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
second inconvenience which followeth it which I think utterly intolerable where there is any possibility of a remedy The Major I suppose will be granted For though an Office may be unexercised for a time on some special reason yet if it be statedly suspended and that suspension established by Law or Custom during the life of the Minister this is plainly a destroying or nulling of the Office it self and not to be endured And that it is not to be endured appeareth thus 1. Because the Office of the Presbyter is of Divine Institution and therefore not to be nulled by man I never yet read or heard of any more but one Divine of any reputation who denyed that Presbyters as now called are appointed in the Scriptures and I think that one hath destroyed his cause by it of which more anon 2. Because the Church cannot with any safety spare the Office of the Presbyters because they are many perhaps many hundred to one Prelate and if so many of Christs Officers be laid by it is easie to see what loss the vineyard and harvest may sustain The Minor I prove thus That Episcopacy which taketh from the Presbyters the power of Church-Government and alloweth them only the power of preaching and administring Sacraments and those other parts of the work which they distinguish from Government do thereby destroy the very Office of the Presbyters and so degrade or suspend them But the late English Episcopacy taketh from the Presbyters the power of Church-Governing c. therefore The Antecedent is well known by those that know their Canons claim and constant practice in England till the time of their exclusion That the Consequence is currant appeareth thus Church-Government is as real and as essential a part of the Presbyters work and office as any other whatsoever Therefore they that take this from him do destroy his Office The Antecedent is proved thus if those Texts of Scripture which mention the Office of Presbyters Acts 20. and 14.23 and many other places do speak of Presbyters as now understood and not of Prelates then Ruling is as much essential to their office as Preaching This is proved 1. From the express woâ—ds of the several Texts which make them Overseers of the flock Acts 20.28 and to be over the people in the Lord to whom they are to submit 1 Thes. 5.12 13. and Rulers of them whom they must obey as well as Preachers to them Heb 13.7 17 24. 1 Tâ—m 3 4 5. 2. It s proved from common Consent For 1. Those that think these Texts speak of Presbyters as now understood do most commonly confess this sense of the Text vâ—z that it makes them Rulers only some of them add that themselves must be Ruled by the Bishops 2. He that denyeth these Texts to speak of such Presbyters doth confess that those of whom it doth speak are certainly Rulers of the Church And then I assume But the general vote of almost all Expositors old and new Episcopal and others from the Apostles daies till now as far as we can know by their writings did take these Texts at least many of them to speak of such Presbyters and I think the new exposition of one man is not to be taken against the Exposition of the whole stream of Expositors in all ages without better reason to evince them to have erred then any I have yet seen produced At least all the Episcopal Divines except that one man and those that now follow his new Exposition must yield to what I say upon the authority of these Texts But if this Divine were in the right and none of these Texts be spoken of Presbyters yet I make good my Antecedent thus For 1. If Presbyters be of humane Institution then neither Preaching or Ruling is any Essential part of their Office by Divine Institution because they have none such and therefore I may say one is as essential as the other that is neither is so But yet of their humanly instituted Office it is as essential a part still for if it be true that there were no Presbyters in the Church till about Ignatius his daies yet its certain that when they were instituted whether by God or man they were as truly made Rulers as Preachers And therefore we find their Ignatius still calling on the people to obey the Presbyters as well as the Bishops And Hierom tells us Epist. ad Evagr. how long the Presbyters governed the Churches Communi Consilio by Common Counsel or Consent and how themselves at Alexandria chose our one and made him their Bishop and Cyprian tells us enough of the Presbyters ruling in Council or Consistory with the Bishop in his time so that he would do nothing without the Presbyters Much more proof may easily be brought of this but that I find it now acknowledged and so it is needless I will not go far but only note a few Canons especially of the fourth Council of Carthage Can. 23. is Vt Episcopus nullius Causam audiâ—t absque praesentia Clericorum suorum alioquin irâ—ita erit sententia Episcopi nisi Clericorum praesentia confirmetur Can. 22. Episcopus sine Consilio Clericorum suorum Clericos 〈◊〉 ordinet