of Christs Ministers have the same force towards his subjects That the power of a Pastor in binding and loosing as to the communion and external priviledges of the Church is more than declarative of the mind of Christ therein I yet discern not For tho the sentence of an erring judg in a Civil judicatory is valid till it be reversed yet the erring keys have no effect and the Church and the Members thereof are not bound by the unjust sentence of a Pastor to reject a godly person that hath not given just scandal or to carry themselves towards him as towards one unfit for Christian Communion but they are still to receive him as a brother Indeed the injured person may be bound to forbear the use of his right in some parts thereof as coming to the Church-Assembly in case a schism or disturbance would follow But this obligation doth not arise from any validity that is in the unjust sentence but from the duty of preserving peace and order The distinction of the power of Order and the power of jurisdiction is vain For the spiritual Pastor or Elder hath no other power than the power of the Keys and the full power of the Keys intrinsecally belongs to the order or office of a Pastor or Elder But if any pretend that the full power of the Keys doth not intrinsecally belong to the office of a Pastor or Elder but a part only or that there be two kinds of power of the Keys the one whereof belongs only to one superior kinâ— of spiritual officers and the other is common to all â—piritual â—astors let him prove such distinction and distribution from the Word of God § 5. Of the Delegation of Spiritual Power THE delegation of power is a derivation thereof from its ordinary subject to another who is not the ordinary subject thereof and who hath right to exercise it merely as authorized by the ordinary subject thereof as when a Bishop delegates his episcopal power to him who is no Bishop and who exercises the same merely by vertue of his delegation The office of a Bishop Pastor or Elder is a trust and that of the greatest consequence in the world and a trust may not be delegated by the receiver to another person without the express consent of the giver No subordinate officer can make a legal deputy unless he be authorized thereunto by law or in his commission or Charter from the supream power And Christ hath not exprest his consent to the transferring of this trust nor given authority to his Ministers to make such Delegation That Princes and Soveraign Powers bâ—ing Gods Trustees do transfer the work of their trust to Delegates and subordinate officers is no ground for Christs Ministers to do the like For first Christs Ministers are only authorized Ambassadors Heralds and not Spiritual Soveraigns under him as the supream Magistrates are Civil Soveraigns under God 2. It is in the nature of civil soveraignty to make delegates and subordinate officers of civil power and the due Government of the Civil State makes it necessary but there is no such thing in the nature of the pastoral office and no necessity for it in Ecclesiastical Government 3. The specification of magistracy or civil power is left to men but the spiritual power is specified by Christ and by him appropriated to officers of his own institution 4. Christ to provide for his flock hath taken another course than to authorize Bishops and Pastors to do their work by Delegates namely to command the ordaining of more Bishops or Elders as need requires The delegation of Episcopal Power is a repugnancy in it self For it is the power of the keys or of stewarship in Christs house of binding and loosing of remitting and retaining sins in Christs name by special authority from him And can any that is not Christs officer so authorized exert such power Besides if one part of the bishops proper work viz. The exercise of Ecclesiastical Government may be delegated to one that is no bishop why may not any other part of his work be so delegated as the ordaining of ministers And if it be replied ad ordinem pertinet ordinare by as good reason it may be said that it as incommunicably belongs to the order or office of Christs institution to exercise Christs Discipline as to ordain Ministers Indeed a Vicar being of the same sacred office or order may so exert the said power in the place of another as that his act is valid But it may well be questioned whether any bishop may make one or more vicarious bishops to execute his charge for every bishop hath received a trust from Christ to be fulfilled in his own person Col. 1.7 And I do not find that Christ hath granted a faculty to any bishop to fulfil his Ministry by a Vicar of his own order But I do not question but a bishop may have an assistant or assistants of his own order either occasionally in case of present disability or justifiable avocation or statedly when the flock that is under his personal oversight requires more work than one man can do And then the said assistants are not his Vicars but collegues performing each of them their own part in the work and service of their Lord Christ § 6. The identity of a Bishop and Presbyter IT is granted by the assertors of prelacy that the names Bishop and Presbyter are used promiscuously Now they that assert two distinct offices under promiscuous names had need bring clear proof for the distinction of those offices Howbeit I do not merely insist on the names as indifferently used but wheresoever the sacred office of Presbyterate is set forth in Scripture it is set forth as the office of a spiritual Pastor or Bishop which is to feed the Flock of God by teaching and ruling it And such a Presbyter as is a sacred officer of the Christian Church but not a Bishop or Pastor is not to be found in Scripture Tit. 1.5 7. shews not only an identity of name but of office To give order for the admission of none to the office of an Elder but one so qualified because a Bishop must be so qualified is not rational if the bishop be of a distinct office from the Presbyter and superior to him Act. 20 28 The Elders are called Bishops and have the whole Episcopal Power to feed the flock by government as well as by doctrine 1 Pet. 5.12 The elders are exhorted to feed the Flock of God which is among them and to take the oversight thereof and under the force of these two words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the bishops claim their whole power of government 1 Tim. 3. The Apostle immediately passeth from the Bishop to the Deacon and takes no notice of such an officer as a Presbyter below a Bishop and above a Deacon And neither this nor any other Scripture doth afford us the least notice of any qualification or ordination or any sacred
work and duty belonging to a Presbyter who is no bishop Not one place of Scripture doth set forth any Presbyter as less than a bishop Phil. 1 1. Paul makes mention of Bishops and Deacons in the Church at Philippi in the inscription of his Epistle but no mention of Presbyters that were not bishops And it seems by that Text that in the Apostles times there were more bishops than one placed in one city and 't is to be noted that Philippi was but a little City under the Metropolis of Thessalonica Thus bishop and elder in the places aforecited are names of the same office whatsoever it be and the Hierarchical Divines grant as much but are not agreed what office is there set forth by those names One part of them think that those Texts speak of or at least comprehend such Presbyters as are now so called The other part of them think they speak of such bishops as are now distinct from presbyters Now they that hold that the said Texts speak of or include such presbyters as are now so called must needs hold that such presbyters are pastors and bishops in the Scripture sence of those names and so an identity of the bishop and presbyter is confessed and it rests upon them to prove the divine institution of bishops of a higher order over such presbyters and they that hold that the said Texts speak of such bishops as are now distinct from presbyters must needs grant the qualification ordination and work of presbyters inferior to bishops is not set forth in Scripture If it be said that the order of inferior and subject presbyters is of divine institution and yet not defined or expressed in Scripture let a satisfactory proof be brought from some other authority of its divine institution and what its nature is If it be said that at first the function of a bishop and presbyter was one but afterwards it was divided into two and that the division was made by divine warrant the asserters are bound to prove it by sufficient authority To have the power of the keys of binding and loosing of remitting and retaining sins in Christs name as his commissioned Officer is to have Episcopal power and this power belongs to a Presbyter The Asserters of Prelacy answer this by distinguishing the power of the keys in foro interiore or the Court of Conscience within and foro exteriore in the exterior Court to wit that of the Church and say that the former belongs to the Bishop and Presbyter both and the latter to the Bishop only To which I reply 1. The Scripture makes no such distinction and where the Law distinguisheth not we may not distinguish 2. The distinction is vain for all power that belongs to the Pastors of the Church purely respects the conscience by applying to it the commands promises and threatnings of God and it respects the conscience as having the conduct of the outward man and that in reference to Church communion as well as other matters 3. If Presbyters may in the name of Christ bind the impenitent and loose the penitent as to the conscience in the sight of God which is the greater and primary binding and loosing then by parity of reason and that with advantage they may bind and loose as to Church-communion which is the lesser secondary and subsequent binding and loosing That Officer is a Bishop that hath power of authoritative declaring in Christs name that this or that wicked person in particular is unworthy of fellowship with Christ and his Church and a power of charging the Congregation in Christs name not to keep company with him as being no fit member of a Christian Society and also a power of Authoritative declaring and judging in Christs name that the same person repenting of his wickedness and giving evidence thereof is meet for fellowship with Christ and his church and a power of requiring the Congregation in Christs name again to receive him into their Christian fellowship For these are the powers of Excommunication and Ecclesiastical Absolution and a Presbyter hath apparently the said powers As he can undoubtedly declare and charge and judg as aforesaid touching persons in general so by parity of reason touching this or that person in particular all particulars being included in the general He hath undoubtedly a power of applying the word in Christs name as well personally as generally That a Presbyter hath the said powers is granted by the Church of England in the common usage of the Ecclesiastical Courts wherein a Presbyter is appointed to denounce the sentence of Excommunication tho the Chancellor doth decree it And the Excommunication is not compleat till a Presbyter hath denounced it in the congregation That the Apostles have no successors in the whole of their Office is confessed on all hands but if they have successors in part of their Office viz. in the Pastoral Authority in this respect the Presbyters if any are their successors Peter exhorting the Presbyters stiles himself their fellow-Presbyter which is to be understood in respect of the power of Teaching and Ruling The Pastoral Authority of Presbyters is further cleared in many passages in the publick forms of the Church of England touching that Order The form of Ordaining Presbyters in this Church lately was Receive the Holy Ghost whose sins thou remittest they are remitted and whose sins thou retainest they are retained and be thou a faithful dispenser of the word of God and of his holy Sacraments in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost Amen Now the former part hereof is intirely the words used by our Saviour John 20.21 22. towards the Apostles expressing their Pastoral Authority And the latter part is no derogation or diminution from the power granted in the former part If Presbyters are not partakers with the Apostles in the Pastoral Authority how could they have Right to that Form of Ordination Likewise this Church did in solemn form of words require the presbyters when they were ordained to exercise the discipline of Christ as the Lord hath commanded and this Realm hath received the same according to the commandment of God And that they might the better understand what the Lord hath commanded therein this Church did appoint also That at the ordering of Priests there be read for the Epistle that portion of Acts 20. which relates St. Paul's sending to Ephesus and calling for the Elders of the Congregation with his exhortation to them To take heed to themselves and to all the flock whereof the Holy Ghost hath made them overseers to rule the congregation of God Or else 1 Tim. 3. which sets forth the Office and due Qualifications of a Bishop These portions of Scripture this Church appointed to be read to the Presbyters as belonging to their Office and to instruct them in the nature of it And afterwards the Bishop speaks to them that are to receive the Office of Priesthood in this form of words
You have heard brethren as well in your private examination as in the exhortation and holy lessons taken out of the Gospel and the writings of the Apostles of what dignity and how great importance this Office is whereto ye are called that is to say The Messengers the Watchmen the pastors and stewards of the Lord to teach to premonish to feed to provide for the Lords Family I acknowledg the passages here alledged are taken out of the old Book of Ordinanion that was established in this Church till the late alteration made Anno 1662. If those Alterations signifie another meaning about the several Holy Orders than what was signified in the Old Book then the sense of the Church of England in these times differs from the sense of the same Church in all times preceding the said Alterations But if they signifie no other meaning than what was signified in the old Book my Citations are of force to shew what is the sense of this Church as well of the present as of the former times about this matter And let this be further considered That the form of ordaining a Bishop according to the Church of England imports not the conferring of a higher power or an authorizing to any special work more than to what the Presbyter is authorized The old form was Take the Holy Ghost and remember that thou stir up the grace of God that is in thee by imposition of hands for God hath not given us the spirit of fea◠but of power and of love and of soberness What is there in this form of words that might not be used to a Presbyter at his ordination Or what is there in it expressive of more power than what belongs to a Presbyter The new form since the late alteration is Receive the Holy Ghost for the work and office of a Bishop in the Church of God now committed to thee by imposition of our hands in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost Amen And remember that thou stir up the grace of God that is given thee by this imposition of our hands f r God hath not given us the spirit of fear but of power and of love and of soberness And what is there in this form that is expressive of any office power that the Presbyter hath not unless these words for the work and office of a bishop Now both the name and work and office of a bishop belongs to the Scripture-presbyter who is of divine institution and the presbyter to whom it doth not belong is but a humane creature or an ordinance of man § 7. Of the present Diocesan Bishop A Diocesan Bishop according to the hierarchical state is a Bishop of the lowest degree having under him Parish-Ministers that are Presbyters or Priests but not accounted Bishops and by divine right claiming to himself alone the Episcopal Authority over all the Parish Churches and Ministers within his Diocess which may contain a hundred two hundred five hundred or a thousand parishes For an Episcopacy of this kind I discern no Scripture-Warrant nor Divine Right Every particular Church should have its proper pastor or Bishop and particular Churches with their proper pastors are so evidently of divine right that some eminently learned men in the Church of England have declared their judgment that no form of Church-Government besides the mere pastoral office and Church-Assemblies is prescribed in the Word of God but may be various according to the various condition and occasion of several Churches But if it be said that parochial Congregations are not Churches but only parts of the Diocess which is the lowest political Church I desire proof from Scripture that such Congregations as our parishes having their proper presbyter or presbyters invested with the power of the keys are not Churches properly so called The reason of demanding this proof is because the Scripture is a perfect rule for the essential constitution of Churches though the accidents thereto belonging may be regulated by humane prudence And it is most evident in Scripture that a particular congregation of Christians having their proper pastor or pastors presbyter or presbyters are Churches properly so called and a parochial Minister I conceive to be a pastor presbyter or elder according to the Scripture Moreover if a Diocess containing many hundred or perhaps a thousand parishes as it doth in England do constitute but one particular Church and the parishes be not properly to be accounted Churches but only so many parts of that one diocesan Church why may not ten thousand yea ten times ten thousand parishes be likewise accounted but one particular church and brought under one man as the sole bishop or pastor thereof Nor do I discern how it is possible for one man to do the work of a bishop towards so many parishes which is to oversee all the flock to preach to them all to baptize and confirm all that are to be baptized and confirmed to administer the Lords Supper to all to bless the congregation publickly and privately to admonish all as their need requires to excommunicate the impenitent to absolve the penitent and that upon knowledg of their particular estate for all these are pastoral or episcopal acts And let it here be noted that I speak of the work of a bishop infimi gradus or under whom there are no subordinate bishops If such a Diocesan bishop saith it sufficeth that he perform all this to the flock by others namely by the parish ministers as his Curates and by other officers his substitutes It is answered 1. The pastoral Authority is a personal trust 2. He is to shew his commission from Christ the prince of pastors to do his work by others for I am now enquiring what is of divine and not of humane Right 3. None but a bishop can do the proper work of a bishop and consequently the presbyters by whom the Diocesan doth his work either are bishops or their act is an usurpation and a nullity It is matter of divine Right only that is here considered As for the humane Rights of a Diocesan bishop to wit his dignity and his jurisdiction under the King as Supreme and to which he is intituled by the Law of the Land I intermeddle not therewith § 8. Of a Bishop or Bishops THE Divine Right of a bishop infimi gradus Ruling over many churches as their sole hishop or pastor hath been considered and now it is to be considered Whether there be of divine institution such a spiritual officer as hath the oversight of Bishops or is a Bishop of Bishops The Diocesan Bishop is really of this kind tho he will not own it for he is a bishop of Presbyters who are really bishops if they be that kind of Presbyters that the Scripture mentions But if the Presbyters which in the hierarchical state are subject to the Diocesan Bishop be of another kind they are not of Christs institution What hath been already said
