care not so we come near an agreement about the proportion of Members that the definition be not overthrown and the ends of it made impossible by the distance number and unacquaintedness of the members that cannot have any Church communion immediately one with another If there be no communion how is it a Church Nay or if there be no such communion as consists in mutual assistance and conjunction in Worship and holding familiarity also in our conversation which the excommunicated are excluded from And if a communion there be it is either Immediate by the members themselves Assembled or else but Mediately by their Officers or Delegates If it be only by the latter Mediately then it is not the Ecclesia prima but orta It is an association of several Political Churches For that is the difference between the communion of a single particular Church and many combined Churches that as the first is a combination of persons and not of Churches so the communion is held among the Members in common whereas the other being a combination of Churches the communion is maintained orderly by Officers and Delegates joyning in Synods and sent from the Congregations If therefore it be an Immediate ordinary communion of members in Ecclesiastical affairs viz. Worship and Discipline that is the Particular Church that I intend call it what you will else and whether there may be any private meetings in it besides the main body or not as possibly through some accidents there may be and yet at Sacrament and on the most solemne occasions the same persons that were at Chappels or less meetings may be with the chief Assembly But I shall proceed in the proof of this by the next Argument which will serve for this and the main together Argum. 11. THat sort of Church Government may most safely be now practised which was used in the Scripture times and that 's less safe which was not then used But the Government of many Elders and particular Churches by one Bishop fixed and taking that as his proper Diocess such as the English Bishops were was not used in Scripture times Therefore it is not so safe to use it or restore it now The Major is proved hence 1. In that the Primitive Church which was in Scripture times was of unquestionable Divine Institution and so most pure And it is certainly lawful to practice that Church-Government which alone was practised by all the Church in the Scripture times of the New Testament 2. Because we have no certain Law or Direction but Scripture for the frame of Government as jure Divino Scripture is Gods sufficient and perfect Law If therefore there be no mention of the Practice of any such Episcopacy in Scripture no nor any precept for the practice of it afterwards then cannot we receive it as of Divine Institution The Objections shall be answered when we have proved the Minor And for the Minor I shall at this time argue from the Concessions of the most Learned and Reverend man that at this time hath deeply engaged himself in defence of Episcopacy who doth grant us all these things following 1. That in Scripture times they were the same persons and of the same office that were called Bishops and Presbyters 2. That all the Presbyters mentioned in Scripture times or then instituted as far as we can know had a Power of Ordination 3. And also a Power of Ruling the Church Excommunicating and Absolving 4. That there was not then in being any Presbyter such as the Bishops would have in these times who was under the Bishop of a particular Church or Diocess His words are these And although this title of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elders have been also extended to a second Order in the Church and is now 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 of Ignatius Epistles there were such instituted in all Churches 5. It is yielded also by him that it is the office of these Presbyters or Bishops to Teach frequently and diligently to reduce Hereticks to reprove rebuke Censure and absolve to visit all the sick and pray with them c. And therefore it must needs follow that their Diocess must be no larger then that they may faithfully perform all this to the Members of it And if there be but one Bishop to do it I am most certain then by experience that his Diocess must be no bigger then this Parish nor perhaps half so big 6. And it must needs follow that in Scripture times a Particular Church consisted not of seveâ—al Churches associated nor of several Congregations ordinarily meeting in several places for Christian communion in the solemn Worship of God but only of the Christians of one such Congregation with a single Pastor though in that we dissent and suppose there weâ—e more Pastors then one usually or often That this must be granted with the rest is apparent 1. The Reverend Author saith as Bishop Downam before cited That when the Gospel was first preached by the Apostles and but few Converted they ordained in every City and region no more but a Bishop and one or more Deacons to attend him there being at the present so smal store out of which to take more and so small need of ordaining more that this Bishop is constituted more for the sake of those which should after believe then of those which did already 2. And it s proved thus If there were in Scripture times any more ordinary Worshiping Assemblies on the Lords dayes then one under one Bishop then either they did Preach Pray Praise God and administer the Lords Supper in those Assemblies or they did not If not then 1. They were no such Worshipping Assemblies as we speak of 2. And they should sin against Christ who required it 3. And differ from his Churches which ordinarily used it But if they did thus then either they had some Pastor Presbyter or Bishop to perform these holy actions between God and the people or not If not then they suppose that Lay-men might do all this Ministerial work in Word Sacraments Prayer and Praise in the name of the Assembly c. And if so what then is proper to the Ministry then farewell Bishops and Presbyters too If not theâ—â—â—her the Bishop must be in two Assemblies at once performing the Holy Worship of God in their communion but that 's impossible or else he must have some assisting Presbyters to do it But that 's denyed Therefore it must needs follow that the Church order constitution and practised Government which was in Scripture times was this that a single Worshipping Congregation was that particular Church which had a Presbyter or Bishop one or more which watched over and ruled that only Congregation as his Diocess or proper charge having no Government
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
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
none such as is granted therefore c. And what proof is there of Archbishops then Sect. 23. Their first proof is from the Apostles But they will never prove that they were fixed Bishops or Archbishops I have proved the contrary before But such an itinerant Episcopacy as the Apostles had laying by their extraordinaries for my part I think should be continued to the world and to the Church of which after Another of their proofs is from Timothy and Titus â— who thy say were Archbishops But there is full evidence that Timothy and Titus were not fixed Bishops or Archbishops but Itinerant Evangelists that did as the Apostles did even plant and settle Churches and then go further and do the like See and consider but the proofs of this in Prins unbishoping of Timothy and Titus Such Planters and Itinerants were pro tempore the Bishops of every Church where they came yet so as another might the next week be Bishop of the same Church and another the next week after him yea three or four or more at once as they should come into the place And therefore many Churches as well as Ephesus and Creet its like might have begun their Catalogue with Timothy and Titus and many a one besides Rome might have begun their Catalogue with Peter and Paul Sect. 24. Another of their proofs is of the Angels of the seven Churches which they say were Archbishops But how do they prove it Because those Churches or some of them were planted in chief Cities and therefore the Bishops were Metropolitans But how prove they the consequence By their strong imagination and affirmation The Orders of the Empire had not then such connection and proportion and correspondency with the Orders of the Church Let them give us any Valid proof that the Bishop of a Metropolis had then in Scripture times the Bishops of other Cities under him as the Governor of them and we shall thank them for such unexpected light But presumption must not go for proofs They were much later times that afforded occasion for such contentions as that of Basil and Anthymius Whether the bounds of their Episcopal Jurisdiction should change as the Emperours changed the State of the Provinces Let them prove that these Asian Angels had the Bishops of other Churches and the Churches themselves under their jurisdiction and then they have done something Sect. 25. But if there were any preheminence of Metropolilitans neer these times it cannot be proved to be any more then an honorary Primacy to be Episcopus primae sedis but not a Governour of the rest How else could Cyprian truly say even so long after as is before alledged that none of them was a Bishop of Bishops nor imposed on others but all were left free to their own consciences as being accountable only to God Sect. 26. Yea the Reverend Author above mentioned shews Dâ—ssertat de Episcop 4. cap. 10. Sect. 9 10 alibi that there were in those times more Bishops then one in a City though not in una Ecclesia aut Coeâ—u And the like hath Grotius oft So that a City had oft then more Churches then one and those Churches had their several Bishops and neither of these Bishops was the Governour of the other or his Congregation much less of the remoter Churches and Bishops of other Cities And this they think to have been the case of Peter and Paul at Rome yea and of their immediate successors there And so in other places Lege Dissert 5 c 1. Sect. 27. When the great Gregory Thaumaturgus was made Bishop of Neocaesarea he had but seventeen Christians in his City and when he had increased them by extraordinary successes yet we find not that he had so much as a Presbyter under him And if he had it s not likely that Musonius his first and chief entertainer would have been made but his Deacon and be the only man to accompany him and comfort him in his retirement in the persecution and that no Presbyter should be mentioned which shews that Bishops then were such as they were in Scripture-times at least in most places and had not many Churches with their Presbyters subject to them as Dâ—ocâ—san Bishops have And when Comana a small place not far off him received the faith Gregory Ordained Alexander the Colliar their Bishop over another single Congregâ—tion and did not keep them under his own Pastoral charge and Government Vid. Greg. Nysâ—n in vita Thaumat Sect. 28. But because that our Dâ—ocesan Bishops are such as the Archbishops that first assumed the Government of many Churches and because we shall hardly drive many from their presumption that Timothy and Titus were Archbishops besides the Apostles I shall now let that supposition stand and make it my next Argument that Argument 3. Ordination by Archbishops is not necessary to the Being of Ministers or Churches Our English Bishops were indeed Archbishops therefore Ordination by them is not Necessary It is not the Name but the office that is pleaded Necessary Sect. 29. And for the Major I think it will not be denyed All that I have to do with Protestants and Papists do grant the Validity of Ordination by Bishops And for the Minor it is easily proved The Bishops that are the Governours of many Churches and their Bishops are Archbishops The Bishops of England were the Governours of many Churches with their Bishops therefore they were Archbishops The Major will be granted And for the Minor I prove it by parts 1. That they were by undertaking the Governours of many Churches 2. And of many Bâ—shops Sect. 30. He that is the Governour over many Congregations of Christians associated for the publick Worship of God and holy communion and Edification under their Proper Pastors is the Governour of many Churches But such were our English Bishops therefore c. That such Societies as are here defined are true Churches is a truth so clear that no enemy of the Churches is is able to gainsay with any shew of Scripture or reason they being such Churches as are described in the Scriptures And 2. That our Ministers were true Pastors if any will deny as the Papists and Separatists do I shall have occasion to say more to them anon Sect. 31. Argument 4. If Ordination by such as the English Bishops be of Necessity to the Ministry and Churches then was there no true Ministry and Churches in the Scripture times nor in many years after But the consequent is false therefore so is the Antecedent The reason of the Consequence is because there were no such Bishops in those times and this is already proved they being neither the Itinerant Apostolical sort of Bishops nor the fixed Pastors of particular Churches besides which there were no other Sect. 32. Argument 5. If Ordination by such as the English Prelates be Necessary to the Being of the Ministry and Churches then none of the Protestants that have not such Prelates which is almost all are
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
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.
If the Ordination of Papist Bishops be valid much more is the Ordination of English Preâ—byters so but the Antecedent is true in the judgement of those against whom we dispute therefore the Consequent must be granted by them on that supposition Sect. 33. The reason of the Consequence is because the Popish Bishops are more unlike to the Scripture Bishops and more uâ—capable of ordaining then the Presbyters of the Reformed Churches are For 1. The Papist Prelates profess to receive their Power from a Vice-christ at least quoad exercitium media conserendi which Protestant Presbyters do not 2. The Papist Bishops profess themselves Pastors of a new Catholick Church which is headed by the Papacy as an essential part and which Christ will not own as such But so do not the Protestant Presbyters 3. The Papist Prelates Ordain men to the false Office of turning Bread into the Body of Christ by the way of Transubstantiation in their Consecration and offering it as a Sacrifice for the quick and dead and delivering this as the very Body of Christ and not Bread to the Communicants and perswading them that it is such and holding and carrying it to be Worshipped by them with Divine Worship and the like But the Protestant Presbyters are Ordained and do Ordain others to that true Office of a Presbyter or Pastor or Bishop which Christ hath instituted 4. The Papist Prelates have abundance of false doctrines and practices in Worship which the Protestant Presbyters have not 5. And they have no more to shew for a Power of Ordination then our Presbyters have so that these with many the like considerations will prove that if the Papists Ordination be Valid that of the Protestant Churches by Presbyters is so much more And doubtless they that plead for a succession from the Papist Prelates do hold their Ordination Valid Sect. 34. Argument 13. If the Protestant Churches that have no Prelates be true Churches in a Political sense and the Ordinances among them valid and to be owned and received then are the Pastors of those Churches true Pastors though they have no Ordination but by Presbyters But the Antecedent is true therefore so is the Consequent The reason of the Consequence is clear and granted by them that we have now to do with Because the Pastors are essential to the Church as Political and the said Ordinances of Publike worship as the Lords Supper and Government cannot be allowable without them nor such as the people should submit to or receive This therefore we may take as granted Sect. 35. And for the Minor that the Protestant Churches are true Churches that have no Prelates 1. There are so few of them that have Prelates that he that will unchurch all the rest I suppose when he playes his game above board would take it for an injury to be accounted a Protestant himself 2. If the Churches of the West called Papists and the Churches of Africa Asia and America be true Churches of Christ and have true administrations then much more confidently may we affirm that the Protestants are so too But the Antecedent is maintained by those that we now dispute against excepting the Papists who yet maintain it as of their own Church therefore c. Sect. 36. The reason of the Consequence is because the Papists Greeks Armenians Georgians Syrians Aegyptians Abasines c. have much more to be said against them then we have And if the lesser or supposed imperfection of the Protestant Churches do unchurch them for wanting Prelates then the many great and real defects of the other Churches will unchurch them much more Especially this holds as to the Church of Rome which yet is taken by the Dissenters to be a true Church and by some of them at least denyed to be the seat of Antichrist Their Vicechrist and usurping head and all the Ministry that hold by him afford us other kind of Arguments against their Church then want of Prelates can afford them or others against our Churches Sect 37. And if any will deny the Antecedent so far as to unchurch all the Churches in the world that are more defective then the Protestants he will blot out of his Creed the Article of the Catholick Church and being a Seeker or next one to day is like to be an Infidel ere long as I shall further shew when I speak of the sinfulness of such Sect. 38. Argument 14. If the Administrations of a Usurping Presbyter to an innocent people are Valid and not Nullities then the Ordination of an Usurping Ordainer to an Innocent expectant is Valid and consequently the Ordination of Presbyters is Valid if they were Usurpers as they are unjustly said to be But the administrations of usurping Presbyters to an Innocent people are Valid therefore c. Sect. 39. The Antecedent is granted by Bellarmine himself in the place before cited who saith that no more is required to oblige the people to obey him and submit then that he be reputed a Pastor And all must say so 1. That will not rob the Innocent of the Benefit of Gods Ordinances because of an usurpers fault 2. And that will not leave the people almost commonly in an utter uncertainty whom they should take for a Pastor and obey and when the Ordinances are Valid for their good Sect. 40. The Consequence is made good by the Parity of Reason that is in the two cases If usurpation cause not a Nullity invalidity or unprofitableness in one case to the innocent receiver no nor make it his sin to receive no more will it in the other For there is no Reason for any such difference Nay iâ— it be a duty to submit to an unknown usurper in several cases in receiving the Sacraments hearing praying c. so is it a duty in such cases to receive Ordination Sect. 41. Object But the usurping Presbyter doth nothing but what belongeth to the office of a Presbyter but the usurping Ordainer doth that which belongs not to the office of a Presbyter and therefore his action is a Nullity as being extra proprium forum Sect. 42. Answ. 1. It is proved before to belong to the office of a Presbyter to Ordain 2. But suppose it were not yet the objection is vain because it is the office of a Bishop that the Ordaining Presbyter doth pretend to and which you imagine that he doth usurp They say that subject Presbyters quoad ordinem vel Officium are no creatures of Gods appointment and therefore they renounce that Office and claim that office which you call Episcopacy and hath the Power of Ordination The quarrel between us is not about meer Bishops such as Dr. H. H. describeth as aforesaid These are not denyed but the Parish Ministers profess themselves such Bishops But it is about the other sort of Presbyters subject to Bishops that the quarrel is For they say that the Church should have none such and Dr. H. H. saith there is no Evidence that any such
more have Ministers Ordained by Presbyters a lawfull call to their Ministry But the Prelates say that they had a lawfull Call to their Prelacy therefore c. The reason of the Consequence which only will be denyed is 1. Because the Presbyters are Ordained to an Office that is of Christs Institution but the Prelates are Consecrated to an Office that is not of Christs Institution but against it and against the light of Nature in taking on them the impossible Government of an hundred or many hundred Churches as was shewed in the former Disputation 2. Because the Prelates hold an uninterrupted Succession of Legitimate Ordination necessary to the Being of their Prelacie I mean such as now we dispute against hold this but so do not the Presbyters The said dissenting Prelates are still upon their Nâ—mo dat quod non habet which therefore we may urge upon them And 1. They cannot prove an uninterrupted Succession themselves on whom it is incumbent according to their principles if they will prove their Call 2. We can prove that they are the successors of such as claimed all their Power from the Roman Vicechrist and professed to receive it from him and hold it of him as the Catholick Head and so that their Ordination comes from a seat that hath had many interruptions and so had no power of Ordination by their Rule For when the succession was so oft and long interrupted Nemo dat quod non habet and therefore all that followed must be usurpers and no Popes and those that received their Offices from them must be no Officers But the Presbyters that Ordain will give a better proof of their Call then this Sect. 61. Argument 19. Where the Office is of Gods Institution and the persons are endued with Ministerial abilitities and are Orderly and duly designed and separated to the Office of the sacred Ministry there are true Ministers and Valid administrations But all these are found in the Reformed Churches that have Ordination without Prelates therefore c. The Major is undenyable as containing a sufficient enumeration of all things necessary to the Being of the Ministry Sect. 62. The Minor is proved by parts 1. That the Offiâ—e of a Presbyter is of divine institution is confessed by most And I suppose those that deny it to be of Scripture insâ—iâ—ution will yet have it to be Divine But if they deny that yet it sufficeth us that it is the same officer that they call a Bishop and we a Presbyter that is the chief Pastor of a particular Church Sect. 63. 2. And that the persons are duly or competenly qualified for the Ministry nothing but Ignorance Faction and Malicâ— that ever I heard of do deny Supposing the humane frailties that make us all insufficient gradually for these things The Ignorant that know not what the Ministerial qualifications are do judge as carnal interest leadeth them The Factious rail at all that be not of their mind Grotius thought the opinions of the Calvinists made them unfit materials for the Catholick Edifice that by his Pacification he was about to frame So do most other Sects reject those as unworthy that suit not with their minds And malice whether â—nâ—mated by Heresie Prophaness or Carnal interest will easily find faults and unweariedly slander and reproach But besides such I meet with none that dare deny the competent abilities of these Ministers Sect. 64. And 3. That the persons are Orderly and duly separated to the work of the Ministry is thus proved Where there is a separation to the Ministry by mutual Consent of the person and the flock and by the Magistrates authority and by the Approbation and Investiture of the fittest Ecclesiastical officers that are to be had there is an orderly and due separation to the Ministry But all this is to be found in the Ordination used in England and other Reformed Churches without Prelates therefore c. This proves not only the Validity of their Ordination but the full Regularity Sect. 65. God himself as hath been shewed doth by his Law appoint the Office of the Ministry imposing the duty upon the person that shall be called and giving him his power by that Law And then there is nothing to be done but to detertermine of the person that is to receive this power and solemnly to put him in Possession by Investiture Now the principal part of the former work is done also by God himself by his Qualifying the person with his eminent Gifts and giving him opportunities and advantages for the Work So that the people and Odainers have no more to do but to find out the man that God hath thus qualified and to elect approve and invest him and usually he is easily found out as a candle in the night So that the two great acts by which God maketh Ministers is his Instituting Law that makes the office and his Spiritual and Naturall Endowments given to the person which the Church is but to find out and call into use and exercise And therefore we may still truly say that the Holy Ghost maketh Pastors or Overseers of the Church as well as formerly he did Act. 20.28 because he giveth them their Gifts though not such Miraculous Gifts as some then had By his common Gifts of Knowledge and Utterance and his special Gifts of Grace it is the spirit that still makes Ministers and still Christ giveth Pastors to the Church Sect. 66. It is therefore to be noted that Eph. 4.6 7 8 11 the way of Christs giving officers to his Church is said to be by giving Gifts to men and the diversity of Offices is founded in the diversity of the Measure of Grace or these Gifts To every one of us is given Grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ. Therefore he saith Ascending on high he led captivity 〈◊〉 and gave Gifts to men 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And he gave some Apostles some Prophets some Evangelists and some Pastors and Tâ—â—chers So that giving Gifts and giving Apostles Prophets c. are here made the same work of God Not that 〈…〉 and Approbation of these gifts is hereby made unnecessary but 〈◊〉 this is Gods principal act by which â—e giveth Pastors and Teachers to the Church and by which the Officers aâ—e distinguished For the Church is to discern and submit to those that are thus gifted and to follow the Spirit and not either contraâ—ict or lead him When God hath thus gifted men the main wâ—rk is done for making them Ministers iâ— withall he give tâ—em opportunities and advantages for the work and it is the Churches Duty â—o Own and Approve these Gifts of God and to do their parts to introduce the person And if the Ordainers refuse this in case of Necessity the gifted person is bound to improve his Gifts without them I say in case of Necessity using the best Order that is left Sect. 67. This being premised I come to the Argument § 64. And the
granted that are unlawfully and upon mistake desired § 37. Lastly understand also that when I speak of yielding to this Negative voice in Ordination to the President of such an Association I intend not to exclude the Presbyterie of a particular Church where it is sufficient from the said Power and exercise of Ordination of which I am to speak in the the following Chapter which is of the President of such a Presbyterie CHAP. IV. It is Lawful for the Presbyters of a particular Church to have a fixed President during life § 1. I Come now to the most Ancient fixed Bishop that the Church was acquainted with except the meer Episcopus Gregis the Overseer of the flock and that is A President of many Elders in one particular Church The Diocesan Bishop was long after this The first Bishops if you will call them so in the Church were the first mentioned Itinerant Bishops that were sent abroad to convert souls and gather Churches and afterward took care to water and confirm them The next sort of Bishops and the first so called were the fixed Pastors of particular Churches that cannot be proved to have any superiority over Presbyters The third sort of Bishops in time and the first fixed Bishops that were superiours to other Pastors were these Presidents of the Presbyteries of particular Churches And these are they that now we have to speak of And I shall prove that it is not unlawful to have such § 2. But first I must tell you what I mean and shew you that such may be had among us I have in one of the former Disputations defined a particular Câ—urch It should ordinarily consist of no more then may hold personal Communion together in Gods publick Worship But yet take notice 1. That it tendeth to the strength and honour of it that it be not too small but consisting of as many as are well capable of the Ends. 2 And it is lawfull for these to have some other meeting places for part of the Church besides the principal place which is for the whole Chappels of ease may lawfully be made use of for the benefit of the weak and lame and aged that cannot alwayes or often come to the common Assembly And where such Chappels are not it is lawfull to make use of convenient houses Yea if there were no Place to be had sufficiently capacious of a full Assembly or else if persecution forbad them to meet it might still be but one Church though the members met in several houses ordinarily as five hundred in one and three hundred in another or one hundred only in several places every one going to which house he pleased and having several Pastors that in Society and by Consent did guide them all But though somewhat disorderly may be born with in cases of Necessity yet 1. As it is Necessary to the Ends and so to the Being of a particular Church that they be a Society capable of personal Communion and the personal Teaching Guidance and Oversight of the same Pastors So 2. It is desirable as much tending to Order and Edification that all of them that are able do frequently meet in one Assembly for the Worshipping of God with one heart and mouth And this is the Church I speak of § 3. It is not of Necessity to the Being of such a particular Church that it have more Pastors then one And when one only is the Pastor or Governour that one alone may do all the works of a Pastor or Governour For what else is his Office but the state or Relation of a man obliged and authorized to do such works The Learned Dr. H. H. thinketh that the Apostles planted none in Scripture times but single Pastors or Bishops called also Presbyters in every Church with Deacons under them without any other Presbyters subject or assistant over that Church This I conceive cannot be proved nor so much as the probability of it nay I think at least a probability if not a certainty of the contrary may be proved of some Churches But yet it is most likely that it was so with many Churches And reason tells us that the thing being in it self indifferent was suted by the Apostles to the state of the particular Churches that they planted A small Church might well have a single Pastor when a large Church especially in times of persecution when they must assemble in several houses at once required more Some places might have many persons fit for the Office and some but one Which cases must needs have some Variety § 4. Where there are more Pastors in such a Church then one I know of no Necessity that one should have any superiority over another nor can I prove that it was so from the beginning Some Divines of the Prelatical Judgement think that this was an Ordinance of the Apostles at the first planting of such Churches Others of them think that it was of their appointment but not actually existent till after Scripture times Others of them think that as Hierom saith it began when factions rose in the Church not by Divine Ordination but Ecclesiastical agreement for the preventing or cure of schism § 5. The first Church that we find it in in History is that of Alexandria And Alexandria was a place exceedingly given to sedition tumults and divisions the contentions between Cyril and Orestes the murder of Hypatia by Peter and his company the assault made upon Orestes by Ammonius the other Nitrian Monks and many such feats in the dayes of Theophilus Dionysius and up to the beginning do shew what they were And Socrates saith of them expresly li. 7. cap. 13. that The people of Alexandria above all other men are given to Schism and contention for if any quarrel arise at any time among them presently hainous and horrible offences use to follow and the tumult is never appeased without great blood-shed such were the Alexandrians § 6. But yet it is certain that the Original of this custom of setting up one as President or chief Presbyter in a particular Churâ—h cannot be found out so as to say by whom and when it was first brought in But if it began upon the death of Mark at Alexandria it must needs be long before the death of Iohn the Apostle in that Church what ever other Churces did But it seems that there was then a difference and indifferency in this point and that other Churces did not presently imitate the Churches of Alexandria and Rome herein He that reads Clemens Epistle to the Corinthians without partiality I think will be of Grotius mind before cited Epist. ad Gal. ad Bignon that Clemens knew not any such Prelacy among the Corinthians when he wrote that Epistle And so we may say of some other Witnesses and Churches in those times and afterwards in many places § 7. It is not another Order of Ministers or Office that was in such Churches distinct from the Presbyters that assisted them
