imposed and thence foresee the effects or consequents that are like to follow § 11. Dist. 9. We must distinguish between the Commanding of such Ceremonies and the Obeying of such Commands It s one thing to ask whether it be necessary profitable or lawfull to Impose them and another whether it be necessary or lawfull to use them when commanded § 12. Dist. 10. We must distinguish between that which is Necessary or Profitable to the order or Peace of one Church or Nation and that which is necessary or profitable to the order peace or unity of many Churches or Nations among themselves or supposed to be so § 13. These Distinctions premised to remove ambiguity I lay down that which I conceive to be the truth in these Propositions following which having mentioned I shall re-assume and confirm such of them as seem of neerest concernment to the Question § 14. Prop. 1. Such Ceremonies as God hath wholly exempted from humane power to determine of or institute or hath given man no power to institute are not necessary or profitable to the Church nor may they lawfully be instituted by man § 15. Prop. 2. In such unlawfull Impositions it is a great aggravation of the sin if men pretend that they are the Institutions of God or that they have a Commission from God to institute or impose them when it is no such matter and so pretend them to be Divine § 16. Prop. 3. If things unlawfull either forbidden or that want authority are commanded as indifferent it is a sinfull command but if commanded as parts of Gods Worship or necessary to the Being or well being of the Church it is an aggravation of the sin § 17. Prop. 4. Things indifferent lawfull and convenient are sinfully Commanded when they are pretended to be more necessary then they are and as such imposed § 18. Prop. 5. A thing convenient and profitable is sinfully commanded when it is commanded on a greater penalty then the nature and use of it doth require and the common good will bear § 19. Prop. 6. It is not lawfull to make any thing the subjects Duty by a command that is meerly Indifferent antecedently both in it self and as cloathed with all accidents § 20. Prop. 7. Some things may be lawfully and profitably commanded at one time and place and to one sort of People that may not be lawfully commanded at another time or to another people no nor obeyed if so commanded § 21. Prop. 8. Those Orders may be Profitable for the Peace of the Churches in one Nation or under the Government of one Prince that are not necessary or profitable in order to the unity or Peace of the Churches under divers Princes § 22. Prop. 9. There is no meer humane Vniversal Soveraign Civil or Ecclesiastical over the Catholick Church and therefore there is no power given to any from God to make Laws that shall universally bind the Catholick Church § 23. Prop. 10. If it be not our own Lawfull Governors Civil or Ecclesiastical but Vsurpers that command us we are not therefore bâ—und to obey them though the things be lawfull § 24. Prop. 11. The Commands of lawfull Governors about lawfull Ceremonies are ordinarily to be understood with exceptions though there be none exprest as that in certain cases it is not their will that such commands should bind us § 25. Prop. 12. It may be very sinful to command some Ceremonies which may lawfully yea must in duty be used by the subject when they are commanded § 26. Prop. 13. Though they are not Commanded nor called Necessary but professed to be indifferent yet constantly to use Indifferent things doth breed that custome which maketh them to be taken as necessary by the people and usually doth very much hurt § 27. Prop. 14. Yet certain things that are commonly called Ceremonies may lawfully be used in the Church upon humane imposition and when it is not against the Law of God no person should disobey the commands of their lawfull Governors in such things § 28. Having laid together these Propositions I shall review them in a very short explication and confirmation and insist more largely on those of chief concernment CHAP. II. Such Ceremonies as God hath forbidden or given man no Power to institute are not to be imposed on the Church as profitable or lawfull § 1. THAT some Ceremonies things commonly so called may Lawfully be commanded and some not me thinks should easily be yielded I meet with none tâ—at are against all indeed though some think the name Ceremony unfitly applyed to those Circumstances which they consent to And that any should think that the wit and will of Ceremonie-makers hath no bounds imposed by God is most unreasonable All the business therefore is to know what God hath authorized Governors to institute and what not § 2. And here they that claim a Power of introducing new Institutions must produce their Commission and Prove their power if they expect obedience For we are not bound to obey every man that will tell us he hath such Power § 3. For the right understanding of this it must be supposed as a Truth that all Protestants are agreed in that the written word of God is his law for the government of the universal Church to the end of the world and consequently that it is sufficient in its kind and to its use and consequently that nothing is to be introduced that shall accuse that law of imperfection or which did belong to God himself to have imposed by his law If we once forsake the Scripture sufficiency what ever the Papists or Infidels vainly say against it we have nothing left in which we may agree § 4. God hath already in his written Laws instituted his publick worship-ordinances and therefore he