against the Episcopacy of a bishop infimi gradus over many Churches makes not against the right of an overseer of other bishops such as Titus must needs be if he were indeed bishop of Crete which contained a hundred Cities and where bishops or elders were ordained in every City If either Scripture or Prudence guided by Scripture be for such an office I oppose it not Now a bishop of bishops may be taken in a twofold notion either for one of a higher order that is to say of an office specifically different from the subordinate bishops or for one of a higher degree only in the same order I suppose our Archbishops of Provinces do not own the former notion of a bishop of bishops but the latter only But the bishop of a Diocess is de facto that which the Archbishop of a Province doth not own namely a bishop of bishops in a different order from the Presbyters of his Diocess who have been already proved from Scripture to be bishops Hereupon the present inquiry is Whether the Word of God doth warrant the office of a bishop of bishops in either of the said notions And in this inquiry I shall consider what kind of Government the Apostles had over the Pastors or Elders of particular Churches 2. The Episcopacy of Timothy and Titus much alledged by the Hierarchical Divines 3. The preeminence of the Angels of the seven Churches of Asia◠Apoc. 1. and 2. § 9. The BISHOPS Plen of being the Apostles Successors in their Governing-Power examined THO the Apostles in respect of that in them which was common to other officers call themselves Presbyters and Ministers but never bishops yet it is asserted by the asserters of Prelacy that bishops superior to Presbyters are the Apostles successors and thereupon have a governing-governing-power over Presbyters Wherefore the Apostles governing-governing-power and the said bishops right of succession thereunto is necessarily to be considered As touching this claimed succession in the governing power the defenders of prelacy say that Presbyters qua Presbyters succeed the Apostles in the office of governing But the Scripture doth not warrant this dividing of the office of teaching and governing And if the division cannot be proved in case there be a succession it must be into the whole and not into a part and so the Presbyters must succeed as well in ruling as in teaching Besides it hath been already proved that an authoritative Teacher of the Church is qua talis a Ruler The Apostles had no successors in their special office of Apostleship For not only the unction or qualification of an Apostle but also the intire Apostolick office as in its formal state or specifick difference was extraordinary and expired with their persons It was an office by immediate Vocation from Christ without the intervention of man by election or ordination for the authentick promulgation of the Christian Doctrine and the erecting of the Christian Church throughout the World which is built on the foundation of their Doctrine and for the governing of all churches wherever they came and it eminently contained all the power of ordinary bishops and pastors The continuation of teaching and governing in the Church doth no more prove that the office of teaching and governing in the Apostles was quoad formale an ordinary office than that the office of teaching and governing in Christ himself was so But their teaching and governing was by immediate call and authentick and uncontrolable and therefore extraordinary And I do not know that the bishops say they are Apostles tho they say they are the successors of the Apostles Moreover in proper speaking the ordinary bishops or elders cannot be reckoned the successors of the Apostles for they were not succedaneous to them but contemporary with them from the first planting of churches and did by divine right receive and exercise their governing-power And the bishops or elders of all succeeding ages are properly the successors of those first bishops or elders and can rightfully claim no more power than they had Nevertheless let the Apostles governing power be inquired into as also what interest the bishops of the Hierarchical state have therein And in this query it is to be considered That the Presbyters whom the Apostles ordained and governed were bishops both in name and thing and consequently their example of ordaining and ruling such Presbyters is not rightly alledged to prove that bishops as their successors have an appropriated power of ordaining and ruling Presbyters of an inferior order which in Scripture times were not in being Further it is to be considered Whether the said governing-governing-power were only a supereminent authority which they had as Apostles and infallible and to whom the last appeals in matters of religion were to be made or an ordinary governing power over the Churches and the bishops or elders thereof I conceive it most rational to take it in the former sense For we find that the ordinary stated government of particular Churches was in the particular Bishops or Elders and we find not that any of the Apostles did take away the same from them or that it was superceded by their presence or that they reserved to themselves a negative voice in the government of the Churches Now if their governing power were only the said supereminent Apostolick authority they had no successors therein and tho teaching and ruling be of standing necessity and consequently of perpetual duration in the Church yet there is no standing necessity of that teaching and ruling as taken formally in that extraordinary state and manner as before expressed But if they exercised an ordinary governing-power over the Churches and bishops to be continued by succession such kind of Bishops over whom that power was exercised cannot claim a right of succession into the same but they must be officers of an higher orb Consequently if the Hierarchical Bishops claim the right of succession to the Apostles in their governing-power they must needs be of a higher orb than the first Bishops of particular Churches over whom that power was exercised And if this Hypothesis of the Apostles having an ordinary governing-power over the Churches and Bishops do sufficiently prove the right of the succession of Bishops of a higher orb in the same power I shall not oppose it But only I take notice that these higher Bishops are not of the same kind with those first bishops that were under that governing power and of which we read in Scripture That the Apostles should be Diocesan Bishops was not consistent with their Apostolick office being a general charge extending to the Church universal That any Apostle did appropriate a Diocess to himself and challenge the sole Episcopal authority therein cannot be proved The several Apostles for the better carrying on of the work of their office did make choice of several regions more especially to exercise their function in There was an agreement that Peter should go to the Circumcision and Paul to the Uncircumcision But as
may put forth acts of Discipline in his own Church without the concurrence of Ruling Elders that are not Ministers THERE is no necessity of adding the above-named Ruling Elder to the Ministers of the Gospel in the Government of the Church For Christ hath committed to his Ministers the keys or stewardship of his house and he hath committed the same to them not only as to a Presbytery constituted of many but also to each of them as single Presbyters And where there is but one Presbyter in a Church his acts of Discipline are as lawful and valid in his own Church as those that are done by many in a Church where there are many Presbyters And the contrary opinion is precarious and not founded in Scripture As for that passage 2 Cor. 2.6 Sufficient to such a man is this punishment that was inflicted by many from thence to infer that a Church-censure may not be administred by one Minister is to draw a general conclusion from one instance or because a censure was inflicted by many in the Church of Corinth where there were many Ministers therefore it ought to be so in all Churches even where there is but one Minister Moreover if the true nature of a Church-censure were considered there would be no reason to doubt of its being lawfully or validly administred by one person For it is no more than authoritative declaring and judging in Christs Name that such a one is unmeet for fellowship with Christ and his Church and a charging of the Congregation in Christs Name to avoid him Indeed those words of our Saviour Mat. 16. Tell the Church are to be considered and cleared For it is from hence argued that the Church being a collective name betokens a number and therefore not one but many are to hear and censure matters of scandal To which argument it may be first replyed That a Presbytery or company of Presbyters is in Scripture no more called the Church than one Minister But the answer is that by the rule of interpretation words and names must be limited with respect to the matter treated of and so the word Church in the said text is to be understood of the Church as governing and therefore respects not the governed but the governing-part thereof which is but one person in a Church that hath but one Bishop or Presbyter The Apostle wrote his first Epistle to the Corinthians to the whole Church and saith chap. 5. v. 4 5. When ye are gathered together to deliver such a one to Satan v. 13. Put away from yourselves that wicked person Now in these places he doth not explicitely direct his speech to the Elders but in all reason it must be expounded with respect to the governing-part of that Church the company of Presbyter Tho there be no necessity of a Ruling Elder distinct from a Minister of the Gospel to the acts of Church-Discipline yet in point of expedience and prudence such as are no spiritual rulers or have no power formally spiritual may either by the appointment of the Magistrate or by the consent of Pastor and People be joyned with the Pastor for counsel and assistance and more satisfactory management of Church-affairs Act. 15. The Church of Antioch sent some from among themselves with Paul and Barnabas to be present at the deliberation of the Apostles and Elders at Jerusalem and the said Apostles and Elders joyned some of the brethren with them to consider of the matter that was brought before them from the Church of Antioch And Christian Emperors appointed some secular persons as Assessors with the Bishops in Councils But nothing is to be attributed to these Lay-persons so adjoined that belongs to the power of the keys committed by Christ to the Pastors only § 16. Of the Office of a Deacon THE Scripture makes mention of two Holy Orders 1. Presbyters who are also Bishops 2. Deacons as Phil. 1.1 To the bishops and deacons and the third chapter of the first Epistle to Timothy having set forth the Office of a bishop passeth immediately to the deacon without taking notice of a presbyter of a middle order between a bishop and deacon And the mention of a middle order is no where found in Scripture Clemens Romanus in his Epistle mentions but two orders bishops and deacons And Dr. Hammond grants That it cannot be proved that in Scripture-times there were any subject-presbyters and concludes that the churches were then governed by bishops assisted with deacons and without presbyters vid. his Annot. on Acts 11.30 and his Dissertation p 208 c. They that are agreed that there is such an office as a Deacon by divine right are not agreed what it is yet all are agreed that it is an inferior order of ministry assistant to the bishop or elder in the affairs of the church but in what kind of assistance there is diversity of opinion Some hold that this office is to take care of the poor in receiving and distributing among them the churches Alms. Others hold that a deacon may preach and baptize and assist the bishop or elder in administring the Sacrament tho he may not consecrate the Sacramental bread and wine nor lay on hands or ordain In the 6. chap. of the Acts if the institution of this office be there related we find no other ministry there expresly mentioned but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 v. 2 3. and in Phil. 1. the name only is mentioned without any specification of the office In 1 Tim. 3.8 c. the due qualification of this officer is more set forth than the nature and work of the office yet something thereof may be signified v. 13. They that have used the office of a deacon well purchase to themselves a good degree Let it be considered whether by degree is not meant a degree in the Sacred ministry and a step to a higher order therein Acts 8.5 we find that Philip one of the seven preached the Gospel in Samaria and his acts there are related as if he also baptized the converts v. 38. he baptized the Ethiopian Eunuch and v. 40. he passed through and preached in all the cities till he came to Cesarea Now whether Philip did not these things not meerly by the common duty of a Christian but by determinate ordination thereunto it may be considered Some make two sorts of Deacons the deacon of tables and the deacon of the word But this distinction seems not to be allowed by the Church of England because it appoints to be read at the ordaining of Deacons both that part of Acts 6. that relates the ordaining of the seven for ministring unto tables and also that part of 1 Tim. 3. that speaks of the office of a Deacon as a degree in the Holy ministry immediately after the bishop Concerning this office I assent to Grotius That the deacons did serve the Presbyters as the Levites the Priests but the most laborious part of the deacons office is the care of the poor and
Christ indeed hath instituted a ministry for the compleating of his church unto the consummation of all things he hath also promised his Apostles and his ministers successively in them that he will be with them alway to the end of the world But I find no promise of an uninterrupted succession of regularly ordained ministers That which is delivered by ordination is the sacred ministerial office at large as respecting the universal Church to be exercised here or there according to particular calls and opportunities § 21. Of Prayer and Fasting and Imposition of Hands in Ordination PRAYER is such a duty as is requisite to the sanctifying of all other duties as the preaching of the Word administration of Baptism and the Lords Supper and therefore is necessary to this sacred action of ordaining ministers Fasting is a service expressive of solemn humiliation and a necessary adjunct of extra ordinary prayer for the obtaining of more special mercy and therefore a necessary preparative and concomitant in this solemnity And we have Scripture Examples for prayer and fasting in the mission of persons to the work of the ministry Luke 6.12 13. Act. 13.2 Act. 14 23. What imposition of hands imports and the moment of it is to be considered from the use of it both in the Old and New Testament In the Old Testament 't was used 1. In solemn benediction the person blessing laid his hand on the person blessed Gen. 48.14 2. In offering Sacrifice as a sign of devoting it to the Lord by him that offered it Lev. 1.4 3. In ordaining to an office as a sign of setting apart therunto Numb 27.18 20. In the New Testament it is used 1. in blessing Mark 10.16 2. In curing bodily diseases Mark 16.18 Luke 13.13 Acts 19.11 3. In conveying the miraculous gifts of the Holy Ghost Acts 8.17 Acts 19.6 4. In ordaining ministers Acts 6.6 1 Tim 4.14 The meaning of imposition of hands spoken of Heb. 6.2 is diversly taken some take it as used for the remitting of sins as they also do 1 Tim. 5.22 and say that Baptism refers to the making of proselytes and laying on of hands to the absolving of penitents Others take it for confirmation Others conceive that the whole ministry is by a synecdoche therein comprehended From the various uses of this Rite we collect that it was a sign of conveying a benefit or of designing to an office or of devoting one to the Lord and particularly of authoritative benediction and designation to the office of the ministry and of devoting to the Lord in that kind There is no sufficient reason to make it but a temporary Rite and to limit the use of it in ordination only to the times of miraeles there being no circumstance in any Text to shew that it was done only for the present occasion And we read not that miraculous gifts were given by imposition of hands in ordination § 22. The power of Ordaining belongs to the Pastors of the Church SOme give this reason why the power of Ordination is not in the people but in the Pastors because the act of ordaining is a potestative or authoritative mission which power of mission is first seated in Christ and from him committed to the Apostles and from them to the Bishops or Elders But this Reason must be taken with a grain of salt or in a sound sense because Bishops or Elders have spiritual power formalier but not efficienter and they do not properly make or give the ministerial power but are only instruments of designation or application of that power to the person to whom Christ immediately gives it by the standing-act of his Law That the power of ordaining belongs not to the people but to the Church officers first appears by Scripture-authority for that in all the New Testament there is no example of ordination by any of the Laity but contrariwise it is therein expresly committed to spiritual officers 2. By Reason for that the Pastors of the Churches are better qualified for the designation of a person to the Holy ministry and for performing the action of solemn investiture as also for that ordination includes an authoritative benediction and that is to come from a Superior as the Scripture saith The less is blessed of the greater and not the greater of the less as it would be if the Pastor were to be ordained by the people that are governed by him Some argue for a popular ordination because election which is the greater belongs to the people But 1. Election is not greater than Ordination in the ministerial Call For in ordination investiture in the Function it self is given but in the peoples election no more is given than the stated exercise of the ministry in that Congregation 2. In case Election were greater than Ordination yet the consequence holds not Several parties may have each their own part divided to them and he that may do the greater may not always do the lesser unless the lesser be essentially included in the greater which is not in this case It is likewise urged for popular ordination That in the consecration of the Levites the children of Israel laid their hands upon them Numb 8.11 To this it is answered That the Levites were taken by God instead of the first born of all the children of Israel which the Lord claimed as his own upon the destroying of the first-born of the Egyptians and so the imposition of hands by the first-born upon the Levites was not strictly an ordaining of them to their office but an offering of them as a sacrifice in their own stead to make an atonement for them as he that brought a sacrifice laid his hand on the head of it Tho in Timothy's ordination the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery be mentioned and where many Presbyters were they joined in this action yet I see not any thing in Scripture or Reason to gainsay the validity of ordination by a single Bishop or Presbyter Nevertheless ordination by the imposition of many hands is more unquestionable and the use thereof most laudabl◠and in no case to be omitted where it may be had according to the custom of the Church in all ages § 23. The Validity of Presbyterian Ordination IF a Bishop and Presbyter of divine institution be the same as hath been before proved the controversie about ordination by Presbyters is at an end And if the Bishop that now is be another kind of officer than the Scripture Presbyter there is no proof of his divine institution That the Presbyter that now is hath the Pastoral or Episcopal office hath been already proved by the form of their ordination and by the nature of that power of the keys that is granted to reside in them If the Prelates have invested them with an office that is truly Episcopal it matters not whether in express terms they gave them the power of ordaining or no or whether they expresly excluded the power of ordaining for not