ita ut Civium assensum conniventiam testimonium quaerat Can. 29. Episcopus si Clerico vel laico crimen imposuerit deducatur ad probationem in Synodum Can. 32. Irrita erit donatio Episcoporum vel venditio vel câ—mmutatiâ— râ—i Ecclesiasticae absque conniventia subscriptione clericorum Can. 34. Vt Episcopus in quelibet lâ—co sedens stare Presbyterum non patiatur Can. 35. Vt Episcopus in Ecclesia in consessu Prsebyterorum sublimior sâ—deat Intra domum verò collegam se Presbyterorum esse cognoscat Can. 36. Presbyter qui per dioeceses Ecclesias regunt non à quibuslibet c. Can. 37. Diaconusita se Presbyteri ut Episcopi Ministrum esse cognoscat Here you see that Bishops may not Ordain hear any cause accuse a Clergy man or Lay-man not give sell or Change any Church goods without the Presbyters and that he is their Collegue and must not let them stand if he sit and that they Rule the Churches through the Diocesses and that the Deacons are Servants as well to them as to the Bishop Aurelius and Augustine were in this Council If they that think it uncertain whether Presbyters be mentioned in the New Testament and that think they began about Ignatius his time do mean that yet they were of Divine Apostolical Institution then they strike in with the Papists in making the Scriptures to be out part of Gods word and insufficient to reveal all Divine institutions about his Church-Government and Worship and so we must look for the rest in uncertain Tradition Nay I know not of any Papist to my best remembrance that ever reckoned up the Office of Presbyters under their meer unwritten Traditions If they say that they are of Ecclesiastical Episcopal
undertake more fully to wipe off this reproach for the learned adversaries are tall Cedars in knowledge in comparison of many of us and if men of parts do not grapple with them herein they will easily carry the vote in many mens judgements for they judge that the greater Schollars by far certainly have the better in the contest Sir We beseech you that you would improve your acquaintance in Antiquity for our help in this case Not that we would engage you in wrangling with particular men by name who will not want words but however you would evidence it that our Ordination by Presbyters is not void and of no effect I have this reason ready to give for this request for besides what I had formerly heard I was lately with some of those not of the meanest influence who urged Episcopacy as of absolute necessity affirming that this order the Church of God ever observed and that it was doubtless of Apostolical institution being a thing of Catholick tradition and that 's the best standard to intepret Scripture by What then are we arrived at that have forsaken the whole Church herein Though I am little versed in the Ancients yet I tell them we acknowledge that soon after the Apostles times the name Bishop came up as distinct fâ—om the Presbyters but then I call for their proof that the Primitive Bishops had the power of jurisdiction over Presbyters or that to him only ordination was appropriated I tell them also that we have certain evidence that in some Churches these Bishops were made by Presbyters so was the custom in Alexandria and when did ever the Church judge them to be no Bishops or Ministers And also of Tertullians Praesident probati quique Seniores and of Cyprians Salvo inter Collegas pacis concordiae vinculo and that doubtless if Cyprian be to be believed the Church was then ruled by the joint consent of its Pastors of whom one was indeed the President or Moderator who yet called himself compresbyter and the Presbyters sâ—atres not filios as it was of lâ—te This answer I have had from some of them that the Church in those times was much under the cloâ—d being persecuted and had not that liberty to settle Diocesan Episcopacy in that Glory which the Apostolical institution aimed at and that the Church was then what it could be and not what it would be Do you judge of its weight For my part I am most stumbled at the reading of Ignatius whom Dr. H. so strenuously dâ—fends and cannot tell how to evade that Testimony in the behalf of Episcopacy if it be indeed the testimony of the true Ignatius But methinks his phrase is much unlike either that of Clemens or of Cyprian in this case It s great pity that Dr. Bloudel wants his eyes and so we are hindred of enjoying of more of his labours in this point His Notion of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a very pretty on and it were well if we had fuller evidence added to that which he hath endeavoured after in his Preface to his Apology for Hierom. Or if your judgement about the power of every single Pastor were fully improved it would conduce much to the clearing of these controversies I could methinks be glad of the practice of those proposals which Bishop Usher hath made in a late printed sheet But these angry Brethren who now oppose us are of a higher strain But I run out too far and forget whom I am writing to Truly I am