between you and your Brethren for so they are is too much known to friends and foes at home and abroad and too much daily manifested by each side Shall it still continue or would you have it healed If it must continue tell us how long and tell us why Would you have it go with us to Eternity and will you not be reconciled nor dwell with us in Heaven It is not in your Power to shut us out And will you not be there if we be there Or do you think there will be any Discord where Love is Perfected and we are One in God If you can be content to be saved with us and believe that all of both Opinions that truly love and fear the Lord shall live there in dearest Love for ever how can you chuse when you forethink of this but Love them now that you must for ever Love and long to be reconciled to them with whom you must there so harmoniously accord You know that Earth is our preparation for Heaven and such as men would be there they must begin to be here As they must be Holy here that ever will there see the Lord in Holiness so must they here be Loving and Peaceable that ever will live in that perfect heavenly Love and Peace And why is it that the distance must be so great Are we not all the Children of one Father Have we not all the same God the same Redeemer the same Spirit in us if we are Christians indeed Rom. 8.9 Are we not in the same Baptismal Covenant with God Have we not the same holy Scripture for our Rule and are we not in the same universal Church and of the same Religion some of you say No to the grief of your friends and the shame of your own understandings and uncharitableness I beseech you bear it if I touch the sore For my work is Healing and therefore though it Must be touch't it shall be as gently as the case will bear If I may judge by such as I have had any opportunity to know I must say that the distance on your part is continued in some by confused apprehensions of the case and not distinguishing things that differ In some by discontents of mind and too deep a sense of worldly losses and the things that you take as injuries from others In some by the advantage of a co-interest and consociation with those Divines that are of your way and so by a Willingness to think them in the right and those in the wrong that you take for adversaries In some by a stiffness and stoutâ—ess of disposition that cals it Constancy to hold your own and Manliness not to stoop to others and takes it as dishonourable to seek for Peace even in Religion with your supposed adversaries or to yield to it at least without much importunity With too many miserable souls it is meer ungodliness and enmity to that way of Piety that in many that you differ from appears And in the best of you it is a Remissness of Charity and want of Zeal for the Churches Peace and the Love and Vnity of Brethren To confute the reasonings of all these sorts would draw out this Preface to too great a length The first sort my experience hath caused me to observe Oft have I faln into company with men that pour forth bitter odious words against Presbyterie and I ask them what that Presbyterie is that they speak of with so much abomination Is it the Name or the Thing which they so abhor If the Name is it not a term of Scripture used by the Holy Ghost 1 Tim. 4.14 Are not the Pastors of the Church most frequently called the Presbyters or Elders Tit. 1.5 Act. 14.23 15.2 4 6 22 23. 1 Tim. 5.17 Act. 20.17 James 5.14 1 Pet. 5.1 c. It must needs then be the Thing and not the Name which they abominate And what is that Thing most of them cannot tell me Some presently talk of the disuse of the Common Prayer as if that were a part of Presbyterie and Government and the form of worship were all one Some presently run to Scotland and talk of forcing men to Confession of sin and of their secular enforcement of their Excommunications But 1. If this be odious why was it used by the Bishops Is it good in them and bad in others 2. And why plead you for Discipline and against Toleration if you so loath the things you plead for 3. But will you not when it s known so openly distinguish the Ministerial Power from the secular It s known by their Laws and constant Practice that all the Power that was exercised by Violence on Body or Estate by the Assemblies was derived from the Magistrate whose Commissioners also sate among them And the Bishops in England were seconded by the Sword as much as they It s known that the Presbyterians commonly maintain in their Writings that Pastors have no Coercive or Secular Power but only the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven to exercise on the Conscience committed to them by Christ. 4. And the writings and practice of those in England openly manifest it and its them with whom you have most to do Some tell me that Presbyterie is the Government of the Church without Bishops And is it only the Negation of your Prelacy that is the odious thing Is there nothing Positive odious in Presbyterie Thus our Belief is condemned by the Papists even because we Believe not so much as they when in the Positives of our Faith there is nothing that they can blame Some make it the odious thing that they have Lay-Elders But 1. The Presbyterians account them not Lay but Ecclesiasticks 2. And what is the Odious harm that these men do among them They are present and Consent to the admonishing and censuring of offendors And what great harm doth that to the Church Is it because they do not Preach No sure in that your Readers are much like them What work can you Name that these Elders are appointed to that by your Confession is not to be done It is not the Work then that you blame but that these men do it 3. But what is this to all that are in this point of your mind and think that unordained Elders wanting Power to preach or administer the Sacraments are not Officers in the Church of Gods appointment As far as I can understand the greater part if not three for one of the English Ministers that you stand at a distance from are of this mind and so far against Lay-Elders as well as you of whom I confess my self to be One. and that M r Vines was One I have shewed you in the End Surely then all we are none of the odious Presbyterians in your eyes Why then is there such a distance And are Lay-Elders as bad as Lay-Chancellors So also when some have been hotly condemning us as being against Bishops I ask them what a Bishop is and what
authority and gifts I think was done in Scripture times and might have been after if it had not then And my judgement is that ordinarily every particular Church such as our Parish Churches are had more Elders then One but not such store of men of eminent gifts as that all these Elders could be such But as if half a dozen of the most judicious persons of this Parish were Ordained to be Elders of the same Office with my self but because they are not equally fit for publick preaching should most imploy themselves in the rest of the Oversight consenting that the publick preaching lie most upon me and that I be the Moderator of them for Order in Circumstantials This I think was the true Episcopacy and Presbytery of the first times From the mistake of which two contrary Errors have arisen The one of those that think this Moderator was of another Office in specie having certain work assigned him by God which is above the reach of the Office of Presbyters to perform and that he had many fixed Churches for his charge The other of them that think these Elders were such as are called now Lay-elders that is Vnordained men authorized to Govern without Authority to Preach Baptize or Administer the Lords Supper And so both the Prelatical on one side and the Presbyterians and Independents on the other side run out and mistake the ancient form and then contend against each other This was the substance of what I wrote to Mr. Vines which his subjoyned Letter refers to where he signifieth that his judgement was the same When Paul and Barnabas were together Paul was the chief speaker and yet Barnabas by the Idolaters called Jupiter Nature teacheth us that men in the same Office should yet have the preheminence that 's due to them by their Age and Parts and Interests c. and that Order should be kept among them as in Colledges and all Societies is usual The most excellent part of our work is publick preaching but the most of it for quantity is the rest of the Oversight of the Church in Instructing personally admonishing reproving enquiring into the truth of accusations comforting visiting the sick stablishing the weak looking to the poor absolving answering doubts excommunicating and much more And therefore as there is a necessity as the experienced know of many Elders in a particular Church of any great number so it is fit that most hands should be most imployed about the said works of Oversight yet so as that they may preach as need and occasion requireth and administer Sacraments and that the eminent Speakers be most employed in publick preaching yet so as to do their part of the rest as occasion requireth And so the former Elders that Rule well shall be worthy of double honour but especially these that labour in the Word and Doctrine by more ordinary publick preaching And such kind of seldom-preaching Ministers as the former were in the first times and should be in most Churches yet that are numerous Sect. 6. When I speak in these Papers therefore of other mens Concessions that there were de facto in Scripture times but One Bishop without any subject Presbyters to a particular Church remember that I speak not my own judgement but urge against them their own Concessions And when I profess my Agreement with them it is not in this much less in all things for then I needed not disspute against them but it is in this much that in Scripture times there was de facto 1. No meer Bishop of many particular Churches or stated worshipping Congregations 2. Nor any distinct Office or Order of Presbyters that radically had no Power to Ordain or Govern or Confirm c. which are the subject Presbyters I mean Sect. 7. Specially remember that by Bishops in that dispute I mean according to the Modern use one that is no Archbishop and yet no meer Presbyter but one supposed to be between both that is a Superior to meer Presbyters in Order or Office and not only in degree or modification of the exercise but below Archbishops whether in Order or Degree These are they that I dispute against excluding Metropolitans or Archbishops from the question and that for many Reasons Sect. 8. If it were proved or granted that there were Archbishops in those times of Divine Institution it would no whit weaken my Arguments For it is only the lowest sort of Bishops that I dispute about yea it confirmeth them For if every combination of many particular Churches had an Archbishop then the Governors of such Combinations were not meer Bishops and then the meer Bishops were Parish Bishops or Bishops of single Churches only and that is it that I plead for against Diocesan Bishops that have many of these Churches perhaps some hundreds under one Bishop of the lowest rank having only Presbyters under him of another Order Sect. 9. If any think that I should have answered all that is written for an Apostolical Institution of Metropolitans or of Archbishops or of the subject sort of Presbyters or other points here toucht I answer them 1. In the former my work was not much concerned nor can any man prove me engaged to do all that he fancieth me concerned to do 2. Few men love to be contradicted and confuted and I have no reason to provoke them further then necessity requireth it 3. I take not all that I read for an argument so considerable as to need Replyes If any value the Arguments that I took not to need an Answer let them make their best of them I have taken none of them out of their hands by robbing them of their Books if they think them valid let them be so to them Every Book that we write must not be in folio and if it were we should leave some body unanswered still I have not been a contemner or neglecter of the writings of the contrary-minded But voluminously to tell the world of that I think they abuse or are abused in is unpleasing and unprofitable Sect. 10. And as to the Jus Divinum of limited Diocesses to the Apostles as Bishops and of Archbishops Metropolitans c. I shall say but this 1. That I take not all for currant in matter of fact that two or three or twice so many say was done when I have either cross testimony or valid Reasons of the improbability I believe such Historians but with a humane faith and allow them such a degree of that as the probability of their report and credibility of the persons doth require 2. I take it for no proof that all that was done in all the Churches that I am told was done in some 3. I take the Law of Nature and Scripture to be the entire Divine Law for the Government of the Church and World 4. And therefore if any Father or Historian tell me that this was delivered by the Apostles as a Law to the Vniversal Church which is not contained in Scriptures
nor to be proved by them I will not believe them no more then I would have believed Papius and all his Millenary followers that pretended Tradition from Saint John nor any more then I would have believed the Asians or Romans that pretended different times for Easter as a Tradition Apostolical binding the whole Church 5. If it were proved that de facto the Apostles did thus or thus dispose of a circumstance of Government or Worship which yet is undetermined in Scripture I take it not for a sufficient proof that they intended that Fact for an Universal Law or that they meant to bind all the Churches in all ages to do the like no more then Christ intended at the Institution of his Supper to tie all ages to do it after Supper in an upper room but with twelve and sitting c. 6. Yea if I had found a Direction or Command from the Apostles as Prudential determiners of a Circumstance pro tempore loco only as of the kiss of love hair covering eating things strangled and blood c. I take it not for a proof that this is an universal standing Law One or two of these exceptions wil shake off the proofs that some count strong for the universal obligation of the Church to Diocesans or Metropolitans Sect. 11. That the Apostles had Episcopal Power I mean such in each Church where they came as the fixed Bishops had I doubt not And because they founded Churches according to the success of their labors and setled them and if they could again visited them therefore I blame not the Ancients for calling them the Bishops of those Churches But that each man of them was really a fixed Metropolitan or Patriarch or had his proper Diocess in which he was Governor in chief and into which no other Apostle might come as an equal Governor without his leave this and such like is as well proved by silence as by all that I have read for it of Reason or History that is the Testimonies of the Ancients I find them sometime claiming a special interest in the Children that they have begotten by their Ministry But doubtless when Paul Barnabas or Silas went together some might be converted by one and some by another within the same Diocess or City If any man shall convince me that any great stress doth lie upon this questioÌ„ I shal be willing to give him more of my reasons for what I say Sect. 12. And as to them that confidently teach that the Apostles suited the Ecclesiastical Government to the Politick and that as by a Law for the Church universally to obey All the confutation at present that I will trouble them with shall be to tell them that I never saw any thing like a proof of it to my understanding among all the words that are brought to that purpose and to tell them 1. That if Paul chose Ephesus Corinth and other the most populous places to preach in it was but a prudential circumstantiating of his work according to that General Law of doing all to Edification and not an obligation on all the Pastors or Preachers of the Gospel to do the same where the case is not the same 2. And if Paul having converted many in these Cities do there plant Churches and no other can be proved in Scripture times it follows not that we may plant no Churches but in Cities 3. And if the greatest Cities had then the most numerous Churches and the most eminent Pastors fitted to them and therefore are named with some note of excellency above the rest it followeth not that the rest about them were under them by subjection 4. Yea if the Bishops of the chief Cities for order sake were to call Provincial Assemblies and the meetings to be in their Cities and they were to be the Presidents of the rest in Synods with such like circumstantial difference it followeth not that they were proper Governours of the rest and the rest to obey them in the Government of their proper charges Nor that they had power to place and displace them 5. Much less will it prove that these Metropolitans taking the name of Diocesans might put down all the Bishops of two hundred Churches under them and set up none but Presbyters in order distinct from Bishops over the flocks besides themselves and so the Archbishops having extinguished all the first Order of Bishops of single Churches to take the sole Government of so many Churches even people as well as Presbyters into their own hands 6. And I do not think that they can prove that the Apostles did institute as many sorts of Church-Government then as there were of civil â—olicy in the world All the world had not the Roman form of Government Nor had lesser Cities the same dependence upon greater in all other Countryes 7. Was it in one degree of subordination of Officers only or in all that the Apostles suited the Ecclesiasticall Government to the Civil If in One how is it proved that they intended it in that one and not in the rest If in all then we must have many degrees of Officers more then yet we have Inferiors very many and Superiors some of all conscience too high then we must have some to answer the Correctors the Consular Presidents and the Vicars and Lieutenants the Pro-consuls and Prefects and the Emperor himself Even one to be Vniversal in the Empire that 's yet some Limit to the Pope and will hazzard the removing of the Supremacy to Constantinople by the Rule that the Apostles are supposed to go by And great variety must there be in the several Diocesses of the Empire which Blondell hath punctually described de primatu in Eccles. pag. 511. to 519. shewing the causes of the inequality of Bishopricks and Churches 8. According to this Opinion the form of Church must alter as oft as Emperours will change their Policy or Wars shall change them And upon every change of the Priviledges of a City the Churches Preheminence must change and so we shall be in a mutable frame Which if Basil and Anthymius had understood might have quicklier decided their controversie Yea according to this opinion Princes may quite take down Metropolitans at pleasure by equalling the priviledges of their Cities The best is then that it is in the power of our Civil Governours to dissolve our obligation to Metropolitans yea and to all Bishops too if Cities must be their only residence as I have shewed Sect. 13. As for them that pretend humane Laws for their form of Government that is the decrees of General Councils I answer 1. I disown and deny all humane Laws as obligatory to the Church Vniversal It is the prerogative of God yea the greatest point of the exercise of his Soraignty to be the Law-giver to his Vniversal Church There can be no Vniversal Laws without an Vniversal Law-giver and there is no Vniversal Law-giver under Christ in the world 2. And for General
belong to the Office of a Presbyter when yet he might not exercise it The Bishops in the Ordination of Presbyters enabled them to preach the Gospel And yet they were after that forbidden to preach till they had a License and it was put into the Visitation Articles to present those Ministers that preached without License If they will deny us the exercise of the Power that they first confess belongeth to our Office we are not answerable for their self-contradictions 2. By Discipline I suppose they mean but our Instruction and our publishing their Orders for Penance Excommunication or Absolution 3. They were the Judges of the sense of the Laws as far as the executâ—on required And the Vniversal Practice of England with their writings shewed us to our cost their judgement What good would it do us if the Law had been on our side while the Concurrent Iudgement and Practice of the Governors denyed it and went against it 4. He that had kept a man from the Sacrament according to the plain words of the Rubrick was to have been accountable for it at their Courts and so likely if he had been a man of serious piety and not a persecutor of Puritans to have been undone by it and was like to make so little of it as to the Ends of Discipline all men being compelled by the Presentments to receive the Sacrament that I never knew one to my best remembrance in 25 years time that I lived under the Bishops that was kept from the Sacrament except a Puritan that scrupled to take it kneeling And what was this to true Church-Government Sect. 17. Object But either they did it according to the established Law or not If they did the fault was in the Law and not in them If they did transgress the Law then the fault was in mens abuse and the Law and Order cannot be blamed Answ. A sad case to poor ignorant miserable souls that they must be left in obstinacy and deprived of Gods means of Reformation without Remedy because either the Law or Iudges must be excused The Iudges are the mouth of the Law to us that is Law in the issue to us which they unanimously call Law If the fault were in the Law it was time it should be altered if it was in the Bishops universally it was time they should be altered Let us but have a Remedy and enjoy Gods Ordinances which he that is the Churches Head and King hath appointed for our benefit and we have done Sect. 18. Object But may not Bishops when they Ordain Delegate what measure of Ministerial Power they please and if you never received more why should you use it Answ. A poor relief to the forsaken Church Deprive her of Government and then tell us that we had no power Is the Power desirable to us if the Ordinance were not desirable to the Church 2. What Power have Bishops and whence did they receive it to change the Office of Christs institution or his Apostles If so they may turn the three Orders which the Papists themselves say the Pope cannot alter into as many more Then they may create an Office for Baptizing only and another for the Lords Supper only and another for praying only and so of the rest which is worse then making Lay-elders or then taking away the Cup in the Sacrament Hath Christ by his Spirit instituted Church-offices and are they now at the Bishops power to transform them 3. If they had power to distribute the work in the exercise part to one and part to another yet they have no power to deprive the particular Churches of the whole or any part but one or more must do it and the Office must be the same and the power exercised to the edification and not the confusion and corruption of the Church Sect. 19. Object But the Keys were given only to the Apostles and not to the seventy Disciples nor to Presbyters Answ. 1. If the seventy were only Disciples and not Church-officers the Ancients and the English Bishops have been much mistaken that have so much urged it that Presbyters succeed them as Bishops do the Apostles But if they be Officers then they have the Keys 2. The Episcopal Divines even the Papists commonly confess that part of the Keys are given to the Presbyters and Christ gave them together 3. Were they given only to Apostles for themselves or to convey to others If to themselves only then no one hath them now If to convey to others then either to Apostles only as their Successors but there 's none such or to Patriarchs or Primates or Metropolitans or Archbishops only but none of this will please the Bishops or to Bishops only which I grant taking Bishops in the Scripture sense And I desire to see it proved that it was not a presumptuous Innovation in them whosoever they were that after the days of the Apostles Ordained a new sort of Presbyters in the Church that should have no power of the Keys 4. They that must use the Keys must have Power to use them But Parish Bishops must use them as the nature and necessity of the work doth prove Therefore Parish Bishops must have the Power If only one man in a Diocess of an hundred or two hundred Churches shall have the power of the Keys we may know after all the talk of Discipline what Discipline to expect Sect. 20. Object Why blame you Lay-chancellors Registers Proctors c. when you set up Lay-elders we are as well able to call Chancellors Ecclesiastical as you can call Lay-elders so Answ. I never pleaded for Lay-elders If other men erre will it justifie your error But I must tell you an unordained man in a single Parish having power only to assist the Pastor in Government is far unlike a Lay-Court to Govern all the Churches of a Diocess Sect. 21. Object Do not your Arguments against Bishops for excluding Discipline make as much for the casting out of Ministers of whom you complain in your Reformed Pastor for neglect of Discipline Ans. 1. The Nature of Prelacy as set up in England â—here only one man had the Government of so many Churches unavoidably excludeth it if the best men were Bishops till it be otherwise formed But the nature of a Parochial Episcopacy is fitted to promote it 2. Those Presbyters that I blamed for neglecting the higher acts of Discipline do yet keep away more prophane persons from the Lords Supper in some one Church then ever I knew kept away in all places under the Prelates 3. If Ministers sinfully neglect Discipline yet as Preachers and Guides in publick worship c. they are of unspeakable need and value to the Church But few Bishops of England preached ordinarily And 4. We are desirous that Bishops shall continue as Preachers but not as Diocesan excluders of Parochial Church-Discipline Sect. 22. Object By pretending to agree with them that say there were no Presbyters in Scripture times you would put down