they but Christ makes the office and not they but Christ gives the power that belongs to the office from which they cannot detract The ordination of Timothy is said to be by the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery 1 Tim. 4.14 If it be said that by the Presbytery is meant a company of Bishops it it granted that Presbyters and Bishops were all one If it be said they were a company of none but Diocesan Bishops that had subject-presbyters of an inferior order under them let it be proved from Scripture It is said by some That only the Diocesan Bishops ordain authoritatively and the Presbyters concomitantly founding the distinction on those two Texts 2 Tim. 1.6 and 1 Tim 4.14 it being said in the one That Timothy received the gift by the putting on of Paul's hands and in the other by the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery To this it is answered 1. That the imposition of hands mentioned 2 Tim. 1.6 might be in confirmation for the first receiving of the Holy Ghost after Baptism and the following effects of the spirit of love power and of a sound mind argue so much 2. If any of a higher state than Presbyters laid hands on Timothy in his ordination yet the phrase of Presbytery argues that they did it as presbyters 3. If it was Paul that ordained Timothy authoritatively and the presbytery but concomitantly our bishops cannot thence claim the sole authoritative ordination for Paul was of an order above them and was no otherwise a bishop than as having Episcopal power eminently contained in his Apostolick office 4. If the presbytery there mentioned be a company of bishops of an order superior to presbyters it will follow by this distinction that such a bishop ordains not authoritatively but concomitantly 5. The said Texts afford no ground for the distinction of authoritative and concomitant ordination According to the hierarchical principle the bishop is enabled to give orders not by his power of jurisdiction but by his power of order Now a presbyter hath as much of the Character and Sacrament of order as a bishop and the consecration of a bishop is not held a distinct Sacrament of order from the ordination of a presbyter and the truth is the form of consecrating a bishop according to the English Ordinal is expressive of no more power of order than is given to the presbyter in the form of his ordination in the said Ordinal The conjunction of Presbyters with the Bishop in the present form of ordination shews that the order is conveyed by them as well as by the bishop Their imposition of hands is an authoritative benediction and dedication of the party ordained Let any instance be produced of the imposition of hands by any such as had no power of conveying that which was signified by that ceremony I mean of conveying it so far as mans act can reach unto To say it is only a sign of their giving consent is a poor evasion for the people give consent also If presbyters are at any time allowed to ordain by commission from a Bishop they cannot do it rightly if they have not an intrinsick power of doing it For the Bishops commission or license cannot give a new spiritual power to a Presbyter which was not in him before at least radically or habitually § 24. Of a valid Ministry AS Christ allows the Church to receive such to Baptism and the Lords Supper as he doth not receive so he allows the Church to call some to the Ministry whom he doth not call For it is his prerogative to be the Searcher of the Hearts and men can judg but by appearance Such as Christ doth not allow the Church to call to the Ministry may by his permission through the Churches mal-administration be called thereunto and being so called they abide therein by his permission till they be cast out by due reformation and so long their calling is valid as to external order And such are Ministers to others tho not to their own good and Chrsts ordinances by them administred are valid and effectual to those intents for which he appointed them The whole current of Scripture shews that Gods ordinances are not made void by the close hypocrisie or gross impiety of the dispensers thereof and the contrary opinion tends to unchurch Churches and to deny the Christendom of the Christian World for the most part As we must distinguish between miscarriages in admission and the nullity of the office so between defects or corruptions in the office it self and the nullity thereof The Priesthood and Worship in the Temple at Jerusalem was often much corrupted yet it was true for the substance thereof but the Priesthood appointed for the Calves at Dan and Bethel was false for the substance and a nullity Tho the sacrificing Priesthood at Dan and Bethel were a nullity yet the Ten Tribes had the substance of the true religion and some external acts of worship true and valid as circumcision and so retained something of a Church So now among the Papists there is the substance of the Christian Religion and some thing of a Church and Ministry and ordinances The Ministry of the Popish Priests with reference to the Sacrifice of the Mass is a nullity but as ordained to preach the Gospel and Baptize and to any other parts of the proper work of the Ministry it is not a nullity but their administration in those things is valid § 25. Of the Magistrates Power in Ecclesiastical Affairs MAgistratical and Ecclesiastical power are in their nature wholly divers and they are not subordinate but collateral powers yet Ministers are subject to Magistrates and Magistrates to Ministers in divers respects according to the nature of the power that is seated in either of them The Magistratical power is Imperial the Ecclesiastical is ministerial and so the pastor is under the magistrate as his Ruler by the sword not only in civil but in sacred things and the magistrate is under the pastor as his Ruler by the word or his authoritative teacher The pastors power over the magistrate is no dimunution to his right for it takes away none of his authoritty nor doth it hinder the exercise and efficacy of it but it is his benefit because it is an authoritative administring to him the mercies of the Gospel in Christs Name and if he be not under that authoritative administration he is not under the blessing of the Gospel Howbeit the pastoral discipline may not be so exercised towards the supream magistrate as by dishonouring him to make him less capable of improving his office to the common good which the excommunicating of him would do but if magistrates whether of higher or lower rank be excommunicated nevertheless they must be obeyed The magistrates power over the pastor is no diminution to his spiritual authority for it is not given to hinder but to further the efficacy and exercise thereof So that both powers are mutually
bishop to delegate his Episcopal power to a Lay-man yea or to a Clergy-man if that Clergy-man be not as Christs commissioned Officer authorized to exert that power 18. The sentence of excommunication is denounced for any non observaâ—ce of the judgment of the Court tho in cases of doubtful right and in the smallest matters But no proof of such practice can be produced from the first ages And let the bishops themselves judg howsoever contempt may be pretended in the case Whether many who are usually so sentenced either upon doubtful or trivial matters do indeed deserve to be adjudged to such a state as that sentence duly administred doth import 19. The Parish Minister is bound to denounce in his Church the sentence of Excommunication decreed by the Court tho he have no cognizance of the cause and tho he know the sentence to be unjâ—st But no such practice was known in the ancient church 20. Ministers at their Ordination receive that Office which essentially includes an Authority and Obligation to teach their flocks yet they may not preach without a license from the bishop in their own proper charges or cures tho they perform other Offices of the Ministry But anciently it was not so 21. The present bishops require of their Clergy an Oath of Canonical obedience but let any proof be given that the ancient bishops did ever impose such an Oath or that the presbyters ever took it 22 The Parish minister hath not the liberty of examining whether the Infant brought to Baptism be a capable subject thereof that is Whether he be the child of a Christian or Infidel but he must baptize the child of every one that is presented by Godfathers and Godmothers who commonly have little or no interest in the Infant nor care of its education and who not seldome are but Boys and Girls 23. Confirmation is to be administred only by the bishop and yet it is in an ordinary way impossible for him to examine all persons to be confirmed by him within his Diocess Consequently it cannot be duly administred to multitudes of persons that are to be presented thereunto and they that are confirmed are few in comparison of those that are not But the ancient bishops being bishops of one particular Church were capable of taking the oversight of every particular person of their flocks and did personally perform the same 24. A great part of the adult members of Parish-churches are such as understand not what Christianity is but the ancient churches were careful that all their members might be competently knowing in the Religion which they professed as appears by their discipline towards the Catechumeni and the long time before they admitted them to baptism 25. The Parish ministers have no remedy but to give the Sacrament to ignorant and scandalous persons that offer themselves thereunto they can but accuse the openly wicked in the Chancellors Court and but for one time deny the Sacrament to some kind of notorious sinners but then they are bound to prosecute them in the Court and to procure a sentence against them there where not one notorious sinner of a multitude is or can be brought to a due tryal in regard of the way of proceeding in Ecclesiastical Courts and the multitude of souls in every Diocess The consequent hereof is the general intrusion of the grosly ignorant and profane who pollute the communion of the Church and eat and drink damnation to themselves 26. All parishioners that are of age are compelled to receive the Sacrament how unfit or unwilling soever they be by the terrors of penalties subsequent to excommunication and those that have been excommunicated for refusing to receive are absolved from that sentence if being driven thereunto they will receive the Sacrament rather than lye in Gaol And the Parish-ministers are compelled to give the Sacrament to such 27. Many Orthodox Learned and Pious men duly qualified for the Ministry are cast and kept out of it for not declaring an unfeigned assent and consent to all and every thing contained in the Liturgy and Book of Ordination Let any proof be given that ever any of the ancient Bishops or Churches thought all the points contained in those books so necessary to be assented and consented to or that any of them so severely required the like conformity to opinions forms and ceremonies of the like nature and reason 28. The present bishops debar all Christians from the Lords Supper who through unfeigned scruple of conscience refuse to kneel in the act of receiving the Sacramental bread and wine and they debar from baptism the children of those Parents who judg it unlawful for them to permit the signing of their children with the sign of the Cross But the ancient bishops did not so nor doth the practise of Antiquity warrant the same 29. The greatest severity of the present Church-discipline is directed against Ministers and people who observe not full conformity to the Rules Forms Rights and Ceremonies prescribed in the Liturgy and Canons But the ancient bishops exercised it against those who subverted the Christian faith by damnable Heresies or enormously transgressed the Rules of soberness righteousness and godliness prescribed of God in his word 30. The Oath imposed upon the Church-wardens to make their Presentments according to the Book of Articles framed by the bishop hath had this consequence which ought to be laid to heart that commonly they would rather overlook their Oath than become accusers of their honest neighbours not only those who withdraw from but those who hold communion with the Parish churches 31. The requiring of the reordination of those ministers who have been ordained by presbyters is contrary to the practise of the ancient Church it contradicts the judgments of many Eminent bishops and other Divines of the Church of England who have maintained the validity of Presbyterial ordination it nullifies the ministry of all the Foreign Reformed Churches and of most if not of all the Lutheran churches and it advances the Church of Rome above them for the priests of the Church of Rome upon their conversion are received without reordination whereas those that come from the Foreign Reformed churches must be reordained before they be admitted to the ministry in the church of England And all this is done when in Scripture the office of a bishop and presbyter is one and the same and the difference between them came in afterwards by Ecclesiastical custome It is commonly said That Churches and Bishops being now delivered from their ancient low and distressed state under the tyranny and persecution of the Heathen powers and enjoying the patronage and bounty of Christian Rulers should not be consined to their ancient meanness narrowness and weakness but be enlarged in opulency amplitude and potency answerable to the Civil State Ans It is freely granted that the state Ecclesiastical should in reasonable proportion partake of the prosperity of the Civil state But the question still remains 1. Whether
for the encrease of the wealth power and splendor of bishops and other chief Clergy-men or for any political considerations the essential form of a bishops church constituted by the Apostles who were immediately commissioned from Christ should be changed from a single Congregation or Society of which the bishop took the personal oversight to a diocess consisting of many yea commonly of many hundred stared congregations having each of them their proper presbyter and all of them but one bishop to whom it is impossible to take the personal oversight of the souls therein and to perform towards them all the duties which were the ordinary work of the ancient bishop 2. Whether the office of a bishop or elder of one single church instituted by the Holy Ghost should be changed into mother essentially different office viz. of a bishop of many yea many hundred single churches each whereof have their proper pastors or presbyters who according to the Scripture are the same with bishops 3. Whether the office of presbyter or elder of divine institution who according to the Scripture is truly and properly a bishop should be changed into an office essentially different viz. of a presbyter who is no bishop but only the bishops subject substitute or Curate And whether the said office should be statedly bereaved of the power of discipline which is essential to it 4. Whether the office of a bishop which is a trust given by Christ to be personally discharged by him that receives it should be executed by delegation to a Lay-man yea or to a Clergy-man who is held to be no bishop 5. Whether the ancient government of the Church by a bishop in conjunction with his presbyters should be changed into a government by the bishop alone and by his Chancellor and Officials whose authority is derived from him Concessions concerning Episcopacy I Hold it lawful and expedient that the elders or pastors of a particular Church should statedly defer to one that is ablest among them a guiding power over them in ordination and discipline and other church affairs I hold it not unfit that this person should for distinctions sake have the title of bishop given him tho he be not of an essentially different order from the rest of the pastors but only of a superior degree in the same holy Order Some Nonconformists think upon probable grounds that tâ—â—â—e should be a general sort of bishops who should take care of â—â—he common government of particular churches and the bisâ—â—ps thereof and that they should have a chief hand in the ordaining and placing and displacing of the pastors or bishops of particular churches And from this I dissent not A Consideration of the present state of Conformity in the Church of England IN considering the terms of Conformity now injoined I am not forgetsul of the reverence due to Rulers I do not herein presume to judg their publick acts but I only exercise a judgment of discretion about my own act in reference to their injunctions which surely they will not disallow To consider the lawfulness of those things of which an unfeigned approbation is required is an unquestionable duty If I should profess what I believe not or practice what I allow not my sin were heinous and inexcusable The Reasons of my dissent are here expressed as inoffensively as can be done by me who am to shew that it is not nothing for which I have quitted the station which I formerly held in the Church I have no reason nor will to lay a heavier yoke upon my self than the Law doth or to set such bars in my own way as the Law doth not I therefore admit that more restrained sense of the Declaration which is thought by many to make the enjoined terms more easie I am concerned to take notice of smaller as well as greater matters because as well the one as the other are alike to be owned Tho I would not differ with the Church about little things yet I may not profess an allowance of any little thing which I believe is not allowable I desire to proceed in this enquiry with good judgment and to do nothing weakly but however it be I had rather be thought to be injudicious and overscrupulous in making objections than want a sufficient clearness in a business of this nature I take no pleasure in making objections against the book of Common prayer but I do it by constraint that I may give an account of that Nonconformity to which by an irresistible force of Conscience I am necessitated If all things contained and prescribed in the said book be right and good I heartily wish that I and all men were convinced of it I joyn with the Congregation in the use of the Liturgy and I acknowledg that by joyning in it I declare my consent to the use of it as in the main an allowable form of Worship But this doth not as I suppose signifie my allowing of all things therein contained Of the Declaration of unfeigned Assent and Consent required by the Act of Vniformity THE true intent of this Declaration is to be considered By the form of words wherein it is expressed it seems to signifie no less than assent to and approbation of the whole and of every thing contained and prescribed in and by the Book of Common-prayer c. so that no man can make this Declaration that is not satisfied of the truth of every thing contained and the lawfulness and allowableness of every thing prescribed in the said book Nothing is more evident to me than that I ought not to dissemble or lye in matters of Religion but so I do if I declare my unfeigned assent and consent to those things contained and prescribed in the Liturgy from which I really dissent But this meaning thereof is not acknowledged by many and very judicious persons among the Conformists They grant indeed that the words will not only bear this sense but would seem to incline to it if the meaning of them were not evidently limited by the Law it self and that in the very clause wherein it doth impose it That the Law doth expresly determine this assent to the use of the Liturgy they say is evident from these words He shall declare his unfeigned assent and consent to the use of all things in the said book contained and prescribed in these words and no other I A. B. do here declare c. Now by all rules of interpreting laws we are directed say they to understand what is said more generally in any law according to the limitation which the law it self gives especially if it be in express words I admit this later and more restrained sense of the Declaration as probable and in this disquisition I proceed accordingly taking the declared assent and consent as limited to the use of things Nevertheless it must necessarily extend to the use of all things contained and prescribed in the Liturgy And thereupon I judg that not only all