deeply sensible what mischief those seeds which are as yet but thin-sown as I may say may grow up to in time I know not how it is with yoâ— but with us I fear 〈◊〉 for one at least would be easiâ—y drawn to â—uch an opinion of us if the temptation were but somewhat stronger multitudes observing how câ—vil transactions have 〈◊〉 in a round begin also to think we shall also arive at our old Church-customs again now â—f thâ—se Episcopal 〈◊〉 judgement should but be dispersed moâ—e abroad how easily would it make these people think that we have dâ—luded them all this whiâ—â— and so will not regard us Alas that a sad thought is it if I should study and preach and pray for mens souls and yet be reâ—ected as one that had no chaâ—ge of them as a Mâ—nister laid on me for God We thank you for what you said in your Christian Concord and 〈◊〉 you would enlarge further on this Subject as you see convenient That the striplings in the Ministry may be furnished with arguments against our 〈…〉 such able hands as yours are I have doâ—e only I shall desire your pardon for my interrupting you in your other business and if I shall hereafter crave your assistance and direction iâ— some cases I pray you excuse me if uncivil and vouchsafe to let me hear from you for I am about to settle where the charge is great The Lord continue you 〈◊〉 us that you may be further an instrument of good I rest Ian. 8. 1657. Your Affectionate friend and weak Brother M. E. Assert 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 CHAP. I. Sect. 1. FOR the making good this Assertion 1. I shall prove that they groundlesly deny our Ministry and Churches and 2. I shall shew thâ— greatness of their sin In preparation to the first I must 1. Take some notice of the true Nature of the Ministerial function and 2. Of the Nature and Reasons of Ordination Sect. 2. We are agreed ore tenus at least that the Power and Honour of the Ministry is for the Work and the Work for the Ends which are the revelation of the Gospel the application or conveyance of the benefits to men the right worshiping of God and right Governing of his Church to the saving of our selves and our people and the Glorifying and Pleasing God Sect. 3. So that A Minister of the Gospel is an Officer of Iesus Christ set apart or separated to preach the Gospel and thereby to convert men to Christianity and by Baptism to receive Disciples into his Church to congregate Disciples and to be the Teachers Overseers and Governours of the particular Churches and to go before them in publick worship and administer to them the special Ordinances of Christ according to the word of God that in the Communion of Saints the members may be edified preserved and be fruitful and obedient to Christ and the Societies well ordered beautified and strengthened and both Ministers and People saved and the Sanctifier Redeemer and the Father Glorified and Pleased in his People now and for ever Sect. 4. In this Definition of a Minister 1. It is supposed that he be competently qualified for these works For if the Matter be not so far Disposed as to be capable of the Form it will not be informed thereby There are some Qualifications necessary
and Government is to be found wholly in the written word of God called the holy Scriptures This we are agreed on against the Papists who would supply the supposed defects of Scripture by their unwritten Traditions which they call the other part of Gods word Church Canons and Laws of men may determine of some modes and circumstances for the better execution of the Laws of God by the People whom they are over but they cannot make new Church Ordinances or Governments nor convey a Power which God the fountain of Power did not ordain and convey nor can they give what they themselves had not The Church-office and Authority therefore that is not proved from the Holy Scripture is to be taken as the fruit of humane arrogancy and presumption Yet I deny not but that we may find much in Antiquity in Fathers and Councils about matters of fact to help us to understand some Scriptures and so to discern the matter of right Prop. 3. The Scripture doth not Contradict but suppose and confirm the light of Nature nor doth it impose upon any man Natural impossibilities nor constitute offices which cannot be executed or which would destroy that end to which they are supposed to be Constituted Prop. 4. Ecclesiastical Authority comprehendeth not the power of the sword nor any power of using violence to mens bodies or laying mulcts or confiscations on their estates The Ecclesiastical Power which Christ ordained was exercised for the first three hundred years without any touching of mens bodies or purses before there were any Christian Princes Prop. 5. Magistrates are not eo nomine obliged to punish men because they are Excommunicated whether upon every just Excommunication they should punish I will not now dispute but they are bound to know that their penalties be deserved before they inflict them and therefore