hath done it perfectly and therefore he hath not left it unto man to come after him and mend his work by making other ordinances of worship as to the substance of them He hath given us one faith and no man may preach another and one Baptism and no man may institute another and so of the like If any one bring another Gospel though an Angel he is to be accursed Gal. 1.7 8. § 5. Yet is it in the Power of man to determine of such Modes and Circumstances as are necessary to the prrformance of that worship which God hath instituted in his word And therefore lawfull Governors may in such cases bind us by their commands § 6. The things that are committed to humane determination are such as are commanded in general by God himself either in Scripture or nature but are left undetermined in specie vel individuo so that it is not a thing indifferent whether a choice or determination be made or not but only whether it be this or the other that is chosen by the determination But where the thing it self in genere is not necessary or no humane election or determination necessary because God himself hath determined
Churches must remain polluted and ungoverned through the unavoidable absence of those twelve or thirteen men The Apostles therefore did admonish Pastors to do their duties and when themselves were present had power to do the like and to censure Pastors or people that offended but they did not take on them the full Government of any Church nor keep a Negative vote in the Government Prop. 15. It seems utterly untrue that Christ did deliver the Keyes only to the twelve Apostles as such and so only to their Successors and not the seventy Disciples or any Presbyters For 1. The seventy also were General unfixed Officers and not like fixed Presbyters or Bishops and therefore having a larger Commission must have equal power 2. The Apostles were not single Bishops as now they are differenced from others but they were such as had more extensive Commissions then those now called Arch Bishops or Patriarchs If therefore the Keyes were given them as Apostles or General Officers then they were never given to Bishops For Bishops as fixed Bishops of this or that Diocess are not Successors of the Apostles who were Geneâ—al unfixed Officers 3. It is granted commonly by Papists and Protestants that Presbyters have the power of the Keyes though many of them think that they are limited to exercise them under the Bishops and by their Direction and Consent of which many School-men have wrote at large 4. The Key of Excommunication is but a Ministerial Authoritative Declaration that such or such a known Offendor is to be avoided and to charge the Church to avoid Communion with him and him to avoid or keep away from the Priviledges of the Church and this a meer Presbyter may do he may authoritatively Declare such a man to be one that is to be avoided and charge the Church and him to do accordingly The like I may say of Absolution if they belong to every authorized Pastor Preacher and Church guide as such then not to a Bishop only but to a Presbyter also And that these Keyes belong to more then the Apostles and their Successors is plain in that these are insufficient Naturally to use them to their Ends. An Apostle in Antioch cannot look to the censuring of all persons that are to be Censured at Athens Paris London c. so that the most of the work would be totally neglected if only they and their supposed Successors had the doing of it I conclude therefore that the Keyes belong not only to Apostles and their Successors in that General Office no nor only to Diocesan Bishops for then Presbyters could not so much as exercise them with the Bishops in Consistory which themselves of late allow Prop. 16. The Apostles were fallible in many matters of fact and consequently in the Decisions that depended thereupon as also in the Prudential determination of the time and season and other Cirumstances of known duties And thence it was that Paul and Barnabas so disagreed even to a parting where one of them was certainly in the wrong And hence Peter withdrew from the uncircumcision and misled Barnabas and others into the same dissimulation so far that he was to be blamed and withstood Gal. 2. Prop. 17. In such Cases of misleading an Apostle was not to be follownd no more is any Church-Governor now but it is lawful and needful to dissent and withstand them to the face and to blame them when they are to be blamed for the Churches safety as Paul did by Peter Galatians 2.1 Prop. 18. In this Case the Apostles that by Office were of equal Authority yet were unequal when the Reasons and Evidence of Gods mind which they produced was unequal so that a Presbyter or Bishop that produceth better Reasons is to be obeyed before another that produceth less Reason or that Erreth And the Bishop of another Church that produceth better Evidence of Gods mind is to be obeyed before the proper Bishop of that same Church that produceth weaker and worse Evidence Yea a private man that produceth Gods Word is to be obeyed before Bishops and Councils that go against it or without it in that case where the word bindeth us so that in all cases where Scripture is to determine he that bringeth the best Scripture proof is the chief Ruler that is ought chiefly to prevail Though in the determination of meer Circumstances of duty which Scripture determineth not but hath left to Church-Guides to determine pro re natâ it may be otherwise so that the Apostles power in determining matters of faith was not as Church-Governors but as men that could