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
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
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
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
But 2. If such an Office can be proved I despair of seeing it proved from Scripture that they have authority to Ordain 3. And how can they have Authority when most of them have not Ability And I think it is supposed that they have not Ability to Preach in them that deny them Authority and if they want Ability to Preach it s two to one but they want Ability to Try and Approve of Preachers 4. And how come they to have Power to Ordain others that are not Ordained themselves but are admitted upon bare Election 5. And this course would prostitute the Churches to unworthy men as aforesaid Sect. 45. And 4. It is not a contemptible Consideration that the chief Pastor of every particular Church hath ever since the second Century at least been Ordained by the Pastors of other Churches And how it was before we have but very defective Evidence except so much as is left us in the Holy Scriptures of which we have spoke before Sect 46. And 5. The Church of Christ is a Chain of many links a Society united in Christ the Head consisting as a Republike of many Corporations or as an Acâ—demy of many Colledges and a greater Union and Communion is requisite among them then among the parts of any other Society in the world And therefore seeing it is the duty of Neighbour Pastors and Churches according to their Capacity to hold Communion with that particular Church and its Pastors it seems reasonable that they have some antecedent Cognisance and Approbation of the persons that they are to hold Communion with Sect. 47. And 6. It is considerable also that whoever is according to Christs institution Ordained a Minister of a particular Church is withall if not before Ordained a Minister simply that is one that may as a separated Messenger of Christ both preach for the Conversion of those without and gather Churches where there are none and pro tempore do the Office of a Minister to any part of the Catholike Church where he cometh and hath a Call And therefore as he is simply a Minister and the Unconverted world or the Universal Church are the Objects of his Ministry the Pastors or Members of that particular Church where he is settled have no more to do in Ordaining him then any other As a Corporation may choose their own Physitian Schoolmaster c. but cannot do any more then other men in Licensing a man to be in general a Physitian Schoolmaster c. So may a Church choose who shall be their Teacher but not who shall be simply a Teacher or Minister of Christ any more then an other Church may do that 's further from him Sect. 48. And 7. It is also considerable that it is the safest and most satisfactory way to the Church and to the Minister himself to have the Approbation of many And it may leave more scruple concerning our Call when one or two or a particular Church only do Approve us Sect. 49. And 8. It is granted in their writings by those that are for Ordination by a particular Church only that the Concurrence of more is Lawful and if Lawful I leave it to Consideration whether all the forementioned accidents make it not so far convenient as to be ordinarily a plain duty and to be preferred where it may be had Sect. 50. Yet do I not plead for Ordination by Neighbour Pastoâ—â— as from a Governing Authority over that particular Church but as from an interest in the Church Universal and all its Officers within their reach and from an interest of Communion with Neighbour Churches Sect. 51. And it is observable in Scripture that the Itinerant Ministers that were fixed and appropriated to no particular Church for continuance such as the Apostles and Evangelists were and Titus Timothy and such others had a Principal hand in the work of Ordination whereever they came It was they that Ordained Elders in every City in every Church Sect. 52. Prop. 3. If any shall cull out two or three or more of the weakest injudicious facile Ministers and procure them to Ordain him his course is irregular and his call unsatisfactory though the formal part be obtained to the full For it is not for meer formality but to satsfie the person called and the Church and to secure the Ministry and sacred works and souls of men from injury by Usurpers that God hath appointed the way of Ordination And therefore it is fraud and not obedience for any man so to use it as to cheat himsef and the Church with a formality and frustrate the Ordinance and miss its ends Sect. 53. Prop. 4. If any man avoiding the Orthodox and Unanimous Ministry shall apply himself for Ordination to some divided schismatical or heretical persons that will Approve him and Ordain him when the others would reject him this also as the former is fraud and self-deceit and not obedience upon the last mentioned grounds It is the basest treacherous kind of sinning to turn Gods Ordinances against himself and to sin under the shelter and pretence of an institution By using the means in opposition to its