Presbyters and then the Government of the Church will be such as you blame Ans. It is the thing I plead for that every Church may have such Bishops as they had in the Apostles days and not meer new devised Presbyters that are of another Office and Order Sect. 23. Object Bishops had Deacons to attend them in the Scripture times though not Presbyters therefore it follows not that Bishops had then but One Congregation Answ. Yes beyond doubt For Deacons could not and did not perform the Pastoral part in the whole publick worship of any stated Churches They did not preach as Deacons and pray and praise God in the publick Assemblies and administer the Sacraments It 's not affirmed by them that are against us therefore there were no more Churches then Bishops Sect. 24. Object But what doth your Arguing make against the other Episcopal Divines that are not of the opinion that there were no meer Presbyters in Scripture times Answ. 1. Other Arguments here are as much against them though this be not if they maintain that sort of Episcopacy which I oppose 2. They also confess the smalness of Churches in Scripture times as I have shewed out of Bishop Downam and that is it that I plead for Sect. 25. Object But if you would have all reduced to the state that de facto the Church Government was in in Scripture times you would have as but one Church to a Bishop so but One Bishop to a Church as Dr. H. Dissert 4 c. 19 20 21 22. hath proved copiously that is that Scripture mentioneth no assistant Presbyters with the Bishop and would that please you that think a single Congregation should have a Presbyterie You should rather as he teacheth you c. 21. p. 237. be thankful to Ignatius and acknowledge the dignity of your Office ab â—o primario defensore astrui propugnari Answ. As we make no doubt from plain Scripture to prove and have proved it that single Churches had then many Presbyters some of them at least So having the greatest part of Fathers and Episcopal Divines of our mind herein even Epiphanius himself we need not be very solicitous about the point of Testimony oâ— Authority 2. We had rather of the two have but one Pastor to a Congregation then one to a hundred or two hundred Congregations having a Presbyter under him in each authorized only to a part of the work 3. Either the distinct Office of the Presbyters is of Divine Institution to be continued in the Church or not If not Bishops or some body it seems may put down the Office If it be then it seems all Gods Vniversal standing Laws even for the species of Church Officers are not contained in Scripture And if not in Scripture where then If in the Fathers 1. How shall we know which are they and worthy of that name and honor 2. And what shall we do to reconcile their contradictions 3. And what number of them must go to be the true witnesses of a Divine Law 4. And by what note may we know what points so to receive from them and what not But if it be from Councils that we must have the rest of the Laws of God not contained in the Scripture 1. Is it from all or some only If from all what a case are we in as obliged to receive Contradictions and Heresies If from some only which are they and how known and why they rather then the rest Why not the second of Ephesus as well as the first at Constantinople But this I shall not now further prosecute unless I were dealing with the Papists to whom have said more of it in another writing 4. Ignatius his Presbyters were not men of another Office nor yet set over many Churches that had all but one Bishop But they were all in the same Churches with the Bishop and of the same Office only subject to his moderation or presidency for Vnity and Order sake and this we strive not against if limited by the general Rules of Scripture Sect. 26. Object Those that you have to deal with say not that There were no Presbyters in the Apostles days but only that in the Apostles writings the word Bishops always signifies Bishops and the word Elders either never or but rarely Presbyters But it is possible for them to be in the time of those writings that are not mentioned in those writings and the Apostles times were larger then their writings as you are told Vind. against the Lond. Minist p. 106. Ans. 1. The words I cited from Annot. in Act. 11. faithfully which you may peruse which say that there is no evidence that in Scripture times any of the second Order were instituted So that it is not Scripture writings only but Scripture times that 's spoken of And 2. If there be no evidence of it the Church cannot believe it or affirm it for it judgeth not of unrevealed things and therefore to us it is no Institution that hath no evidence 3. The Apostles were all dead save John before the end of Scripture times So that they must be instituted by John only And John dyed the next year after Scripture times as the chief Chronologers judge For as he wrote his Apocalypse about the 14 th year of Domitian so his Gospel the year before Trajan and dyed the next year being after the commoner reckoning An. D. 98. and some think more And what likelihood or proof at least that John did institute them the year that he dyed when the same men tell us of his excursion into Asia to plant Elders bâ—fore that year it 's like 4. And if they were not instituted in Scripture time then no testimony from Antiquity câ—n prove them then instituted But indeed if we had such testimony and nothing of it in the Scripture it self we should take it as little to our purpose For 5. doth Antâ—quity say that the Institution was Divine of Universal obligation to the Church or only that it was but a prudential limitation of the exercise of the same Office the like I demand of other like Testimonies in case of Diocesses Metropolitans c. If only the later it binds us not but proveth only the licet and not the oportet at least as to all the Church And then every Countrey that finds cause may set up another kind of government â—ut if it be the former that is asserted as from antiquity then the Scripture containeth not all Gods Vniversal Laws Which who ever affirmeth must go to Fathers or Councils instead of Scripture to day and to the infallibility of the Pope or a Prophetical Inspiration to morrow and next Sect. 27. Once more to them that yet will maintain that the Apostles modelled the Ecclesiastical form to the Civil and that as a Law to the whole Church we take it as their Concession that then we ow no more obedience to the Archbishop of Canterbury then to the Civil Magistrate of Canterbury and especially
Churches must remain polluted and ungoverned through the unavoidable absence of those twelve or thirteen men The Apostles therefore did admonish Pastors to do their duties and when themselves were present had power to do the like and to censure Pastors or people that offended but they did not take on them the full Government of any Church nor keep a Negative vote in the Government Prop. 15. It seems utterly untrue that Christ did deliver the Keyes only to the twelve Apostles as such and so only to their Successors and not the seventy Disciples or any Presbyters For 1. The seventy also were General unfixed Officers and not like fixed Presbyters or Bishops and therefore having a larger Commission must have equal power 2. The Apostles were not single Bishops as now they are differenced from others but they were such as had more extensive Commissions then those now called Arch Bishops or Patriarchs If therefore the Keyes were given them as Apostles or General Officers then they were never given to Bishops For Bishops as fixed Bishops of this or that Diocess are not Successors of the Apostles who were Geneâ—al unfixed Officers 3. It is granted commonly by Papists and Protestants that Presbyters have the power of the Keyes though many of them think that they are limited to exercise them under the Bishops and by their Direction and Consent of which many School-men have wrote at large 4. The Key of Excommunication is but a Ministerial Authoritative Declaration that such or such a known Offendor is to be avoided and to charge the Church to avoid Communion with him and him to avoid or keep away from the Priviledges of the Church and this a meer Presbyter may do he may authoritatively Declare such a man to be one that is to be avoided and charge the Church and him to do accordingly The like I may say of Absolution if they belong to every authorized Pastor Preacher and Church guide as such then not to a Bishop only but to a Presbyter also And that these Keyes belong to more then the Apostles and their Successors is plain in that these are insufficient Naturally to use them to their Ends. An Apostle in Antioch cannot look to the censuring of all persons that are to be Censured at Athens Paris London c. so that the most of the work would be totally neglected if only they and their supposed Successors had the doing of it I conclude therefore that the Keyes belong not only to Apostles and their Successors in that General Office no nor only to Diocesan Bishops for then Presbyters could not so much as exercise them with the Bishops in Consistory which themselves of late allow Prop. 16. The Apostles were fallible in many matters of fact and consequently in the Decisions that depended thereupon as also in the Prudential determination of the time and season and other Cirumstances of known duties And thence it was that Paul and Barnabas so disagreed even to a parting where one of them was certainly in the wrong And hence Peter withdrew from the uncircumcision and misled Barnabas and others into the same dissimulation so far that he was to be blamed and withstood Gal. 2. Prop. 17. In such Cases of misleading an Apostle was not to be follownd no more is any Church-Governor now but it is lawful and needful to dissent and withstand them to the face and to blame them when they are to be blamed for the Churches safety as Paul did by Peter Galatians 2.1 Prop. 18. In this Case the Apostles that by Office were of equal Authority yet were unequal when the Reasons and Evidence of Gods mind which they produced was unequal so that a Presbyter or Bishop that produceth better Reasons is to be obeyed before another that produceth less Reason or that Erreth And the Bishop of another Church that produceth better Evidence of Gods mind is to be obeyed before the proper Bishop of that same Church that produceth weaker and worse Evidence Yea a private man that produceth Gods Word is to be obeyed before Bishops and Councils that go against it or without it in that case where the word bindeth us so that in all cases where Scripture is to determine he that bringeth the best Scripture proof is the chief Ruler that is ought chiefly to prevail Though in the determination of meer Circumstances of duty which Scripture determineth not but hath left to Church-Guides to determine pro re natâ it may be otherwise so that the Apostles power in determining matters of faith was not as Church-Governors but as men that could produce the surest Evidence Prop. 19. It is not easie to manifest whether every Presbyter in prima instantia be not an Officer to the Church Universal before he be affixed to a particular Church and whether he may not go up and down over the world to exercise that office where ever he hath admittance And if so what then could an Apostle have done by vertue of his meer office without the advantage of his extraordinary abilities and priviledges which the Presbyter may not do May an Apostle charge the people where he comes to avoid this or that seducer or heretick so may any Preacher that shall come among them and that by authority May an Apostle Excommunicate the very Pastor of the place and deprive him why what is that but to perswade the people and Authoritatively require them to avoid and withdraw from such a Pastor if the Cause be manifest And so may any Pastor or Preacher that comes among them For if as Cyprian saith it chiefly belong to the people even of themselves to reject and withdraw from such a Pastor then a Preacher may by Authority perswade and require them to do their own duty Yet I shall acknowledge that though both may do the same duty and both by Authority yet possibly not both by equal Authority but an Apostle Majore authoritate and so may lay a stronger obligation on men to the same duty but the rest I determine not but leave to enquiry Prop. 20. In making Laws or Canons to bind the Church which are now laid down in Scripture the Apostles acted as Apostles that is as men extraordinarily Commissioned illuminated and enabled infallibly to deliver Gods will to the world And therefore herein they have no Successors In Conclusion therefore seeing that matters of meer Order and Decency depending on Circumstances sometime rationally mutable sometime yearly daily hourly mutable are not to be determined Vniversally alike to all the Church nor to all a Nation nor by those that are at too great a distance but by the present Pastor who is to manage the work and being intrusted therewith is the fittest Judge of such variable Circumstances and seeing for standing Ordinances that equally belong to all ages and places Gods word is perfect and sufficient without the Bishops Canons and seeing that Scripture is a perfect Law of God and Rule of Christian faith and seeing that
in the expounding of the Scripture they that bring the best Evidence will beget the most Knowledge and they that produce the clearest Divine Testimony will beget most effectually a Divine belief and those that are known to be of far greatest abilities in learning experience and grace and consent with the most of the Church will procure more effectually an humane belief then a weak unlearned unexperienced Pastor of our own therefore the Jurisdiction of supereminent Bishops Metropolitans Primates and Patriarchs will appear to be reduced into so narrow a room and written in so small a character that he hath need of very quick sight that can read it and humble men may be easily drawn to think that the Unity Happiness and Safety of the Church lyeth not in it and that if it had been only for Christ and not their own Greatness there had not been such Contention and Division made about it in the Church as there hath been TO draw some of this which I have said into a narrower room I shall briefly tell you what I could heartily wish both Magistrates and Ministers would speedily accomplish for the order and Peace of the Church in these matters 1. I could wish that they would choose out the ablest Godly men and let them be appointed General Teachers and Guides to call the uncalled and to order confirm and so take care of the Churches that are gathered And if by the Magistrates consent and their own they divide their Provinces it will be but meet These I would have to go up and down to the several Parishes in their Provinces and to have no particular Parishes of their own nor to take the fixed Pastors power from them but to take care that it be by themselves well exercised And I would have the Magistrate keep his sword in his own hand and let these prevail with mens consciences as far as they can and in that way if they would exceed their bounds and arrogate any unjust power to themselves we shall dissent and deny it them and stand upon our ground and deal with them upon equal terms and so need not to fear them And I have cause to think that neither Presbyterians nor all the Independents will be against such General Officers Successors of the old ones as I here describe Not the Presbyterians for in Scotland they appointed and used such in the beginning of their Reformation when they made Visitors of the particular Churches and assigned to each their limited Provinces and so they were Commissioners to cast out Ministers put in others and plant Kirks and they had several Superintendents all which is to be seen in the Doctrine and Discipline of the Kirk of Scotland printed not long agoe again And the Itinerant Commâ—ssioners in Wales that were set there to go about preaching and Reforming doth shew that their Judgements were not against the Power 2. I could wish that every Parish Church may have one Eldership where they may be had or some Elders and Deacons with one Constant Fixed Perfect for Order and Unity 3. I could wsh that Ordination and Constitutions for Unity and Communion may be done only in Synods less or greater and that of many Presbyteries there may consist a Classis as commonly called and of many of those a Province And that the Classical meeting may be frequent and that some one the fittest man may be standing President of that Classis during life except he deserve removal 4. I could wish also that the Provincial Assembly to be held once a quarter or half year in each County may have the most able discreet godly Minister chosen to be the standing President also during life unless he deserve removal So that here are four several sorts of Bishops that for Peace and Order I could consent to to wit 1. A General unfixed Superintendent 2. A fixed Parochial Bishop President of that particular Presbytery 3. A Classical Bishop President of that Classis 4. A Provincial Bishop President of the Provincial Assembly But there is no necessity of these 5. Of the degree of their Power I said enough before It is intolerable they should have a Negative vote in Excommunications and Absolutions and such Government of the people except the Parochial Bishop save only in case of appeals and there I leave it to each mans consideration though I had rather they had none But whether they should be admitted a Negative in Ruling the Pastors I determine not Only in case of Ordination I would have all resolve to do nothing except in a case of Necessity but when the President is One and stop there which will permit him de facto the use of his Negative and yet trouble no mans conscience to acknowledge de jure that it Must so be for to that none should be forced This much I could willingly yield to for reconciliation and unity And I doubt not but I shall be sufficiently reproached by some for yielding so far and by others for yielding no further AND now at last after these not needless preparations I come to the main Question it self Whether it be Necessary or Profitable for the right Order or Peace of the Churches to restore the extruded Episcopacy And this I deny and having said so much already for explication shall presently give you the Reasons of my denyal in which the rest of the necessary explication will be contained Argument 1. That sort of Prelacy or other Government which destroyeth the End of Government and is certainly inconsistent with the Necessary Government and discipline to be exerciâ—ed in the Churches is not to be restored under pretence of the Churches Order or Peace nor can be consistent with its right Order and Peace But such is the Episcopacy which was of late exercised in England and is now laid by Therefore c. The Major needs no proof for few Christians I think will deny it If Episcopacy as lately here exercised be the certain excluder of Government it self and Christs discipline while it only retains the empty name then doubtless it is not to be restored The Minor I prove thus If there be a very Natural Impossibility that the late English Episcopacy though in the hands of the best men in the world should Govern the Churches as Christ hath appointed and as they should and may otherwise be Governed then the foresaid inconsistency and destructiveness is apparent But that there is such a Natural Impossibility for the late English Episcopacy to Govern the Church thus I shall prove 1. By shewing you what is undoubtedly necessary in Christs Government 2. And then what was the late English Episcopacy and then 3. The Impossibility will appear of it self when both these are opened and compared together without any more ado 1. And 1. It is past controversie among us that Church Governours should watch over each particular soul in their flock and instruct the ignorant admonish the faln convince gainsayers counterwork seducers among them
they might nor possibly can do it To be for them is to consent that all should be undone and that Drunkards and Railers and all wicked persons shall continue so still or continue members of our Churches in all their obstinacy and that there shall be nothing but the name of Government and Censure without the thing It s hard making men of Conscience believe the contrary that have had the triall that we have had If where good men were Bishops thus it was what hope of better by that way We cannot shut our eyes against so great experience And certainly those Learned men among us that think so much Discipline may serve turn to all the Congregations in the whole Diocess as the Bishop can perform or have a Negative Vote in do too manifestly shew that they are less friends to real godliness and greater friends to sin and care too little for the matter it self while they contend about the manner or agent then serious Christians should do If men once plainly shew themselves meer formalists and would set up a scarecrow and pull down all true Discipline by setting up one man to do the work of five hundred and making the exercise of it impossible what serious Christian will ever take their part Not I while I breath Who can choose but see that such do seek their dignity and Lordships and worldly Mammon more then the Kingdom of Christ. I know they will be angry with me for this language but so are most impenitent persons with reproofs I would advise all of them that survive to lay to heart before the Lord what they did in undertaking such an impossible task and leaving so many souls and Congregations without Christs remedy and suffering the Churches to be so foul while they had the Beesom in their hands This being so manifest that it is impossible for an English Bishop to Govern as they undertook so many Congegations I may well next argue from the mischiefs that follow Argum. 2. THat Government which gratifieth the Devil and wicked men is not to be restored under any pretence of the Order or Peace of the Church But such was the English Episcopacy therefore c. The Major is unâ—enyable supposing that it do not this by an avoidable accident but by natural Necessity as I have proved I confess some of the Men were so Learned and Good men that I think few men honour their names more then my self But it is the way of Government that I have spoke of And for the Minor it is as plain from experience and the argument before used If it necessarily exclude the exercise of Christs discipline from most Congregations then doth it gratifie Satan But c And if it keep wicked obstinate sinners from the power of discipline then doth it gratifie sinners in their Sins and consequently please Satan But this it doth therefore c. Who knows not for it cannot be denied that the generality of the rabble of ignorant persons worldlings drunkards haters of Godliness c. are very zealous for Episcopacy whilest multitudes of truly conscientious people have been against it And who knows not that they both fetcht their chief Motives from experience The ungodly found that Bishops let them keep their sins and troubled them not with this preciseness but rather drove away the precise preachers and people whom they abhorred And the godly people that disliked Epâ—scopacy did it principally on the same experience observing that they befriended the wicked at least by preserving them from the due rod of discipline but exercised their zeal against them that scrupled or questioned at least their own standing or assumed power or the abuse of it And then further Argum. 3. THat Government which unavoidably causeth separations and divisions in the Church is not â—o be restored under any pretence of its Order and Peace But such is the English Episcopacy therefore c. I know the clean contrary is strongly pretended and they tell us that we may see how Episcopacy kept men in Unity by the many Sects that since are risen But let it be observed 1. That these Sects were hatched in the separation which was caused by themselves 2. That the increase hath been since there was no Government at all 3. It was not Episcopacy but the Magistrates Sword whose terror did attend it that kept under heresies in that measure that they were Had Episcopacy stood on its own legs without the support of secular force so that it might have workt only on the conscience then you should have seen more Sects then now Do you think that if Episcopacy were in Scotland in the Case as Presbytery is now without the Sword to enforce it that it would keep so much Unity in Religion as is there It s known in France and other places that Presbytery hath kapt more Unity and more kept out Heresies and Schisms even without the Sword then Episcopacy hath done with it 4. But the thing that I speak of it undenyable that it was the pollution of our Churches that caused the Separatists in the Bishops dayes to withdraw This was their common cry against us Your Churches bear with Drunkards Whoremongers Railers open Scorners at Godliness with whom the Scripture bids us not eat And we could not deny it for the Bishops did keep it so by keeping out all effectual Discipline Only we told them that it was the Prelates sin and not theirs that could not help it and that a polluted Church might be a true Church And so the Disciplinarian Non-Conformists were fain by many painful writings to suppress the spirit of separation or else it had been like to have overwhelmed all Mr. Iohn Paget Mr. Bradshaw Mr. Arthur Hildersham Mr. Iohn Ball Mr. Brightman Mr. Paul Bains Mr. Dod Mr. Parker Dr. Ames and many other such were fain to make it a great part of their business to quench the fire of separation which even their persecutors kindled by the exclusion of Discipline And yet the sense of the Churches uncleanness was so deep in mens minds that it had bred such abundance of discontended humors that they easily broke out and turned into this disorderly swarm which we have seen as soon as the wars had but given them liberty And even to this day it is the uncleanness of our Churches wherein I would the Pastors were wholly innocent which maintaineth much of the separation among many sober godly men For the Churches were left so polluted by the Bishops that in most places the Presbyters dare scarce go roundly about the cure unless they had the help of the sword wherein yet for my part I think them deeply sinful Argum. 4. THat Episcopacy which degradeth all the Presbyters in the Diocess or causeth them to suspend the exercise of an Essential part of their Office is not to be restored under any pretence of right order or peace But such was the late English Episcopacy therefore I confess this is the
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-Parish-Bishop for a parish-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
intimations of Scripture and the discord of these reporters among themselves Only it is certain that nature it self would so restrain them that as they could be but in one place at once so they could not be in perpetual motion and prudence would keep them longest in those places where most work was to be done And therefore Pauls three years abode at Ephesus and the neighbouring parts of Asia did not make him the fixed Diocesan Bishop of Ephesus And what I say of the Apostles I say also of many such Itinerant unfixed Ministers which were their helpers as Silas Apollo Barnabas Titus Timothy c. For though Timothy be called by some Anâ—ients the first Bishop of Ephesus and Titus of Crete yet it is apparent they were no such fixed Ministers that undertook a Diocess durantâ— vita as their proper charge which were then called Bâ—shops but they were â—tinerant helpers of the Apostles in gathering planting and first ordering of Churches And therefore Titus was left in a whole Nation or large Island to place Bishops or Elders in each City and set things in order and this but till Paul come and not to be himself their fixed Bishop and Timothy is proved by Scripture to have been unsetled and itinerant as a helper of Paul after that he is by some supposed to be fixed at Ephesus I will not needlesly actum agere let any man that is unsatisfied of this read impartially Mr. Prins unbishoping of Timothy and Titus and note there the Itinerary of Timothy from Scripture Texts If therefore our Bishops would have been of the Apostles and their General helpers race they should have gone up and down to gather and plant Churches and then go up and down to visit those which they have planted or if they live where all are Enchurched already they should go up and down to preach to the rudâ—r sort of them and by the power of the word to subdue men further to Christ anâ— to see that all Ministers where they come do their duty reproving and admonishing those that neglect it but not forbidding them to do it as a thing belonging only to them And by Spiritual weapons and authority should they have driven Ministers to this duty and not by meer secular force of which more anon 2. And as for the fixed Bishops of Apostolical Institution our English Prelacy are not like them For the fixed Bishops established by the Apostles were only Overseers of one particular Church But the English Prelates were the Overseers of many particular Churches Therefore the English Prelates were not the same with the old Bishops of the Apostles institution The course that the Prelates take to elude this argument is by giving us a false definition of a particular Church That we may not therefore have any unprofitable strife about words I shall signifie my own meaning By a Particular Church I mean an Associated or combined company of Christians for Communion in Publick Worship and Furtherance of each other in the way to heaven under the Guidance of Christs Church Officers one Elder or more such as are undivided or Churches of the first order commonly called Ecclesiae Primae as to existence and which contain not divers Political Churches in them A family I mean not for that 's not a Political Church having no Pastor An accidental company of Christians I mean not For those are no Association and so no Political Church Nor do I mean a National or Diocesane or Classical Church or any the like which are composed of many particular Churches of the first order conjunct It is not of Necessity that they alway or most usually meet in one Congregation because its possible they may want a capacious convenient room and its possible they may be under persecution so that they may be forced to meet secretly in small companies or there may be some aged weak people or children that cannot travail to the chief place of Meeting and so may have some Chappels of ease or smaller meeting But still it must be a number neither so big nor so small as to be uncapable of the ends of Association which enter the definition how ever weaknâ—ss age or other accidents may hinder some members from that full usefullness as to the main end whith other members have So that they which are so many or live at such a distance as to be uncapable of the ends are not such a Church nor are capable of so being For the number will alter the species In a word it cannot I think be proved that in the Primitive times there was any one fixed Bishop that Governed and Oversaw any more then one such particular political Church as was not composed of divers lesser political Churches nor that their Churches which any fixed Bishop oversaw were more then could hold Communion in Worship in one publick place for so many of them as could ordinarily hear at once for all the families cannot usually come at once they were not greater then some of our English Parishes are nor usually the tenth part so great I have been informed by the judicious inhabitants that there are fourscore thousand in Giles Cripple-gate Parish in London and about fifty thousand in Stepney and fourty thousand in Sepulchres There cannot any Church in Scripture be found that was greater nor neer so great as one of these Parishes No not the Church at Ierusalem it self of which so much is said No not if you admit all the number of moveable Converts and Sojournours to have been of that particular Church which yet cannot be proved to have been so I know Bishop Downam doth with great indignation Dispute that Diocesses were beâ—ore Parishes and that it was more then one Congregation that was contained in those Diocesses We will not contend about the name Diocess and Parish which by the Ancients were sometime used promiscuously for the same thing But as to the thing signified by them I say that what ever you call it a Diocess or a Parish there were not near so many souls as in some English Parishes nor take one with another their Churches commonly were no more Numerous then our Parishes nor so numerous A Diocess then and a Parish were the same thing and both the same as our particular Churches now are that is the Ecclesiae primae or Soceities of Christians combined under Church-Rulers for holy Communion in Worship and Discipline And there were no otherwise many Congregations in one Church then as our Chapples of ease or a few meeting in a private house because of rainy weather are many Congregations in one Parish The foresaid Learned and Godly though angry Bishop Downame saith Def. li. 2. cap. 1. page 6. that Indeed at the very first Conversion of Cities the whole Number of the people converted being some not much greater then the Number of the Presbyters placed among them were able to make but a small Congregation Call that Church then a Diocess or a Parish I