produce the surest Evidence Prop. 19. It is not easie to manifest whether every Presbyter in prima instantia be not an Officer to the Church Universal before he be affixed to a particular Church and whether he may not go up and down over the world to exercise that office where ever he hath admittance And if so what then could an Apostle have done by vertue of his meer office without the advantage of his extraordinary abilities and priviledges which the Presbyter may not do May an Apostle charge the people where he comes to avoid this or that seducer or heretick so may any Preacher that shall come among them and that by authority May an Apostle Excommunicate the very Pastor of the place and deprive him why what is that but to perswade the people and Authoritatively require them to avoid and withdraw from such a Pastor if the Cause be manifest And so may any Pastor or Preacher that comes among them For if as Cyprian saith it chiefly belong to the people even of themselves to reject and withdraw from such a Pastor then a Preacher may by Authority perswade and require them to do their own duty Yet I shall acknowledge that though both may do the same duty and both by Authority yet possibly not both by equal Authority but an Apostle Majore authoritate and so may lay a stronger obligation on men to the same duty but the rest I determine not but leave to enquiry Prop. 20. In making Laws or Canons to bind the Church which are now laid down in Scripture the Apostles acted as Apostles that is as men extraordinarily Commissioned illuminated and enabled infallibly to deliver Gods will to the world And therefore herein they have no Successors In Conclusion therefore seeing that matters of meer Order and Decency depending on Circumstances sometime rationally mutable sometime yearly daily hourly mutable are not to be determined Vniversally alike to all the Church nor to all a Nation nor by those that are at too great a distance but by the present Pastor who is to manage the work and being intrusted therewith is the fittest Judge of such variable Circumstances and seeing for standing Ordinances that equally belong to all ages and places Gods word is perfect and sufficient without the Bishops Canons and seeing that Scripture is a perfect Law of God and Rule of Christian faith and seeing that
Institution not by inspired Apostles but by Ordinary Bishops then 1. They make all Presbyters to be jure Episcopali and Bishops only and their Superiours to be jure Divino as the Italians in the Council of Trent would have had all Bishops to depend upon the Pope But in this they go far beyond them for the Italian Papists themselves thought Presbyterie jure Divino 2. Either they may be changed by Bishops who set them up or not If they may be taken down again by man then the Church may be ruined by man and so the Bishops will imitate the Pope Either they will Reign or Christ shall not Reign if they can hinder it Either they will lead the Church in their way or Christ shall have no Church If man cannot take them down then 1. It seems man did not Institute them for why may they not alter their own institutions 2. And then it seems the Church hath universal standing unchangeable Institutions Offices and binding Laws of the Bishops making And if so are not the Bishops equal to the Apostles in Law making and Church Ordering and are not their Laws to us as the word of God and that word insufficient and every Bishop would be to his Diocess and all to the whole Church what the Pope would be to the whole 3. Moreover how do they prove that ever the Apostles gave power to the Bishops to institute the order of Presbyterie I know of no text of Scripture by which they can prove it And for Tradition we will not take every mans word that saith he hath tradition for his conceits but we require the proof The Papists that are the pretended keepers of Tradition do bring forth none as meerly unwritten but for their ordines inferiores and many of them for Bishops as distinct from the Presbyters but not for Presbyters themselves And Scripture they can plead none For if they mention such texts where Paul bids Titus ordain Elders in every City c. they deny this to be meant of Elders as now but of Prelates whom Titus as the Primate or Metropolitane was to ordain And if it be meant of Elders then they are found in Scripture and of Divine Apostolical Institution 4. If they were Instituted by Bishops after the Scripture was written was it by one Bishop or by many If by one then how came that one to have Authority to impose a new Institution on the universal Church If by many either out of Council or in if out of Council it was by an accidental falling into one mind and way and then they are but as single men to the Church and therefore still we ask how do they bind us If by many in Council 1. Then let them tell us what Council it was that Instituted Presbyterie when and where gathered and where we may find their Canons that we may know our order and what Auâ—hors mention that Council 2. And what authority had that Council to bind all the Christian world to all ages If they say it bound but their own Churches and that age then it seems the Bishops of England might for all that have nulled the Order of Presbyters there But O miserable England and miserable world if Presbyters had done no more for it then Prelates have done I conclude therefore that the English Prelacy either degraded the Presbyters or else suspended to ally an essential part of their office for themselves called them Rectors and in ordaining them said Receive