that was to be the standing matter of the Law nor omitted he any thing that God required in the instituting of the Legal worship But Christ was faithfull to him that appointed him as Moses was in all his house Heb. 3.2.3 therefore certainly Christ hath omitted nothing that was to be a standing Gospel Law and Worship nor done his work imperfectly § 4. Reas. 3. And as this Imposition of Mystical Rites doth imply an accusation of Christ so doâ—h it imply an accusation of his Laws and of the holy Scriptures as if they were insufficient For if it belong to Scripture sufficiency to be the full revelation of the will of God concernng Ordinances of worship and duties of universal or stated Necessity then must we not imagine that any such are left out If Scripture be Gods Law it is a perfect law And if it belong to it as a Law to impose one stated Symbol Ordinance or matter of worship then so it doth to impose the rest of the same nature that are fit to be imposed If we will do more of the same that Scripture was given for to do we accuse it while we seem to amend it § 5. Reas. 4. And by this means we shall be brought to a loss for the Rule of our Religion For if once we leave the holy Scriptures we shall not know where to fix If God have not instituted all the Ordinances of Worship such as Sacramental or Mystical Rites c. that are meet to be statedly Imposed on the Churches then we are uncertain who is to be the institutor of them The Pope will claim it and General Councils will claim it and Provincial Councils and particular Bishops will claim it and Princes will claim it and we shall be at a loss for our Religion § 6. Reas. 5. But whoever it be that will be the master of our Religion they will certainly be men and so it will become a humane thing Whereas Divine worship supposeth a Divine institution and it is an act of obedience to God and therefore supposeth a Law of God For without a Divine Law there cannot be obedience to God § 7. Reas. 6. These impositions seem to be plain violations of those prohibitions of God in which we are forbidden to add to his worship or diminish from it As Deut. 12.32 What thing soever I command you observe to do it thou shalt not add thereto nor diminish from it Object But we add nothing to the Word of God though we impose such Mystical Rites as he imposeth not Answ. The text doth not say Thou shalt not add to my Command but Thou shalt not add to the thing that I command thee It is the Work Worship or Ordinances that you are forbidden to add to or diminish from and not the Word or Law it self only § 8. Reas. 7. It seemeth to be a very great height of Pride that is manifested in these impositions 1. When men dare think themselves wise enough to amend the work of Christ and his Apostles and wise enough to amend the holy Scriptures is not this exceeding Pride How can man more arrogantly lift up himself then by pretending himself to be wiser then his Maker and Redeemer Is it not bad enough to equalize your selves with him unless you exalt your selves above him If you do not so what mean you by coming after him to correct his Laws or mend his work and make better laws and ordinances for his Church then he
the accomplishment of the daies of purification untill that an offering should be offered for every one of them and this for almost seven dayes Acts 21.26 27. with the foregoing verses § 15. So 1 Cor. 9.19 20. For though I be free from all men yet have I made my self servant unto all that I might gain the more And unto the Iews I became as a Iew that I might gain the Iews to them that are under the Law as under the Law that I might gain them that are under the Law To them that are without Law as without Law being not without Law to God but under the Law to Christ that I might gain them that are without Law To the weak I became as weak that I might gain the weak I am made all things to all men that I might by all means save some and this I do for the Gospels sake c. Study this example § 16. Read also Rom. 14. and 15. Chapters how much condescension the Apostle requireth even among equals about meats and dayes And 1 Cor. 8.13 the Apostle would tie up himself from eating any flâ—sh while the world standeth rather then make a weak brother to offend Many other passages of Scripture require a condescension in things of this indifferent nature and shew that the Kingdom of God doth not consist in them § 17. And Matthew 12.1 2 to 9. you find that hunger justified the Disciples of Christ for plucking and rubbing the ears of Corn on the Sabbath dayes And hunger justified David and those that were with him for entring into the house of God and eating the Shew-bread which was not lawfull for him to eat nor for them which were with him but only for the Priests And the Priests in the Temple were blameless for prophaning the Sabbath day Now if things before