provinces of narrower circuits of ground And how doth it appear that an Oecumenical council rightly so named can be For suppose it be not necessary to consist of all the bishops in the world but of some as delegates in the name of all yet it must consist of so many proportionably delegated from all in the several quarters as may signifie the sence and consent of all Hereupon let it be considered whether there be a possibility of such assemblies much more whether there be a possibility of the continuation or of the succession of them in such frequency as would be requisite in case such an assembly were Head of the Church Nor doth it stand with reason that an Oecumenical council in case it were existent can possibly execute the authority that belongs to the head of the Universal Church in overseeing all in receiving appeals from all in making authoritative determinations for all either immediately by it self or mediately by subordinate councils judicatories and ministers to be superintended regulated and determined by it in their proceedings Nor is there any notice given of the said headship of a General council more than of the Popes or any other bishops universal headship in the primitive and authentick records of the Charter that Christ hath given to his Church to wit the Holy Scriptures Nor is any rule given therein for the constitution of a General council whether it shall be made up only of the Clergy or only of such bishops as are of a higher order thâ—â— Presbyters or of all such bishops of the Catholick Church or if of some in the name of all what number there must be either definite or indefinite and proportionate to the number of those that are represented It is evident de facto that the officers of the Catholick Church as the particular bishops or pastors and the associations and conventions of them do not derive their spiritual authority from a General council Nor doth it appear that de jure they should derive their power from it any more than from the Pope § 11. The infallibility of the Catholick Church examined THE Romanists assert an insallibility about matters of faith somewhere seated within the Catholick Church as the perpetual priviledg thereof some of them place it in the Pope and others in a General council Hereupon this priviledg is to be considered whether it be and what it is The meaning of the term is a being not liable to be deceived or to deceive about those matters about which it is said to be That the catholick church is infallible in the essentials of the christian religion is a most indubitable truth for every member of the catholick church so remaining is infallible so far it involves a a contradiction that any such should err therein for it were as much as to be a christian and no christian The Query therefore is whether it be liable to errour in the integrals aâ—d accidentals of Religion Now the church remaining such is not necessarily or in its nature infallible so far and therefore if it be infallible it must be so from the free grant of Christ But it doth not appear in the Holy Scripture that any such grant is made to the church What was the Apostles doctrine and consequently the doctrine of the Church in their days obedient to their authority we know what the church universally held in any one age touching all the integral parts of religion much more concerning accidentals I conceive extreamly difficult if not impossible to be known But that the church hath de facto if not universally yet very generally erred in the same errour about some integrals of religion appears by the ancient general practise of some things now generally accounted erroneous as for instance the giving of the Lords Supper to infants Moreover it is evident that the whole Church in its several parts hath erred some in one point some in another and that no part thereof hath been found in which hath appeared no error in some point of Religion or other And if all the parts may variously err in several points why may not they also harmoniously err all of them in one and the same point If the Catholick Church be not infallible in all doctrines of Faith much less is any such Council infallible as was ever yet congregated or is ever like to be congregated Hereupon it follows that in all Controversies of doctrine we cannot stand finally to the decision of the Catholick Church if it were possible to be had or to the decision of any the largest Council that can possibly convene We cannot tell what the Catholick Church is nor what particular Churches or persons are sound parts thereof but by the holy Scriptures For what Criterion can be brought besides them Mens bare testimony of themselves is not to be rested on How can we know that the first Nicene Council was orthodox in its determination about the Sacred Trinity and the second Nicene Council erroneous in its determination for Image-worship but by finding that the former was consonant and the latter dissonant to the Scripture in their aforesaid determinations If it be said That of Councils called General those that consist of greater numbers of bishops must carry it against those that consist of lesser numbers let some proof either from Scripture or Reason be given for it What ground is there from either to conclude that in the time of the Arrian Heresie the major part of bishops in the Roman Empire or the major part of those that assembled in Council and for instance in the first Council at Nice might not possibly have been Arrians Moreover if the major part were to carry it in the first six Centuries why not also in the ten last That promise of Christ Mat. 28. I am with you always to the end of the world may imply That there shall be a successive continuation of Bishops or Pastors in the Catholick Church to the worlds end that shall be Orthodox in the Essentials yea and in the Integrals of Religion yet it doth not imply that they shall be the greater number of those that are called and reputed bishops or pastors within Christendom nor that the greater number of those being convened in Councils shall not err in their Conciliar determinations about matters of Faith § 12. Of the Indefectibility of the Catholick Church CHRIST hath promised the perpetuity of the Church in general in saying that he would build it on a Rock and the gates of Hell should not prevail against it and I am with you always to the end of the world but how far and in what respect this perpetuity and indefectibility is promised ought to be enquired into lest we expect or insist upon more than the promise hath ensured That which Christ hath promised cannot be less than that there be always upon earth a number of true believers or faithful Christians made visible by their external profession of Christianity successively
the Apostles and their coadjutors were led to this way by the natural convenience of it But if any where a greater inconvenience comes or a greater benefit be lost by such a partition of Churches than the convenience of it can countervail there the partition must be made as it may be that is as the state of things will admit It is supposed by some learned men that in the Apostles time there were several Churches at Rome under their several bishops or pastors as one of the circumcision another of the uncircumcision within the same local precincts And if there were not so de facto I think few will deny but that the state of christians then and there might have been such as to have made such a partition of churches among them lawful and expedient § 18. Of the power of a particular Church THE power of a Church is but the power of the ruling part thereof and therefore the power of particular churches is according to the power of their particular bishops or pastors the nature whereof shall be opened when I come to speak of the nature of the pastoral office It appears by what hath been already shewed of the frame of particular churches mentioned in Scripture that they all had the government within themselves Every stated church had its proper pastor or pastors having authority of teaching and ruling it in Christs name If a distinction of churches into such as have Pastoral government within them and such as have it not be asserted it must be proved by the assertors from divine testimony And if it be granted that every organical church hath in it its authoritative Teacher or Guide under Christ and in his name it must be granted as far as I can see that it hath in it its Ruler also for ruling is but by teaching and guiding The smallest Church hath the same power in its narrow Sphere that the greatest Church or any association of Churches have in their larger Spheres that is it hath the same power intensively tho not extensively Indeed the authoritative acts of larger churches and associations in regard of their amplitude may be justly esteemed in degrees more Solemn August and Venerable § 19. The subordination of Churches of the same kind considered TOuching this point of the subordination of Churches there be three parts of the enquiry 1. Whether there be a subordination of one or more particular Churches to another particular Church whose constitution and frame is the same in specie with theirs 2. Whether there be a subordination of particular Churches to some other Church specifically different from them in the frame thereof and being in a state of greater sublimity and amplitude 3. Whether there be a subordination of particular Churches taken distributively to an association or collective body of the same Churches or an assembly thereof and of that collective body to a larger association of more such collective bodies conjunct with it or to an assembly thereof and so forward till we come to the largest that can be reached unto 1. Whether there be a subordination of one or more particular Churches to another particular Church whose constitution and frame is the same in specie with theirs and whose officers are of the same holy order such as the seven Churches of Asia were in relation one to another and as congregational Churches are to each other and as Diocesan Churches are to each other if de jure there be such Churches Now as touching subordination in this kind what hath been or may be by humane right upon prudential considerations either statedly or pro tempore is not here examined but what is by divine right inferring an obligation upon one Church to be subject to another of the same specifick frame with it self Sometimes a Church hath been called a mother-Church in relation to other churches either because they have issued from it as swarms from a hive or because they have received the Christian faith from it or because they have been erected by some sent forth from it c. Now that these latter Churches do owe a reverential regard and observance to the first which is called the Mother-Church is not to be doubted and such regard or observance every small or obscure Church owes to those that are more Ample Illustrious or Renowned But that the said Mother Church can by divine right or warrant claim a governing power over those Churches that have issued from it or that the more Ample and Illustrious Churches can claim the like over the smaller and obscurer I do not find any proof but I judg the contrary because notwithstanding the aforesaid diversity or disparity of condition they all rest upon the same Basi◠Christs Charter by which they are constituted which is the same to all and alike immediately given to all So that in this respect they all stand upon the same level and are equal Now one equal hath not governing power over another in that wherein they are both equal § 20. The subordination of Churches of different kinds considered AS touching the subordination of Churches to some other Church specifically different from them as of parochial or congregational Churches to a Diocesan Provincial National Church be it first observed that the Diocesan Church is not merely the incorporated society of a Cathedral nor any one parcular Church besides the Parochial Churches nor is it materially divers from them jointly taken nor the provincial church from the Diocesan churches nor the national church from the provincial churches jointly taken But in their several ranks they differ formally as being each of them one body politick constituted by the political compages of the churches included in each of them And let what was before observed be here reminded that each congregational or parochial church having its proper Presbyter or Elder invested with the power of the keys is a political church or such as hath its government within it self And thereupon the divine warrant of such a Diocesan Church as is the lowest that hath government within it self and consequently that swallows hundreds of political churches that are of Christs institution was called in question and still I desire the Asserters of it to give some proof of its divine right Indeed the Postscript of the Epistle to Titus mentions him as ordained the first bishop of the Cretians Of what authority that Postscript is I know not but this is certain that where there were Christians there were to be churches in every city of Crete and there were reckoned a hundred cities in that no very large Island and those churches were political societies within themselves having their proper elders or bishops And upon supposition that the whole Island made but one larger church constituted by the political union of the said particular churches in every city under Titus it must be such as is now called a provincial church under one Archbishop Now if the Diocesan church be not looked upon as the
it doth not hence follow that Peter was a fixed Bishop of the Jews and Paul of the Gentiles no more were any of the Apostles fixed Bishops in those places where they were more especially imployed and we know that they made frequent removes §. 10. Of the Episcopacy of Timothy and Titus THE Name of Bishop is not given either to Timothy or Titus except in the Postscripts of the Epistles But those Postscripts are taken for no part of Canonical Scripture For if they were free from the objected Errors about the places from which the Epistles were written they cannot in reason be supposed to be Pauls own words and written by him when the Epistles were written Moreover the travels of Timothy and Titus do evidently shew that they were not diocesan bishops nor the setled Overseers of particular churches And those passages 1 Tim. 1.3 I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus and Tit. 1.5 For this cause I left thee in Crete shew an occasional and temporary employment And whatsoever stress may be laid upon these texts to prove they were bishops of those places yet they do not sound like the fixing of them each in their proper diocess The name of an Evangelist is expresly given to one of them 2 Tim. 4.5 and the work enjoined both of them and accordingly performed by them being throughout of the same kind there is all reason to believe that they had the same kind of office Now by several texts of Scripture compared together we find the work of Evangelists to be partly such as belonged to the Apostles whose Agents or Adjuncts they were and partly such as was common to Pastors and Teachers whose office was included in theirs Their work in common with the Apostles was the planting and setling of churches by travelling from place to place and in this regard they have been well called Apostles of the Apostles And in doing this Vice-apostolick service they did also that which was common to pastors and teachers in teaching and ruling but with this difference that the ordinary pastors did it statedly in those churches where they were fixed but these transiently in several churches which they were sent to erect or establish or to set things in order therein as the Apostles saw need Or if Timothy and Titus were not in an office essentially divers from the ordinary pastors and teachers yet they were in extraordinary service as being the Apostles Agents and being in that capacity might have their intrinsick spiritual power enlarged to a greater extent and higher pitch of exercise than the ordinary Ministers Howbeit I rather judg that they had an office specifically different from that of the ordinary pastors because in the enumeration of the several sacred offices Paul mentions the office of an Evangelist as a distinct kind from the rest But if it can be proved that the Superiority of Timothy and Titus over bishops or elders of particular churches was not as they were the Apostles assistants or as extraordinary and temporary officers but as ordinary superiors it will indeed follow that Archbishops or bishops of bishops are of divine Right Nevertheless the Episcopal authority of bishops or presbyters of particular churches such as the Scripture-bishops were remains unshaken § 11. Of the Angels of the Churches ANother allegation for the divine right of bishops of an higher order than presbyters is from the Angels of the seven Churches Apoc. 1. and 2. To which many things are said by those of the other persuasion As that those Angels are not called Bishops nor any where implied to be bishops in the present Vulgar sense of the word That the denomination of Angels and Stars in the judgment of ancient and modern Writers do belong to the Ministers of the Word in general That in mysterious or prophetick Writings and Visional Representations a number of things or persons is usually expressed by singulars and that it is very probable that the term Angel is explained under that plurality you distinguished from the rest Apoc. 2.24 but to you and the rest in Thyatira c. and to be a collective name expressing all the Elders of that church Also some observe that it might be expressed in the same manner as Gods providence in the administration of the World by Angels is expressed wherein one being set as chief over such a countrey the things which are done by many are attributed to one Angel president It is further to be considered that in the church of Ephesus one of the seven the Scripture makes mention of many bishops who were no other than presbyters Acts 20.28 Against this some say That the Elders there mentioned were not the presbyters of the church of Ephesus but the bishops of Asia then gathered together at Ephesus and sent for by Paul to Miletum But 1. This is affirmed altogether without proof 2. The text saith Paul sent from Miletum to Ephesus to call the elders of the church which in rational interpretation must be the Elders of the church to which he sent 3. If the bishops of all Asia had been meant it would have been said the Elders of the churches For in Scripture tho we find the Christians of one city called a church yet the Christians of a Region did ever make a plurality of churches as the churches of Judea the churches of Galatia and the churches of Asia 4. There is not the least hint given of the meeting of the bishops of Asia at Ephesus when Paul sent for the elders of the Church 5. The asserters of prelacy hold that Timothy was the first bishop of Ephesus now Paul did not send for him for he was already present with him and accompanied him in his travels Nor did he commit the charge of the church to him but to the Elders that were sent for 6. It could not be the sence of the church of England that those Elders who are declared to be bishops were bishops in the Vulgar meaning of the word when she appointed that portion of Scripture to be read at the ordination of Presbyters to instruct them in the nature and work of their Office Some say That by the Angel of the church is meant the Moderator or President of the Presbytery who might be either for a time or always the same person and the Epistle might be directed to him in the same manner as when the King sends a Message to the Parliament he directs it to the Speaker Now such a Moderator or President makes nothing for bishops of a higher order than Presbyters § 12. A further Consideration of the Office of an EVANGELIST and of a general Minister COncerning the Office of Evangelists such as Timothy and Titus the query is Whether it was temporary or perpetual An eminent Hierarchical Divine saith That Evangelists were Presbyters of principal sufficiency whom the Apostles sent abroad and used as Agents in Ecclesiastical Affairs wherâ—ver they saw need Now this description doth not make them of a specifically
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the 57th Canon of the Laodicean Councel do shew that bishops with their Churches had been constituted in villages tho in some dependance on the City-bishop Mr. Beverege in his Annotations on Council Anchyram c. 13. shews that the the Chorepiscopi were truly bishops tho the exercise of some Episcopal functions were denied them by the Canons and by the Canon last mentioned they were not absolutely forbidden to ordain presbyters and deacons but that they should not do it without the permission of the City-bishop under whom they were § 3. Of divers Cities having two Bishops at once THERE are many instances in the antiquity of two bishops allowed at once in the same City Narcissus and Alexander were bishops of Jerusalem at the same time Euseb Hist l. 6. c. 9 10. Ignatius and Euodius were both bishops of Antioch at the same time Clemens const l. 7.46 At Rome Linus and Clâ—tus were fellow bishops in Peters days Platina in the life of St. Peter Epiphanius heresy 68 concerning Meletius saith Alexandria had not anciently two Bishops as other Cities had Austin was made Bishop of Hippo in the days of Valerius and joined with him as his colleague in the Episcopal function Aug. Epist 34. to Paulinus And some learned men of the hierarchical way conceive that Peter and Paul were bishops of Rome at the same time the one of the Circumcision and the other of the Uncircumcision The Nicene Council was the first that decreed that universally there should be but one bishop in a City Can. 8. If any that come from the Novations to the Catholick Church be a bishop let him have the dignity of Priesthood unless it please the Catholick bishop to give him also the honour of the Episcopal Name If it doth not please him let him find a place for him that he may be a Chorepiscopus in the parish or a presbyter in the Clergy that there may not seem to be two bishops in one City As concerning the Catalogues of the ancient bishops in great Cities wherein the succession is by one single person after another It may be considered That Historians being of later ages had respect to the custom of their own times wherein the Episcopacy resided in one And when anciently there were two or more equal in the name and authority of a Bishop the survivor was reckoned the successor whenas he was indeed but the surviving colleague Some do thus labour to remove the contradictions of Historians touching the order of the succession of the first bishops of Rome Linus Cletus Anacletus c. by supposing that these or some of them were presbyters or bishops at the same time ruling that Church in common and that the following writers fancying to themselves such bishops as were set up in the Church in their times fell into those diversities of tradition § 4. Of the more late Erection of many Parishes under one bishop IT is acknowedged by all parties that Christians in great Cities were not divided into divers fixed Congregations or Parishes till long after the Apostles days And tho when they were multiplied they had divers meeting-places yet those places were promiscuously frequented and the people were taught and governed by all the Presbyters in common and were called but one Church It is observed by Epiphanius Heres 68. n. 6. That it was the Custom only at Alexandria to have one president in the whole City and to distribute the presbyters to teach severally vid. Grot. Annot. on 1 Tim. 5.17 Seldens Comment on Eutych Origin Alexand. p. 85. And most