the Holy Ghâ—st Whose sins thou dost remit they are remitted whose sins thou dost retain they are retained And therefore they delivered to them the Power of the Keyes of opening and shutting the Kingdom of Heaven which themselves make to be the opening and shutting of the Church and the Governing of the Church by Excommunication and Absolution And therefore they are not fit men to ask the Presbyters By what authority they Rule the Church by binding and loosing when themselves did expresly as much as in them lay confer the Power on them And we do no more then what they bid us do in our Ordination Yea they thereby make it the very work of our office For the same mouth at the same time that bid us tâ—ke authority to preach the word of God did also tell us that whose sins we remit or retain they are remitted or retained and therefore if one be an Essential or true integral part at least of our office the other is so too From all which it is evident that if there were nothing against the English Prelacy but only this that they thus suspend or degrade all the Presbyters in England as to one half of their offâ—ce it is enough to prove that they should not be restored under any pretence whatsoever of Order or Unity Argum. 5. THat Episcopacy which giveth the Government of the Chuâ—ch and management of the Keys of Excommunication and Absolution into the hands of a few Layâ—men while they take them from the Presbyters is nâ—t to be restored under any pretence of Vnity or Peace But such was the English Prelacy therefore c. The Major is plain because it is not Lay-men that are to be Church Governours as to Ecclesiastical Government This is beyond Question with all save the Congregational and they would not have two or three Lay men chosen but the whole Congregation to manage this business The Minor is known by common experience that it was the Chancelor in hâ—s Court with his assiâ—â—ants and the Register and such other meer Lay-men that managed this work If it be said that they did it as the Bishops Agents and Substitutes and therefore it was he that did it by them I answer 1. The Law put it in the Chancellors and the Bishopâ— could not hinder it 2. If the Bishops may delegate others to do their work then it seems Preaching and Ruling Excommunicaâ—ing and Abâ—olving may as well be done by Lay-men as Clergy men Then they may commission them also to administer the Sacraments And so the Ministry is not necessary for any of these works but only a Bishop to depute Lay-men to do them which is false and confusive Argum. 6. THat Episcopacy whâ—ch necessarily overwhelmeth the souls of the Bishops with the most hainous guilt of neglecting the many thousand souls whose charge they undertake is not to be restored for Order or Peace For men are not to be oveâ—whelmed with such hainous sin on such pretences But such is the English Prelacy and that not accidentally through the badness of the men only but unavoidably through the greatness of their charge and the Natural Impossibility of their undertaken work How grievous a thing it is to have the blood of so many thousands charged on â—hem may soon appear And that man that undertakes himself the Government of two or three or five hundred thousand souls that he never seeth or knoweth nor can possibly so Govern but must needs leave it undone except the shadow
altogether neglect it So that some through a Carnal indulging of their own ease and quiet and to avoid mens ill will and some through the great oppositions of the people or for one such cause or other do let all alone In so much as even here in this County where we have associated and engaged our selves to some execution of Discipline this work goes on so heavily as we see and need not mention further when yet there is not a daies omission of Sermons and other Ordinances so that its apparent that its it which all lazie carnal man-pleasing Ministers may well comply with as that which suites their Carnal Interests to be free from the toil and care of Discipline If you say why then do the Bishops desire it if flesh and blood be against it I answer Experience and the impossibility of performance tells us that it is not the work but the empty name and honour that they took up and that indeed the flesh doth much more desire Had they desired or been willing of the work as they were of Lordships and Riches they would have done it Argum. 9. NO Episcopacy at least which hath so many evils as aforesaid attending it which is not of Gods Institution should be admitted into the Church The late English Prelacy as to the disapproved properties before mentioned is not of Gods Institution therefore it is not to be admitted into the Church The Major is confessed by all that plead for the Ius Divinum of Episcopacy or most and with the qualification from the ill consequents will be yielded by all The Minor I prove by parts 1. That the exclusion of Presbyters from Rule and the putting the Government from them into a Lay-mans hand with the rest before mentioned are not of Divine Institution is proved already as much as needs 2. If at the present we yield a superintendency or preheminence of one Pastor before others yet the Controversie remaineth whether a Prelate should be only Parochial that is only the President of the Elders of one particular Church or at the utmost of that with two or three or a few neighbour small Parishes which he may well oversee without the neglect of the Discipline Now I know not how any man of that way can prove out of Scripture that a Bishop must have more then one Parish much less