must themselves take Cognisance of the Cause and as rational agents understand before they act and not blindly follow the Judgements of the Bishops as if they were but as Executioners where the Bishops are Judges Prop. 6. The Power of the highest Church-governours is but an Authority of Directing in the way to salvation It is but Directive but then there is no room for the common Objection that then it is no greater then any other man may perform for it is one thing to Direct Occasionally from Charity and another thing to Direct by Authority in a standing office as purposely appointed hereunto The Power of Church-Governors is but of the same nature as is the Power of a Physitian over his Patients or of a School-master over his Schollers supposing he had not the power of the rod or actual force but such a power as the Professors of Philosophy or other sciences had in their several schools upon the adult nor all so great neither because the Laws by which we must rule are made to our hands as to the substantials Hence therefore it is plain that as we can bind or force no man to believe us or to understand the truth and to be Christians but by the power of demonstrated Evidence and by the light which we let in through Gods grace into their Consciences so neither can we cause any to execute our sentences against offenders further than by light we convince them that it is their duty so that if all the Bishops or Presbyteries in the land should judge such or such an opinion to be heresie and should Excommunicate those that own it as hereticks in this case if the Church do believe as the Pastors believe they will consent and avoid the Excommunicate person but if they take it to be Gods truth which the Pastors call heresie they will not take themselves bound by that sentence to avoid him nor will the Offender himself any further be sensible of a penalty in the sentence then he shall be convinced that he hath erred and if the Church avoid him he will justifie himself and judge that they do it wrongfully and will glory in his suffering so that it is on the Conscience that Church-Governors can work and no otherwise on the outward man but mediante Conscientiâ Prop. 7. The ground of this is partly because no Church Governors can bind any man contrary to Gods word Clave errante ita apparente if the people know that he erreth they are not to obey him against God Yet in the bare inconvenient determination of some Circumstantials by which the duty is not destroyed but less conveniently performed the people are bound to obey their Governors because it is not against Gods determination and because he erreth but in an undetermined point of which God appointed him to be the orderly determiner But if God have once determined no mans contrary determination can oblige nor yet if they go beyond the sphere of their own work and determine of an aliene subject which God did never commit to their determination else a Minister or Bishop might oblige every Taylor how to cut his garment and every Shoâ—-maker how to cut his shoe so that they should sin if they did disobey which is ridiculous to imagine and if they go about to introduce new stated Ordinances or Symbols in the Church which they have nothing to do with or in any other work shall assume to themselves a power which God never gave them it doth no more oblige then in the former case Prop. 8. Another reason of the sixth Proposition is because The People have a Iudgement of discerning whether the Governors do go according to Gods word or not else they should be led blindfold and be obliged by God to go against Gods word whensoever their Governors shall go against it It is not bruits or Infants but rational men that we must rule Prop. 9. The three things which Church power doth consist in are in conformity to the three parts of Christs own office 1. About matter of Faith 2. About matter of Worship 3. About matter of Practice in other cases 1. Church-Governors about Doctrine or Matters of Faith are the Peoples Teachers but cannot oblige them to Err or to believe any thing against God nor make that to be truth or error that is not so beâ—ore 2. In matter of Worship Church-guides are as Gods Priests and are to go before the people and stand between God and them and present their prayers and prayses to God and administer his holy mysteries and bless them in his name 3. The Commanding Power of Pastors is in two things 1. In Commanding them in the name of Christ to obey the Laws which he hath made them already And this is the principal 2. To give them new Directions of our own which as is said 1. Must not be against Gods Directions 2. Nor about any matter which is not the object of our own office but is without the verge of it 3. But it is only in the making of under laws for the better execution of the laws of Christ and those
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