sort with theirs for ours is of the first sort and if theirs be of the same we are both agreed And that the Lord Jesus Christ should settle one kind of Government de facto during Scripture time and change it for ever after is most improbable 1. Because it intimateth levity or mutability in a Law-giver so suddenly to change his Laws and form of Government either something that he is supposed not to have foreseen or some imperfection is intimated as the cause Or if they say that it was the change of the state of the body Governed viz. the Church I answer 2. There was no change of the state of the Church to necessitate a change of the kind of Officers and Government for as I shall shew anon there was need of more Elders then one in Scripture times and the increase of the Church might require an increase of Officers for Number but not for Kind There was as much need of assisting Presbyters as of Deacons I may well conclude therefore that he that will affirm a Change of the Government so suddenly must be sure to prove it and the rather because this is the Bishops own great and most considerable Argument on the other side when they pâ—ead that the Apostles themselves were Rulers of Presbyters therefore Rulers over Presbyters and many Churches should continue as Gods Ordinance many on the other side answer them though so do not I that this Ordinance was temporary during the Apostles times who had no Successors in Goveâ—nment to whâ—ch the Prelates reply that it s not â—â—agiâ—abâ—e that Christ should settle one sort of Church-Governmeâ—t for the first age and another ever after abolishing that first so soon and thaâ— they who affirm this must prove it For my part I am overcome by this Argument to allow all that the Apostolical pattern can prove laying aside that which depended on their extraordinary gifts and priviledges but then I see no reason but they should acknowledâ—e the â—oâ—ce of their own Mediâ—m and conclude it s not imâ—ginable that if God setâ—led â—ixed Bishops only over particular Congregations without any such order as subject Preâ—byters in the first age he should change this and set up subject Presbyters and many Churches under one man for ever after If they say that this is not a change of the speâ—ies but a growing up of the Church from Infancy to Maturity I answer It is a plain change of the Species of Government when one Congregation is turned into Many and when a new order of Officers viz. subject Presbyters without power of Ordination or Jurisdiction is introduced and the Bishops made Governours of Pastors that before were but Governours of the People this is plainly a new Species Else I say again let them not blame us for being against the right Species 3. The third Reaâ—on is this They that affirm a change not of the Governours but also of the very nature or kind of a particular Governed or Political Church from what it was in Scripture times do affirm a thing so improbable as is 〈◊〉 without very clear proof to be credited But such are they that affirm that Congregational Bishops were turned to Diocesan therefore c. The Church that was the object of the Government of a fixed Bishop in Scripture times was A competent Number of persons in Covenant with Christ or of Christians co-habiting by the appâ—intment of Christ and their mutual expressed consent united or associated under Christs Ministerial Teachers and Guides for the right worshipping of God in publick and the Edification of the Body in Knowledge and Holiness and the maintaining of obedience to Christ among them for the strength beauty and safety of the whole and each part and thereby the Pleasing and Glorifying God the Redeemer and Creator Iâ— would be too long rather then difficult to stand to prove all the parts of this Definition of the first particular Political Church That part which most concerneth our present purpose is the Ends which in Relations must enter the Definition which in one word is The Communion of Saints personally as Associated Churches consisting of many particular Churches are for the Communion of Saints by officers and Delegates And therefore this communion of Saints is put in our Creed next to the Catholick Church as the end of the combination I shall have occasion to prove this by particular Texts of Scripture anon A Diocesan Church is not capable of these Ends. What personal communion can they have that know not nor see not one aonther that live not together nor worship God together There is no more personal communion of Saints among most of the people of this Diocess then is between us and the inhabitants of France or Germany For we know not so much as the names or faces of each other nor ever come together to any holy uses So that to turn a Congregation into a Diocesan Church is to change the very subject of Government Obj. This is meer independency to make a single Congregation the subject of the Government Answ. 1. I am not deterred from any truth by Names I have formerly said that its my opinion that the truth about Church-Government is parcelled out into the hands of each party Episcopal Presbyterian Independents and Erastian And in this point in Question the Independents are most right Yet I do dot affirm nor I think they that this one Congregation may not accidentally be necessitated to meet in several places at once either in case of persecution or the age and weakness of some members or the smalness of the room But I say only that the Church should contain no more then can hold communion when they have opportunity of place and liberty and should not have either several settled Societies or Congregations nor more in one such Society then may consist with the Ends. And that these Assemblies are bound to Associate with other Assemblies and hold communion with them by the mediation of their Officers this as I make no doubt of so I think the Congregational will confess And whereas the common evasion is by distinguishing between a Worshipping Church and a Governed Chuch I desire them to give us any Scripture proof that a Worshipping Church and a Governed Church were not all one supposing that we speak of a settled society or combination I find no such distinction of Churches in Scripture A family I know may perform some worship and accordingly have some Government And an occasional meeting of Christians without any Minister may perform some Worship without Government among them But where was there ever a Society that ordinarily assembled for publick worship such as was performed by the Churches on the Lords dayes and held communion ordinarily in worship and yet had not a Governing Pastor of their own Without a Presbyter they could have no Sacraments and other publike Worship And where was there ever a Presbyter that was not a Chuâ—ch Governour
Certainly if subject Presbyters were not till after Scripture times nor any settled Worshipping Church without a Presbyter unless the people preached and administred the Sacraments then there could be no Worshipping Church that had not their own proper Governour nor any such Governour fixed that had more Churches then one Reason 4. The contrary opinion feigneth the Apostles to have allotted to each Bishop a space of ground for his Diocess and to have measured Churches by such spaces and not by the number of souls But this is unproved absurd 1. Unproved For there is no place in Scripture that giveth the Bishop charge of all that space of ground or of all the Christians that shall be in that space during his time Indeed they placed a Bishop in each City when there was but a Church in each City But they never said there shall be but one Church in a City or but one Bishop in a City much less in all the Country region 2. And its absurd For it s the number of souls that a Church must be measured by and not a space of ground so they do but co-habite For if in the same space of Ground there should be twenty or an hundred times as many Christians it would make the number so great as would be uncapable of personal communion and of obtaining Church Ends. If a Schoolmaster have a School in the chief City or Town of this County and there come as many from many miles compass as one School can hold and there be no more there so long all that space may belong to his School not for the space sake but the number of Schollars For if there be afterward an hundred times as many in that space to be taught they must set up more Schools and it were no wise part in the old Schoolmaster to maintain that all that Country pertaineâ—h to his School because that it was so when there were fewer So that to measure our the matter of Churches by space of ground and not by number of souls is plainly against the Reason of the Relation Reason 5. The opposed opinion doth imply that God more regardeth Cities then Country Villages or that Churches are to be measured according to the number and greatness of Cities rather then according to the number of souls For they suppose that every City should have a Bishop if there be but twenty or fourty or an hundred Christians in it but if there be five hundâ—ed Country Parishes that have some of them many thousand souls in them these shall have no Bishops of their own but be all ruled by the Bishop of the City Now how unreasonable this is methinks should not be hard to discern For 1. What is a City to God any more then a Village that for it he should make so partial an institution Doth he regard Rome any more then Eugubium or Alexandria more then Tanis for their worldly splendor or priviledges No doubtless it is for the multitude of inhabitants And if so its manifest that an equal number of inhabitants elsewhere should have the same kind of Government 2. Is it probable that God would have twenty thousand or an hundred thousand people in a Diocess and in some a Million to have but one Church-Ruler and yet would have every small congregation in a City to have one though there be none else under him What proportion is there in this way of Government that an hundred or fifty men shall have as many Governours as a Million as if ten thousand or an hundred thousand Schollars ouâ— of a City shall have no more Rulers then an hundred in a 〈◊〉 and all because one part are in a City and the other not Or a Physitian shall have but an hundred Patients to look to in a City and if there be a Million in that City and Country he shall also upon pain of Gods everlasting wrath undertake the care of them all Let them that strive for such a charge look to it I profess I admire at them what they think 1. Of the needs of men souls 2. Of the terrours of Gods wrath 3. And of their own sufficiency for such a work Were it my case if I know my own heâ—rt at all I should fear that this were but to strive to damn thousands and to be damned with them by undertaking on that penalty to be their Physitian under Christ when I am sure I cannot look to the hundreth man of them and I had rather strive to be a gally-slave to the Turks or to be preferred to rid Chaâ—els or the basest office all my dayes Reason 6. According to the opposâ—d opinion it is in the power of a King to make Bishops to be either Congregational or Diocesan to make a Bishâ—p to haâ—e a Million of souls or a whole Nation in charge or to have but aâ— few For if a King will but dissolve the Priviledge and title and make that no City whâ—ch was a City though he diminish not the number of souls and if he will do thus by all the Cities save one in his dominion then must there be but one Bishop in his dominion And if he will but make every countrey Town that hath four or five hundred or a thousand inhabitants to be incorporate and honour it with the title and priviledges of a City thâ—n shall they have a Bishop Moreover thus every Prince may de jure banish Episcopacy out of his Dominions without diminishing the number of Christians if he do but defranchise the Cities and be of the mind as I have heard some men have been that Cities are against the Princes interest by strengthening the people and advantaging them to rebellions Also if there be any Indian Nations so barbarous as to have no Cities though they were converted yet must they have no Bishops Also it would be in the Princes power de jure to depose any of those Bishops that the Apâ—stles or their Successors are supposed to set up For the Râ—man Emperour might have proclaimed Antioch Alexandria or any of the rest to be no Cities and then they must have no longer have had any Bishops And what Bishâ—ps shall Antioch have at this day Now how absurd all this is I need not manifest that whole Contreâ—eâ— shâ—ll have no Government for want of 〈◊〉 that Kings shall so alter Church Officers at their pleâ—sure â—hen they intend it not meerly by altering the Civil Priviledgâ—s of their people that a King may make one Diocess to become an hundred and an hundred become one by such means And yet all this doth undenâ—ably follow if the Law be that every City and only every City shall be a Bishops Sea where there are Christians to be governed Reason 7. There is no sufficient Reason given why subject Pâ—â—sâ—byters should not have been set up in the Scripture times as well as after if it had been the Apostles intent that such should be instituted The Necessity pretended was
Bishops who gathered as many as they could under their own Government when they should have erected new Churches as free as their own Reason 12. If the Description of the Bishops settled in the New Testament and the work affixed to them be such as cannot agree to our Diocesan Bishops but to the Pastors of a single Church then was it never the mind of the Holy Ghost that those Bishops should degenerate afterwards into Diocesan Bishops But the Antecedent is certain therefore so is the Consequent I here still suppose with Learned Dr. H Annot. in Act. 11. passim that the name Presbyter in Scripture signifieth a Bishop there being no Evidence that in Scripture time any of that Second Order viz. subject Presbyters were then instituted Though I am far from thinking that there was but one of these Bishops in a Church at least as to many Churches Now as we are agreed de facto that it was but a single Church that then was under a Bishop and not many such Churches for that follows undenyably upon the denying of the existence of subject Presbyters seeing no such Churches can be nor the worshipping Assemblies held without a Bishop or Presbyter so that it was the mind of the Apostles that it should so continue is proveed by the Desciption and work of those Scripture Bishops Argument 1. From Acts 20.28 29 31. The Bishops instituted and fixed by the Holy Ghost were and are to take heed to all the Flock over which the Holy Ghost hath made them overseeers to feed the Church of God and to watch against Wolves and to warn every one night and day But this cannot be done by Diocesan Bishops nor any that have more then one Church Therefore Diocesan Bishops are not the Bishops that the Holy Ghost hath so fixed and instituted such as Paul describeth were to continue and that 's such as can do that work Argument 2. The Bishops that the Holy-Ghost settled and would have continue and had the Power of Ordination given them were such as were to be Ordained in every City and every Church Acts 14.23 Tit. 1.3 4 5. See Dr. Hammonds Annotat. But it is not Diocesan Bishops that are such for they are over many Churches and Cities therefore it is not Diocesan Bishops that were settled by the Holy Ghost nor meant in those texts Ar. 3. The Bishops which were instituted by the Holy Ghost and are meant in Scripture were to watch for their peoples souls as those that must give account Ruling over them and to be obeyed by all and speaking to them the word of God Heb. 13.7 17 24. But this cannot be done by a Bishop to a whole Diocess nor will they be willing of such an account if they be wise therefore it is not Diocesan Bishops that are meant in Scripture Argument 4. The Bishops settled for continuance in Scripture were such as all the people were to know as labouring among them and over them in the Lord and admonishing them and to esteem them very highly in love for their work sake 1 Thes. 5.12 13. But this cannot be meant of our Diocesan Bishop whom the hundreth part of the flock shall never see hear nor be admonished by therefore it is not such that were settled for continuance in the Church Argument 5. The Bishops settled by the Holy Ghost must by any that are sick be sent for to pray over them But this a Diocesan Bishop cannot do to the hundreth or thousandth person in some places therefore it is not Diocesan Bishops but the Bishops of a single Church that are capable of these works that are meant by the Holy Ghost to continue in the Church and consequently to whom the power of Ordaining was committed If any question whether the Texts alleadged do speak of subject-Presbyters or Bishops I refer them to the foresaid Reverend Doctor with whom I am agreed that there were no subject-Presbyters instituted in Scripture times Reason 13. It was not one or two or all Churches for a year or two or more in their meer fieri or infancy before they were well formed that consisted only of one settled worshipping Assembly and its guides but it was the formed and stablished state of the particular Churches To prove this I shall briefly do these three things 1. I shall shew it in respect to the Jewish Synagogues 2. As to the Churches in the Apostles dayes after many years growth even of every Church that 's mentioned in the New Testament as a particular Political Church 3. As to some of the Churches after the Apostles dayes mentioned by the ancients 1. It is apparent that the Jews Synagogues were particular Congregational Churches having each one their several Rulers and as many Learned men suppose they had an Ecclesiastical Judicature of Elders belonging to each of them where fit men could be found and this distinct from the Civil Judicature Or as others think they had a Sanhedrim which had power to judge in both Causes and one of these was in every City that is in Places of Cohabitation For in every City of Israel which had one hundred and twenty families or free persons say others they placed the Sanhedrim of twenty three And in every City which had not one hundred and twenty men in it they set the smallest Judicature of three Judges so be it there were but two wise men among them fit to teach the Law and resolve doubts See Aâ—nsworth on Numb 11.16 citing Talmud Bab. Maimonides more at large And doubtless many of our Country Villages and almost all our Parishes have more then 120. and every Country Village may come in in the lesser number below 120. which are to have three Elders and that say some was every place where were ten men And that these were under the great Sanhedrim at Ierusalem is nothing to the matter For so we confess that such particular Churches as we mention have some such General officers over them de jure as the Apostolical men were in the Primitive Church but not that any of these Synagogues were under other Synagogues though one were in a great City and the other but in a small Town And that these Synagogues were of Divine institution is plain in divers texts particularly in Lev. 23.1 2 3. where a convocation of holiness or a holy Convocation is commanded to be on every Sabboth in all their dwellings which most plainly could be neither the meeting at Ierusalem at the Temple nor yet in single families and therefore it is not to much purpose that many trouble themselves to conjecture when Synagogues began and some imagine it was about the Captivity For as their controversie can be but about the form of the meeting place or the name so its certain that some place there must be for such meetings and that the meetings themselves were in the Law commanded by God and that not to be tumultuary confused ungoverned Assemblies If the scourging in
Elders having no power of Ordination or Government And to say that by Elders in each Church is meant only one Elder in each Church is to forsake the letter of the text without any proved Necessity We suppose it therefore safer to believe according to the first sence of the words that it was Elders in every Church that is more then one in every Church that were ordained And what sort of Churches these were appears in the following verses where even of the famous Church of Antioch its said Verse 27. when they were come and had gathered the Church together they rehearsed all that God had done by them So that its plain that this Church was a Congregation to whom they might make such rehearsal And Chap. 15.3 It s said that they were brought on their way by the Church And if it be not meant of all but a part of the Church yet it intimateth what is aforesaid To conclude though many of these texts may be thought to speak doubtfully yet consider 1. That some do most certainly declare that it was particular stated Assemblies that were then called Churches even Governed Churches having their Officers present 2. That there is no certain proof of any one particular Political Church that consisted of many such stated Assemblies 3. That therefore the Texts that will bear an exposition either way must be expounded by the certain and not by the uncertain texts so that I may argue thus If in all the New Testament the word Church do often signifie stated worshipping single Assemblies and often is used so as may admit that interpretation and is never once used certainly to signifie many particular stated worshipping Assemblies ruled by one fixed Bishop then we have any just cause to suppose that the particular Political Churches in Scripture times consisted but of one such stated Congregation But the Antecedent is true therefore so is the Consequent As for the New Episcopal Divines that say There were no subject Presbyâ—ers in Scripture times I suppose according to their principles they wâ—ll grant me all this as is aforesaid And for others the Instances that they bring to the contrary should be briefly considered The great swaying Instance of all which did sometime prevail with me to be my self of another mind is the Numerous Church at Ierusalem Of which its said that three thousand were converted at once and five thousand at another time and the word mightily grew and prevailed and daily such were added to the Church as should be saved to whâ—ch some add the mention of the Miriades of believing Jews yet zealous of the Law which the brethren mentioned to Paul Acts 21.20 And the instance of Ephesus and Rome come next But I remember how largely this business is debated between the late Assembly at Westminster and the Dissenting Brethren that I think it unmeet to interpose in it any further then to annex these few considerations following 1. That all that is said on that side doth not prove certainly that that one Church at Ierusalem was the eighth part so big as Giles Cripple-gate Parish or the fifth part so big as Stepney or Sepulchres nor neer so big as Plimoth or some other Country Parishes 2. That it is past doubt that the magnitude of that Body of Believers then at Ierusalem was partly acccidental and the members cannot at all be proved settled cohabitants nor that Church as in its first unordered Mass be the proved to be the fittest pattern for imitation 3. That Christ hath not punctually determined how many members shall be in a particular Church 4. But the ends being personal holy communion are the Rule by which humane prudence must determine it 5. That its fitter one Church instance give way to many in point of our imitation then of many to that one caeteris paribus 6. That it s known among us that more then are proved to have been members of that Church may hear one man preach at the same time I have none of the loudest voices and yet when I have preached to a Congregation judged by judicious men to be at least ten thousand those farthest off said they could well hear as I was certainly informed 7. That its certain by many passages historicall in â—cripture that men did then speak to greater multitudes and were heard at far greater distance then now they can orderly be which I conjecture was because their voices were louder as in most dryer bodies which dryer Countreys have is commonly seen when moister bodies have ofâ—er hoarser voices and other reasons might concur 8. That it is confessed or yielded that the Church at Ierusalem might all hear at once though not all receive the Lords Supper together And if so then they were no more then might at once have personal communion in some holy Ordinances and that the Teachers might at once make known their minds to 9. And then the reason of receiving the Supper in several places seems to be but because they had not a room so fit to receive all in as to hear in And so we have now in many Parishes Assemblies subordinate to the chief Assembly For divers families at once may meet at one house and divers at another for repetition prayer or other duties and some may be at Chappels of ease that cannot come to the full assembly 10 They that are for Presbyâ—erial Churches of many Congregations do not say that There must be many to make the first political Church but only that There may be many If then there be no Necessitâ— of it 1. Should it not be forborn when it appeareâ—h to prudence most inconvenient as frequently it will no doubt 2. And when it is Necessary for a peaceable Accommodation beâ—ause others think it a sin should not a May be give place to a Must not be in pacificatory consultations caeteris paribus 11. It is granted also by them that the Pastors of one Congregation have not a charge of Governing other neighbour Congregation in Consistory one rather then another which they gâ—vern not though perhaps as neer them but bâ— conâ—ent And therefore as there is but a licet not an oportet of such consent pleaded for so while no such consent is given we have no such châ—â—ge of Governing neighbour Congregations and none may force us to such consent 12. And Lastly that if a siâ—gle Congregation with it own Officer or Officers be not a true particular Political Church then our ordinary Parish assemblies are none and where the Presbyterian Government is not set up which is up but in few places of England it would then follow that we have no true Political Churches left among us perhaps never had which I meet yet with few so uncharitable as to affirm except the Papists and the Separatists and a few of the new sort of Episcopal Divines who think we have no Churches for want of â—ishops except where Bishops yet are retained and acknowleged For my part I
would not lay too great a stress upon any forms or modes which may be altered or diversified Let the Church have but such a Number of souls as may be consistent with the ends and so the essence of a particular Church that they may held personal holy communion and then I will not quarrel about the name of one or two Congregations nor whether they must needs all meet together for all ordinances nor the like Yea I think a full number so they be not so full or distant as to be uncapâ—ble of that communion are desireable for the strength and beauty of the Church and too smal Churches if it may be to be avoided So that all the premises being considered out difference appears to be but small in these matters between the Congregational and Presbyterian way among them that are moderate I shall not presume more particularly to enter into that debate which hath been so far proceeded in already by such Reverend men but shall return to the rest of the task before promised against the Diocesan Churches as the supposed subject of the Bishops Government As for Scripture times and the next succeeding together I shall before I look into other testimonies propound these two Arguments 1. From the Bishops office which was before mentioned If the office of a Bishop in those times was to do so much work as could not be done by him for a Church any greater than our Parishes then were the Churches of those times no greater then our Parishes But the Antecedent is true therefore so is the consequent The works are before mentioned Preaching Praying administring the Lords Supper visiting the sick reducing hereticks reproving censuring absolving to which they quickly added too much more of their own The impossibility of a faithful performance of this to more is so undenyable that I cannot suppose any other answer but this that they might ordain Presbyters to assist them in the work and so do much of it by others But 1. I before desired to see it proved by what authority they might do this 2. Their office and work are so inseparable that they cannot depute others to do their work their proper work without deputing them also to their office For what is an office but the state of one Obliged and Authorized to do such or such a work A Presbyter may not authorize another to preach as the Teacher of a Congregation and to administer the Sacraments without making him a Presbyter also Nor can a Bishop authorize any to do the work of a Bishop in whole or by halves without making him a Presbyter or half a Bishop And he is not authorized either to make new officers in the Church or to do his work by deputies or substitutes 2. I argue also from the Identity of that Church to whâ—ch the Bishops and Deacons were appointed for ministration It was not a Church of many stated Congregations or any larger than our Parishes for number of souls that the Deacons were made Ministers to therefore it was no other or bigger which the Bishops were set oveâ— The consequence is good because where ever Deacons are mentioned in Scripture or any Writer that I remember neer to Scripture times they are still mentioned with the Bishops or Presbyters as Ministers to the same Church with them as is apparent bâ—th in the seven chosen for the Church at Ierusalem and in Phil. 1.1 2. and in the Direction of Paul to Timothy for ordaining them And the Antecedent is proved from the nature of their work For they being to attend on the tables at the Love feasts and the Lords Supper and to look to the poor they could not do this for any greater number of people then we mention Whether they had those feasts in one house or many at once I determine not but for the number of people it was as much as a Deacon could do at the utmost to attend a thousand people I shall proceed a little further towards the times next following and first I shall take in my way the confession of one or two learned men that are for Prelacy Grotius in his Annotat. on 1 Tim. 5.17 saith Sed notandum est in una Vrbe magna sicut plures Synagogas ita plures fuisse Ecclesias id est conventus Christianorum Et cuique Ecclesiae fuisse suum praesidem qui populum alloqueretur Presbyteros ordinaret Alexandriae tantum eum fuisse morem ut unus esset in tota urbe praeses qui ad docendum Presbyteros per urbem distribueret docet nos Sozomenus 1.14 Epiphanius ubi de Ario agit dicitque Alexandriae nunquam duos fuisse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 voce â—a sumpta 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ita ut significat jus illud quod habebat 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So that Grotius affirmeth that Bishops had not then so much as all the converted persons of a great City under their care but the Churches and Assemblies were the same and each Assembly had a Prelate and in the great Cities there were many of these Churches and Prelates and that only the City of Alexandria had the custom of having but one such Bishop in the whole City 2. Those learned men also must grant this cause who maintain that Peter and Paul were both of them Bishops of Rome at once there being two Churches one of the Circumcision under Peter the other of the uncircumcision under Paul and that one of them had Linus and the other Cletus for his Successor and that this Church was first united under Clemens and the like they say of two Churches also at Antioch and elswhere If this be so then there is no Law of God that Bishops should be numbred by Cities but more Bishops then one may be in one City and were even when Christians comparatively were a small part of them 3. Also Mr. Thorndike and others affirm that it was then the custome for the Bishops and Presbyters to sit in a semicircle and the Bishop highest in a Chair and the Deacons to stand behind them This he gathereth from the Apost Constitut. Ignatius Dionysius Arcop and the Jews Constitutions in his Apost form page 71. and Right of the Church c. p. 93.94 95. And if this were so it seems that Bishops Presbyters and Deacons were all the Officers of one such stated Congregation and had not many such Congregations under them For the Bishop could be but in one place at once and therefore this could be the custome but of one Church in his Diocess if he had many whereas it is made the form of the ordinary Christian Assemblies The same learned man Right of Church p. 65. saith that About Saint Cyprians time and not afâ—re he finds menâ—ion of setled Congregations in the Country By which it may be well conjectured what a small addition the Bishops had out of the Countreys to their City Chuâ—ches and how many Congregations they Governed in the Apostle