more then three or four or a few For it is confest by them for ought I know that Scripture doth not determine how many Presbyters or Churches a Bishop must have under him only we say he must have but one for the main thing that they labour to prove is that a Bishop is above Presbyters as to Ordination and Jurisdiction and so he may be if he be a Parish-Bishop for a Parish-Church may have a Curate and 2 or 3 Chappels with Curates at them besides Deacons and according to the old course perhaps many Presbyters more that did not publikely preach though they wanted not authority but oversee the flock Now one man may have all that most of their Arguments require if he be but the chief over this Parish Presbytery But perhaps they will say that according to Scripture every City only must have a Bishop and therefore all the Country about must be his Diocess though the number of Churches and Presbyters under him be not determined To which I answer that the word Only is not in Scripture no Text saith that it was Only in Cities that Churches or Bishops were to be seated There is no prohibition of setling them in Villages It will be said that There is no example of any Bishop but in a City To which I answer 1. Themselves ordinarily tell us in case of Sacrament gesture and many other things that examples do not alway bind affirmatively much less can they prove that they bind negatively I mean not to do that which was not done Can you prove in Scripture that there were any particular Churches or Assemblies for Sacraments and other worship in Villages If not then is it lawful now to have any If not then all our Parish Churches in the Country are unlawful If yea then why may we not have Bishops in the Countreys without Scripture example as well as Churches for we shall prove that the reasons why there were none or few Bishops in the Country was for want of Churches for them to oversee The Gospel was not then preached nor any Bishops placed in many Nations of the world it doth not follow therefore that there must be none since 2. The reason is evident why Churches and Bishops were first planted in Cities because there was the greatest Concourse of people not that God loves a Citizen better then a Countrey-man or that he will have his Churches so limited to soil or place or scituation it is the number of persons where-ever they live that must be regarded that the Church be not too great nor too small but if there be the same number of people Cohabiting in the Countrey as one of the Apostolical Churches did consist of then there is the same reason to have a Church and Bishop in that Country Village as was then for having one in a City 3. Elders should be ordained in every Church and therefore Bishops for some of them say that these were Bishops But Churches may be in Country Villages therefore Elders and Bishops may be in Country-Villages 4. I prove from Scripture that there were Bishops in Villages or out of Cities thus Where there was a Church there was a Bishop But in a Village there was a Church therefore The Major I prove from Act. 14.23 compared with 1 Tim. 3. They ordained them Elders in every Church or Church by Church but these Elders are called Bishops in 1 Tim. 3. and by some of that way maintained to be such For the Minor I prove it from Rom. 16.1 where there is mention of the Church at Cenchrea but Cenchrea was no City but as Grotius speaks Portus Corinthiorum ut Piraeus Atheniensium viz. ad sinum Saronicum apparet ibi Ecclesiam fuisse Christianorum Grot. in Act. 18.18 in Rom. 16.1 vide et Downam Defensâ— pag. 105. who out of Strabâ— saith it was the Port that served most properly for Asia But Bishop Downam saith ibid. that Cenchrea was a Parish subordinate to the Church of Corinth having not a Bishop or Presbytery but a Presbyter assigned to it so before he saith by a Church he means a Company of Chrâ—stiâ—ns haâ—ing a Bishop and Presbytery But if he will so define a Church as that the Prelate shall enter the Definition then he may well prove that every Church had a Prelate And so a Patriarch may be proved to be Necessary to every Church if you will say you mean only such congregations as have a Patriarch But it was denominated a Church Act. 14.23 before they had Presbyters ordained to them and so before fixed Bishops when the Apostles had converted and congregated them they
care not so we come near an agreement about the proportion of Members that the definition be not overthrown and the ends of it made impossible by the distance number and unacquaintedness of the members that cannot have any Church communion immediately one with another If there be no communion how is it a Church Nay or if there be no such communion as consists in mutual assistance and conjunction in Worship and holding familiarity also in our conversation which the excommunicated are excluded from And if a communion there be it is either Immediate by the members themselves Assembled or else but Mediately by their Officers or Delegates If it be only by the latter Mediately then it is not the Ecclesia prima but orta It is an association of several Political Churches For that is the difference between the communion of a single particular Church and many combined Churches that as the first is a combination of persons and not of Churches so the communion is held among the Members in common whereas the other being a combination of Churches the communion is maintained orderly by Officers and Delegates joyning in Synods and sent from the Congregations If therefore it be an Immediate ordinary communion of members in Ecclesiastical affairs viz. Worship and Discipline that is the Particular Church that I intend call it what you will else and whether there may be any private meetings in it besides the main body or not as possibly through some accidents there may be and yet at Sacrament and on the most solemne occasions the same persons that were at Chappels or less meetings may be with the chief Assembly But I shall proceed in the proof of this by the next Argument which will serve for this and the main together Argum. 