altogether neglect it So that some through a Carnal indulging of their own ease and quiet and to avoid mens ill will and some through the great oppositions of the people or for one such cause or other do let all alone In so much as even here in this County where we have associated and engaged our selves to some execution of Discipline this work goes on so heavily as we see and need not mention further when yet there is not a daies omission of Sermons and other Ordinances so that its apparent that its it which all lazie carnal man-pleasing Ministers may well comply with as that which suites their Carnal Interests to be free from the toil and care of Discipline If you say why then do the Bishops desire it if flesh and blood be against it I answer Experience and the impossibility of performance tells us that it is not the work but the empty name and honour that they took up and that indeed the flesh doth much more desire Had they desired or been willing of the work as they were of Lordships and Riches they would have done it Argum. 9. NO Episcopacy at least which hath so many evils as aforesaid attending it which is not of Gods Institution should be admitted into the Church The late English Prelacy as to the disapproved properties before mentioned is not of Gods Institution therefore it is not to be admitted into the Church The Major is confessed by all that plead for the Ius Divinum of Episcopacy or most and with the qualification from the ill consequents will be yielded by all The Minor I prove by parts 1. That the exclusion of Presbyters from Rule and the putting the Government from them into a Lay-mans hand with the rest before mentioned are not of Divine Institution is proved already as much as needs 2. If at the present we yield a superintendency or preheminence of one Pastor before others yet the Controversie remaineth whether a Prelate should be only Parochial that is only the President of the Elders of one particular Church or at the utmost of that with two or three or a few neighbour small Parishes which he may well oversee without the neglect of the Discipline Now I know not how any man of that way can prove out of Scripture that a Bishop must have more then one Parish much less more then three or four or a few For it is confest by them for ought I know that Scripture doth not determine how many Presbyters or Churches a Bishop must have under him only we say he must have but one for the main thing that they labour to prove is that a Bishop is above Presbyters as to Ordination and Jurisdiction and so he may be if he be a Parish-Bishop for a Parish-Church may have a Curate and 2 or 3 Chappels with Curates at them besides Deacons and according to the old course perhaps many Presbyters more that did not publikely preach though they wanted not authority but oversee the flock Now one man may have all that most of their Arguments require if he be but the chief over this Parish Presbytery But perhaps they will say that according to Scripture every City only must have a Bishop and therefore all the Country about must be his Diocess though the number of Churches and Presbyters under him be not determined To which I answer that the word Only is not in Scripture no Text saith that it was Only in Cities that Churches or Bishops were to be seated There is no prohibition of setling them in Villages It will be said that There is no example of any Bishop but in a City To which I answer 1. Themselves ordinarily tell us in case of Sacrament gesture and many other things that examples do not alway bind affirmatively much less can they prove that they bind negatively I mean not to do that which was not done Can you prove in Scripture that there were any particular Churches or Assemblies for Sacraments and other worship in Villages If not then is it lawful now to have any If not then all our Parish Churches in the Country are unlawful If yea then why may we not have Bishops in the Countreys without Scripture example as well as Churches for we shall prove that the reasons why there were none or few Bishops in the Country was for want of Churches for them to oversee The Gospel was not then preached nor any Bishops placed in many Nations of the world it doth not follow therefore that there must be none since 2. The reason is evident why Churches and Bishops were first planted in Cities because there was the greatest Concourse of people not that God loves a Citizen better then a Countrey-man or that he will have his Churches so limited to soil or place or scituation it is the number of persons where-ever they live that must be regarded that the Church be not too great nor too small but if there be the same number of people Cohabiting in the Countrey as one of the Apostolical Churches did consist of then there is the same reason to have a Church and Bishop in that Country Village as was then for having one in a City 3. Elders should be ordained in every Church and therefore Bishops for some of them say that these were Bishops But Churches may be in Country Villages therefore Elders and Bishops may be in Country-Villages 