end they make it no means and use it not as a means at all Though Pastors must Ordain yet is it not all kind of Pastors Ordination that should satisfie an honest meaning man but that which hath the qualifications suited to the Rule and end Sect. 54. In such cases of unjust entrance if the People sinfully comply and the man have possession it may be the duty of some particular persons that cannot help it having done their own parts in disowning it to submit and not therefore to separate from the Church except in desperate extraordinary cases not now to be enumerated And all the administrations of such a man shall be not only Valid to the innocent but without any scruple of conscience may be used and received with expectation of a promised blessing Sect. 55. But yet quoad debitum it is the Churches duty except in Cases of Necessity to disown such intruders and to suspect and suspend obedience to those that indirectly enter by a few ignorant or schismatical Ordainers refusing the tryal of the unanimous abler Orthodox Ministry till they have either perswaded the man to procure their Approbation or have themselves sought the Judgement of the said United Ministers concerning him And seeing all the Churches of Christ should be linkt and jointed together and hold communion and correspondency according to their capacities the Members of a particular Church are bound in reason and to those ends to advise in such suspicious cases with neighbour Churches and not to receive a Pastor that comes in by way of Discord or that neglecteth or refuseth the concordant way For he that entreth in a divisive way is like to govern them accordingly and still to shun the Communion of the Brethren Sect. 56. This Cyprian fully shews in the fore-mentioned Ep. 68. p 201. perswading the people to shun the
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
mistake Prop. 11. He that disobeyeth the Word of God in the mouth of a Minister or Church governor committeth a double sin in comparison of him that disobeyeth the same word in the mouth of a private man for bsides the sin which he first committeth he breaketh also the fifth Commandment and despiseth Christ in his Messenger As a man that shall refuse to worship God to use his name reverently c. when a private man telleth him that it is his duty doth sin by that refusal but if he refuse it when his own Father or Mother or Minister command him he also breaks the fifth Commandment besides the rest Ministerial Authority therefore doth aggravate the sins of persons that are disobedient Prop. 12. Yet for all this one private man that evinceth out of Scripture a sin or a duty contrary to the doctrine or commands of our Guides must be regarded in that before them and the evidence and divine verity which he bringeth must not be refused because Church Governors are against it Otherwise we should make Gods Officers to be greater then himself and the Promulgators and Preachers of his Law to have power to null or frustrate the known Law which they should proclaim and that the means is to be preferred before the end and when it destroyes the end and so ceaseth it self to be a means which are things not to be imagined Prop. 13. Yet is it a great sin for any men lightly and rashly to suspect their Teachers and Rulers and much more Councils or the whole Church and too easily to credit the singular opinions of any private man or dissenting Pastor But we should be very suspicious of the private man rather and of the singular man and therefore should search well and see good reason for it before we credit them though we may not refuse any truth which they shall bring Prop. â—4 The uses of Synods or Councils is not directly to be superiour Governours of particular Pastors and Churches but it is Directly 1. For the Information and Edification of the Pastorâ— themselves by the collation of their reasons and mutual advice 2. For the Vnion and Communion of the said Pastors and of the particular Churches by them that they may agree in one and go hand in hand to do Gods work and so may avoid the crossing and hindering of each other and one may not receive those to communion without satisfaction who are excommunicated by others and so that by this concord of Pastors they may be strengthened to a more successfull performance of their duties But then these Direct ends of Synods being presupposed Indidirectly they may truly be said to be for Government Because God in general having commanded us to carry on his work as much as we can in Unity and Peace and it being the proper work of Councils to agree upon wayes of Unity it followeth that for Unity sake it becomes our duty to submit to their just Agreements and so that the forming of such Agreements or Canons is consequently or Indirectly a part of Government though Directly it is but for Unity and Concord Pastors in Synods have the same power over their people as they have out and therefore what Canons they make justly for the Government of the people as Pastors are Directly acts of Government but as Assembled Pastors and also as to the Canons by which they bind each other