agree that it was two hundred and sixty years after Christ before parishes were distinguished And there must be a distinction of parishes before there could be a union of them into Diocesses § 5. That Bishops and Presbyters are of the same order The Testimony of later times concerning it THat this is not the opinion only of those who are now called Presbyterians let the testimonies both of ancient and later times touching this point be considered I begin with those of later times The French and Belgick Confessions assert the parity of order of all Ministers of the Gospel Reynold Peacock bishop of Chichester wrote a book de Ministrorum aqualitate which the Papists caused to be burnt Vid. Erasmus his Annotations on 1 Tim. 4. Cassanders consult Article 14. saith It is agreed among all that of old in the Apostles days there was no difference between bishops and presbyters but for orders sake and avoiding of schism a bishop was put before a presbyter This his opinion he delivered to the Emperor of Germany being sent for by him to inform his conscience about such questions In the time of King Henry the Eighth there was published a book by Cranmer and others called the bishops book wherein is affirmed that the difference of bishops was a device of the ancient fathers not mentioned in Scripture An. 1537. In the book called the Institution of a Christian man made by the Clergy in a provincial synod and set forth by the Kings Authority and approved by the Parliament it is asserted That the Fathers of the succeeding Church after the Apostles instituted certain inferior degrees of Ministry yet in the New Testament no mention is made of any degrees or distinctions in orders but only of Deacons or Ministers and of presbyters or bishops The Parliament Divines at the Treaty in the Isle of Wight in their Answer to the King say This doctrine of the sameness of the order of a bishop and presbyter was published by King Henry the Eighth An. 1543. to be received by all the subjects and was seen and approved by the Lords both spiritual and temporal and by the lower house of Parliament The words of the book are The Scripture mentions these two orders only to wit Presbyters and Deacons and the Apostles confirming them by prayer and imposition of hands Mr. Mede discourse 5. on 1 Cor. 4 1. saith there are properly but two orders Ecclesiastical Presbyters and Deacons the rest are but divers degrees of these two Dr. Hammonds opinion concerning bishops and presbyters is thus declared in his Annotations on Acts 11. Altho the Title of Elders hath extended to a second order in the Church and now is in use only for them yet in the Scripture-times it belonged principally if not alone to the bishops there being no evidence that any of that second order were then instituted in the Churches Now if in Scripture-times presbyters of an inferior order to bishops were not instituted as this learned man supposeth it is evident that all those Church-officers called presbyters mentioned in Scripture were bishops and if this inferior order of presbyters be not to be found in Scripture I desire to know what proof can be made of its divine institution Many if not most Papists acknowledg that presbytery is the highest order in the ministry and that Episcopacy is but a different degree of the same order And it is
no resolved point of faith among them whether bishops differ from presbyters only in degree or in order and office Catalogus Testium veritatis Tom. 2 reports that Wicklief held but two orders of ministers Walsing Hist. in Rich. 2 p. 205. saith That it was one of Wickliefs errors that every priest rightly ordained had power to administer all Sacraments Dr. Reynolds in his Epistle to Sir Francis Knolls shews That they who had laboured for Reformation of the Church for five hundred years past held that all pastors be they intituled bishops or priests have equal authority by the Word of God Ockham a great Schoolman faith that by Christs institution all priests of whatsoever degree are of equal authority power and jurisdiction Catal. Test Verit. Richardus de Media Villa in 4 Sent. distinct 24 q. 2. saith That Episcopacy is to be called not an order which is a Sacrament but rather a certain dignity of an order Council Colon. Enchirid. Christ Religion Paris edit An. 1558. p. 169. of holy orders saith bishops and presbyters were the same order in the primitive church as all the Epistles of Peter and Paul and Jerom also and almost all the Fathers witness Richardus Armachanus l. 9. c. 5. ad quest Armen saith There is not found in the Evangelical or Apostolical Scripture any difference between bishops and simple priests called presbyters It. lib. 11. q. Arm. c. 5. Johan Semeca in his gloss dist 95. c. Olim saith In the first primitive church the name and offices began to be distinguished and the prelation was for the remedy of Schism Gratian distinct 60 c. null ex urb pap saith The primitive church had only those two holy orders presbyterate and diaconate And Dr. Reynolds saith That this was once enrolled in the Canon-Law for sound doctrine Peter Lombard the father of the Schoolmen Lib. 4. distinct 24. tit 1. saith the same and that of these two Orders only we have the Apostles precept Sixtus Senensis heaps up the testimonies of others upon his own to the same thing § 6. The Testimony of Antiquity for the identity of Bishops and Presbyters HERE I first observe by way of preface That Michael Medina de Sacr. Orig. accusing Jerome of holding the sameness of bishops and presbyters saith that Ambrose Austin Sedulius Primasius Chrysostome Theodoret Oecumenius Theophylact were in the same Heresie as Bellarmine reports him lib. 4. de Eccles Milit. c. 9. The same Medina gives this reason why Jerome Austin and others of the Fathers fell into this Heresie as he calls it because this point was not then clearly determined of Hist of the Council of Trent lib. 7. p. 570. And Bellarmin de clero l. 1 c. 15. saith that this Medina assures us That St. Jerome was of Aerius his opinion in this point Touching Aerius Whitaker Controv. 2. q. 5. saith that he was not accounted an Heretick by all but by Eustathius who opposed him Dr. Reynolds in his Epist to Sir Francis Knolls shews out of bishop Jewel that Chrysostome Jerome Ambrose Austin Theodoret Primasius Sedulius Theophylact and most of the ancient Fathers held that bishops and presbyters are one in Scripture with whom Oecumenius and Anselm of Canterbury and another Anselm and Gregory and Gratian agree The Testimony of Clemens Romanus Clemens in his Epistle to the Corinthians mentions but two Orders Bishops and Deacons Pag. 96. The Apostles preaching through Regions and Cities did constitute their first fruits proving them by the Spirit to be bishops and deacons to those which should afterward believe With him bishops and presbyters are every where the same Ib. p. 4. Ye walked in the Laws of God subject to them that have the rule over you 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and giving due honour to the Presbyters among you ye warned the young men that they should follow things moderate and grave Ib. p. 100. Our Apostles foreknowing there would be contentiona bout the name of Episcopacy for this cause having received certain foreknowledg appointed the aforesaid Episcopacy and gave Ordination 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that if they dyed other approved men might successively receive their Ministry 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It will not be a light sin to us if we eject out of thier Episcopacy those that have unblameably and holily offered that gift blessed are those presbyters who are gone before who have received a fruitful and perfect dissolution for they fear not lest any one should cast them out of the Charge wherein they are set Ib p. 108. Base things very base and unworthy of Christian conversation are reported That the most firm and ancient Church of Carinth for one or two persons doth move sedition against the presbyters Ib. p. 120. Who then is generous among you and let him say if the sedition and contention and schisms be risen because of me I will depart whithersoever ye will and do the things commanded by the multitude only let the flock of Christ be in peace with the presbyters set over it Ib. p. 128. You therefore that have laid the foundation of schism be subject to the presbyters be instructed unto Repentance c. These are the passages in that Epistle relating to the point here in question And who cannot see that here are only two Orders of Ministers bishops and deacons and not three bishops priests and deacons Also Presbyters and those in the Episcopacy and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are evidently the same And here is no mention of any office above the presbyters and to them the church were required to be subject As concerning that passage p. 7. To the High Priest proper ministrations were appointed to the priests their own place was assigned and upon the Levites their proper ministry lay and the Laick man bound to Laick precepts I conceive that it alone affords no argument for three Orders of ministry or essentially different offices in the Gospel-church For it respects the present matter but only in way of similitude and no more is signified thereby than as under the Mosaical Oeconomy there were several orders and several ministrations pertaining to them so it is also in the Gospel-church but it may not be used in argumentation beyond what is plainly designed in it much less may it be urged to prove any thing contrary to the tenor of the whole Epistle besides the High-priests office was not of another kind from the priests but a higher degree in the same office for some particular ministrations which also in time of his incapacity might be ordinarily performed by another priest And let the comparison be forced to the utmost it will shew no greater difference between a bishop and a presbyter than between an Archbishop and an ordinary bishop It is Grotius his argument That this Epistle of Clemens is genuine because it no where makes mention of that excessive authority which began to be afterwards introduced or was at first introduced at Alexandria by the custom of that church after the
death of Mark and in other places by that example And it plainly shews as the Apostle Paul doth That the Churches were governed by the Common Council of Presbyters who were also Bishops The Testimony of Irenaeus It is clear that this Father makes the presbyters to be the same with bishops and the successors of the Apostles and with him the succession of bishops is all one with the succession of presbyters Lib. 4. c. 43. We must obey those presbyters which are in the Church who together with the succession of Episcopacy have received the gift of truth Id. l. 3. c. 2. Unto that tradition which is in the church by the succession of presbyters we challenge them that say they are wiser not only than the presbyters but the Apostles Id. l. 3. c. 3. declaring the tradition of the greatest and ancientest church and known to all even the church of Rome founded by Peter and Paul at Rome that which it hath from the Apostles and the Faith declared to men and coming to us by the succession of bishops c. Id. lib. 4. c. 4. We must forsake unjust Presbyters serving their own lusts and adhere to those who with the order of presbytery keep the doctrine of the Apostles found and their conversation without offence unto the information and correction of the rest The church nourisheth such presbyters whereof the Prophet speaks I will give thee princes in peace and thy bishops in righteousness Id. lib. 4. c. 63. The true knowledg of the doctrine of the Apostles and the ancient state in the whole world according to the succession of bishops to which they gave the church which is in every place which is come even to us From these citations it is evident that this Father doth express one and the same order of Episcopacy in all presbyters If any do use this evasion that he calls all those that were true bishops by the name of presbyters let them shew where he mentions presbyters of another order or makes two different orders of Episcopacy and Presbyterate Here I will take notice of the words of Irenaus concerning those Elders of the church mentioned Acts 20. lib. 3. c. 14. viz. In Miletum the bishops and presbyters which were from Ephesus and other the next Cities being convocated Tho it seems most reasonable by the Elders of the church there sent for by Paul to understand the elders of that particular church of Ephesus to which the Apostle then sent and indeed if they had been from other Cities also it would have said according to the Scripture way of expression the elders of the churches yet admitting what this Father saith hereof observe we that he speaks of bishops and presbyters as congregated in the meeting and he might mention two names of the same office And the Apostle speaks to all those presbyters that there convened as those whom the Holy Ghost had made bishops of the flock And suppose they were the bishops of Asia as some would have it yet it cannot be proved that they were any other than bishops of single Congregations or that they were such bishops as had subject presbyters of a lower order under them The Testimony of Clemens Alexandrinus He thus writes Stromat lib. 6. p. 667. He is really a presbyter of the church and a true Deacon of the will of God if he teach the things of the Lord not as ordained by men nor esteemed just because he is a presbyter but taken into the presbytery because he is just Here in the Church are progressions of bishops presbyters deacons imitations as I think of the Angelical glory and of the heavenly dispensation which the Scripture speaks they expect who treading in the footsteps of the Apostles have lived in the perfection of righteousness according to the Gospel These the Apostle writes being taken up into the clouds shall first be made deacons and then shall be taken into the presbytery according to the progress of glory Here this Father first mentions only two orders presbyters and deacons afterwards a progression of bishops presbyters and deacons as imitations of the heavenly dispensation but in the close applying the similitude to blessed men taken into heaven he makes the progress to be only in being first as deacons then as presbyters mentioning no higher order Hence I conceive may be inferred that he speaks of presbyters and deacons as of two different orders and of bishops but as a higher degree in the order of presbyters This also may be further confirmed Stromat lib. 7. p. 700. where distinguishing of a twofold 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or employment in secular affairs viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he saith that presbyters hold that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which makes men better and the deacons that which consists in service His meaning is that as in the Civil State there are two orders the one governing and the other ministring so there are likewise in the Church the Presbyters holding the one and the deacons the other These passages of this Author I thought fit to mention and have not found in him any more relating to the distinct ministers of the church The Testimony of Jerome This Father also speaks of presbyters as the same with bishops and successors of the Apostles On the Epistle to Titus c. 1. he saith As presbyters know that they are by the custom of the church subject to him that is set over them so let the bishops know that they are greater than presbyters rather by custom than by the verity of the Lords appointment He also testifies that they did and ought to rule the church in common and that imparity came in by little and little In his Epistle to Evagrius he shews that the presbyters of Alexandria from Mark till Heraclas and Dionysius had always one chosen out of them and placed in a higher degree and named bishop as if an Army made an Emperor and Deacons chose one whom they knew industrious and called him Arch-deacon Here he mentions no other making of bishops than by presbyters And that the presbyters made the bishop is an argument brought by him to prove the identity at first and afterwards the nearness of their power And he ascribes to presbyters the making of their bishop and placing him in a higher degree and naming him bishop And he distinguisheth the ancient way of making bishops by presbyters from that way of making them which followed the times of Heraclas and Dionysius which was by Episcopal ordination This evidence is confirmed by the testimony of Eutichius Patriarch of Alexandria who out of the Records and Traditions of that Church in his Arabick Originals saith according to Seldens Translation in his Commentary p. 29 30. That the presbyters laid hands on him whom they elected till the time of Alexander Patriarch of Alexandria for he forbad the presbyters any longer to create the Patriarch and decreed that the Patriarch being deceased bishops should
his Diocess who are the proper and immediate Pastors of their several Churches and really bishops according to the true import of that name and office as it is in Scripture 4. The Presbyters of the Church of England if they be not bishops are not of the same order with the presbyters mentioned in Scripture for all presbyters therein mentioned were bishops truly and properly so called Now if they be not of the same order with the Scripture presbyters they are not of divine but meerly humane institution but if it be acknowledged that they are of the same order as indeed they are why are they denied to be bishops of their respective Charges And why are they bereaved of the Episcopal or pastoral Authority therein 5. The bishops of the first Ages had no greater number of souls under their Episcopacy than of which they could take the personal oversight But the present bishops have commonly more souls under their Episcopacy than a hundred bishops can personally watch over The ordinary work of the ancient bishop was to preach give thanks administer the Eucharist pronounce the blessing and exercise discipline to the people under his charge But the bishops of the present age neither do nor can perform these ministries to the people that are under their charge 6. The ancient bishop did exercise his Episcopaâ—y personally and not by Delegates or Substitutes But the present bishop doth for the most part exercise it not personally but either by his Delegates who have no Episcopal authority of themselves but what they derive from him alone or by Substitutes whom he accounts no bishops 7. The ancient bishops did not govern alone but in conjunction with the presbyters of his Church he being the first presbyter and stiled the Brother and Colleague of the presbyters But the present bishop hath in himself alone the power of jurisdiction both over the Clergy and Laity 8. The ancient bishop did not and might not ordain Ministers without the counsel of his Clergy But the present bishop hath the sole power of ordination Tho some presbyters whom he shall think fit join with him in laying on of hands yet he alone hath the whole power of the act without their consent or counsel 9. To labour in the word and doctrine was anciently the most honourable part of the bishops work and it was constantly performed by him in his particular Church or Congregation But now preaching is not reckoned to be the ordinary work of a bishop and many bishops preach but rarely and extraordinarily 10. The ancient bishops were chosen by all the people at least not without their consent over whom they were to preside And when a bishop was to be ordained it was the ordinary course of the first ages for all the next bishops to assemble with the people for whom he was to be ordained and every one was acquainted with his conversation But the present bishops entrance into his office is by a far different way 11. Anciently there was a bishop with his Church in every City which had a competent number of Christians But in the later times many yea most Cities have not their proper bishops I mean bishops in the Hierarchical sense tho they be as large and populous as those that have It is to be noted that the manner was not anciently as now that a Church and its bishop did cause that to be called a City which otherwise would not be so called but any Town-corporate or Burrough was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a City according to the ancient use of the word 12. Because in the first ages the Christians of a City and its adjacent Villages did ordinarily make up but one competent Congregation There was commonly but one Church in a City and that City-church took in all the Christians of the adjacent Villages who were but one stated Society all the members whereof might have personal communion one with another But the dividing of the bishops Cure into such parts as are now called Parishes came not in till long after the Apostles times and when that division first took place they were but as Chappels of Ease to the City-church Here it is to be noted That till Constantine's time it cannot be proved that there were above four or five Churches in all the world that consisted of more people than one of 〈◊〉 parishes nor of half so many as some of them 13. In the beginning of Christianity Cities or Towns were judged the â—ittest places for the constituting of Churches because in them the materials of a Church to wit believers were most numerous and in them was the greatest opportunity of making â—ore Converts with other advantages which the Villages did not afford Yet when the number of Christians encreased in a Region Churches having their proper Bishops were constituted in Villages or places that were not Cities one proof whereof is in the Chorepiscopi who were bishops distinct from ordinary presbyters Thus it was in the first ages But in the following times when the worldly grandure of Episcopacy was rising decâ—â—ed were made that bishops might not be ordained in Villages or small Cities lest the name and authority of a bishop should â—e contemptible 14. Tho it hath been decreed by Councils That there be but one bishop in a city and the custom hath generally prevailed yet there in manifold proof that in the first ages more bishops than one were allowed at once in the same city yea in the same church Indeed the Ecclesiastical Historians now extant being comparatively but of later ages and having respect to the government of their own times set down the succession of the ancient bishops by single persons whereas several bishops presiding at the same time the surviving and most noted Colleague was reckoned the Successor 15. The ancient bishops exercised discipline in a spiritual manner by the sword of the Spirit which is the word of God and by arguments deduced from it sought to convince the judgment and awe the conscience according to the true nature of Ecclesiastical discipline But the present bishops have their Courts which are managed like Secular Courts to compel men to an outward observance of their decrees by the dread of temporal penalties annexed to excommunication 16. The present bishops say of their Church-government that without secular force none would regard it But the ancient bishops thought it a reproach to Christs discipline to declare to the world that it is a powerless thing of it self and insufficient to obtain 〈…〉 unless the temporal sword inforce it 17. The Episcopal or Pastoral authority is now commonly exercised by a Lay-chancellor and tho an ordinary priest be present in the Court to speak the words of excommunication yet the Chancellor as Judg decrees it And excommunications and absolutions pass in the bishops name and authority when he never had the hearing of the cause but anciently it was not so In this case I enquire Whether Christ hath authorised any