accidentally evil may by this much Necessity become lawful and a duty then may the commands of Magistrates or Pastors and the Unity of the Church and the avoiding of contention and offence and other evils be also sufficient to warrant us in obeying even in inconvenient Circumstantials of the worship of God that otherwise could not be justified § 18. Reas. 12. Lastly consider how much God hath expressed himself in his word to be pleased in the Obedience of believers Not only in their Obedience to Christ immediately but also to him in his officers 1 Sam. 15.22 Behold to obey is better then Sacrifice c. Col. 3.20 22. Children obey your Parents in all things that is all lawfull things for this is well-pleasing to the Lord Servants Obey in all things your Masters according to the flesh c. And Obedience to Pastors is as much commanded 1 Thes. 5.12 13. We beseech you brethren to know them which labour among you and are over you in the Lord and admonish you and esteem them very highly c. Heb. 13.17 Obey them that have the rule over you and submit your selves for they watch for your souls as they that must give account c. So Verse 7. 24. 1 Tim. 5.17 c. § 19. As the General Commission to a Parent or Master or Magistrate to Govern their inferiour relations doth authorize them to many particular acts belonging to their office that were never named in their commission so your general command to obey them obligeth you to obey them in the said particulars And so it is also betwixt the Pastors and the flock in matters belonging to the Office of a Pastor § 20. If a Child shall ask a Parent Where doth Gods word allow you to command me to Learn this Catechism or read this Divines writings or repeat this Sermon or write it c. doth not the question deserve to be answered with the rod The General Commission for parents to Govern their children is sufficient so if a Schoolmaster command his Schollers to come to such a place to School and to take their places in such an Order and to learn such books and do such exercises c. the General Commission that he hath to teach and Govern them will allow him to do all this Though it will not allow him to set his Schollers to any Artifice or Manual Operation alien-to his profession So if a Minister determine of the variable Circumstances of worship as what place the people shall come to and at what time to be Catechized examined instructed c. what Translation or Version of Psalms to use what Utensils to make use of about Gods service or such likâ— he is warranted for this by his General Commission And if he miss it in the manner by choosing inconvenient circumstances or by unnecessary determination of points that should rather be left undetermined to liberty though this be his own sin it will not excuse the people from obedience unless the error of his directions be so great as would frustrate the Ordinance it self or do more harm then our disobedience would do which in Circumstantials is rarely found § 21. And thus I have finished this discourse of Ceremonies a Subject that may seem unseasonable at such a time when we are disburdened of Ceremonies But the offence and vehement accusations of the Ceremonious hath made it seem necessary to me while they accuse Dissenters of schism and obstinacy and reproach them as Puritans and seem ready to act their second part in casting out those that be not of their mind if it were in their power when yet they call the Ceremonies but things indifferent and Preachers and Gods Ordinances are not Indifferent things to us FINITVR Iuly 9. 1658. Satisfaction to certain CALVMNIATORS I Am informed from London and several parts of the Land that some of my Books having lately been sold at excessive rates by the Booksellers it is somewhat commonly reported that it is caused by my excessive gain which say they is at least three or four hundred pounds a year I thank the Lord that doth not only employ me in his service but also vouchsafe me the honor and benefit of being evil-spoken of for doing him the best service that I can Mat. 5.11 12. 1 Pet. 4.13 14 15 16. Blessed Augustine was put to vindicate himself by an oath from the infamy of a covetous design which was raised by one godly woman upon a disorderly action oâ— other men and to that end he wrote his 225. Epistle I find no call to use his oath but yet I judge it my duty to imitate him in patience and in rescuing the slanderers from their sin that they abuse not their souls by uncharitable surmises nor their tongues by false reports To which end I give them this true information The two first Books I printed I left to the Booksellers Will for all the rest I agreed with them for the fifteenth Book to give to some few of my friends hearing that some others agreed for the tenth Sometime my fifteenth Book coming not to an hundred and sometime but to few more when of Practical