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
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
choose a certain person to be her Husband and the Minister or Magistrate solemnize their Marriage without any mention of such Governing Power the Power doth nevertheless belong to the man because God hath specified by his Law the Power of that Relation and the man is Lawfully put in the Relation that by the Law of God hath such a Power so is it in the case in hand Sect. 107. But yet 2. I add that the Prelates and the Laws of England gave to Presbyters a Power of Ordination For in all their Ordinations the Presbyters were to lay on hands with the Prelate and did in all Ordinations that I have seen And if they actually imposed hands and so Ordained it was an actual profession to all that they were supposed to have the power of Ordination which they exercised Sect. 108. Obj. But they had no Power given them to do it without a Prelate Answ. 1. By Christ they had 2. You may as well say that Bishops have no Power to Ordain because they were not ordinarily at least to do it without the Presbyters Sect. 109. Obj. Saith the foresaid Learned Author Dissert Praemonit sect 10.11 Vnum illud lubens interrogarem an Hieronymus dum hic esset Presbyteratu secundario fungeretur partiariâ tantum indutus potestate praesente sed spreto insuper habito Episcopo Diaconum aut Presbyterum ordinare aut Presbytero uni aut alteri adjunctus recte potuerit si affirmetur dicatur sodes qua demum ratione ab eo dictum sit Episcopum sola ordinatione ergo ordinatione à Presbytero disterminatum esse sin negetur quomodo igitur Presbytero Anglicano cui nullam quae non Hieronymo potestatem c. Answ. 1. This is none of our case in England we Ordain not praesente sed spreto Episcopo but most Countreyes know of no Bishop that they have but Presbyters 2. Hierom might have Ordained with his fellow-presbyters according to the Laws of Christ but not according to the Ecclesiastical Canons that then obtained or bore sway 3. Hierom plainly tells you that it is by Ecclesiastical appointment for the prevention of schisme that Bishops were set up so far as to have this power more then Presbyters in the point of Ordination 4. The English Presbyters are Parochial Bishops and have an Office of Christs making and not of the Prelates and are not under those Ecclesiastical Canons that restrained Hierom from the exercise of this power And therefore whereas it is added by this Learned Author Quid huic dilemmati reponi aut opponi possit fateor equidem me non adeo Lynceum esse ut perspiciam he may see that he could scarce have set us an easier task then to answer his dilemma Sect. 110. The second and their principal objection is that We have no precept or example in the Church for Presbyters Ordaining without Prelates therefore it is not to be done Answ. 1. I told you before how Bishop Vsher told me he answered this Objection to King Charlâ— viz. from the example of the Church of Alexandria where Presbyters made Bishops which is more Sect. 111. But 2. I answer you haue no example in Scripture or long after that ever Prelates of the English sort did ordain nor any precept for it nor was such a Prelacy then known as is proved and therefore their Ordination hath less warrant then that by Pretbyters Sect. 112. And 3. I have told you before of Scripture warrant for Ordination by a Presbyterie and also by the Teachers and other Officers of a single Church as was the Church of Antioch Prove that there was any Bishop Sect. 113. Lastly it is confessed by the Dissenters that such Presbyters or Bishops as are mentioned Act. 20. Phil. 1.1 1 Tim. 3. Tit. 1 c. had power of Ordination But according to the judgement of most of the Fathers that ever I saw or heard of that interpret those texts it is Presbyters that are meant in all or some of those texts It is granted us also by the Dissenters that the chief or sole Pastors of single Churches in Scripture-times did ordain and had the power of Ordination But the Presbyters of England and other Protestant Churches are the chief or sole Pastors of single Churches therefore c. Sect. 114. Object 3. But the English Presbyters have broak their Oaths of Canoical obedience and therefore at least are schismatical Answ. 1. Many never took any such oath to my knowledge For my part I did not 2. The particular persons that are guilty must be accused and neither must they be judged before they speak for themselves nor yet must others be condemned for their sakes In these parts there is not one Presbyter I think of ten who differs from the Prelates about Ordination that ever took that oath And therefore it is few that can be called Schismaticks on that account Yea 3. And those few that did take that Oath have few of them that I know of done any thing against the Prelates Sect. 115. Object 4. The English Presbyters have pull'd down the Prelates and rebelled against them and therefore at least are guilty of Schism Answ. 1. The guilty must be named and heard their case is nothing to the rest It is not one often I think perhaps of twenty that can be proved guilty 2. It was not the Scripture Bishops that they Covenanted against or opposed but only the irregular English Prelacy before described And the endeavour of reforming this corrupted Preâ—acy and reducing it to the Primitive frame is in it self no schism Sect. 116. Object 5. Ignatius commandeth them to obey the Bishops and do nothing without them Answ. 1. Ignatius also commandeth them to obey the Presbyters as the Apostles of Christ and to do nothing without them 2. The Bishops that Ignatius mentioneth were such as our Parish Bishops or Presbyters are that have a Presbyterie to assist them They were the chief Pastors of a single Church as is before proved out of Ignatius and not the Pastors of hundreds of Churches Sect. 117. I shall trouble the Reader with no more of their objections seeing by what is said already he may be furnished to answer them all but I shall now leave it to his impartial sober consideration whether I have not proved the truth of our Ministry and of the Reformed Churches and the Validity of our administrations and of our Ordination it self CHAP. VIII The greatness of their sin that are now labouring to perswade the People of the Nullity of our Ministry Churches and administrations Sect. 1. HAving laid so fair a ground for my application I think it my duty to take the freedom to tell those Reverend persons that oppose us in this point the Reasons why I dare not joyn with them and the guilt that I am perswaded they heap upon their own souls Wherein I protest it is not mine intent to make them odious or cast disgrace upon them for I do with
and not till then we shall have perfect Holiness so when we come to Heaven and not till then we shall have perfect Vnity and Peace But till then I shall take that which you call Patching as my Duty and our great Benefit If you think one man have not a Negative voice we neither urge you to say that he hath nor so much as to seem to own his claim You shall have leave in the publike Register of the Association to put it under your hand that Not as owning the claim of the Presidents Negative voice but as yielding in a Lawful thing for Peace you do Consent to forbear Ordaining any without him except in Cases of Necessity This you may do without any shew of contradicting your Principles and this is all that is desired § 30. Quest. And may we not for peace sake grant them as much in point of Iurisdiction as of Ordination and Consent to do nothing without Necessity but when the President is one and doth Consent Answ. Either by Iurisdiction you mean Law making or Executive Government The first belongs to none but Christ in the substance of his Worship and the Circumstances no man may Vniversally and Vnchangeably determine of but pro re nata according to emergent occasions the Magistrate may make Laws for them and the Pastors may make Agreements for Concord about them but none should determine of them without need and therefore here is no work for Legislators the Usurpers that have grievously wronged the Church And for Executive Government either it is over the People or over the Pastors To give a Negative voice to the President of an Association of the Pastors of many Churches in Governing the People of a single Church is to set up a new Office a fixed Pastor of many Churches and to overthrow Government and introduce the noxious sort of Prelacy which for my part I intend not to be guilty of And for proper Government of the Pastors I know none but God and Magistrates that have that Power Every Bishop saith Cyprian and the Council of Carthage hath Power of his own will and is responsible for his Actions to God and none of us are Episcopi Episcoporum Bishops of Bishops But there is a Communion among Pastors and Churches to be exercised and so an avoiding or rejecting from Communion and this some call improperly a Government And in this for my part I should consent where peace doth require it that we will not agree upon the rejecting of any Pastor of our Association no more then to the Accepting or Ordaining of them without the President but in cases of Necessity and that just on the terms exprest about Ordination § 31. As for instance in a particular Church there is a Communion to be held among all the members though none of them but the Officers are Governors of the Church And in many cases where the Peoples Consent is needful its common to stand to a Major vote and so great a stress is laid on this that by many of the Congregational way the Government of the Church is said to be in the Major vote of the people and yet 1. This is indeed no Government that belongs to them but Consent to Communion or Exclusion and 2. No Scripture doth require a Minor part to stand in all cases to the decision of a Major vote nor give a Major vote any Rule over the Consciences of the Minor part shew us this voting power in Scripture And yet 3. All agree that upon natural Reasons and General Rules of Scripture the Churches are allowed yea obliged in lawful things for maintaining Vnity and Peace to stand to the judgement of a Major vote in Cases that belong to them to vote in though there be no particular word for it in the Scripture Even so Associate Pastors have not a proper Government of one another neither by Presidents or Major votes though over the people they have but are all under the Government of God and the Magistrate only And yet they may in acts of Consent about Communion or Non-communion with one another prudentially agree to take the Consent of the President or of the Major vote of Pastors or of both where Peace or Order or Edification requireth it except in cases of Necessity § 32. Quest. But what will you take for a Case of Necessity which you will except Answ. 1. If the President be dead 2. Or sick or absent and cannot come 3. Or if he be malignant and wilfully refuse to Consent that the Church be well provided for or Governed 4. And withall supposing that without the great hurt or hazzard of the Churches we cannot delay the business till he be one or do Consent 5. Especially if he be set in enmity against the welfare of the Church and by pretence of a suspending vote would destroy the Church and bring in unworthy hurtful persons or things In all such Cases of Necessity its time to lay by our humane Rules for peace and Order § 33. Object But who shall be judge of this Necessity Answ. The Magistrate only shall be the Compelling Iudge The people shall be the Discerning Iudges the Pastors shall at least have as much power as the People each of them shall Discern so far as they must obey and execute And God only shall be the final Iudge § 34. Object But this will but cause Divisions and Confusions while the President thinks one thing Necessary and the Pastors another and the People another Answ. I answered this before Reason must not be cast by and the Churches ruined and poyson and destruction taken in on pretence of such inconveniences If such a Case of difference fall out each man will execute as he discerneth or judgeth being to answer for his own actions and having none that can undertake to answer for him And when we all come to the Bar of God for final Judgement he that was in the right shall be justified and he that falsly pretended Necessity against duty shall bear the blame § 35. Object But in the mean time the Churches will be divided Answ. 1. I told you there is no more hope of â— perfect Vnity on earth then of perfect Holiness 2. When two evils are before us though neither must be chosen for Evil is not an Object of choice unless as seeming good yet the Greater Evil must be first and most studiously repelled And the deformity and destruction of the Churches and the casting out of the Gospel and Worship of God is a greater Evil then disorder about good actions and differences about some Circumstances of Necessary works § 36. All this that I have said about the Negative de facto though not de jure that I would have Consented to for peace I intend not to extend to those Cases and Countries where peace requireth it not but rather the contrary muchâ—less to encourage any to think such a Negative Necessary in it self Some things may be Lawfully
and therefore Novelty must not be permitted to exclude them Answ. 1. Let Scripture be the Rule for deciding this which is the chief witness of Antiquity and let the oldest way prevail 2. Forms were at first introduced in Variety and not as necessary for the Churches Unity to Agree in one And they were left to the Pastors Liberty and none were forced to any forms of other mens composing When Basil set up his New forms of Psalmodie and other Worship which the Church of Neocaesarea were so offended at he did not for all that impose it on them but was content to use it in his Church at Caesarea Object 10. No man can now say what is the worship of God among us because there is no Liturgy but its mutable as every person pleases Answ. We have a Liturgy and are agreed in all the parts of worship To have forms or no forms is no part of it but a circumstance or mode THE summ is this 1. We have already a stinted Liturgy 1. A form of Doctrine in Scripture 2. Real forms in Sacraments 3. A verbal form in Baptizing 4. A form in delivering the Lords Supper 5. A Creed used at Baptism as a form of confession 6. We Read the Psalms as Liturgical forms of praise and prayer 7. We have forms of singing Psalms 8. We have a form of blessing the people in the End 9. And of Excommunication see the Government of the Church c. 10. And of Absolution 11. And of Marriage 12. And Ministers preparation makes much of their Sermons a form 13. And they are at liberty to pray in a form if they Please 2. No more is necessary of it self unless accidentally Authority or Peace c. require it 3. If Peace c. require a form let it be one by common Agreement as neer as may be taken out of Scripture even in words and as much of the old as is consistent with this Rule retained 4. Let it not contain any doubtfull or unnecessary things but be as much certain and necessary for the matter as may be 5. Let none be forced to use it but such as by Ordainers or Approvers are judged insufficient to worship God without it and yet are allowed or Tolerated in the Ministry 6. Let no Tolerated Ministers be Absolutely forbidden to use it 7. Let none be suffered to lay the Vnity and Peace of the Church on it and suspend excommunicate or reproach all that dissent from them in using or not using it 8. In times of Liberty let none use it constantly but the unable before excepted But let the weaker use it ofâ—â—er and the abler seldomer yet sometimes voluntarily and caeteris paribus still looking to the state of their flocks and fitting all to their Edification 9. When Magistrates command it or the Agreement of Pastors and Peace of the Churches though accidentally by mens infirmity require it let none refuse the frequent use of lawfull forms 10. But let none desire or endeavour the introducing of any such Necessity of this or any indifferent thing that is not first Necessary by some considerable antecedent occasion to the Edification of the Church This much will please the moderate but not the self conceited FINIS The Fifth DISPUTATION Of Humane CEREMONIES Whether they are necessary or profitable to the Church and how far they may be imposed or observed By Richard Baxter LONDON Printed by Robert White for Nevil Simmons Bookseller in Kederminster Anno Dom. 1658. Qu. Whether Humane Ceremonies be Necessary or Profitable to the Church CHAP. I. Distinctions and Propositions in order to the Decision § 1. THE discussion of the Controversie about the Etymologie of the word Ceremony is unnecessary to our ends and would be more troublesome then usefull Whether it be derived ab oppido Caere or à carendo or à Caritate or à Cerere as several mens conjectures run or rather as Scaliger and Martinius think from Cerus which in veteri lingua erat sanctus it sufficeth us that it signifieth a sacred rite Servius saith that all sacred things among the Greeks were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and among the Latines Ceremoniae But by Ceremonies we mean only external Rites or Orders in or about the worship of God And by Humane we mean such as are devised and appointed to be used by men without any special Revelation from God or any extraordinary inspiration of his Spirit by which the institution might have been justly ascribed to God as the certain principal cause § 2. There is so much ambiguity partly in the terms and partly in the supposed or implyed passages that will rise before us in the dispute that I judge it necessary to make the way to the true decision of the controversie and your right understanding of it by these distinctions following and then to lay down the truth in certain Propositions § 3. Dist. 1. We must distinguish between such Ceremonies as God hath left to humane determination in his worship and such as he hath not so left but hath either 1. Expresly forbidden them in particular 2. Or in a General prohibition forbidden them or 3. Hath given no man authority to institute them So great difference is there between things that commonly go under the name of Ceremonies that they are not in this Controversie to be confounded if we would not lose the truth § 4. Dist. 2. We must distinguish between Ceremonies commanded by man as in Gods name and by pretence of a Commission from him and such as are only commanded in mens own names or at least on pretence of nothing but a General Power § 5. Dist. 3. We must distinguish between Ceremonies commanded by men as necessary duties or means of worship and such as are only commanded as indifferent things § 6. Dist. 4. We must distinguish between Ceremonies imposed by a Lawfull Magistrate or Church-Governours and such as are imposed by usurpers or men without authority § 7. Dist. 5. We must distinguish between Ceremonies imposed as Vniversally to be practised by all ages or all people in the Church at least and such as are imposed only on some one Congregation or Nation by their proper Governours and that as things mutable that upon special occasion were taken up and may so be laid aside again § 8. Dist. 6. We must distinguish between Ceremonies commanded as things necessary to the being of the Church or Worship or only necessary to the Order and convenient administration and better being of them in the judgement of the imposers § 9. Dist. 7. We must distinguish between the absolute command of Governors imposing such ceremonies upon grievous penalties or without tolerations and the simple recommending them or requiring them to be used with expressed or implyed exceptions § 10. Dist. 8. We must very much difference the several Countreys where such things are imposed and the several sorts of People on whom and the several seasons in which they are
of his Government and Justice And the laying the hand upon the Book or Kissing it is but a Professing sign of my own Intentions such as my words themselves are and therefore is left to humane choice and a lawfull thing And I have met but with very few among all our Ceremonies that questioned this § 45. 5. And for Organs or other instruments of Musick in Gods worship they being a Help partly natural and partly artificial to the exhilarating of the spirits for the praise of God I know no argument to prove 〈◊〉 simply unlawfull but what would prove a cup of wine unlawful or the tune and meeter and melodie of singing unlawful But yet if any would abuse it by turning Gods worship into carnal Pomp and levity especially by such non-intelligible singing or bleating as some of our Choristers used the Common people would have very great reason to be weary of it aâ— accidentally evil § 46. 6. And as for Holy daies there is great difference between them Those are lyable to most question that are obtruded on the Church with the greatest confidence As for such daies as are appointed upon some emergent occasions that arose since Scripture was indited and are not common to all times and places of the Church there is no more question whether the Magistrate may command them or the Pastors agree upon them then whether a Lecture-day or fast-day or thansgiving-day may be commanded or agreed on some time for Gods worship besides the Lords Day must be appointed And God having not told us which the Magistrate may on fit occasions And this is no derogation from the sufficiency of Scripture For the occasion of the day was not exâ—stent when the Scripture was written such occasions are various according to the various state of the Church in several ages and Countries And therefore to keep an Anniversary day of Thanksgiving such as we keep on the fifth of November for our deliverance from the Papists powder plot is no more questionable then to keep a â—ecture Nor for my part do I make any scruple to Keep a Day in Remembrance of any eminent servant of Christ or Martyr to praise God for their doctrine or example and honour their Memorial But the hardest part of the Question is whether it be lawfull to keep daies as holy in celebrating the memorial of Christs Nativity Circumcision Fasting Transfiguration Ascention and such like And the great reasons of the doubt are 1. Because the occasions of these holy daies was existent in the Apostles daies and therefore if God would have had such daies observed he could as easily and fitly have done it by his Apostles in the Scripture as he did other the like thingâ— 2. And this is a business that if it were Necessary would be Equally necâ—ssary to all Ages and Parts of the Catholick Church And therefore it cannot be necessary but it must be the Matter of an universal Law And God hath made no such Law in Scripture And â—o Scripture sufficiency as the Catholick Rule of faith and universal Divine obediâ—nce is utterly overthrown which if we grant and turn Papists to day we shall have as strong temptations to make us turn Infidels to morrow so poor is their evidence for the supplemental Traditional Law of God 3. And God himself hath already appointed a day for the same purposes as these are pretended for For the Lords Day is to commemorate the Resurrection as the great Triumphant act of the Redeemer implying all the rest of his works so that though it be principally for the Resurrectiâ—n above any single work of Christ yet also for all the work of Redemption And the whole is on that day to be commemoraâ—ed with holy Joy and Praise Now when God himself hath set apart one day in every week to commemorate the whole work of Redemption it seems an accusing of his Institutions of insufficiency to come after him to mend them and say we must have an anniversary day for this or that part of the work 4. The fourth Commandment being one of the Decalogue seems to be of so high a nature that man is not to presume to make the like Else why may we not turn the ten commandments into twenty or a hundred But it seems a doing the same or of like nature to what God hath done in the fourth commandment if any will make a necessary staâ—ed holy day to the universal Church 5. And it seems also that these Holy daies excepting Easter and Whitsontide and other Lords daies are but of later iâ—troduction Many passages of Antiquity seem to intimate that Christmas Day it self was not of many hundred years after Christ. I remember not any before Gregory Nâ—zianzene that seem to speak of it The allegations out of spurious authors and that of later date such as the counterfeit Clement Dionysius Cyprian c. are brought to deceive and not to convince 6. Yea more the time was a matter of controversie among the Churches of the East and West for many â—undred years after Christ Epiphanius and the Churches of Iudaea and all those Eastern parts took the sixth of Ianuary to be the day see Casaubones Exercitat on this and Cloppenburgius more fully in Thâ—s Chrysostome saith it was but ten years before he wrote that Homilie that the Church at Constantinople was perswaded by them at Rome to change their account of the day And is it possible that when for about four hundred years or more the Churches were utterly disagreed of the day that it was then Commonly kept as an Holy day The keeping oâ— it would sure have kepâ— a common knowledge of the day Or at least the difference of observation would have raised conâ—ention as the difference about Easter did can any believe that the famous Council of Nice and the vigilant Emperour that were so exceeding impatient of a diversity of observations of Easter would have let a diverse observation of Christmas alone without once thinking or speaking of it when they were gathered about the like work if the Church had commonly observed it then as a Holy day Or was the Church of Iudaea where Christ arose in any likelyhood to have lost the true account of the day if it had been observed by Apostolical Tradition from the beginning 7. And it seems that God did purposely deny us the observation of this Day in that he hath certainly kept the time unknown to the world The confidence of some bewrayes but their ignorance Chronologers are never like to be agreed of the year much less of the moneth or day some think we are four years too late some two years c. Many think that Christ was born about October as Scaliger Broughton Beroaldus c. and many still hold to the old Eastern opinion for the Epiphany being the Nativity on Ian. 6. and others are for other times but none are certain of the time 8. Sure we are where there is no Law there is