11. THat sort of Church Government may most safely be now practised which was used in the Scripture times and that 's less safe which was not then used But the Government of many Elders and particular Churches by one Bishop fixed and taking that as his proper Diocess such as the English Bishops were was not used in Scripture times Therefore it is not so safe to use it or restore it now The Major is proved hence 1. In that the Primitive Church which was in Scripture times was of unquestionable Divine Institution and so most pure And it is certainly lawful to practice that Church-Government which alone was practised by all the Church in the Scripture times of the New Testament 2. Because we have no certain Law or Direction but Scripture for the frame of Government as jure Divino Scripture is Gods sufficient and perfect Law If therefore there be no mention of the Practice of any such Episcopacy in Scripture no nor any precept for the practice of it afterwards then cannot we receive it as of Divine Institution The Objections shall be answered when we have proved the Minor And for the Minor I shall at this time argue from the Concessions of the most Learned and Reverend man that at this time hath deeply engaged himself in defence of Episcopacy who doth grant us all these things following 1. That in Scripture times they were the same persons and of the same office that were called Bishops and Presbyters 2. That all the Presbyters mentioned in Scripture times or then instituted as far as we can know had a Power of Ordination 3. And also a Power of Ruling the Church Excommunicating and Absolving 4. That there was not then in being any Presbyter such as the Bishops would have in these times who was under the Bishop of a particular Church or Diocess His words are these And although this title of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elders have been also extended to a second Order in the Church and is now only in use for them under the Name of Presbyters yet in the Scripture times it belonged principally if not alone to Bishops there being no Evidence that any of that second order were then instituted though soon after before the writing of Ignatius Epistles there were such instituted in all Churches 5. It is yielded also by him that it is the office of these Presbyters or Bishops to Teach frequently and diligently to reduce Hereticks to reprove rebuke Censure and absolve to visit all the sick and pray with them c. And therefore it must needs follow that their Diocess must be no larger then that they may faithfully perform all this to the Members of it And if there be but one Bishop to do it I am most certain then by experience that his Diocess must be no bigger then this Parish nor perhaps half so big 6. And it must needs follow that in Scripture times a Particular Church consisted not of seveâ—al Churches associated nor of several Congregations ordinarily meeting in several places for Christian communion in the solemn Worship of God but only of the Christians of one such Congregation with a single Pastor though in that we dissent and suppose there weâ—e more Pastors then one usually or often That this must be granted with the rest is apparent 1. The Reverend Author saith as Bishop Downam before cited That when the Gospel was first preached by the Apostles and but few Converted they ordained in every City and region no more but a Bishop and one or more Deacons to attend him there being at the present so smal store out of which to take more and so small need of ordaining more that this Bishop is constituted more for the sake of those which should after believe then of those which did already 2. And it s proved thus If there were in Scripture times any more ordinary Worshiping Assemblies on the Lords dayes then one under one Bishop then either they did Preach Pray Praise God and administer the Lords Supper in those Assemblies or they did not If not then 1. They were no such Worshipping Assemblies as we speak of 2. And they should sin against Christ who required it 3. And differ from his Churches which ordinarily used it But if they did thus then either they had some Pastor Presbyter or Bishop to perform these holy actions between God and the people or not If not then they suppose that Lay-men might do all this Ministerial work in Word Sacraments Prayer and Praise in the name of the Assembly c. And if so what then is proper to the Ministry then farewell Bishops and Presbyters too If not theâ—â—â—her the Bishop must be in two Assemblies at once performing the Holy Worship of God in their communion but that 's impossible or else he must have some assisting Presbyters to do it But that 's denyed Therefore it must needs follow that the Church order constitution and practised Government which was in Scripture times was this that a single Worshipping Congregation was that particular Church which had a Presbyter or Bishop one or more which watched over and ruled that only Congregation as his Diocess or proper charge having no Government