continued till the end of all things It is also ascertained that there shall be at least the essentials of a Church-state or Church organical as some express it consisting of a part governing and a part governed always continued somewhere upon earth For Christs promise is to be with his Apostles in the executing of their Ministry always to the end of the world and it must be understood of them not barely considered as persons but as his commissioned Officers including their successors not in the Apostolical and Temporary but in the ordinary and perpetual Authority which they had in common with Pastors Bishops or Presbyters And Eph. 4.11 shews that the Ministry is to endure till the whole Mystical body of Christ be compleated But the promise doth not import that any particular Church or any particular combination of Churches in one frame of Ecclesiastical Polity how ample or illustrious soever shall be perpetuated by an uninterrupted succession of Pastors and secured from a total defection and rejection either from a Church state or from Christianity it self If any particular church or any one larger part of the Catholick church hath been preserved from the Apostles days till now when others have been extinct it is by the good pleasure of God whose ways and counsels are wise and holy yet unsearchable and past finding out Nor doth the promise import that the true church shall be perpetually conspicuous tho it be perpetually visible for in some Ages it may be more obscure in others more apparent It is granted by that party that much insists upon the conspicuousness of their church as a city on a hill That in the time of Antichrist the church shall scarcely be discerned Now in such a state it may be said to be tho not absolutely yet comparatively invisible that is being compared with what it is when more conspicuously Visible Nor doth it import that any particular church or any most ample and illustrious part of the Catholick church shall perpetually abide in the Apostolick purity of doctrine worship and government but that it may depart from it and fall into most enormous errors and practises in the said points and yet may not lose the essentials of Christian doctrine and church-state The Scripture foretels of a great falling away and a lasting defection in the Christian church and a long continued predominancy of an Antichristian state therein Nay for ought can be cogently inferred from the aforesaid promise the said defection might have been so universal as to leave no part of the Catholick church divided from the Apostatical or Antichristian state and party by a different external church-polity but the sound and sincere part of the Church may truckle under it and be included in its external frame and keep themselves from being destroyed by it some of them discerning and shunning the bainful doctrine and practise and others that are infected with it holding the truth predominantly in their hearts and lives and so tho not speculatively yet practically prevailing against the wicked errours If in all times there have been some societies of Christians that did not fall away in the great defection nor incorporate with the antichristian state but were by themselves in a severed church-state yet Christ hath not promised that there shall be notice thereof throughout all Christendom in the times when the said societies were in being nor that histories should be written thereof for the knowledg of after ages Howbeit we have sufficient notice by credible history that there have been many ample christian churches throughout all ages that were not incorporated with the antichristian state and that did dissent from their great enormities in Doctrine Worship and Government also that many Worthies living in the midst of that great apostacy did during the whole time thereof successively bear witness for the truth against it and that for a great part of the time huge multitudes also living in the midst of the said apostacy separated from it and were embodied into churches of another constitution more conformable to the Primitive Christianity § 13. The frame of the particular Churches mentioned in Scripture AS we find in Scripture one Catholick church related as one Kingdom Family Flock Spouse and Body to Christ as its only King Master Shepherd Husband and Head so we find particular churches as so many political societies distinct from each other yet all compacted together as parts of that one ample Society the Catholick church as the church at Antioch Acts 13.1 the church at Jerusalem Acts 11.22 Acts 15.4 the church at Cesarea Acts 18.22 the church at Cenchrea Rom. 10.1 the church at Corinth 1 Cor. 1.2 the churches of Galatia Gal. 1.2 the church of the Thessalonians 1 Thes 1.1 the church at Babylon 1 Pet. 5 13. and the seven churches in Asia Apoc. 1. 2. viz. of Ephesus Smyrna Pergamos Thyatyra Sardis Thiladelphia and Laodicea We likewise find that the Christians of a city o◠lesser precinct made one church as the church at Corinth the church at Cenchrea c. but the Christians of a Region or a larger circuit made many churches as the churches of Asia the churches of Galatiae We find also that each of these particular churches did consist of a part governing and a part governed and consequently were political Societies Every church had their proper Elder or Elders Acts. 4.23 which Elders were the same with Bishops Acts 20.28 Tit. 1.5 7. 1 Pet. 5.1 2. and they were constitutive parts of those churches considered as Political Societies We find also that these Elders or Bishops did personally superintend or oversee all the Flock or every member of the church over which they did preside Acts 20 28 29. 1 Thes 5.12 Heb. 13.17 This appears further by their particular work expresly mentioned in Scripture to be personally performed towards all viz. to be the ordinary Teachers of all Heb. 13 7. 1 Thes 5.12 13. to admonish all that were unruly and to rebuke them openly 1 Tim. 5.20 Tit. 1.10 to visit and pray with the sick and all the sick were to send for them to that end James 5.14 and no grant from Christ to discharge the same by Substitutes or Delegates can be found § 14. The Form of a particular Church considered FROM the premises it is evident That all particular churches mentioned in the New Testament were so constituted as that all the members thereof were capable of personal communion in worshipping God if not always at once together yet by turns at least and of living under the present personal superintendency of their proper Elder or Elders Bishop or Bishops Whether to be embodied or associated for personal communion in worship and for personal superintendency of the Pastors over all the members be the true formal or essential constitution of particular churches by divine right I leave to consideration But this is evident that all those churches that the Scripture takes notice of were so constituted and that
Iowest political church but as constituted by the political union of congregational or parochial churches held also to be political under an officer of another order and the proper superior of those officers under which the parochial churches immediately are then let it be observed that a church of this frame is not properly an Episcopal but an Archiepiscopal Church For the churches whereof it is compacted are properly Episcopal being such as have each of them their own bishop pastor or elder But the divine right of such an Archiepiscopal church I leave to further inquiry As for a National church I come now to inquire in what sence it may or may not be granted In a more general notion it is some part of the universal church distinguished and severed from the rest of that body by the limits of a Nation or of a civil state or in other terms a nation of Christian churches or the Christian churches of a Nation But there are more express and special notions thereof respecting the frame of Ecclesiastical Polity which are discrepant from each other And about the being thereof in these special notions mens judgments vary Some own a national church in this sence only viz. a nation of churches or the churches of a nation agreeing at least in the essentials of christian Dectrine divine Worship and church-Government Some own a national church in a stricter sense namely the said churches not only agreeing in the points aforesaid but politically united by the same common band of Ecclesiastical Government under one head personal or collective And this stricter sence hath a subdivision for it may be understood of the churches united in a Civil Ecclesiastical polity under a civil head or supream or of the churches embodyed in the band of a polity purely Ecclesiastical under a spiritual head or supream I own the rightful being and divine warrant of a national church as united in one Civil Ecclesiastical polity under one civil head or supream either personal as in a Monarchy or collective as in a Republick And in this sence I assent to the National Church of England viz. All the churches in England politically united under one Supream Civil Church-Governour the Kings Majesty Yet it is to be understood that the partition of a church by the bounds of a nation or of a civil state is but extrinsecal or accidental to the church as such also that the union of the churches of a nation in the band of civil church-polity under a civil head is but an extrinsecal and not an intrinsecal union But I question the divine warrant of a national church embodied in the band of one national polity purely Ecclesiastical under one spiritual head or supream either Personal as a Primate or Patriarch or collective as a consistory of bishops or elders intrinsecally belonging to it and being a constitutive part of it For I find no Canon or Precedent for it in Scripture which is the adequate rule of divine right in the frame of churches and of what intrinsecally belongs thereuntò and I do not know any such spiritual head of the Church of England as for the Arch-bishops of Canterbury and York they at the most can be heads but of their respective provinces and are not subordinate but coordinate to each other in point of Archiepiscopal Government however the case is between them in point of precedency Yet if the civil supream power shall constitute a person or persons Ecclesiastical to be head of a national church or the churches of a nation politically imbodied I here offer nothing against it or for it But if there be such a national constitution being but humane it is but extrinsecal and accidental to the church and being derived from the civil supream it is but a civil church-polity § 21. The subordination of particular Churches to an association or collective body of the same Churches considered I Come to enquire whether there be a subordination of churches taken distributively to an association o◠collective body of the same Churches or an assembly thereof and again whether there be a subordination of that collective body to a larger association of more collective bodies or to an assembly thereof and so forward till we come to the largest that can be reached unto The association of particular churches is of the law of nature and therefore to be put in practise according to their capacity tho there were no positive law for it for they are all so many distinct members of one great body or integral parts of the Catholick church and they are all concerned in each others well being both in reference to themselves as fellow members of one body and to Christ their Head whose honour and interest they must promote each church not only within themselves but throughout all the churches to the utmost extent of their agency And they naturally stand in need of each others help in things that concern them severally and jointly Likewise that there be greater and lesser associations acting in their several spheres higher or lower the one included in the other is of the law of nature or of natural convenience for the more ample capacity and more orderly contributing of the mutual help aforesad such as have been called classical provincial and national assemblies used in one form of church-government yea and beyond this the association of the churches of many nations as far towards an oecumenical council as they are capable of convening is of the same reason But of an oecumenical association truly so called that is of all the churches in the world the moral impossibility thereof hath been spoken of before It is also by the law of nature most convenienient that in the lesser associations all the ruling officers personally meet and that in the larger they meet by their delegates or representatives chosen by all and sent in the name of all which meetings are called assemblies or synods and the convenience of meeting by delegates is that the particular churches be not for a time left wholly destitute of their guides and that there may be less trouble and difficulty and danger of disorder in the whole management Note That what is most naturally convenient hath in it the reason of necessary or is matter of duty unless when something gainsay or hinder and then indeed it ceaseth to be convenient And that there be some kind of subordination in the said associations and their respective Assemblies is of the Law of nature which requires order but as to the kind or manner of subordination men go several ways Some place it in a proper Authority or Governing power that the collective bodies of Churches have over the several Churches included in them others place it in the agreement of the several churches and some of these make this further explanation that the Canons made by Synods as they are made for the people who are subject to the Pastors are a sort of Laws and oblige by
different Order from the ordinary presbyters and it seems to confine their Ministry to the Apostles times Grotius saith they were presbyters tyed to no place and that many such Evangelists were ordained long after and thereupon concludes that not to ordain without a title to some particular place is not of divine right Indeed if the office of an Evangelist be no other than that of a general Minister or a presbyter tyed to no place it seems not only to have been requisite in the Apostles times but to be of standing conveniency if not of necessity in the church And his not being limited to one church is but the extending of the common office of a presbyter or bishop and not the making of a new office For this more extensive power of a general Minister is only the having of that in ordinary exercise which every Minister hath in actu primo by vertue of his relation to the Catholick church in which Teachers and Pastors are set 1 Cor. 12.28 and into which his ministerial acts of teaching and baptizing have influence yea which he hath by vertue of his relation to Christ as a steward to an housholder in his Family and as a delegate to the chief pastor for the calling of the unconverted as well as for the confirming of Converts Now the more or less extensive exercise of an Office is a matter of humane prudence and variable according to time and place But that a general Minister be of a higher order than fixed bishops or presbyters is not of standing or perpetual necessity Nor is it always necessary that he be in a state of superintendency over them Nevertheless if a superintendency be granted to him by the consent of the churches and pastors for the common good or by the Magistrate as to his delegate in his authority in Ecclesiastical affairs I cannot condemn it but rather judg that it may be sometimes not only expedient but necessary Yet it is not of divine right but of prudential determination § 13. A further Consideration of the Angels of the Churches and of a President bishop AS touching the Angel of a Church it being a mystical expression in a mystical book it may be rationally questioned Whether it be meant of one person or of a number of Colleagues as may appear by what hath been already noted But if it be meant of one person it is not necessarily to be understood of one that is the sole pastor and bishop of a Church Nay by what hath been already noted it may with as great if not greater probability be understood of a Prefident bishop who is not of a superior order to the rest of the bishops but the first or chief in degree of the same order and like the Moderator of an Assembly a Chair-man in a Committee and Mayor in a Court of Aldermen And for such a presidency there needs no divine institution it being not a holy order or office of a different species from that of the rest of the Pastors but a priority in the same office for orders sake For it is orderly and convenient that where there are many Presbyters or elders of a particular Church that for concords sake they consent that one that is ablest among them should statedly have a guiding power among them in the ordering of Church-affairs § 14. Of the Office of Ruling Elders THESE have been commonly called Lay-Elders but some have disliked that name alledging that they are sacred officers but they own the name of Ruling Elders Now it is to be noted that the asserters of the divine right of this office make it not an office of total dedication to sacred imployment as the office of a Minister but allow such as bear it to have secular imployments not only occasionally but as their stated particular calling also that they make it not an office of final dedication to sacred imployment as the office of a Minister is but grant that such as bear it may cease from it and again become no Elders Also they make not these Elders to have office power in all Churches as Ministers have actu primo but only in their own particular Churches and in Classical and Synodical assemblies nor do they ascribe unto these Elders the power of the keys of binding and loosing of remitting and retaining sins which belong to Ministers nor do they solemnly ordain these Elders by prayer and imposition of hands as Ministers are ordained Now the Query is whether Christ hath instituted in his Church such a spiritual officer as this ruling Elder who is not totally nor finally dedicated to sacred imployment but statedly left to secular callings and hath no office power no not in actu primo in the church at large but only in his own church or in such an assembly as that Church helps to make up nor hath the power of the keys of binding and loosing of remitting and retaining sins nor is ordained by prayer and imposition of hands I say whether Christ hath instituted such an officer and authorized him in his name as his steward to admit into or cast out of his Family the Church I find nothing in Holy Scripture to warrant his divine right nor can I see in reason how one destitute of the above nanamed capacities can put forth acts of spiritual Discipline or of binding and loosing in Christ Name In the New Testament there be three significations of Presbyter the first belonging to age the second to Magistracy in the greater or lesser Sanhedrim the third to ministers of the Gospel The only place that hath a shew of mentioning the ruling Elder in the Church that is not a Minister of the Gospel is 1 Tim. 5.17 The Elders that rule well c. But this hath nothing cogently to evince two different kinds of officers but that of those in the same office some may be imployed more especially in one part of the work thereof and others in another part and that the being more abundantly imployed in the Word and Doctrine hath the preeminence The Emphasis lies in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifying that some did more especially or abundantly labour therein but not implying that others did not meddle therewith And learned men observe that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is maintenance which is not used to be given to this kind of officer we are now inquiring of For they are such as have secular imployment to live by The Enumerations of divers gifts Rom. 12.6 doth not infer the institution of divers offices For as he that giveth and he that sheweth Mercy may be the same man so he that teacheth and he that exhorteth and he that ruleth may be the same For they are all proper acts of the pastoral office Likewise in 1 Cor. 12.28 those two expressions Helps and Governments do necessarily infer the institution of two Functions no more than Miracles and Gifts of healing there also mentioned do infer the same § 15. That a single Presbyter