they act but by consent or contract in order to concord and communion and not by a superiour Ruling power So that Synods as Synods are Directly only Gratiâ Vnitatis Communionis and not Gratia Regiminis but Indirectly and by consequence from the first use they are after a sort Regimental To conclude this about the Nature of Church-Government in the two former similitudes it is somewhat apparent For Christ calls himself the Physitian that comes to heal diseased souls and his Church is also a School and his people are all Schollars or Disciples and Ministers his Ushers or under-Schoolmasters Now the Physitian may prescribe to his Patient the times the quantities of taking Medicines and what diet to use and what exercise in order to his health and also Physitians may make a Colledge and frequently meet for mutual Edification and Agree what Patients to meddle with and what not and that they will not receive those Patients that run from one to another to their own hurt and that they will use none but such and such approved Medicaments with divers the like circumstances But yet no Physitian can either compell men to be their Patients nor compell them any otherwise then by perswasion to take their Medicines when they are their Patients nor can they corporally punish them for any disobedience to their directions But this they may do they may tell them first that if they will not be ruled they shall be without the Physitians help and then their desease will certainly kill them or endanger them and if the Patient continue so disobedient as to frustrate the means of cure the Physitian may give him over and be his Physitian no more and this is the Power of a Church Guide and this is his way of punishing Only he may further acquaint them with a Divine Commission then a Physician can do to his Patient at least gradually and so press obedience more effectually on their consciences So a Schoolmaster may make orders for the right circumstantiating of matters in his School supposing one Grammer enjoyned by superiour Authority and he may order what Authors shall be read and at what hours and how much at a time and dispose of the seats and orders of his Schollars But yet if he be a Teacher of the Adult according to our case he cannot corporally punish those that either refuse to be his Schollars or to learn of him or obey him but the utmost that he can do is to put some disgrace upon them while they abide in his School and at last to shut them out And then all the Schoolmasters in the Countrey may well agree upon one Method of Teaching and that they will not receive those without satisfaction into one School who are for obstinacy and abuse cast out of another But such Agreements or Meetings to that end do not make either one Physitian or Schoolmaster to be the Governour of the rest or above another nor yet to have the charge of all the Schollars or Patients of all the rest so is it in the case of Ecclesiastical Assemblies HAving said this much concerning the Nature of Church-Power and Government I come to the second thing promised which is to enumerate the several sorts of Bishops that are to fall under our consideration that so we may next consider which of them are to be allowed of And here I suppose none will expect that I shew them all these sorts distinctly existent it is enough that I manifest them to be in themselves truly different 1. And first the name Bishop may be given
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
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
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
in Afrâ—ca and call the rest Cecilians and let the Papists reduce it to the subscribers to their Trent confession or to them only that believe in the Popes universal Headship and Government and call all others Hereticks yet will all true Catholicks imitate Augustine and the Councils that were called against the Donatists who still described the Catholike Church to be that which was dispersed over the world having begun at Ierusalem and though to Gods praise we dare rejoycingly affirm that the most illustrious and the soundest part of it is in Europe among the Reformed yet dare we not say that it is all or the greatest part here Nay we confess that we are but a small part of Christs Church And therefore common sobriety may tell us that the Peace of so great a part of Christs Church as is in all the rest of the world is highly to be valued and sought with all our might in righteousness Moreover even among the reformed Churches there are many for some Episcopacy or Superintendency As the Church of England and Ireland was lately for Diocesan Episcopacy so the Churches in Denmark Sweden Saxionie and other parts of Germany Transilvania c. are for a lower sort of Episcopacy called Superintendency among them 3. And the quality of many of the Divines of that way is such as bespeaks our greatest reverence to them and should move us to thirst after Unity and Reconciliation with them Many of them are men of eminent Learning and Godliness and sound in the faith I know that it is commonly objected that they