part of our Honour to God they being mentioned there as his officers with whom he himself is honoured or dishonoured obeyed or disobeyed For it is Gods Authority that the Magistrate Parent and Pastor is endued with and empowred by to rule those that are put under them § 6. Reas. 3. What confusion will be brought into the Church if Pastors be not obeyed in things lawfull For instance If the Pastors appoint the Congregation to Assemble at one hour and the people will scruple the time and say it is unlawfull and so will choose some of them one time and some another what disorder will here be and worse if the Pastors appoint a Place of worship and any of the people scruple obeying them and will come to another place what confusion will here be People are many and the Pastors are few and therefore there may be some unity if the people be Ruled by the Pastors but there can be none if the Pastors must be ruled by the people for the people will not agree among themselves and therefore if we obey one part of them we must disobey and displease the rest And their ignorance makes them unfit to rule § 7. Reas. 4. Moreover disobedience in matters of Circumstance will exclude and overthrow the substance of the worship it self God commandeth us to pray If one part of the Church will not joyn with a stinted form of Prayer and the other part will not joyn without it both parties cannot be pleased and so one part must cast off Prayer it self or separate from the rest God commandeth the reading and preaching and hearing of the Scripture and the singing of Psalms but he hath left it to man to make or choose the best Translation of Scripture or version of the Psalms Now if the Pastor appoint one version and Translation and the Church joyn in the use of it if any members will scruple joyning in this Translation or version they must needs forbear the whole duty of Hearing the Scripture and singing Psalms in that Congregation If they pretend a scruple against the appointed time or Place of worship they will thereby cast off the worship it self For if they avoid our Time or Place they cannot meet with us nor worship with us § 8. Reas. 5. And when they are thus carryed to separate from the Congregation upon such grounds as these they will be no where fixt but may be still subdividing and separating from one another till they are resolved into individuals and have left no such thing as a Church among them For they can have no assurance or probability that some of themselves will not dissent from the rest in one Circumstance or other as they did from their Pastors and the Church that they were of before § 9. Reas. 6. By this means the wicked that are disobedient to their Teachers and reject the worship of God it self will be hardened in their sin and taught by professors to defend their ungodliness For the very same course that you take will serve their turns They need not deny any Duty in the substance but deny the circumstance and so put off the substance of the Duty If a wicked man will not hear the word preached he may say I am not against preaching but I am unsatisfied of the lawfulness of your Time or Place I am in judgement against coming to your Steeple-house or against the Lords Day And so he shall never hear though he say he is for hearing If a wicked man will not be personally instructed or admonished or be accountable to the Church or Pastors for any scandals of his life nor submit to any discipline he may say I am for discipline I know it is my duty to be instructed but I am not satisfied that I am bound to come to you when you send for me or to appear at such a place as you appoint the word of God nameth no time or place and you shall not deprive me of my liberty If a wicked man would not hear or read the Scripture or sing Psalms he may say that he is for the duty but he is only against this and that Translation and version And so while every version is excepted against the duty is as much evaded as if it were denied it self By this device it is that the Rebellion of unruly people is defended They run to the circumstances of the duty and ask Where are they bound to come to a Minister or to be examined by him in order to a baptism or Lords supper or to speak their consent to be Church members or to subscribe to a Profession or to read an English Bible or to hear in a Steeple-house with many such like Thus also it is that they put off family prayer and ask Where are they bound to pray in their family Morning and Evening and so keep no constancy in family prayer at all under pretence of denying only the circumstances § 10. Reas. 7. By this disobedience in things lawfull the members of the Church will be involved in contentions and so engaged in bitter uncharitableness and censures and persecutions and reproaches of one another which scandalous courses will nourish vice dishonour God rejoyce the enemies grieve the Godly that are peaceable and judicious and wound the consciences of the contenders We see the beginning of such fires are small but whither they tend and what will be the end of them we see not § 11. Reas. 8. By these means also Migistrates will be provoked to take men of tender consciences for factious unruly and unreasonable men and to turn their enemies and use violence against them to the great injury of the Church when they see them so self-conceited and refusing obedience in lawfull circumstances § 12. Reas. 9. By this means also the conversion and establishment of souls will be much hindred and people possessed with prejudice against the Church and ordinances when they take us to be but humerous people and see us in such contentions among our selves To my knowledge our late difference about some such lesser things hath turned off or hindered abundance of people from liking the holy doctrine and life which we profess § 13. Reas. 10. It will seem to the wisest to savour of no small measure of Pride when people on the account of lawfull circumstances dare set themselves against their Govenors and Teachers and quarrel with the ordinances of God and with the Churches Humble men would sooner suspect themselves and quarrel with their own distempers and submit to those that are wiser then themselves and that are set over them for their guidance by the Lord. There may more dangerous Pride be manifested in these matters then in Apparel and such lower trifles § 14. Reas. 11. Consider also what yielding in things lawfull the Scripture recommendeth to us How far yielded Pa. when he circumcised Timothy Act. 16.3 And when he took the men and purified himself with them in the Temple to signifie
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
were Churches And the Text saith that they ordained them Elders in every Church or Church by Church and therefore Cenchrea being a Church must have such Elders ordained to it according to the Apostles Rule And that it was a Parish with one Presbyter subject to Corinth is all unproved and therefore to no purpose 5. Yet I prove that the English Prelacy on their own grounds is not Iure Divino in that it is against the word of God according to their own interpretation of which next Argum. 10. THat Episcopacy which is contrary to the wâ—rd of God or Apostolical Institution according to their own interpretation is not to be restored But such is the late English Episcopacy therefore c. I prove the Minor for the Major needeth none according to their own interpretation of Tit. 1.5 and other Texts Every City should have a Bishop and if it may be a Presbytery And so many Councils have determined only when they grew greater they except Cities that were too small but so did not Paul But the late Episcopacy of England is contrary to this for one Bishop only is over many Cities If therefore they will needs have Episcopacy they should at least have had a Bishop in every City and though we do not approve of confining them to Cities yet this would be much better then as they were for then 1. They would be nearer their charges and within reach of them 2. And they would have smaller charges which they might be more capable of overseeing for there would be ten or twenty Bishops â—or one that be now If they say that except Bath and Wells Coventry and Licâ—fiâ—ld or some few they have but one City I answer it s not so For every Corporation or Burrough-Town is truly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and therefore should have a Bishop Let them therefore either prove that a Market-Town a Burrough a Corporation is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or else let every one of these Towns and Burroughs have a Bishop to govern that Town with the Neighbouring Villages by the consent and help of the Presbyters of these Vilâ—ages according to their own grounds And if it were so they would be no more then Classical Bishops at most Perhaps they 'le say that while we pretend to take down Bishops we do but set up more and would have many for one while we would have every Corporation or Parish to have a Bishop To which I answer its true but then it is not the same sort of Bishops which we would exclude and which we would multiply we would exclude those Bishops that would undertake two or three hundred mens work themselves and will rule a whole Diocess alone or by a Lay Chancellor when every conscionable man that hath faithfully tryed it doth feel the oversight of one Congregation to be so great a burden that it makes him groan and groan again We would exclude those Bishops that would exclude all others in a whole Diocess that they may do the work alone and so leave it undone while they plead that it belongs to them to do it If they will come into the Lords Harvest and exclude from the work of Government the Labourers of a whole County or two we have reason to contradict them But this is not to bring in more such Bishops as they that will shut out others but to keep in the necessary labouring Bishops whom they would shut out Nor do we shut out them themselves as Labourers or Rulers but as the excluders of the Labourers or Rulers If we have a Church to build that requireth necessarily two hundred workmen and some Pillars in it to Erect of many hundred tun weight if one of the workmen would say that it belongs to him to do it all himself or at least when the materials are brought to the place prepared to rear and order and place every stone and pillar in the building I would no oâ—herwise exclude the vain pretender then by introducing necessary help that the work may be done and I should think him a silly Civiller â—hat would tell me that while I exclude him I do â—ut multiply such as he when his every fault consisted in an hinderance of that necessary multiplication I know that some will say that we feign more work then is to be done and we would have the sentence of Excommunication pass upon every light offence I answer that its a thing that we abhor we would have none Excommunicated but for obstinacy in hainous sin when they will not hear the Church after more private admonition But there 's much more of the work of Government to be done on men that are not Excommunicable to bring them to Repentance and open confession for manâ—feâ—â—aâ—ion of that Repentance to the satisfaction of the Church but what need we plead how great the work is which every man may see before his eyes and experience putteth beyond dispute Furthermore that the English Episcopacy is dissonant from all Scripture Episcopacy I prove thus The Scripture knoweth but two sorts of Episcopacy the one General unfixed as to any Church or Country or Nation which was not called Episcopacy in the first times the other â—ixed Overseers of determinate Churches appropriated to their special charge these were called Bishops in those times whereas the former were some called Apostles from their immediate mission and exâ—raordinarâ— Priviledges or Evangelists or Fellow labourers and heâ—pers of the Apostles or by the like titles signifying their unlimited indeterminate charge But our English Bishops are neither of these therefore not any of Scripture appointment but different from them 1. They are not of the Apostolical Order of General Ministers for 1. Their principal work was Preaching to convert and congregate and then order Churches but our Bishops seldom preached for the most part 2. They were not tyed to any particular Church more then other save only as prudence directed them pâ—o tempore re nat for the succeâ—s of their work for the Church Unâ—veâ—sâ—l nor were they excluded or restrained from any part of the world as being another mans Diocess save only as prudence might direct them for the common good to distribute themselves pro tempore This is apparenâ— 1. by Christs Commission who sendeth them into all the world only by certain advantages and particular calls sitting Peâ—er more for the Circumcision and Paul for the Uncircumcision when yet both Petâ—r and Paul and all the rest did preach and look to both Circumcision and Uncircumcision 2. By the History of their peregrinations and labours which shew that they were not so fixed whatever some writers may ungroundedly affirm Eusâ—bius discrediting by fabulous mixtures the lighter sort of his Testimonies and censured by some rejection by Gelasius and others and some with him do tell us of some such things as some Apostles being fixed Bishops but with no such proofs as should satisfie a man that weighs the contrary
acres of Land and not by the number of souls whereas they should have done as the Bee-hives do when they are ready to swarm so that the old hive cannot contain them all the swarm removes and seeks them another habitation and makes them a New hive of their own So when a Church grows big enough for two Churches one part should remove to another meeting place and they should become two Churches and the later be of the same sort as the former and as free and not become subject to the former as if men had right to be Rulers of others because they were Converted before them or because they dwell in a walled City and others in the Villages This Error therefore was no contrived or suddain thing but crept on by degrees as Countries were Converted and Churches enlarged we are agreed therefore de facto that it was otherwise in the Apostles daies and that soon after in some places it came to that pass as the Prelates would have it in some degree But whether the Apostles were willing of the change is the Question between us we deny it and expect their better proof And till they prove it we must needs take it for our duty to imitate that Government which themselves confess was only practised in Scripture times supposing this the safest way BUt yet though the proof lye on their part who affirm the Apostles to have had such Intentions that Pastors of single Congregations should afterward become the Pastors of many I shall ex super abundanti give them some Reasons for the Negative 1. And first we are most certain that the holyest Pastors of the Church had so much Pride and Ambition that might possibly make them guilty of such a mistake as tended to the â—ncrease of their own power and rule We find even the twelve Apostles contending in Christs own presence for the Primacy till he is put sharpâ—ly to rebuke them and tell them the Necessity of humility and teach them better the state of his Kingdom Paul met with many that contended against him for a preheminence and put him upon all those defences of the dignity of his Apostleshipâ— which we find him using Peter found it necessary to warn the Pastors that they should not Lord it over Gods Heritage And Iohn did meet with a Lording Diotrephes that loved to have the preheminence While they lay under the Cross the Bishops were aspiring and usurping authority over one another or else Victor of Rome had not presumed to Excommunicate the Asian Bishops for not conforming to his opinion What abundance of unworthy contentions did the Bishops of the first ages fill the Churches with and much about superiority who should be greatest what should be the priviledges of their several Seas c. Their pride no doubt was a great cause of their contention and those contentions necessitated the interposition of Emperors to reconcile them that could not agree of themselves If the Emperors called a Council to that end even the Council it self would fall to pieces and make all worse if the Magistrate did not moderate them Had not Constantine burnt the Nicene Schedules and done much to maintain an Union among them the success of that Council might have been such as would have been no great encouragement to succeeding ages to seek for more What bitter quarrels are there between the most eminent of all the Fathers and Bishops of the Church between Chrysostom and Epiphanius Chrysostom and Theophilus Alexandrinus Hierom and Iohn of Ierusalem Ierome and Ruffinus besides his quarrels with Chrysostom and Augustine I open not the concealed nakedness of the Saints but mention those publike doleful tragedies which made the Church an amazement to it self and a scorn to the Heathens that lived about them witness the well known censure of Ammianus Marcellinus when so many people shall be murdered at once in contention for a Bishoprick as were at the choice of Damasus ambition was too predominant The mentioning of the contentions of those most excellent Bishops and the first four general Councils makes Luther break out into so many admiring exclamations in his Treatise de Conciliis that ever such men should so ambitiously quarrel about toyes and trifles and childish things and that even to the disturbing of all the Churches and setting the Christian world on a flame Of the two Churches of Rome and Constantinople he saith Ita hae â—uae Ecclesiae ambitiose râ—â—atae sunt de re nihili vanissimis nugacissimis naeniis doneâ—â—â—ndem utraque horribiliter vastata deleta est pag. 175. This caused Nazianzen who complaineth so much himself of the â—dium or displeasure of his fellow Bishops to profess himself to be so affected that he would avoid all Assemblies of Bishops because he had never seen a good end of any Synod and which did not rather increase the evils than remove them and his reason is not as Bâ—llarmine feigneth only because they were all Arrians but because The desire of contending and of preheminency or principality and their emulation did overcome reason which Luther mentioning ib. pag. 225. wondereth that for these words he was not excommunicated as an arrant heretick Who knoweth not that knoweth any thing of Church history how the Church hath been torn in pieces in all ages except the first by the dissention of the Bishops till the Pope drew part of them to unite in him And who knoweth not that knoweth any thing of the present state of the Christian world into how many fractions it is broken at this day and almost all through the Division of these Guides If therefore we shall imagine that the Pastors of the Church could not be tainted with so much ambition as to inlarge their own Diocesses and gather the new Chuches under themselves when they should have formed them into the same order and freedom as were the first we shall shut our eyes against the most full experience of the Christian world especially when the change was made by degrees 2. The second Reason that perswadeth me to stick to the sole practised Government in Scripture times and not to alter it upon pretended Intentions of the Apostles is this Nothing that intimateth temerity or mutability is to be charged upon the Holy Ghost but to institute one frame or species of Church-government for Scripture times and to change it presently into another species to all succeeding ages doth intimate temerity or mutability or at least is so like it that therefore without good proof it is not to be charged on the Holy Ghost That they are two distinct species of Government is plain one is the Government of a Particular Congregation without any other Congregations or Elders under that Government the other is the Governing of many Elders and Churches by one supereminent Prelate and if these be not two differing sorts of Government then let the Prelates confess that the Government which we would continue is of the same
no necessiâ—y and the Non-necessity is but preâ—ended First it is preâ—eâ—â—ed that there were so few fit men that there was a Necessity of forbâ—arance But this is not so For 1. The Church had larger gifts of the Spirit then then now and therefore proportionable to the flocks they might have had competent men then as well as now 2. They had men enough to make Deacons of even sâ—ven in a 〈◊〉 And who will believe then that they could find none to make such Elders of Was not Stephen or Philip sufficiently qualified to have been a subject Elder 3. They had many that prophesied and interpreted and spake with tongues in one Assembly as appears 1 Cor. 14. And therefore its manâ—fâ—st that there were enough to have made Ruled Elders At least sure the Church at Ierusalem where there were so many thousands would have afforded them one such if it had been requisite But secondly its pretended not to have been Necessary because of the fewness of the people But I answer 1. The same persons say that in Ignatius his time all Churches had such Presbyters And its manifest that many Churches in the Scripture times were more populous or large then many or most beside them were in Ignatius time 2. Did the numerous Church at Ierusalem ordinarily meet on the Lords dayes for holy communion or not If they did then it was but a Church of one Congregation which is by most denyed If not then the several Assemblies must have several Presbyters for several Bishops they will not hear of Doubtless they did not celebrate the holy communion of the Church and Ordinances of God by meer Lay-men alone 3. What man that knows the burden of Pastoral Oversight can say that such Churches of thousands as Ierusalem Rome Alexandria c. had need of no more than one man to Teach them and do all the Pastoral work and so that assisting Ruled Presbyters were then needless If they were needless to such numerous Churches then let us even take them for needless still and set up no new orders which were not seen in Scripture times Reas. 8. The Apostles left it not to the Beshops whom they established to make new Church-offices and orders quoad speciem but only to ordain men to succeed others in the offices and orders that themselves had by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost appointed or else Christ before them A Bishop might make a Bishop or a Deacon perhaps because these were quoad speciem made before and they were but to put others into the places before appointed But if there were no such creature in Scripture times as a subject Presbyter that had no power of Ordination and Jurisdiction then if the Bishops afterward should make such they must make a new office as well as a new officer So that either this new Presbyter is of the institution of Christ by his Apostles or of Episcopal humane institution If the former and yet not institututed in Scripture times then Scripture is not the sufficient rule and discoverer of Divine Institutions and Church Ordinances and if we once forsake that Rule we know not where to fix but must wander in that Romane uncertainty If the latter then we must expect some better proof then hitherto we have seen of the Episcopall or any humane power to make new Offices in the Church of Christ and that of universal and standing necessity Till then we shall think they ought to have made but such Presbyters as themselves Reason 9. If there be not so much as the name of a Ruled Presbyter without power of Ordination or Iurisdiction in all the Scripture much less then is there any description of his Office or any Directions for his ordination or the qualifications prerequisit in him and the performance of his office when he is in it And if there be no such Directory concerning Presbyters then was it not the Apostles intent that ever any such should be ordained The reason of the consequence is 1. Because the Scripture was written not only for that age then in being but for the Church of all ages to the end of the world And therefore it must be a sufficient directory for all The second Epistle to Timothy was written but a little before Pauls death Surely if the Churches in Ignatius daies were all in need of Presbyters under Bishops Paul might well have seen some need in his time or have foreseen the need that was so neer and so have given directions for that office 2. And the rather is this consequence firm because Paul in his Epistles to Timothy and Titus doth give such full and punctual Directions concerning the other Church-officers not only the Bishops but also the Deacons describing their prerequisite qualifications their office and directing for their Ordination and conversation Yea he condescendeth to give such large Directions concerning Widows themselves that were serviceable to the Church Now is it probable that a perfect Directory written for the Church to the worlds End largely describing the qualifications and office of Deacons which is the inferiour would not give one word of direction concerning subject Presbyters without power of Ordination or Rule if any such had been then intended for the â—hurch No nor once so much as name them I dare not accuse Pauls Epistles written to that very purpose and the whole Scripture so much of insufficiency as to think they wholly omit a necessary office and so exactly mention the inferiour and commonly less necessary as they do Reason 10. The new Episcopal Divines do yield that all the texts in Timothy Titus and the rest of the New Testament that mentitn Gospel Bishops or Presbyters do mean only such as have power of Ordination and Iurisdiction without the concurrence of any superiour Bishop The common Inerpretation of the Fathers and the old Episcopal Divines of all ages of most or many of those texts is that they speak of the office of such as now are called Presbyters Lay both together and if one of them be not mistaken they afford us this conclusion that the Presbyters that now are have by these texts of Scripture the power of Ordination and Iurisdiction without the concurrence of others And if so then was it never the Apostles intent to leave it to the Bishops to ordain a sort of Presbyters of another order that should have no such power of Ordination or Jurisdiction without the Bishops Negative Reason 11. We find in Church History that it was first in some few great Cities especially Rome and Alexandria that a Bishop ruled many settled worshipping Congregations with their Presbyters when no such thing at that time can be proved by other Churches therefore we may well conceive that it was no Ordinance of the Apostles but was occasioned afterwards by the multiplying of Christians in the same compass of ground where the old Church did inhabite and the adjacent parts together with the humane frailty of the
dayes and after He affirmeth also that the power of the Keyes belongeth to the Presbyters and that its convertible with the power of celebrating the Eucharist and that 's the Reason Why it belongs to them page 98. ibid. and that the Power of the Keys that is the whole power of the Church whereof that power is the root and sourse is common to Bâ—shops and Presbyters page 128 and that to this all sides agree page 106. and that by their Grant Deacons and others may preach but not Rule or administer the Lords Supper see page 118.123 And he is far from being of their mind that think in Scripture times there was but one single Bishop without other Presbyters in a Diocesan Church For he supposed many in a Congregation Page 126 he saith You see by St. Paul 1 Cor. 14. that one Assembly whereof he speaks there furnished with a great number of Prophets whether Presbyters or over and above them In the Records of the Church we find divers times a whole Bench of Presbyters presiding at one Assembly And before he had shewed how they sate about the Bishop and the congregation stood before them And page 127. he saith that Clemens the Disciple of the Apostles in his Epistle to the Corinthians to compose a difference among the Presbyters of that Church partly about the celebration of the Eucharist adviseth them to agree and take their turns in it I confess I knnw not whence he hath this doubtless not in the true approved Epistle of Clement but it shews in his judgement 1. That there were then many Presbyters in the Church of Corinth 2. And that that Church was but one Congregation or not very many Else what need the Presbyters take their turns when they might have done it at once 3. That the word Presbyter in Clemens signifieth not a Prelate 4. And it seems this intimateth there was then no Bishop in Corinth else no question but Clemens would have charged these disagreeing Presbyters to obey their Bishop and used some of Ignatius language 5. Nay if Bishops had been then known in the world is it not likely that he would have charged them to get a Bishop if they had not to Govern such a disagreeing Presbytery And page 129 130 131. he shews that the condemning of Marcion at Rome and of Noelus at Ephesus are expresty said by Epiphanius Haeres 42. num 1. 2. Haeres 57 num 1. to have been done and passed by the Act of the Presbyters of those Churches And which is of later date the Excommunication of Andronicus in Sâ—nesius 57. Epist. I find reported to have passed in the same sort and all this agreeable to the practice recorded in Scripture alledging 1. Tim. 5.19 Acts 21.18 citing Cyprian Ep. 46. and the Apost Constit. and saith Bloudell in this might have spared his exact diligence it being granted c. Mr. Thorndike also tells us pag. 62. of the words of Ninius that in Ireland alone Saint Patrick at the first plantation of Christianity founded three hundred and threescore and five Bishopricks And can any man believe that all these had Cities or more then one of our Parish Churches when all Ireland to this day hath not seven Cities and when all this was done at the first plantation of the Gospel I think we had this sort of Episcopacy Even since the Reformation there is reckoned in Ireland but four Arch-bishops nineteen Bishops What think you then were 365. Bishops at the first plantation of the Gospel To proceed to some further Evidence 1. It s manifest in Clemens Rom. Epist. to the Corinthians there is mention of no more but two Orders the one called sometime Bishops sometime Presters the other Deacons page 54.55.57 and this he saith the Apoâ—â—les did as knowing that contention would arise about the name of Episcopacy and that they so seâ—led the Ministerial Offices that others should succeed in them when some were deceased For my part I cannot see the least reason to be of their mind that think Clemens here doth speak only of Prelates or supereminent Bishops of which I refer the Reader to Mr. Burtons notes in his English Translatâ—on of Clemenâ— But suppose it were so If at that time the Churches had none but single Bishops it is plain then that they were but single Congregations For no other Congregations having communion in theâ—r-then-ordinary publike worship could be managed without a Bishop or Presbyter to do the work But for them that sleight Mr. Burtons other mens plain Reasons concerning the judgement of Clem. Romanus and force his words to speak what they mean not I desire them to observe the judgement of Grotius whom they profess so much to value who in his Epistol 162 ad Bignon gives this as one Reason to prove this Epistle of Clemens genuine Quod nusquam meminit exsortis illius Episcoporum autoritatis quae Ecclesiae consuetudine post Marci mortem Alexandriae atque eo exemplo alibi introduci cepit sed planè ut Paulus Apostolus ostendit Ecclesias communi Presbyterorum qui iidem omnes Episcopi ipsi Pauloque dicuntur consilio fuisse gubernatas Nam quod 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nominat omnia ista nomina non ad Ecclesiam sed ad Templum Hieros pertinent unde infert omnia recto ordine agenda si Iudaeis tanto magis Christianis You see that Grotius then and Clemens in his judgement were against Prelacy 2. The very same I say of Prelacie Epist. ad Philip. which mentioneth only two sorts Presbyters and Deacons 3. And though Ignatius oft mention three it seems to me that they were all but the Governours or Ministers of one Congregation or of no more people then one of our Parishes In the Epist. ad Smyrâ— he saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. Vbi Episcopus praesens fuerit illuc plebs Congregetur sicuti ubi Christus est omnis militia coelestis aâ—est as the common interpreter translateth it ut vid. est in Edit Perionii Vsherii c. Vbi comparuerit Episcopus ibi Multitudo sit quemadmodum ubi Christus ibi omnis astat exercitus coelestis as Hier. Vairlenius Videlius translate it Or Vbi utique apparet Episcopus illic multitudo sit quemadmodum utiq ubi est Christus Iesus illic Catholica Ecclesia as Vshers old Tranlation And by the Context it appeareth that this plâ—bs or multitudo is the Church which he ruleth and not only one Congregation among many that are under him For this doth without distinction bind all the people one as well as another to be where the Bishop is or appeareth viz. in the publick Assembly for Communion in Worship It is plain therefore there that were not then many such Assemblies under him otherwise all save one must have necessarily disobeyed this command And in the Epistle to the Philadelphians he hath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e.