4. I prove from Scripture that there were Bishops in Villages or out of Cities thus Where there was a Church there was a Bishop But in a Village there was a Church therefore The Major I prove from Act. 14.23 compared with 1 Tim. 3. They ordained them Elders in every Church or Church by Church but these Elders are called Bishops in 1 Tim. 3. and by some of that way maintained to be such For the Minor I prove it from Rom. 16.1 where there is mention of the Church at Cenchrea but Cenchrea was no City but as Grotius speaks Portus Corinthiorum ut Piraeus Atheniensium viz. ad sinum Saronicum apparet ibi Ecclesiam fuisse Christianorum Grot. in Act. 18.18 in Rom. 16.1 vide et Downam Defensâ— pag. 105. who out of Strabâ— saith it was the Port that served most properly for Asia But Bishop Downam saith ibid. that Cenchrea was a Parish subordinate to the Church of Corinth having not a Bishop or Presbytery but a Presbyter assigned to it so before he saith by a Church he means a Company of Chrâ—stiâ—ns haâ—ing a Bishop and Presbytery But if he will so define a Church as that the Prelate shall enter the Definition then he may well prove that every Church had a Prelate And so a Patriarch may be proved to be Necessary to every Church if you will say you mean only such congregations as have a Patriarch But it was denominated a Church Act. 14.23 before they had Presbyters ordained to them and so before fixed Bishops when the Apostles had converted and congregated them they
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
in the Gospel is that The work shall be done the Gospel shall be preached Churches gathered and governed Sacraments administred and that the Precept de ordine is but secundary and subservienâ— to this And if at any time alterations should make Ordination impossible it will not follow that the duty Ordered ceaseth to be duty or the precept to oblige Sect. 24. The Scriptures name not the man that shall be a Pastor yet when it hath described him it commandeth the Described person duely to seek admittance and commandeth the People ordainers and Magistrates to Choose and Appoint these men to the Ministerial work Now these Precepts contain in each of them two distinct determinations of Christ. The first is that such men be Ministers The second is that they offer themselves to the office and that they be Accepted and Ordained For the first is implyed in the latter If the Soveraign Power make a Law that there shall be Physicians licensed by a Colledge of Physitians to Practice in this Common-wealth and describe the persons that shall be licensed This plainly first concludeth that such persons shall be Physitians and but secondarily de ordine that thus they shall be licensed so that if the Colledge should License a company of utterly insufficient men and murderers that seek mens death or should refuse to License the persons qualified according to Law they may themselves be punished and the qualified persons may act as Authorized by that Law which â—indeth quoad materiam and is by the Colledge and not not by them frustrate quoad ordiâ—em So is it in this case in hand Sect. 25. Hence it appeareth that Ordination is one means conjunct with divers others for the Designation of right Qualified persons described in the Law of Christ for the reception and exercise of the Ministerial office And that the ends of it are 1. To take care that the office fail not and therefore to call out fit men to accept it if modesty or impediments hinder them from offering themselves or the people from nominating them 2. To Judge in all ordinary cases of the fitness of persons to the office and whether they are such as Scripture describeth and calls out 3. And to solemnize their Admittance by such an investiture as when Possession of a House is given by a Ministerial tradition of a Key or Possession of Land by Ministerial delivery of a twig and a turf or as a Souldier is listed a King Crowned Marriage Solemnized after consent and Title in order to a more solemn obligation and plenary possession such is our Ordination Sect. 26. Hence it appeareth that as the Ordainers are not appointed to Judge whether the Church shall have Ordinances and Ministers or not no more then to judge whether we shall have a Christ and heaven or not but who shall be the man so it is not to the Being of the Ministry simply and in all Cases that Ordination is necessary but to the safe being and order of admittance that the Church be not damnified by intruders Sect. 27. Ordination therefore is Gods orderly and ordinary means of a Regular admittance and to be sought and used where it may be had as the solemnizing of Marriage And it is a sin to neglect it wilfully and so it is usually necessary necessitate Praecepti Necessitate medii ad ordinem bene esse But it is not of absolute Necessity Necessitate medii ad esse Ministerii or to the Validity or Success of our office and Ministrations to the Church nor in cases of necessity when it cannot be had is it necessary