of any other Church Congregation or Elders De facto this is plainly yielded Well this much being yielded and we having come so far to an agreement about the actual Church Constitution and Government of the Scripture times we desire to know some sufficient reason why we in these times may not take up with thaâ— Government and Church order which was practised in the Scripture times And the Reason that is brought against it is this Because it was the Apostles intention that this single Bishop who in Scripture times had but one Congregation and Governed no Presbyters should after Scripture times have many settled Congregations and their Presbyters under them and should have the power of ordaining them c. To this I answer 1. The Intentions of mens hearts are secret till they are some way revealed No man of this age doth know the Apostles hearts but by some sign what then is the revelation that Proveth this Intention Either it must be some Word or Deed. For the first I cannot yet find any colour of proof which they bring from any word of the Apostles where either they give power to this Presbyter or Bishop to Rule over many Presbyters and Congregations for the future Nor yet where they do so much as foretell that so it shall be As for those of Paul to Timothy and Titus that theâ— rebuke not an Elder and receive not accusation against them but under two or three Witnesses the Reverend Author affirmeth that those Eâ—ders were not Presbyters under such Bishops as we now speak of but those Bishops themselves whom Timothy and Titus might rebuke And for meer facts without Scripture words theâ—e is none that can prove this pretended Intention of the Apostles First there is no fact of the Apostles themselves or the Churches or Pastors in Scripture time to prove it For Subordinate Presbyters are confessed not to be then â—nstituted and so not existent and other fact of theirs there can be none And no fact after them can prove it Yet this is the great Argument that most insist on that the practice of the Church after Scripture times doth prove that Intention of the â—pâ—stles which Scripture doth not for ought is yet proved by them that I can find at all express But we deny that and require pâ—ooâ— of it It is not bare saying so that will serve Is it not possible for the succeeding Bishops to err and mistake the Apostles Intentions If not then are they Infallible as well as the Apostles which is not true They might sin in going from the Institution And their sin will not prove that the Apostles intended it should be so de jure because their followers did so de facto If they say that it is not likely that all the Churches should so suddenly be ignorant of the Apostles Intention I answer 1. We must not build our faith and practice on Conjectures Such a saying as this is no proof of Apostolical intentions to warrant us to swerve from the sole practised Government in Scripture times 2. There is no great likelihood that I can discern that this first practised Government was altered by those that knew the Apostles and upon supposition that these which are pretended were their intents 3. If it were so yet is it not impossible nor very improbable that through humane frailty they might be drawn to conjecture that that was the Apostles intents which seemed right in thier eyes and suited their present judgements and interests 4. Sure we are that the Scripture is the perfect Law and Rule to the Church for the Establishing of all necessary Offices and Ordinances and therefore if there be no such intentions or Institutions of the Apostles mentioned in the Scripture we may not set up universally such Offices and Ordinances on any such supposed intents De facto we seem agreed that the Apostles settled One Pastor over one Congregation having no Presbyters under his Rule and that there were no other in Scripture time but shortly after when Christians were multiplied and the most of the Cities where the Churches were planted were converted to the faith together with the Country round about then there were many Congregations and many Pastors and the Pastor of the first Church in the City did take all the other Churches and Pastors to be under his Government calling them Presbyters only and himself eminently or only the Bishop Now the Question between us is Whether this was well done or not Whether these Pastors should not rather have gathered Churches as free as their own Whether the â—hristians that were afterward converted should not have combined for holy Communion themselves in particular distinct â—hurches and have had their own Pastors set over them as the first Churches by the Apostles had They that deny it and Justifie their fact have nothing that we can see for it but an ungrounded surmise that it was the Apostles meaning that the first Bishops should so do But we have the Apostles express Institution and the Churches practise during Scripture times for the other way We doubt not but Christians in the beginning were thin and that the Apostles therefore preached most and planted Churches in Cities because they were the most populous places where was most matter to work upon and most disciples were there and that the Country round about did afford them here and there a family which joyned to the City Church Much like as it is now among us with the Anabaptists and Separatists who are famed to be so Numerous and potent through the Land and yet I do not think that in all this County there is so many in Number of either of these sects as the tenth part of the people of this one Parish nor perhaps as the twentieth