way or other feel ere long that they have owned a very unprofitable cause and such as they shall wish they had let alone and that it made not for their honour to be so much enemies to the welfare of the Church as the enemies of the abolition of that Prelacy will appear to be Cons. II. The matter of that clause in the National Covenant which concerneth the abolition of this Prelacy before mentioned was so far from deserving the Reproaches and Accusations that are bestowed on it by some that it was just and necessary to the well being of the Church In this also I purposely mean the Civil controversie about the authority of imposing taking or prosecuting the Covenant and speak only of the Matter of it to avoid the losing of the truth by digressions and new controversies They that by reproaching this clause in the Covenant do own the Prelacy which the Covenant disowneth might shew more love to the Church and their own souls by pleading for sickness and nakedness and famine and by passionate reproaches of all that are against these then by such owning and pleading for a far greater evil Cons. III. Those of the English Ministry that are against the old Episcopacy and are glad that the Church is rid of it are not therefore guilty of Schism nor of sinfull disobedience to their spiritual superiours If any of them did swear obedience to the Prelates a tyrannicall imposition that God never required nor the Primitive Church never used that 's nothing to our present case which is not about the keeping of oaths but the obeying or rejecting the Prelacy in it self considered It is not schismatical to depart from an â—â—â—rpation that God disowneth and the Church is endangered and so much wronged by and to seek to pull up the Roots of Schism which have bred and fed it in the Churches so long Cons. IV. Those that still justifie the ejected Prelacy and desire the restauration of it as they needlesly choose the guilt of the Churches desolations so are they not to be taken for men that go about to heal our breaches but rather for such as would widen and continue them by restoring the main cause Cons. V. If we had had such an Episcopacy as Bishop Hall and Bishop Vsher did propound as satisfactory and such men to manage it Episcopacy and Peace might have dwelt together in England to this day It is not the the Name of a Bishop that hath been the matter of our trouble but the exorbitant Species introducing unavoidably the many mischiefs which we have seen and felt Cons. VI. Ordination by the ejected Prelacy in specie is not of necessity to the being or well-being of a Presbyter or Deacon If the Species of Prelacy it self be proved contrary to the word of God and the welfare of the Church then the Ordination that is by this Species of Prelacy cannot be necessary or as such desirable Cons. VII A Parochial or Congregational Pastor having assistant Presbyters and Deacons either existent or in expectance was the Bishop that was in the dayes of Ignatius Iustin Tertullian and that Dr. Hammond describeth as meant in many Scriptures and existent in those dayes I speak not now to the question about Archbishops Cons. VIII The Ordination that is now performed by these Parochial Bishops especially in an assembly guided by their Moderator is beyond all just exception Valid as being by such Bishops as the Apostles planted in the Churches and neerer the way of the Primitive Church then the Ordination by the ejected Species of Prelates is Cons. IX As the Presbyters of the Church of Alexandria did themselves make one their Bishop whom they chose from among themselves and set him in a higher degree as if Deacons make an Archdeacon or Souldiers choose one and make him their Commander saith Hierom ad Evagr. so may the Presbyters of a Parochial Church now And as the later Canons require that a Bishop be ordained or consecrated by three Bishops so may three of these Primitive Parochial Bishops ordain or consecrate now another of their degree And according to the Canons themselves no man can justly say that this is invalid for want of the Consecration by Archbishops or of such as we here oppose Cons. X. Those that perswade the People that the Ordinanation of those in England and other Churches is null that is not by such as the English Prelates were and that perswade the people to take them for no Presbyters or Pastors that are not ordained by such Prelates and do make an actual separation from our Churches and Ministers and perswade others to the like upon this ground and because the Ministers have disowned the English Prelacy and withal confess that Church of Rome to be a true Church and their ordination and Priesthood to be just or true are uncharitable and dangerously Schismatical though under pretence of decrying Schism and many wayes injurious to the Church and to the souls of men and to themselves This will not please but that I not only speak it but further manifest it is become Necessary to the right Information of others FINIS The Second DISPUTATION VINDICATING The Protestant Churches and MINISTERS that have not Prelatical Ordination from the Reproaches of those Dividers that would nullifie them WRITTEN Upon the sad complaints of many Godly Ministers in several parts of the Nation whose Hearers are turning Separatists By Rich. Baxter LONDON Printed by Robert White for Nevil Simmons Bookseller in Kederminster 1658. The Preface Christian Reader IF thou be but for the interest of Christianity more than of a party and a Cordial friend to the Churches Peace though thou be never so much resolved for Episcopacy I doubt not but thou and I shall be one if not in each Opinin yet in our Religion and in Brotherly affection and in the very bent of our labours and our lives And I doubt not but thou wilt approve of the scope and substance of this following Disputation what imperfections soever may appear in the Manner of it For surely there is that of God within thee that will hardly suffer thee to believe that while Rome is taken for a true Church the Reformed that have no Prelates must be none that their Pastors are meer Lay-men their Ordination being Null and consequently their administrations in Sacraments c. Null and of no Validity The Love that is in thee to all believers and especially to the Societies of the Saints and the honour and interest of Christ will keep thee from this or strive against it as nature doth against poyson or destructive diseases If thou art not a meer Opinionist in Religion but one that hast been illuminated by the spirit of Christ and felt his love shed abroad in thy heart and hast ever had experience of spiritual communion with Christ and his Church in his holy Ordinances I dare then venture my cause upon thy judgement Go
it and yet this proveth not that the people were neer the Bishop in degree that which the people themselves may do and frequently did is not the only thing that Hierom here ascribeth to the Presbyters but such is the Election of a Bishop therefore c. 4. It is the Original or first making of Prelates at Alexandria that Hierom here speaks of which he shews was from the Presbyters consent This appeareth plainly in his words though some can make the plainest words to signifie what they would have them For 1. He begins with a Presbyteris id est Episcopâ—s and 2. proceedeth from many scripture passages to prove them in scripture times the same and that not only quoad nomen but officium for 3. When he had done with the Testimonies of Saint Iohn in his two Epistles he immediately addeth Quod autem postea unus electus est qui caeteris praeponeretur c. where note both that unus qui caeteris praeponeretur is more then the bare name and also that Postea referreth to the date of Iohns Epistles and therefore he plainly averreth that it was after Iohns Epistles that one was chosen to be before the rest 5. And to the Answer I further reply that here is all that was done and all that was needfull to be done ascribed to the Presbyters For 1. They elected one 2. They did in excelsiori gradu electum collocare place him in an higher degree and 3. Episcopum nominabant they named him the Bishop by way of excellency And if Election and placing him in the Degree and giving him peculiarly the name be not Ordination then Ordination is but some Ceremony for these contain the substance 6. And Hierom expresly resembleth this action of the Presbyters to an Armies making an Emperour or General as if he had said As the Army makes an Emperour Imperatorem faciat so Presbyters made the Bishop but the Army so made the Emperour that they left it not to another power to make him and to them only So that it is both Making a Bâ—shop that is here ascribed to the Presbyters and such a making as leaveth him not unmade to the making of another 7. And he resembleth it to the making of an Arch-deacon supposing that the Deacons do 1. Elect. 2. Judge of the person quem industrium noverint 3. And give him the name Archi-diaconum vocent 8. And he affirmeth this to be semper the constant custom of the Alexandrian Presbyters till the dayes of Heraclas and Dionysius intimating that then the custom changed but what custom was then changed Not the Election of a Bishop by the Presbyters with the people for that continued long after and therefore it must be the Constitution which afterward was done by Neighbour Bishops in Consecration but till then by the Election Collocation and nomination of the Presbyters of that City-Church 9. Having shewed thus that Bishops and Presbyters were the same and in the beginning called them by the same name he affirms that Omnes Apostolorum successores sunt that is All these Bishops 10. And he plainly affirms that the difference is made by Riches and Poverty He is the greater that is the richer and he is the inferiour that is the poorer Potentia divitiarum paupertatis humilitas vel sublimiorâ—m vel inferiorem Episcopum facit Let any impartial Reader peruse the Epistle it self and consideâ— of these ten passages and then believe if he can either that Hierom did imply that other Bishops made these Alexandrian Bishops and not the Presbyters or that these Presbyters altered but the name and gave not the Bishop his new degree or that this was not a thing that was now de novo in remedium schismatis contrived or performed by them There is evidence enough against these conceits Sect. 58. And further for them that think it was but the name that was now changed I would ask them these few Questions supposing them to be of their mind that tell us that Inferiour Presbyters were not instituted in Scripture-times and that it was only Prelates that are called Bishops and Presbyters in Scripture 1. Is it not strange that when after Scripture-times a New Office was made it should not have a new Name also but should have the same name with the old superiour office 2. And is it not strange that both names of the superior Office Bishop and Presbyter should be commonly given to the new inferior Office at the first 3. And strange that the Church must afterward be put to change the names and retrench or recall the name of a Bishop from the new sort of Presbyters and confine it to the old leaving as old the name of a Presbyter to the new inferior Office 4. And if in Scripture-times in the dayes when Iohn wrote his Epistles and Revelation the names of Bishop and Presbyter were both appropriated to Prelates there being no Inferiour Presbyters then instituted and yet from Mark the Evangelist the Alexandrian Presbyters brought back the name of a Bishop to the Prelates retaining the name Presbyter themselves Quaero How long time was there after the Institution of Inferiour Presbyters till the regulating of their names from the dayes of Mark About thirty four years backward Mark dyed in the eighth year of Nero and the Presbyters made Arianus Bishop after his death who continued twenty two years even from the eighth of Nero to the fourth of Domitian as Eusebius in Histor. Eccles. l. 2. cap 23. lib. 3. cap. 12. in Chronic. Hieronym in Catalog ex illis Usher Annal. Vol. 2. ad an Dom. 67. pag 677. And Helvicus and others are neer the same time And saith Helvicus Iohn wrote the Revelations about the fourteenth year of Domitian and wrote his Gospel about the first year of his Successor Nerva So that Mark dyed about thirty six years or thirâ—y four at least before Iohn wrote his Gospel so that here you have your choice whether you will believe that subject Presbyters did regulate the names of themselves and Bishops and did elect or make Bishops thirty six years before they were instituted themselves or whether you will believe that yet at the death of Mark there were no inferior Presbyters at Alexandria and so no superior Bishops for all this that Hierom doth report Sect. 59. As for the Episcopal Divines that dissent from the Principle of the forecited Learned Author who saith that there is no evidence that any of the second sort of Presbyters were instituted in Scripture times I need not deal with them in thâ—s Disputation for all of them that ever I yet met with do grant the validity of Presbyters Ordination and the truth of the Reformed Churches and their Ministry and Ordinances otherwise it were easie enough to vindicate all these from them also if they denyed them Sect. 60. Argument 18. Ad hominem If the late English Prelates had a lawful call to their Prelacy then much
again I say we very much Reverence such Learned Worthy men as Bishop Morton Bishop Brownrigg and some others yet surviving are 12. The Ordination by Prelates as things now stand endangereth mens liberty in the exercise of the Ministry by some things in the Manner which I shall not mention Review the rest that I said before in Cap. 5. and 6. and then judge Whether he that in these dayes is Ordained by a Learned Grave Presbytery and perhaps where a City Pastor is Moderator or President and many of the Ordainers are the fixed Presidents or Bishops of a Parochial Church having a Presbytery where they preside I say Whether such be not separated to the Ministry in the most orderly way that is now to be found existent and come not in at the door that God would have them to enter at Sect. 75. It is strange that those men among the Papists that allow of the Cardinals choosing a Pope and exercising so much Government as they do over all the Christian world and all this under the name of Presbyters of Rome should yet be against Ordination by such Presbyters as are indeed Parochial Bishops and accuse it to be a Nullity I see not how these things cohere Sect. 76. But yet many Papists are more moderate in this then those at home that we now deal with That Erasmus Richardus Armachanus Guiâ—el Durantes and many more of them were on our side in this point is commonly known and manifested by abundance of our writers some of them Bishops and some Episcopal Divines themselves Sect. 77. And divers of their Schoolmen do maintain that the Ordâ— Episcopalis non differt à Caracthere Sacerdotali nisi sicut forma intensa a se ipsa remissa as Soncinas relateth in 4. Sent. d. 25. the sentence of Paludanus which Voetius recites And the same Soncinas and Voetius after him do cite Aureolus proving that Gradus Episcopalis Sacerdotum non sunt distinctae potestates c. Quia Sacerdos authoritate Papae potest Sacerdotem instituere Ergo non differunt potestas Episcopalis Sacerdotis nisi sicut potestas impeditae non impedita quae tamen est eadem Antecedens probatur quia omnis virtus activa non impedita potest transfundere seipsam To the same purpose Cusanus and many more Sect. 78. Hence it is that Presbyters have of old had a place in Councils yea and a suffrage too and the Council of Basil did decide and practise it which is allowed by many of the Papists And hence it is that divers of the Papists do make Episcopal preheminency to be but of Ecclesiastical Institution Sect. 79. That the Chorepiscopi did ordain and their Ordination was Valid though they were not accounted Bishops any otherwise then our Parochial Bishops are is a thing that hath been spoken of so oft and by so many even Bishops themselves that I shall pass it by Sect. 80. And saith Voetius even among the Papists the Abbots and such regular Prelates that are no Bishops and the Chapter of Canons may Ordain yea and exercise other acts of Jurisdiction as excommunicating c. It is not therefore proper to the Bishops Sect 81. It is therefore as Hierom speaks of Confirmation by a Bishop only in honorem Sacerdotii a matter of Ecclesiastical institution for Order and not of Divine institution that Presbyters without Prelates should not Ordain As Leo first Bishop of Rome saith Epistol 86. ad Episcop Gall. German there are Quaedam Sacerdotibus Prohibita per Canones Ecclesiasticos ut Consecratio Presbyterorum Diaconorum It is the Canons that forbid Presbyters to Ordain and not the Scriptures that never knew a Presbyter without the power to Ordain Sect 82. Were there no Ordainers to do that office or none but such as would oblige us to sin it were Gods regular way to enter by the Peoples choice and the Magistrates authority without them this being in such case the open door therefore it is more evidently Gods Regular way when we have both these and the best Ministerial Ordination besides that is on good terms to be had I do not only here plead that such a Ministry is not Null as I did before but that the entrance in such a case is not sinfull Sect. 83. There being nothing left to men herein but the due designation of the person before the reception of his power from God the Peoples Election it self may serve for that designation where Ministerial Approbation is not to be had But the ordinary course where Necessity doth not prohibit us is that all three concur viz. The Consent of the people because we cannot Teach and Rule them against their wills 2. The Approbation of the Ministry because they are best able to judge of mens abilities 3. The Allowance of the Magistrate for the orderly and advantagious exercise of our office But the first is of the greatest necessity of the three Sect. 84. That the people have power of Election when just authority Civil or Ecclesiastical doth not suspend it or limit it is so easily proved that it is commonly confessed It s well known that for many hundred years the people had in most or many Churches the Choice of their Bishops or Pastors or joyned with the Presbyterie and Ordainers in the choice Blondellus Voetius and many more have sufficiently proved this and other parts of the peoples interest by unanswerable evidence Sect. 85. Cyprian saith that this is by Divine Ordination Epist. 68. edit Goulartii p. 201. Propter quod plebs obsequens praeceptis Dominicis Deum metuens à peccatore praeposito separare se debet nec se ad Sacrilegi Sacerdotis saâ—crificia miscere quando ipsa maxime habeat potestatem vel eligendi dignos Sacerdotes vel indignos recusandi Quod ipsum videmus de Divina authortate descendere ut Sacerdos plebe praesente sub omnium oculis deligatur dignus atque idoneus publico judicio ac testimonio comprobetur Coram omni Synagoga jubet Deus constitui Sacordotem id est instruit ostendit Ordinationes Sacerdotales non nisi sub populi assistentis conscientia 〈◊〉 oportere ut plebe praesente vel detegantur malorum crimina vel bonorum merita praedicentur sit Ordinatio justa legitima quae omnium suffragio judicio fuerit examinata Quod postea secundum Divina Magisteria observatur in Actis Apostolorum quando de Ordinando in locum Judae Episcopo Petrus ad plebem loquitur surrexit inquit Petrus in medio discentium fuit autem turba in uno Nec hoc in Episcoporum tantum Sacerdotum sed in Diaconorum Ordinationibus observasse Apostolos animadvertimus de quo ipso in Actis eorum scriptum est Et convocaverunt inquit illi duodecim totam plebem discipulorum Quod utique idcirco tam diligenter caute convoata plebe tota gerebâ—tur nequis ad altaris
much with Christian comfort when you cannot say that you are sent of God and have nothing but your own overweening conceits of it Could you but say I entered by the way that God appointed and was not my own Judge you might have some more boldness and confidence of Gods assistance Sect. 34. Reas. 18. The most that plead against Ordination that are worthy the name of sober Christians do plead but against the Necessity of it and cannot deny it to be lawful and should not all the reasons before mentioned prevail with you to submit to a lawful thing Sect. 35. Reas. 19. And if it be thus undenyable that men must not be their own Judges it will soon appear that Ministers are the standing Judges of mens fitness for this work because no other Judges are appointed to it or capable of it It must be an ordinary stated way of Approbation that can give us satisfaction for if God had left the case at large for men to go to whom they will it would be all one as to go to none at all but to be Judges themselves And if a standing way of Approbation must be acknowledged let us enquire where it is to be found and look which way you will and you shall find no other but this which is by men of the same Calling with them that are to be Ordained Sect. 36. For 1. Magistrates it cannot be none that I know pretend to that Magistrates in most of the world are Infiâ—els and therefore cannot there be Ordainers and none of them hath the work committed to them by Christ nor do any that I know assume it to themselves Sect. 37. And 2. The people it cannot be For 1. No man can shew a word of precept or example for it nor prove that ever God did give them such a power Consent or Election is all that can be pretended to by them 2. It is a work that they are commonly unable for the Schollars may as well Try and Approve of their Schoolmaster We confess the People must by a judgement of discretion endeavour to find out the best they can but if they had not helps and if they were also called to a judgement of direction and decision what work would they make Do the Major vote or the Minor either in most or almost any Congregations understand whether a man know the meaning of the Scripture or to be able to defend the truth or whether he be Heretical or found in the faith c. God would not set men on a work that is thus beyond the line of their Capacity It is a thing not to be imagined that they that call us to be their Teachers should already be commonâ—y able to Judge whether we are sound or unsound and able to teach them or not for this importeth that they know already as much as we for wherein they are ignorant they cannot judge of us And if they know as much already what need have they of our Teaching 3. And it is contrary to the subjection and inferiority of their Relation they that are commanded to learn and obey us as their Guides may yet consent or choose their Teachers when Approved or to be Approved by abler men but they cannot be imagined to be appointed by God to Ordain their own Overseers this is a most ungrounded fiction Sect. 38. Reas. 20. On the other side it is the Pastors of the Church and only they that are fitted to be the standing Approvers or Ordainers as will appear in these particulars 1. It is they that are justly supposed to be of competent abilities to try a Minister If here and there a Gentleman or other person be able that is a rarity and therefore no standing way for the Church in Ordaining Ministers can be gathered thence 2. Ministers are doubly devoted to God and to his Church and therefore should have and ordinarily have the tenderest care of the Church 3. It is justly supposed that Ministers are ordinarily the most pious and conscionable men that are to be had or els they are too blame that choose them to be Ministers And therefore they may be expected to be most faithful in the work 4. And they are fewer and have lesser perverting interests and therefore are like to be less divided in such determinations then the people that are so many and of so many interests and minds that if it were not for the Moderation of Magistrates and Ministers they would almost everywhere be all to pieces one being for one man and another for another some for one of this mind and way and some for one of another some for the Orthodox and some for the Heretical 5. Lastly it is Ministers whose Office God hath tyed Ordination to and who have time to wait upon it as their duty so that lay all this together and I think the first Proposition is proved for the Necessity ordinarily of the Pastors Approbation and the sinfulness of neglecting it Sect. 39. Prop. 2. It is only the Pastors of one particular Church but also the Pastors of Neighbour chuâ—ches that hold Communion with that Church that should regularly Approve or Ordain Ministers though I deny not but he may be a Minister that hath no Ordination but by the Pastors of a particular Church yet I conceive that this is not a regular course Sect. 40. My reasons are these 1. Because if it be ordinarily tyed to the Pastors of the same Church only to Ordain then it will be done ordinarily without any Pastors at all For most particular Churches in the world have but one Pastor and when he is dead there is none left to Ordain and therefore others or none must do it in such cases Sect. 41. And 2. If there be one left and all the power be left in him the welfare of the Church would run too great an hazzard if every man shall be Ordained a Minister that can procure the Approbation of a single Pastor the Church will be subjected to most of the lamentable miseries before mentioned supposing that men were judges for themselves Sect. 42. And 3. We find in Scripture that it was not the way appointed by the Holy Ghost for single Pastors to Ordain The forecited Texts and examples are a sufficient proof Sect. 43. If any say that the Ruling Elders may concur I answer Though I make no great matter of it nor would not raise a contention about it yet I must say that I never yet saw any satisfactory proof that ever God did institute such Elders as this Objection meaneth in the Church that is 1. Such as are not Ordained but come in by meer Election 2. And such as have the Power of Discipline and Oversight without Authority to preach or administer the Sacraments I think these are but humane creatures though I doubt not but there may be such as Actually shall forbear preaching and administration of the Sacraments when some of their colleagus are fitter for it Sect. 44.