necessitate praecepti neither This is the plain truth Sect. 28. There are great and weighty Reasons of Christs committing Ordination to Pastors 1. Because they are most Able to judge of mens fitness when the People may be ignorant of it 2. Because they are men doubly Devoted to the Church and work of God themselves and 〈◊〉 may be supposed regularly to have the greatest 〈◊〉 and most impartial respect to the Church and cause of God 3. And they must regularly be supposed to be men of greatest piety and and holiness or else they are not well chosen 4. And they being fewer are fitter to keep Unity when the people are usually divided in their choice 5. And if every man should enter the Ministry of himself that will judge himself fit and can but get a people to accept him most certainly the worst would be oft forwardest to men before they are sent and for want of humility would think themselves fittest the common case of the Proud and Ignorant and the People would be too commonly poisoned by heretical smooth-tongue'd men or more commonly 〈◊〉 please and undoe themselves by choosing them that have most interest in them by friends or acquaintance and them that will most please and humour them and instead of being their Teachers and Rulers would be taught and ruled by them and do as they would have them Order is of great moment to preserve the very being of the Societies ordered and to attain their well-being God is not the God of Confusion but of Order which in all the Churches must be maintained No man therefore should neglect Ordination without necessity And these that so neglect it should be disowned by the Churches unless they shew sufficient cause CHAP. III. Ordination is not of Necessity to the being of the Ministry Sect. 1. HAving shewed what the Ministry is and what Ordination is and how the work is imposed on us and the Power conferred I may now come up to the point undertaken to shew the sin of them that Nullifie all our Ministers calling and administrations except of such as are ordained by the English Prelates And for the fuller performance of this task I shall do it in these parts 1. I shall shew that Ordination it self by man is not of Necessity to the being of a Minister 2. I shall shew that much less is an uninterrupted succession of Regular Ordination such as either Scripture or Church Canons count valid of Necessity to the being of Church or Ministry 3. I shall shew that much less is an Ordination by such as our English Bishops necessary to the Being of the Ministry 4. I shall shew that yet much less is an Ordination by such Bishops rebus sic stantibus as now things go of necessity to the being of the Ministry 5. I shall shew that without all these pretences of necessity for a Presbyterian Ordination the present way of Ordination by this other Reformed Churches is agreeable to the Holy Scripture and the custome of the Ancient Church and the postulata of our chief opposers 6. I shall then shew the greatness of their sin that would Nullifie our Ministry and administrations 7. And yet I shall shew the greatness of their sin that oppose or wilfully neglect Ordination 8. And lastly I shall return to my former subject and shew yet how far I could wish the
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
our Ordination is Valid The Major is proved from 1. Tim. 4.14 Neglect not the gift that is in thee which was given theâ— by Prophecy with the laying on of the hands of the Pres-Presbyterie Also from Act. 13.1 2 3. They were the Prophets and Teachers of the Church of Antioch that imposed hands on Barnabas and Saul whether it were for their first Ordination to the Office or only for a particular Mission I now dispute not The Church of Antioch had not many Prelates if any but they had many Prophets and Teachers and these and none but these are mentioned as the Ordainers As for them that say these were the Bishops of many Churches of Syria when the Text saith they all belonged to this Church of Antioch they may by such presumptuous contradictions of Scripture say much but prove little Sect. 24. As for them that grant us that there were no subject Presbyters instituted in Scripture-times and so expound the Presbyterie here to be only Apostles and Bishops of the higher order I have shewed already that they yield us the Cause though I must add that we can own no new sorâ— of Presbyterie not instituted by Christ or his Apostles But for them that think that Prelates with subject Presbyters were existent in those times they commonly expound this Text of Ordination by such subject Presbyters with others of a Superior rank or degree together Now as to our use it is sufficient that hence we prove that a Presbyterie may ordain and that undeniably a Presbyterie consisted of Presbyters and so that Presbyters may ordain This is commonly granted us from this Text. That which is said against us by them that grant it is that Presbyters did Ordain but not alone but with the Bishops Sect. 25. But 1. if this were