are generally ungodly men that are that way and though some of them are Learned men yet they are all or almost all of careless and carnal lives or meerly formal and superstitious and therefore their Communion is not much to be desired To which I answer 1. The plain undenyable truth is that it was so here with the most of them in the Bishops dayes where ever I was acquainted There were more Ministers in many places that would have scorned threatned or troubled a man for a godly diligent life then that would lead him that way by a good example We must speak that truth that cannot be hid whoever be displeased To this day too many of that way are careless and scandalous But then Consider withall 2. That it is but too common for the common sort even of Ministers as well as people to be careless and bad what ever opinions they are of Especially if the times do discountenance practical Religiousness the greater part are likely to follow the times being that way also so strongly enclined by nature 3. Consider also that we have had and have men of that Judgement that have been excellent Instruments of the Churches good and so eminent for Gods graces and gifts that their names will be pretious whilest Christ hath in England a Reformed Church were there in all England but one such man dissenting from us as Hooper Farrar Latimer Cranmer Ridley Iewel Abbot Davenant Vsher Hall c. what sober Godly man would not be exceeding solicitous for a reconciliation I am sure besides the godliness of their lives and painful preaching One Iewel One Vsher One Davenant hath done so much against the Roman Usurpers as they will never well claw it off them to the last Moreover who knoweth not that most of the Godly able Ministers of England since the Reformation did judge Episcopacy some of them Lawful and some of them most fit for the Non-conformists were but few and that even before this late trouble and war the most even almost all of those that were of the late Assembly at Westminster and most through the land did subscribe and conform to Episcopal Government as a thing not contrary to the word of God so that it is evident that it is very consistent with a Godly life to judge Episcopacy lawful and fit or else we should not have had so many hundred learned and godly men of that mind And I am not altogether unapt to believe that many of them yet are so far reconcileable to it moderated that if it were again established they would submit to it as they did For I hear but of few that have made any recantation of their former conformity but contrarily have known divers of them profess a reconcilableness as aforesaid as Mr. Gataker doth in one of his books express his own Judgement If I have proved this preparatory proposition which I think needeth but litle proof then have I also proved 1. That they have sinned much who have hitherto forborn the use of any means for Peace which was in their power 2. And that we are bound our selves to desire and seek after a peace with such men and that we cannot discharge a good conscience while we neglect such means as is within our reach and fit for us to use The second Proposition is that A Certain Episcopacy may be yielded to for the peace if not also for the right order of the Church In the declaration of my judgement concerning this I make no doubt but I shall displease both sides the one for yielding so much the other for yielding no more But jacta est alea I live not upon mens favour nor the air of their applause That truth which displeaseth at present may tend to peace and produce it at the last when the angry humour is allayed or at least when the angry age is gone For the clearer determination of this and the main Question following it is necessary that I here stay 1. To open the nature of Church-Government in general 2. To open the sence of the word Episcopacy and the several sorts of Bishops And then 3. I shall tell you what sort of Episcopacy it is that I could yield to for the Churches peace 1. I must confess I think that the greatest part of the controversie by far is in this first question of the nature of Ecclesiastical Government strictly so called which is only in the hands of Christs Ministers Bishops or whomsoever commonly called Clergy men Aâ—d concerning this having written my thoughts more largely elâ—ewhere I shall now lay down these few Propositions Prop. 1. All this power Ecclesiastical is Jure divino given from God himself and that either immediately or by the mediation only of the Apâ—stles I mean as to the determination in specie what it shall be and the constitution of that order and power in the Church though perhaps some other causes at least sine quibus non may intervene for the reception of this power by an individual person These therefore that plead only the Laws of the Land or only Canons of former Bishops for their standing or authority do say nothing that as to our controversie is regardable Whâ—t men do they may undo if there be reason for it and if it depend on their authority we must submit to their reason Prop. 2. This Divine Constitution of the Species of Church-Power