and we have to dispute of It is Ecclesiastical Government by Ministers and not secular by Magistrates that is our controversie It is of the Power left by Christ to Pastors and not to Princes § 25. Object But at least those should be excommunicated that deny obedience to their Bishops that is a Power that is left in the Bishops themselves whether the Magistrate consent or not Answ. 1. Excommunication is a sentence that should fall on none but for such gross and hainous sin if not also obstinacy and impenitency in them as is mentioned in Scripture Using it in cases of controversie and tolerable differences is but a tearing and dividing the Church 2. We take it not for our duty to excommunicate you because you are for Diocesan Prelacy therefore you should not take it for yours to excommunicate others because they are against it For 3. If your species of Episcopacy be such as I have proved it you have more need to repent and amend and ask forgiveness of God and men then to excommunicate them that are not of your opinion and for your sin 4. But if you take this to be your duty who hath hindered you from it these twelve years You had liberty for ought I know to have discharged your consciences and to have excommunicated us all 5. But you might so easily see what was like to come of it that it is no wonder that you forbore If such a Ministry and such a people as are now your adherents whose description I forbear should execute your sentence and cast us and our adherents out of their communion what contempt would it bring upon you in England The Ale-houses would be shut up for the most part against uâ— But that and the rest would be easily born I think this is not your way § 26. Object 7. But what need you form us a new sort of Episcopacy were we not well enough before Why did you pull down that which was well planted and now pretend to commend a better to us We were well if you had let us alone § 27. Answ. 1. But We were not well because you would not let us alone The Ministers that were silenced and imprisoned and banished and the thousands of people that were fain to follow them and all those that were undone by your prosecutions in England were not well But this is a small matter The ignorant Congregations that had ignorant and drunken guides where Piety was scorned as Puritanism and impiety made a thing of nothing and where Satan was so commonly served the many hundred Congregations in England that never knew what true Discipline meant nor never saw in all their lives a drunkard oppressor railer blasphemer either cast out or penitently confess his sin before the Church all these were not well though you were well 2. Whether we were well before I have shewed in my first Disputation and thither I refer you 3. And whether we have brought in a new Episcopacy or only cast out a new one and desire to bring in the Old we are content to put it to an equal tryall We all concurr in offering you this motion Let the oldest stand and the newest be cast out § 28. Object 8. Iudge now by the effects The Episcopacy which you blame did keep up Order and Vnity in the Church It kept under those weeds of heresie and error that since sprung up We had then no Quakers nor Seekers nor such other Sects as now abound This swarm of Errors shews which Government is best § 29. Answ. This is a gross fallacy à non causa pro causa to which I return you my answer in these seven considerations 1. You tell us of the good that you think you did but you tell us not of the hurt I hope I love Divisions or Heresies as little as ever a Bishop in England and yet I must profess that I had rather an hundred times have things continue as they are with all our swarms of heresies then to be restored to their ancient pass Our loss iâ— as great as Iosephs in being removed from the Prison to Pharaohs ungodly family I mean in spirituals of seculars anon I know not of an Anabaptist Separatist Quaker or any other Sectary in the Town that I live in for all this noise unless you will take a few Infidels for Sectaries or a few ignorant Papists or those of your own way But on the other side I hope there are many hundreds that truly fear God that formerly were drowned in ignorance and ungodliness The families that were wont to curse and swear and rail at Godliness do now worship God and set up holy instructions and cast out sin and this is our change And in some measure I have reason to believe that it is so in other places also § 30. 2. The Errors of the times are many of them your own and therefore you exclaim against your selves It is of your own selves that men arise that write against Original sin and for Liberty of Prophecying which is more then Liberty of Believing and for a kind of Limbus Patrum and Infantum and for humane Satisfactions for sin to God and for the Primacy of the Pope and that all our Protestant Churches are no Churches or Ministers no Ministers that have not Prelatical Ordination yea and a Succession of it with many the like to say nothing of other Pelagian weeds It doth not therefore become you to reproach us with our swarms of Errors while you introduce them § 31. 3. There were Heresies and Sects even in the dayes of Prelacy Had you not then the Familists the Grundleâ—onians such as Hacket and Coppinger and Arthington and the Anabaptists and Separatists and Antinomians and Papists and such like besides the contentions between the Arminians and Antiarminians and the contentions raised by Episcopacy it self and the Ceremonies that it upheld Who were they that rose up against the Bishops and pulled them down if there were Unity under them as you pretend § 32. 4. The truth is it was the Magistrate and not Episcopacy that kept that Unity and Peace among us which we had and that kept under Heresies so much as they were kept under Take not therefore the Magistrates honour to your selves Who would have attended your Courts or submitted to your censures had it not been for fear of the Secular power I think but few You know the Hereticks themselves obeyed you not for Conscience sake Nor would they have regarded your Excommunication if the Magistrate would have let them alone If it was the spiritual sword in your hands that kept out Heresies why did you not keep them out since as well as then You have the same power from Christ now as ever you had And I hope the fears of persecution will not hinder you from your duty especially when you can name so few that have suffered for exercising Church-discipline by Episcopal power at least this was no hinderance a
of it already there men are not to meddle as having no authority from God § 7. I shall first give some instances of the former sort the Lawfull Ceremonies and then name the latter that are unlawfull which I shall afterward give my reasons against And 1. It is left to humane determination what place the Publick assemblies shall be held in God having commanded us to frequent such assemblies and not forsake them doth oblige us to some place in general and to a fit place He that bids us preach and hear and pray and assemble to these ends doth plainly bid us do this some where It is impossible to meet and not in a Place And in that he hath not determined of any place himself he hath left it to our reasons to determine of as occasion shall require God hath not commanded to build a Temple in such a place rather then another or to go thither to worship rather then another place but by consequence and generall directions nor hath he determined what place the Minister shall stand to preach in or where all the people shall have their seats All these are but the circumâ—â—â—nces of a holy action which are left to humane prudence § 8. 2. It is left to man to determine of the Time of holy duties except only where God hath determined of it already As that the Lords day shall be the Day for publick holy Assemblies is a thing that God himself hath determined and here we have nothing to do but to discern his determinations and obey them But withall he hath in Generall commanded us to preach in season and out of season and to Assemble frequently on severall great occasions And here he hath not determined of the Time but left it to humane prudence upon emergent occasions and according to their several cases to determine of what hour on the Lords day we shall begin how long the Sermon shall be what hour the Assembly shall be dismist what daies the Lords supper shall be administred and how oft when any shall be Baptized what day the Lecture shall be on or any more private meetings for edification what hour or just how oft men must pray in secret or with their families these with the like are undetermined by God and good reason as I shall shew anon and left to our selves and to our Governors Some Time or other we are commanded by God himself to choose § 9. 3. It is left to the determination of humane Prudence what Vtensils to imploy about the publick worship of God For these in Generall are commanded by God and so made necessary as also in the nature of the thing He that commanded us to do the work that is not to be done without convenient Vtensils doth thereby command us virtually the use of instruments fit for the work What form and proportion the Temple where we meet shall have is left to men whether we shall preach in a Pulpit and what shall be its shape where we shall read whether we shall Baptize in a River or Pond or Spring or Font or Bason and what materials whether stone or Silver or Pewter c. they be made of whether we shall receive the Lords supper at a Table or in our seats and whether the Table shall be of wood or stone whether it shall be round or long or square whether it shall stand in the East or West end of the Temple or the middle whether it shall have rails or no rails whether the Bread be of wheat or other convenient grain what vessel the Bread shall be put in and what grape the wine shall be made of and what vessell it shall stand in and be delivered in whether a cup or other like vessel whether of silver wood or pewter c All these are left to humane prudence In general it is necessary that some such utensils in each case there be but the special sort is left indifferent to our choice So also the Bibles themselves whether they be Printed or Written and in what hand or colour Whether bound or in a Role are things indifferent in themselves and left to humane reason to determine The like may be said of other utensils of worship necessary in genere § 10. 4. God hath not determined in what language the Scripture shall be read or preacht to such or such a congregation though by the generall Rule that all be done to edification and that we speak to the understanding there is sufficient direction for it But he that commandeth us to preach implyeth that we translate the Scripture and preach and read in a language fittest for the peoples edification And if as in many places of Wales there be two languages equally understood we may indifferently choose that which we think most agreeable to the generall rules § 11. 5. The Scripture hath commanded us in generall to sing Psalms but it hath not told us whether they shall be in Râ—thme or Meeter or in what tune we shall sing them These modes are left to humane Prudence to determine of § 12. 6. When there are divers Translations of the Scripture in the same language or divers versions of the Psalms in the same language as in England here are the old version the New-England version Mr. Rous's first and his second or the Scots Mr. White 's Bishop Kings Sands's Mr. Bartons c. God hath not told us which of all these we shall use but given us generall directions according to which our own Reason or our Governors should make choice § 13. 7. God hath commanded us to Read the holy Scriptures and to expound them to the people that they may understand and practise them But he hath not told us what Book of Scripture or what Chapter we shall read at such a day or on such or such occasions nor yet what order we shall observe in Reading whether we shall begin the Scripture and go on to the end or whether we shall read more frequently some subjects of greatest use and which These therefore are left to humane prudence to determine of by generall rules § 14. 8. Though God hath commanded us to Read the Scripture and to sing Psalms c. yet hath he not told us just how much we shall read at a time or sing at a time and therefore this also is a matter left to humane Determination § 15. 9. Though God hath commanded us to Preach the Gospell and told us what to preach and given us generall Rules for our direction yet hath he not told us what text or subject we shall preach on such or such a day nor yet what Method we shall follow there being various methods sutable to severall Texts and people It is left therefore to humane prudence to choose both Subject Text and Method § 16. 10. God that hath commanded us to pray and praise him and preach c. hath not told us just what words we shall use in any of these holy
for Holland he questioned if there was a Church among them or not or words fully to that Purpose Against which abuse of the Dr. the Bishop was fain to vindicate himself See page 124 125. Of his Posthumous Judgement Sect. 15. Moreover 5. We know not of almost any Bishops in England by whom men may be Ordained Four or five Reverend Learned men of that degree are commonly said to survive among us whom we much honour and value for their worth But as these are so distant and their residence to the most unknown so the rest if there be any are known to very few at all that I can hear of It s famed that many Bishops there are but we know it not to be true nor know not who they be and therefore it cannot well be expected that their Ordination should be sought If they reveal not themselves and their Authority and do not so much as once command or claim obedience from the generality of Ministers how can they expect to be obeyed If they plead the danger of persecution I answer 1. What Persecution do they suffer that are known above others of their way 2. If that will excuse them when we never heard of any that suffered the loss of a penny for being known to be a Bishop since the Wars were ended then it seems they take the Being of the Ministry and Churches to be but of small moment that are not worthy their hazzard in a manifestation of their power And if this excuse them from appearing it must needs in reason excuse others from knowing them obeying them and submitting to them Sect. 16. And when they shall declare themselves to be our Bishops they must in all reason expect that the proof of it as well as the naked affirmation be desired by us For we must not take every man for a Bishop that saith he is so They must shew us according to the Canons that the Clergy of the Diocess lawfully Elected them and Bishops Consecrated them which are transactions that we are strangers to If they take the secret Election of six or seven or very few in a Diocess to be currant because the rest are supposed to be uncapable by Schism 1. Then they shew themselves so exceedingly unjust as to be unmeet for Government if they will upon their secret presumptions and unproved suppositions cut off or censure so many parts of the Clergy without ever accusing them or calling them to speak for themselves or heâ—ring their Defence 2. And if upon such presumptuous Censures you make your selves Bishops besides the Canons you cannot expect obedience from those that you thus separate from and censure unheard Sect. 17. It s known that the English Bishops as Grotius himself affirmeth were chosen by the King according to the custom here the Chapter being shadows in the business And if the King may make Bishops he may make Presbyters and then Ordination is unnecessary But if you say that the Consecrators make them Bishops and not the Kings Election then Rome had many Bishops at once when ever three or four Popes were consecrated at once which marrs all succession thence dirived and then if some Bishops consecrate one and some another both are true Bishops of one Diocess and many Pastors may be thus Ordained to one Church Sect. 18. And it concerneth us before we become their subjects to have some credible Evidence that they are so Orthodox as to be capable of the place And the rather because that some that are suspected to be Bishops how truly I know not have given cause of some suspicion Either by writing against Original sin or by owning Grotius's Religion which what it was I have shewed elsewhere or by unchurching the Protestant Churches and Nullifying their Ministry that have not their kind of Ordination while they take the Roman Ordination to be Valid and their Church and Ministry to be true with other such like Sect. 19. And 6. If we should now when better may be had subject our selves to the Ordination and Government of the abolished Prelacy we should choose a more corrupt way of administration and prefer it to a more warrantable way That this way is corrupt is proved in the former Disputation That a way more warrantable may be had I shall prove anon Though submission to a faulty way in some cases of Necessity is excusable yet when we have our choice the case is altered Sect. 20. And a tender Conscience hath very great reason to fear lest by such voluntrary subjection they should incur moreover this double guilt 1. Of all the hurt that this corrupt sort of Episcopacy did before the abolition 2. And of all the hurt that it might do again if it were introduced which is neither small nor uncertain He that hath seen the fruits that it brought forth but for a few years before the abolition and weighs the arguments brought against it methinks should fear to be the restorer of it Sect. 21. If any man as Mr. Thorndike and others do shall write for a more regular sort of Episcopacy it s one thing to find a tolerable Bishop in his Book and another thing to find him existent in England For we know not of any New sort of Regulated Episcopacy planted and therefore must suppose that it is the Old sort that is in being Let them bring their Moderate forms into existence and then its like that many may be more inclined to submit to their Ordination but their moderate principles having not yet made us any Moderate Episcopacy I see not how we should be ever the more obliged for them to submit to the Old but rather are the more justified in disowning it when their own reformed modell is against it CHAP. VII The Ordination used now in England and in other Protestant Churches is Valid and agreeable to Scripture and the Practice of the Ancient Church Sect. 1. HAving already proved that the late English Bishops Ordination is not of necessity it is satisfactory without any more ado to them that would nullifie our Ministry and Churches that have not their Ordination But because we may meet with other adversaries and because in a case of so much weight we should walk in the clearest light that we can attain for the satisfaction of our own Consciences I shall further prove the Validity of our Ordination and the truth of our Call and Minstry and Churches Sect. 2. Argument 1. The Ordination is Valid which is performed by such Bishops as were instituted and existent in Scriture times But our Ordination used in England and other refoâ—med Churches is performed by such Bishops as were institutâ—d and existent in Scâ—â—pture times the refore such Ordination is Valid Thâ— Major will not be denyed being â—â—derstood with a supposition of other requisites that are not now in controversie For those that we have to deal with do grant that such Bishops as are mentioned Acts 20. 1 Tim. 3. Tit. 1. Phil. 1.1 and
were instituted in Scripture times Now as a pretended Presbyters administrations are Valid to the innocent receiver of the Sacrament so a pretended Bishops administration in Ordination is as Valid to the innocent caeteris paribus Sect. 43. Argument 15. They that have the Keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven have the power of Ordination But Parochiall Pastors called Presbyters have the Keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven therefore they have the power of Ordination Sect. 44. The Minor is granted commonly by Papists and Protestants as to some of the Keyes but it is by many denyed as to other They say that every Pastor hath the Key of doctrine and of Order but not the Key of Jurisdiction But 1. Christ gave the Keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven together and never divided them Therefore they are not to be divided He did not give one Key to one and another to another but all to the same men And what God hath joyned together let no man put asunder 2. The Apostles in delivering these Keyes to others are never found to have separated them For Subject Presbyters were not instituted in Scripture-times Therefore all that were then Ordained Presbyters had all the Keyes together and so that of Iurisdiction as it is called with the rest 3. That Presbyters had the Key of Order will prove that they may Ordain as is aforesaid 4. But that English Presbyters had the Key of Iurisdiction is proved 1. In that they were with the Bishops to Ordain by Imposition of hands 2. In that they were by the Book of Ordination charged to administer Discipline though this was disused and the Prelates frustrated their power Sect. 45. I shall recite the words of Reverend Vsher for the proof of this Reduction of Episcopacy c. By Order of the Church of England all Presbyters are charged in the Book of Ordination to administer the Doctrine of Sacraments and the Discipline of Christ as the Lord hath commanded and as this Realm hath received the same and that they might the better understand what the Lord hath commanded therein the exhortation of St. Paul to the Elders of the Church of Ephesus is appointed to to be read unto them at the time of their Ordination Take heed unto your selves and to all the flock among whom the Holy Ghost hath made you Overseers to Rule the Congregation of God which he hath purchased with his blood Of the many Elders who thus in common ruled the Church of Ephesus there was one President whom our Saviour in his Epistle unto this Church in a peculiar manner stileth the Angel of the Church of Ephesus And Ignatius in another Epistle written about twelve years after unto the same Church calleth the Bishop thereof Betwixt the Bishop and the Presbyterie of that Church what an harmonious consent there was in thâ— ordering of the Church Government the same Ignaâ—iâ—â— doth fully there declare by the Presbyterie with St Paul understanding the Community of the rest of the Presbyters or Elders who then had a hand not only in the delivery of the Dâ—ctrine and Sacraments but also in the Administration of the Discipline of Christ For further proof of which we have that known Testimony of Tertullian in his General Apology for Christians â—n the Church are used exhortations chastisements and divine censure for judgement is given with great advice as among those who are certain they are in the sight of God and it is the chiefest foreshewing of the Iudgement which is to come if any man have so offended that he be banished from the Community of Prayer and of the Assembly and of all holy fellowship The Presidents that bear rule therein are certain approved Elders who have obtained this honour not by Reward but by good report who were no other as he himself intimates elsewhere but those from whose hands they used to receive the Sacrament of the Eucharist For with the Bishop who was the chief President and therefore stiled by the same Tertullian in another place summus Sacerdos for distinction sake the rest of the dispensers of the Word and Sacraments joyned in the common Government of the Church and therefore where in matters of Ecclesiastical judicature Cornelius Bishop of Rome used the recieved form of gathering together the Presbyterie of what persons that did consist Cyprian sufficiently declareth when he wisheth him to read his Letters to the flourishing Clergy which there did preside or rule with him The presence of the Clergy being thought so requisite in matters of Episcopal audience that in the fourth Council of Carthage it was concluded That the Bishop might hear no mans cause without the presence of the Clergy and that otherwise the Bishops sentence should be void unless it were confirmed by the presence of the Clergy which we find also to be inserted into the Canons of Egbert who was Archbishop of York in the Saxon times and afterwards into the body of the Canon-Law it self True it is that in our Church this kind of Presbyterial Government hath been long disused yet seeing it still professeth that every Pastor hath a right to rule the Church from whence the name of Rector also was given at first unto him and to administer the Discipline of Christ as well as to dispence the Doctrine and Sacraments and the restraint of the exercise of that right proceedeth only from the custom now received in this Realm no man can doubt but by another Law of the Land this hinderance may be well removed Sect. 46. And indeed the stream of Antiquity and the Authors that are principally rested on for Episcopacy are full against them that deny the Government of the people to the Presbyters And it is the principal mischief of the English Prelacy thus to degrade or quoad exercitium to suspend at least all the Presbyters from their office Not as it is a denying them any part of their honour that 's not to be much regarded but as it is a discharging them of their work and burden and consequently leaving the Churches ungoverned And for the Government of Presbyters themselves in Cyprians dayes the Bishop did not could not Ordain or censure any Presbyter without his Clergy and Councils have decreed that so it should be Yea and the plebs universa also was consulted with by Cyprian Sect. 47. And now I come to the Major of my Arrgument which I prove thus Either Ordination is an act of the exercise of the power of the Keyes or of some other power But of no other power therefore of the Keyes If it be the exercise of any other power it is either of a secular power or an Ecclesiastick but neither of these therefore of no other Not of another Ecclesiastick power for there is no Ecclesiastical power at least which Ordination can be pretended to belong to but the power of the Keyes not of a secular power for that belongeth not to Ministers nor is it here pretended Sect. 48. And I think it