proved it s nothing against us for if Presbyters with Bishops have power to Oâ—dain then it is not a work that is without the reach of their Office but that which belongeth to them and therefore if they could prove it irregular for them to Ordain without a Bishop yet would they not prove it Null Otherwise they might prove it Null if a Bishop Ordain without a Presbyterie because according to this Objection they must concur 2. But indeed they prove not that any above Presbyters did concur in Timothies Ordination whatever probability they may shew for it And till they prove it we must hold so much as is proved and granted Sect. 26. As for 2 Tim. 1.6 it is no certain proof of it It may be Imposition of hands in Confirmation or for the first giving of the Holy Ghost after Baptism ordinarily used by the Apostles that is there spoken of which also seemeth probable by the Apostles annexing it to Timothies Faith in which he succeeded his Mother and Grandmother and to the following effects of the Spirit of Power and of Love and of a sound mind which are the fruits of Confirming Grace admonishing hâ—m that he be not ashamed of the Testimony of our Lord which is also the fruit of Confirmation However the pâ—obâ—bility go they can give us no certainty that Paul or any Apostle had an hand in the Ordination here spoken of when the Text saith that it was with the laying on of the hands of the Presbâ—terie we must judge of the office by the name and therefore 1. we are sure that there were Presbyters 2. And if there were also any of an higher rank the Phrase encourageth us to believe that it was as Presbyters that they imposed hands in Ordination Sect. 27. Argument 9. If Bishops and Presbyters as commonly distinguished do differ only Gradu non Ordine in Degree and not in Order that is as being not of a distinct office but of a more honourable Degree in the same office then is the Ordination of Presbyters valid though without a Bishop of that higher Degree But the Antecedent is true therefore so is the Consequent The Antecedent is maintained by abundance of the Papists themselves much more by Protestants The reason of the Consequence is because ad ordinem pertinet ordinarâ— Being of the same office they may do the same work This Aâ—gument Bishop Vsher gave me to prove that the Ordination of meer Presbyters without a Prelate is valid when I askt him his Judgement of it Sect. 28. Argument 10. If the Prelates and the Laws they went by did allow and require meer Presbyters to Ordain then must they grant us that they have the Power of Ordination But the Antecedent is true as is well known in the Laws and common Practice of the Prelates in Ordaining divers Presbyters laid on hands together with the Bishop and it was not the Bishop but his Chaplain commonly that examined and approved usually the Bishop came forth and laid his hands on men that he never saw before or spoke to but took them as he found them presented to him by his Chaplain so that Presbyters Ordained as well as he and therefore had power to Ordain Sect. 29. If it be Objected that they had no power to Ordain without a Bishop I answer 1. Nor a Bishop quoad exercitium without them according to our Laws and Customs at least â—â—â—ually 2. Ordaining with a Bishop proveth them to be Ordainers and that it is a work that belongeth to the order or office of a Presbyter or else he might not do it at all any more then Deacons or Chancellors c. may And if it be but the work of a Presbyters office it is not a Nullity if Presbyters do it without a Prelate if you could prove it an irregularity Sect. 30. Argument 11. If the Ordination of the English â—relates be valid then much more is the Ordination of Presbyters as in England and other Reformed Churches is in use But the Ordination of English Prelates is valid I am sure in the judgement of them that we dispute against therefore so is the Ordination of English Presbyters much more Sect. 31. The reason of the Consequence is because the English Prelates are more unlike the Bishops that were fixed by Apostolical Institution or Ordination then the English Presbyters are as I have shewed at large in the former Disputation the Scripture Bishops were the single Pastors of single Churches personally guiding them in the worship of God and governing them in presence and teaching them by their own mouths visiting their sick administring Sacraments c. And such are the English Presbyters But such are not the late English Prelates that were the Governors of an hundred Churches and did not personally teach them guide them in worship govern them in presence and deliver them the Sacraments but were absent from them all save one Congregation These were unliker to the Scripture fixed Bishops described by Dr. H. H. then our Presbyters are therefore if they may derive from them a Power of Ordination or from the â—aw that instituted them then Presbyters may do so much more Sect. 32. Argument 12.
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