as nothing was lawful to the Levites that was not lawful to the Priests so nothing is lawful to Deacons that is not lawful to Presbyters in matter of Sacred Administration And the Bishop or Elder had the chief dispensation of the Churches money else how could he be enjoined to be given to Hospitality § 17. Of a Call to the Ministry MInisters are Stewards Overseers Heralds Ambassadors which are names of special office And the holy Scripture declares the perpetuity of this sacred function Eph. 4.14 in declaring the end thereof to be the perfecting of the Saints till Christs mystical body be compleat which is not till the end of all things And tho some offices as that of the Apostles were for the first times only yet others as Pastors and Teachers are for all times and the reason of the difference is manifest the work of the one being extraordinary and temporary and of the other ordinary and perpetual And that the work which is done by ministers be not left in common to all but appropriated to a special office or a state of authority and obligation to do that work there is a perpetual necessity in the Church of God for it being a work of the greatest importance in the world it is necessary that there be in some a state of special obligation thereunto lest being left as every mans work in the issue it prove to be no mans work The ministry being not a state common to all but a special office it is usurpation and intrusion for any one to take it up without a due call thereunto that is a commission or warrant to instate him in it As none can be a Herald or Ambassador or Steward by assuming any of these offices to himself but he must have commission or warrant from the Prince or Housholder so none can be authoritative preachers of Christs Gospel or stewards of his mysteries without a commission from him The Scripture declares That a mission is necessary Rom. 10.15 How shall they preach except they be sent That is without mission none preach with the authority of one of Christs Heralds Accordingly a rule is given for calling men to the ministry which rule is to be kept till the appearance of Christ 1 Tim 6.14 compared with chap. 5.17 21. What manner of preaching the Gospel is lawful for them that are no ministers hath been before spoken of The essence of the call to the ministry lies in Christs command to any man to do the work of the ministry and in his own consent accordingly to give up himself thereunto The said command is the efficient cause of a mans being a minister and the sufficient signification of that command and a mans own consent is each of them a causa sine qua non or a necessary condition thereof For it hath been already shewed it is Christ only that gives the office and power intrinsick to it and he doth it by his publick standing act in his law And in proper speaking it is no more given by man than the power of a Mayor is given by the Citizens that elect him or by the City-Officers that are appointed for his solemn investiture § 18. Of the immediate and mediate Call to the Ministry THE immediate Call to the ministry is extraordinary and it is either that which is altogether without the intervention of man as the Call of John Baptist of the twelve Apostles and of Paul Gal. 1.1 or that wherein though God use some ministry of man yet he makes an immediate designation of the person in an extraordinary way as the calling of Aaron and his sons to the Priesthood and of Matthias to the Apostleship They that receive an immediate call are able to give proof of it either by the gift of miracles or some other extraordinary testimony of God The extraordinary and immediate call did belong to the extraordinary offices but an ordinary and mediate call to the ordinary standing offices It is to be noted that at certain times in an ordinary office such eminent qualifications and successes may be given to some as exceed the common measure yet their call is not extraordinary for the kind thereof Luther in that high and eminent service which was done by him did not pretend an extraordinary and immediate call And none of our first Reformers renounced that ordinary call which they had under the corrupt state of the church The mediate call is by the intervention of man in the ordinary way of election and ordination which is so to be understood that neither the Electors nor Ordainers do properly make a minister nor give the ministerial authority nor doth the minister act by authority derived from the one or the other nor in their name as their officer commissioned by them but by authority derived from Christ and in his name as his officer It is Christ therefore that gives the office by the standing act of his Law immediately that is without any mediate efficient cause yet by the mediation of men as designing and inaugurating the person that receives it as the King is the immediate giver of the power of a Mayor tho the Corporation design the person that receives it and God is the immediate giver of the Husbands power but the application of it to such a person is by the womans consent Now in the mediate call mans part is necessary as well as Gods part and therefore in no wise to be neglected For what is done by man is necessary to give a sufficient signification of the will of Christ to put this or that person into the Ministry § 19. Of Election belonging to the Ministerial Call THAT Election which belongs to the setting up of Government is not always an act of government but sometimes of meer liberty as when a people elect a Ruler over them Meer Election to the Ministry made by men doth not confer the office nor apply it to the person but the most that it doth is to apply the person invested with the office to a certain company in the relation of their proper Minister Much controversie hath been about the right of Election to whom it belongs The peoples electing of their own Minister is just by the law of nature if it be not otherwise ordained by positive law as naturally all men choose Physitians for themselves and School-masters for their Children yet in some places and cases it is otherwise ordained and guardians are appointed by the Supreme Power and Physitians and School-masters in like manner yet so as none be constrained to use them It doth not appear that the divine law hath prescribed any certain way of election to the ministry as unfixed besides the mutual consent of the ordainer and ordained No proof of any as to the general ministry being chosen by the people appears in the New Testament The Apostles and the Seventy had a divine election Timothy was elected by Prophesie and it doth not appear Act. 1. That the
de corona Militis c. 3. saith We take the Sacrament of the Eucharist from the hand of no other than of the President It is to be noted that in those times they received the Sacrament at least every Lords day And it is confessed by Episcopal Divines that this President was the bishop But if any say that he was a meer presbyter they must grant that a presbyter had the name of President and a governing power 7. It is much asserted among the Hierarchical Divines that anciently bishops only were allowed to preach And if this was so it was and could be but one single church that a bishop had as his immediate charge for we cannot imagine that there were churches which ordinarily had no preaching or in which preaching was not ordinarily allowed yea the presbyters might not baptize without the bishops command or consent This shews that each particular church had its proper bishop 8. That church in which divine worship was performed had also discipline exercised in it Tertul. Apol. c. 39. 9. The bishops church was no greater than that all the people could meet together and chuse their bishop In Cyprian's time at the ordaining of a bishop the next bishops came to the people for whom the bishop was to be ordained and every one was acquainted with his conversation Cypr. lib. 1. Ep. 4. Erasmus Edit to Felix a presbyter Nor let the people flatter themselves as free from the contagion of the sin when they communicate with a priest that is a sinner They ought to separate themselves from him seeing they chiefly have the power either of chusing worthy or refusing unworthy priests Sacerdotal Ordinations ought not to be made but under the conscience of the assisting people The custom is with us and almost throughout all provinces That to the celebrating of Ordinations all the next bâ—shops of the same province assemble with the people to whom the Praepositus is ordained To the same purpose we find much in very many of his Epistles This was the ordinary course of the first Ages for all the people to chuse their bishops and to be present thereat for which a multitude of testimonies may easily be produced 10. Apost Can. c. 5. shew that the bishop with his presbyters and deacons lived on the gifts of the same altar 'T was the custom of bishops and their presbyters to dwell together and be in common 11. The numerousness of the ancient bishops and their churches shew that those churches were of no large extent In the first council of Carthage it was decreed c. 11. That for examining every ordinary cause of an accused presbyter six bishops out of the neighbouring-places were to hear and determine and for every cause of a deacon three bishops It is reported that Patrick planted in Ireland three hundred sixty five churches and as many bishops In the Vandalick persecution six hundred and sixty bishops fled out of one part of Africa besides all that were murthered imprisoned and tolerated Many proofs hereof might be alledged but in general it sufficeth to note That a great number of bishops could on a sudden meet together in a Provincial Assembly as in the sixth council of Carthage two hundred and seventeen bishops were met And in the times of persecution under the heathen Emperors there were numerous Assemblies of bishops when they went in fear of their lives 12. The paucity of Presbyters in a Bishops Church shews that it was not very large In greater Churches they had a greater number of presbyters but in smaller they had often two sometimes one sometimes none The matter here considered touching the ancient form and state of a bishops Church will be further cleared in the following Sections § 2. Of the place where a Bishops Church anciently was and might be constituted THAT every City which had a competent number of Christians had a bishop with his Church is granted on all sides And that it was not a bishops seat which made that a City which otherwise would not have been so but that every Town or Burrough was a City receptive or capable of a bishop cannot reasonably be denied The Scripture useth the word City for any Town or Burrough Mat. 12.25 Mat. 23.34 Luk. 2.3 Luk. 7.11 Act. 15 21. Crete which was called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 could not have a Hundred cities in it unless such as our Burroughs and in every such city the Rule was to ordain elders or bishops Tit. 1.5 What argument from Scripture or reason can be brought why Worcester Glocester Chichester c. should be made Cities and seats of Bishops rather than Shrewsbury Ipswich Blimouth c In the first ages of the Christian Church all Towns were Cities to this intent without any difference Yea any places of greater confluence of people were in the same capacity of having Churches Theophilus Alexandrius Epist Pascal in Bibliotheca Patrum 3 Tom. mentions Bishops in very small Cities Zozomen saith that Spiridion was bishop of the Town Trimethus and said to be Keeper of sheep in that Town after he was bishop There is also sufficient proof that bishops were ordained in Villages or in places that were no Cities Majuma was the port of Gaza and because it had many Christians it was honoured by Constantine with the name of a City and a bishop of its own And when Julian in malice took from it the honour of being a City it still kept its own bishop tho it had the same Magistrates and Military Governours with Gaza And when the bishop of Gaza sought to subject the Clergy of Majuma to himself saying 't was unmeet that one City should have two bishops a Councel in Palestine called for that purpose confirmed the priviledges of Majuma Sozomen l. 5. cap. 3. Cenchrea was but a Port of Corinth as Pyraeus of Athens yet we find a Church constituted there Rom. 16.1 They who say it was a parish subordinate to the Church of Corinth having only a presbyter assigned to it are bound to prove it Clemens Apostolical constitutions lib. 7. c. 84. saith that Cenchrea near Corinth had Lucius a bishop Sozomen l. 7. c 19. saith when throughout Scythia there are many Cities which have all one bishop there are other Nations where bishops are ordained in villages as among the Arabians and Cyprians and Phrygian Montanists In the Counccil of Sardica Can. 6. it was decreed that bishops may not be ordained in villages or in small cities where one presbyter will suffice lest the name and authority of a bishop should become vile But this was done in the middle of the fourth Century and the decree implies that till then bishops had been allowed in villages and small Cities The Chorepiscopi were placed in country villages when Christians grew so numerous as to have Churches in them and this proves that the Churches then kept in a narrow compass The Canons made to express this sort of Ministers and to turn them into the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
not leave Timothy as Bishop of Ephesus but took him with him in his journey to Jerusalem and so to Rome for those Epistles which Paul wrote while he was prisoner at Rome bear either in their inscription or some other passage the name of Timothy as Pauls companion viz. the Epistles to the Ephesians to the Philippians to the Colossians to the Hebrews and to Philemon Pauls beseeching of Timothy to abide still at Ephesus when he went into Macedonia 2 Tim. 1.3 had been needless if he were then a setled bishop there Besides it is granted that Timothy was not bishop of Ephesus when he was with Paul at Miletum yet that Church had then elders which the Holy Ghost had made Bishops Therefore it cannot be that Timothy was the first Bishop that ever Ephesus had which nevertheless is affirmed in the Postscript of the second epistle to Timothy Spalatensis lib. 2 c. 3. n. 60. saith That without doubt Timothy was a General bishop that is an Apostle tyed to no seat 2. Titus was no fixed Bishop His travels we likewise find upon sacred record Paul made him his companion in his journey to Jerusalem Gal. 2.1 An. 43 45. Paul returning to Antioch passed through Syria and Cilicia confirming the Churches Acts 15.41 from Cilicia he passed to Creet where having preached the Gospel and planted a Church he left Titus for a while to set in order the things that were left undone Tit. 1.5 An. 46. Paul injoins Titus to come to him to Nicopolis where he intended to Winter Tit. 3.12 an 51. but changing his purpose he sent for him to Ephesus where his Winter-station was 2 Cor. 1.8 thence he sent him to Corinth to enquire of the state of that Church His return from thence Paul expected at Troas and because there he sound not his expectation answered he was grieved in spirit 2 Cor. 2.12 Thence Paul passed into Macedonia where Titus met him and brought him the glad tidings of the gracions effect which his first Epistle had wrought among the Corinthians 2 Cor. 7.5 c. an 52. Paul having collected the liberality of the Saints sends Titus an 53. again to the Corinthians to prepare them for that contribution 2 Cor. 8.6 And we do not find that after his first removal from Creet he did ever return thither After this we read that Titus was with Paul at Rome and went thence not to Creet but to Dalmatia 2 Tim. 4.10 It is to be noted that after the time of Titus his being in Creet was the greatest part of his travels And if Titus did abide some years in Creet that doth not declare him to be a fixed bishop there for unfixed Ministers were not so obliged to perpetual motion but that they resided long in one place according to the work to be done there as Paul abode three years at Ephesus 3. Of Timothy and Titus jointly these following things may be observed In the New Testament there is no instance of a setled Overseer or Pastor whose motion was so planetary as theirs and there is no evidence that afterwards they return'd to reside at Ephesus or Creet it is granted by the assertors of their supposed Episcopacy that they were not bishops till after Pauls first being at Rome Now the first Epistle to Timothy and the Epistle to Titus were written by Paul before his first going to Rome and his second Epistle to Timothy was written at his first being at Rome Vid. Ludov. Capellus Histor Eccles p. 66 74. All that aver Timothy and Titus to be bishops borrow their testimony from Eusebius and all that he saith is only that it is so written and he had this story from the fabulous Clemont and from Egesippus who is not extant It is observed that Eusâ—bius Irenaeus and others delivered what they received too securely 4. Touching the Postscripts of the Epistles in which they are stiled bishops whether they be canonical or authentick proof let it be considered It cannot be imagined that Paul or his Pen-man would underwrite these wards viz. The first Epistle to Timothy was written c. and the second Epistle to Timotheus ordained the first bishop c. Did he know or mind that there would be a second epistle or bishop Or did he then intend that the first should be distinguished from the second by these words of distinction The first Epistle to Timothy Beza proves was not written from Laodicea but from Macedonia to which opinion Baronius and Serrarius subscribe And the name of Phrygia Pacatilana was not in use in Paul's time nor till the more declining time of the Roman Empire In the postscript of the second Epistle to Timothy these words ordained first bishop c. is not in many ancient Copies saith Beza nor in the Vulgar edition nor in the Syriack Interpreter The Epistle to Titus was not written from Nicopolis as the postscript saith for had Paul been there he would have said I have determined here not there to winter And whereas it faith the first bishop did Paul or his Penman mind the notifying of a succeeding bishop and the distinguishing of Titus from him in this Epistle Moreover bishop of the Church of the Cretians is not the stile of a bishop of a Diocess who hath some City and not a whole Region for his Sea Creet is said to have had a hundred Cities in it and Titus was directed by Paul to ordain elders or bishops in all those Cities that had Christians And the Scripture way of expression would be not the Church but the Churches of the cretians Church being used of a City with its adjacent Villages and Churches of a Region or Countrey of such a circuit as Creet was Thus there is good ground to think that the postscripts are of much later date than the Epistles themselves 5. The precepts given by Paul to Timothy and Titus are either such as concern all presbyters or such as are above the bishop of a particular church 1. Some precepts given them concern all presbyters To be instant in season and out of season belongs to all preachers of the Gospel As a bishop must be able to convince gainsayers so ought all presbyters The stopping of the mouths of subverters is by conviction and extends as well to doctrine as to definitive sentencing Mat. 22.34 and even definitive silencing was anciently by presbyters either alone or in conjunction with their bishops The authority given to Timothy That those who sin be rebuked before all belongs to presbyters and it is that which may be done by equals To lay hands suddenly on no man concerns presbyters to whom belongs the power of laying on of hands Nor doth this precept infer That a bishop hath power to ordain alone and it is granted that one bishop alone may not ordain a bishop Presbyters as well as bishops were concern'd in that precept of not receiving an accusation suddenly against any And in ancient times if a bishop or presbyter were accused the matter
give thee hearty thanks for that it hath pleased thee to deliver this our Brother out of the miseries of this sinful World Also that when we shall depart this Life we may rest in him as our Hope is this our Brother doth are to be used at the interment of all persons whatsoever but such as dye unbaptized or excommunicate or have laid violent hands on themselves But multitudes that are not here accepted dye in notorious sin and give no credible evidence of their repentance Tho we be not infallibly certain that such notorious sinners and in all appearance impenitent to the last are damned yet it may be questioned whether there be ground of hope for their being saved and whether they may be owned as Brethren that rest in Christ and whom God of his great mercy hath taken to himself and on whose behalf we ought to give thanks to God that he hath taken them out of the miseries of this life It may also be questioned Whether it be of safe or dangerous tendency for the Church in her publick Leturgy solemnly to declare all this at their interment Tho the words in sure and certain hope of the Resurrection to eternal Life be to be understood of the Resurrection in general and not of the Resurrection of the deceased party yet the very committing of his Body to the ground in sure and certain Hope of the Resurrection to eternal Life in general doth imply some degree of grounded hope of his part in that Resurrection or else the said words seem to be used impertinently Whereas it is said There is some degree of Hope where we cannot determine the contrary I answer that this which is called a degree of Hope is a meer negative or nothing and signifies no more than that we are not infallibly sure of mens final Impenitence and Damnation This is not properly any degree of Hope nor doth it include any Judgment made of the party it being a meer negative And here no Judgment of Charity is included because here is no ground thereof supposed It doth not satisfie to say That the Church supposeth all who dye in her Communion to be hopeful because this supposeth and requireth the due exercise of discipline in the Church Now we see that discipline is not so exercised but that multitudes in whom no credible or hopeful evidence of repentance doth appear dye in her Communion And this omission of discipline is constant general and uncontrolled It is granted that dying-impenitents do not go immediately into the power of the Devil but first into the hands of the great God to be disposed of by him according to the conditions of the Gospel-Covenant which flow from a grant of mercy Nevertheless we know that the Law of Grace and Mercy finally abused and violated doth contain a Denunciation of the greatest Wrath and Vengeance And it seems very improper to say of one whom God hath taken into his own hands to adjudg to everlasting punishment for the final violation and contempt of the Covenant of Grace That God hath taken him to his mercy or unto himself of his great Mercy because he judgeth and condemneth him for violating the Law of Mercy Besides what mortal man certainly knows whether the Judgment and Execution immediately after Death be not the same thing Some geneneral Observations upon the Book of Common-Prayer ACcording to the Tenor of this Book every person in the external Communion of the Church is set forth as godly or regenerate when multitudes in the said Communion are palpably unregenerate and ungodly This appears by several important passages already noted touching every person baptized confirmed interred c. and by these further Instances In the order of Matrimony for every Married couple this form is to be said O Lord save thy Servant and thy Handmaid who put their trust in thee and the like for every Sick person that is visited by the Priest and for every Woman that is Churched It is likewise recommended as convenient that the new married Persons should receive the Holy Communion at the time of their Marriage or at the first opportunity after their Marriage which seems to suppose that all persons who may lawfully be married are fit to receive the Sacrament of Christs Body and Blood The Objection here made is not against the applying of the aforesaid or the like form of words or the vouchsafing of the aforesaid Priviledge of the Holy Sacrament to those that give any credible evidence of their faith and repentance but that it is done to all indifferently whatsoever their state towards God appears to be Indeed the Church may be called Holy as the Apostles writing to the Churches give them the stile of Saints and those that are sanctified and holy Brethren and the like But the query is Wherther they would or we may account every Parishioner who is not excommunicate in this present way of Church-Government to be penitent and believing and holy and wether we may use towards every particular Parishioner such forms of words as import their unfeigned faith notwithstanding a manifest appearance of impenitence and ungodliness If the omission of things most necessary in some main parts of the Liturgy be a just ground of not declaring an unfeigned assent and consent to the forms as there prescribed I may urge that in the general Confession there is no mention of Original sin As for those words the devices and desires of our own hearts they denote actual sins of the heart And that clause There is no health in us betokens there is no Salvation or Deliverance in our selves Or if it were designed in this place to fignify Original sin it is a very obscure expression thereof This Omission is the more liable to exception if it be upon these Principles and Suppositions that all who are in the external Communion of the Church are regenerate that all baptized Persons yea or all baptized in Infancy whether they be the Children of the promise or not are delivered from the guilt of Original sin Or that no reliques of Original sin which are truly and properly sin remain in the regenerate It may be likewise urged that in the said Confession there is no sufficient expressing of actual sins in particular and that the Morning and Evening-prayer mostly consists of meer generals without such particular Confession of sins and Petition for spiritual Graces as is requisite to be made on the behalf of the whole Congregation There may be indeed particular Confessions and Petitions proper for particular Persons which are not here intended But there are others of common concernment and necessity to all Christians And my query is Whether this sort may be statedly omitted in a publick Liturgy Of the form of ordering Bishops Priests and Deacons IN the Preface it is said That it is evident to all men diligently reading the holy Scriptures and ancient Authors That from the Apostles time there have been these Orders of Ministers in
Christs Church Bishops Priests and Deacons Between the Orders of bishops and deacons there is unquestionably an essential difference But if by the orders of bishops and priests be meant several Orders or Offices specifically or essentially different and not several degrees of superiority and inferiority in the same office the essential nature whereof is in both I cannot by subscription declare that the said assertion is not contrary to the word of God Upon diligent reading of the Holy Scripture I cannot find therein the office or order of a presbyter that is no bishop Nor can I consent to this passage in the said Preface No man shall be accounted or taken for a lawful Priest or be suffered to execute the function except he be called according to this form or hath had formerly Episcopal Ordination I am no way satisfied in the disabling or degrading of so many Ministers as are ordained only by Presbyters Of the promissory part of the second Article of Subscription in these words That he himself will use the form in the said book prescribed in publick prayer and administration of Sacraments d n one other Can. 36. THE last words and none other taken in their most obvivious sense seem to exclude all other form of prayer used by the Minister before or after Sermon whether conceived at the present or precomposed For prayer before and after Sermon is publick prayer Now it is expresly promised by the Subscriber that he will use no other form in publick prayer than what is prescribed in the said book I know many Conformists do practise otherwise than is here expressed But I know also that some do urge this and another Canon against their practise and I now enquire into the plain force of the words which ought to be regarded by a considerate Subscriber I suppose it will be granted by all That the Church intends hereby to engage against using any other form whatsoever in the administration of Sacraments and thereupon one would think that she intended hereby to engage also against using any other form whatsoever in publick prayer seeing in the words of the promise the engagement against the use of any other form both in publick prayer and administration of Sacraments is alike expressed If any sufficient reason or good warrant can be produced for restraining the words to the excluding only of the use of any other publick Liturgy as for example the Mass-book or of any other publick Directory of Worship instead of the Common-prayer nevertheless it were to be wished that men might not be enjoined to make a promise in those words which in their plain sense do express an engagement which is not thereby intended I have considered many particulars which come within the compass of the Declaration of unfeigned assent and consent injoined by the Act of Uniformity and the Subscription required by the Thirty sixth Canon In all which my desire and design is not to disaffect any persons to the Book of Common prayer but to receive satisfaction if it may be had concerning the things wherein I am dissatisfied For I own the said form of worship to be in the main sound and good for the matter of it and I sincerely join with the Congregation in the same tho I take it to be less perfect than is to be desired It is not therefore the use of a Liturgy in the publick Worship of God nor the reading of the Common-prayer in the ordinary daily service that makes me a Nonconformist But the high strain of the Declaration and Subscription and the strict observation of all things prescribed are difficulties which I cannot overcome This consideration of the present state of Conformity hath proceeded according to the limited sense of the Declaration as restrained to the use of things which being a probable limitation I have willingly admitted for peace sake But there be those who will not allow it saying that the true intendment of the said Declaration is to be taken from the plain signification of the form of words wherein it is expressed which is no less than a full justification of all things whatsoever contained and prescribed in and by the Book of Common-prayer c. as right and good I confess I am not able with a judgment of certainty to determine which of these two explications doth truly and rightly expound the full intendment of this Declaration And tho I have admitted the more restrained meaning thereof as probable yet the truth is I have not found that it doth any great matter to make the way of Conformity easie or passable as appears by the foregoing examination of many things contained and prescribed in the Liturgy But if the other opinion of the more comprehensive meaning be true the way is yet more difficult for then the Declaration doth imply an acknowledgment of the truth of all assertions any where contained in this Book also of the truth lawfulness and goodness of all expressions not only in the divine Service it self but in all the directing-Rules viz. Rubricks Calendar and Tables also of the lawfulness and fitness not only of the use of things injoined but of the very injunction or imposition the said directing Rules being so many injunctions strictly requiring us to observe the things prescribed in them But as I have before observed if the sense of the Declaration be restrained to the use of things it doth not appear that the injoined Subscription is to be so restrained As I have said I consent to the use of the Common-prayer as a tolerable Form of Worship but that doth not imply my allowing of all and every thing therein contained Upon the review of the whole matter let it be impartially considered whether a Declaration of so high a strain about a book of meer humane and fallible composition containing in it many hundreds of propositions and consequences should be so rigorously exacted If some recognition in this kind be thought necessary it were to be desired that it might be contrived in a form of words less p rplexing and ensnaring yet sufficiently engaging Of the Renouncing of the Obligation of the COVENANT Required by the Act of Vniformity THis Covenant was not meerly a League between men confirmed by an Oath but a Vow to God of several things directly respecting him And tho its intent were to engage men one to another yet that was not the whole nor chief intent thereof but its chief intendment was to engage all the Covenanters jointly to God Howsoever it be called an Oath yet so far as it is an Oath of things which directly and immediately respect God or that are to be performed towards him it hath the nature of a Vow To invalidate the Obligation of an Oath or Vow made to God is a thing of a high nature and had need to be done with a clear judgment One point of this Oath or Vow was to endeavour Church-Reformation according to our Places and Callings And no Reformation
was referred to a Synod consisting of bishops and presbyters Other precepts given them were above the proper work of a bishop of a particular Church To erect and govern Churches in a hundred Cities and to govern such presbyters who according to Dr. Hammond were bishops belonged not to an ordinary bishop of a particular Church Wherefore this latter sort of duties belonged to Timothy and Titus as Evangelists or General Ministers who had a kind of Vice-Apostolick office of which sort were Barnabas Silas Apollos Titus Timothy and Epaphroditus and others Ambrose on Eph. 4. saith they are stiled Evangelists who did Evangelizare sine Cathedra It often happened that those unfixed Officers resided for a longer time in some places and then they managed the affairs of those Churches in chief during the time of their residence § 10. Concerning the Angels of the Seven Churches in ASIA IT is much insisted on that these Angels were bishops of a superior Order to that of presbyters Whereupon let it be considered 1. That the title of Stars and Angels are not proper but figurative and mystical names made use of in a mystical book and that the said names are common to all ministers Gregory the Great l. 34. Mor. on Joâ— c. 4. saith that these Angels are the preachers of the Churches 2. That the name Angel may be taken collectively not individually Austins Homily on the Apoc on these words I will remove thy Candlestick saith that John calls the Church the Angel As the Civil state of the Pagano-Christian Empire is called the Beast and the Ecclesiastical state the Whore so Angel may signifie the whole Presbytery but put in the singular number to hold proportion to the seven stars which signifie the same thing and the seven Candlesticks In these Epistles to the Churches there are indications that not a single person but a company is represented under this name Rev. 2.10 16 24 25. 3. Beza saith that this Angel was only praeses Indeed he to whom the title of bishop was appropriated by the ancient Fathers was the President of the presbytery Ambrose on 1 Tim. c. 3. saith He is the bishop who is first among the presbyters This priority or presidency is in History observed to have begun first at Alexandria the people whereof above other men were given to schism and sedition as Socrates saith of them l 7. c. 13. If this presidency began at Alexandria upon the death of Mark it must needs be long before the death of John the Apostle Howbeit Clement in his Epistle to the Corinthians takes no notice of such a priority or presidency of one above the rest in that Church And Jerome having mentioned John as the last of the Apostles saith that afterwards one was set over the rest Now whereas Jerome called the imparity of bishops and presbyters an Apostolical tradition it is to be noted that with him an Apostolical tradition and Ecclesiastical custome are the same But the main thing still remains unproved for ought that is to be gathered from this title of Angel or from any thing contained in these Epistles to the Asian Churches namely that these Angels whatsoever they might be were bishops of a superior order than that of presbyters or that they had a superiority of jurisdiction over the presbyters or that they were bishops set over divers setled Churches or fixed Congregations with their Pastors or that they had the sole power of jurisdiction and ordination The main point in controversie is not Whether bishops but whether such as the present Diocesan bishops have continued from the Apostles times to this Age. The ancient bishop was the Officer of a particular Church not a general Officer of many Churches He was not a bishop of bishops that is he did not assume a power of ruling bishops who have their proper stated Churches Cypr. in Conc. Carth. saith None of us calls himself or makes himself to be a bishop of bishops or by tyrannical terror drives his Colleagues to a necessity of obeying The ancient bishop did not govern alone but in conjunction with the presbyters of his Church He did not and might not ordain without the Counsel of his Clergy Ignatius in his Epistle to the Trall saith What is the presbytery but the sacred Assembly of the Councellors and Confessors of the bishops Cyprian in his epistle to Cornelius wisheth him to read his Letters to the flourishing Clergy at Rome that did preside with him Id. l. 3. Ep. 14. Erasm Edit From the beginning of my Episcopacy I resolved to do nothing without your counsel and without the consent of my people 4. Conc. Carthag 23. The sentence of a bishop shall be void without the presence of his Clericks Concil Caâ—thag c. 22. Let not a bishop ordain Clericks without a Council of his Clericks The Present Ecclesiastical Government compared with the Ancient EPISCOPACY IT is commonly objected against the Nonconformists That they are enemies to Episcopacy and that they renounce the Ancient Government received in all the Churches The truth of this Objection may easily be believed by those that hear of Episcopal Government and consider only the name thereof which hath continued the same till now but not the thing signified by that name which is so changed that it is of another nature and kind from what was in the first Ages There be Nonconformists who think they are more for the Ancient Episcopacy than the Assertors of the present Hierarchy are and who believe they are able to make it evident may they be permitted Something to this purpose is here in a short Scheme tendered to consideration and proof is ready to be made of each particular here asserted touching the state and practice of the Ancient Church 1. IN the first ages a Political Church constituted as well for Government and Discipline as for Divine Worship was one particular Society of Christians having its proper and immediate bishop or bishops pastor or pastors In these times the lowest political Church is a Diocess usually consisting of many hundred parishes having according to the Hierarchical principle no bishop but the Diocesan Yet these parishes being stated ecclesiastical Societies having their proper pastors are really so many particular Churches 2. In the first Ages the bishops were bishops of one stated Ecclesiastical Society or particular Church But in the present age bishops that are of the lowest rank according to the Hierarchical principle are bishops of many hundred churches which kind of bishop the ancient churches did not know and which differs as much from the ancient bishop as the General of an Army from the Captain of a single Company 3. The bishop of the first Ages was a bishop over his own Church but he was not a bishop of bishops that is he was not a Ruler of the Pastors of other Churchs But the present bishop even of the lowest rank according to the Hierarchical principle is a bishop of bishops namely of the presbyters of