part Now if all the Anabaptists in Worcestershire or at least that lived so neer as to be capable of Church communion should be of Mr. T 's Congregation at Bewdley or of a Church that met in the chief City Worcester yet doth not this intimate that all the space of ground in this County is appointed or intended for the future as Mr. T 's Diocess but if the successive Pastor should claim the whole County as his charge if the whole were turned to that opinion no doubt but they would much cross their founders mind And if the comparison may be tolerated we see great reason to conceive that the Ancient Bishops did thus cross the Apostles minds When there were no more Christians in a City and the adjoyning parts then half some of our Parishes the Apostles planted fixed Governours called Bishops or Elders over these particlar Churches which had constant communion in the worship of God And when the Cities and Countreyes were converted to the faith the frailty of ambition co-working thereto these Bishops did claim all that space of ground for their Diocess where the members of their Church had lived before as if Churches were to be measured by the
no necessiâ—y and the Non-necessity is but preâ—ended First it is preâ—eâ—â—ed that there were so few fit men that there was a Necessity of forbâ—arance But this is not so For 1. The Church had larger gifts of the Spirit then then now and therefore proportionable to the flocks they might have had competent men then as well as now 2. They had men enough to make Deacons of even sâ—ven in a 〈◊〉 And who will believe then that they could find none to make such Elders of Was not Stephen or Philip sufficiently qualified to have been a subject Elder 3. They had many that prophesied and interpreted and spake with tongues in one Assembly as appears 1 Cor. 14. And therefore its manâ—fâ—st that there were enough to have made Ruled Elders At least sure the Church at Ierusalem where there were so many thousands would have afforded them one such if it had been requisite But secondly its pretended not to have been Necessary because of the fewness of the people But I answer 1. The same persons say that in Ignatius his time all Churches had such Presbyters And its manifest that many Churches in the Scripture times were more populous or large then many or most beside them were in Ignatius time 2. Did the numerous Church at Ierusalem ordinarily meet on the Lords dayes for holy communion or not If they did then it was but a Church of one Congregation which is by most denyed If not then the several Assemblies must have several Presbyters for several Bishops they will not hear of Doubtless they did not celebrate the holy communion of the Church and Ordinances of God by meer Lay-men alone 3. What man that knows the burden of Pastoral Oversight can say that such Churches of thousands as Ierusalem Rome Alexandria c. had need of no more than one man to Teach them and do all the Pastoral work and so that assisting Ruled Presbyters were then needless If they were needless to such numerous Churches then let us even take them for needless still and set up no new orders which were not seen in Scripture times Reas. 8. The Apostles left it not to the Beshops whom they established to make new Church-offices and orders quoad speciem but only to ordain men to succeed others in the offices and orders that themselves had by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost appointed or else Christ before them A Bishop might make a Bishop or a Deacon perhaps because these were quoad speciem made before and they were but to put others into the places before appointed But if there were no such creature in Scripture times as a subject Presbyter that had no power of Ordination and Jurisdiction then if the Bishops afterward should make such they must make a new office as well as a new officer So that either this new Presbyter is of the institution of Christ by his Apostles or of Episcopal humane institution If the former and yet not institututed in Scripture times then Scripture is not the sufficient rule and discoverer of Divine Institutions and Church Ordinances and if we once forsake that Rule we know not where to fix but must wander in that Romane uncertainty If the latter then we must expect some better proof then hitherto we have seen of the Episcopall or any humane power to make new Offices in the Church of Christ and that of universal and standing necessity Till then we shall think they ought to have made but such Presbyters as themselves Reason 9. If there be not so much as the name of a Ruled Presbyter without power of Ordination or Iurisdiction in all the Scripture much less then is there any description of his Office or any Directions for his ordination or the qualifications prerequisit in him and the performance of his office when he is in it And if there be no such Directory concerning Presbyters then was it not the Apostles intent that ever any such should be ordained The reason of the consequence is 1. Because the Scripture was written not only for that age then in being but for the Church of all ages to the end of the world And therefore it must be a sufficient directory for all The second Epistle to Timothy was written but a little before Pauls death Surely if the Churches in Ignatius daies were all in need of Presbyters under Bishops Paul might well have seen some need in his time or have foreseen the need that was so neer and so have given directions for that office 2. And the rather is this consequence firm because Paul in his Epistles to Timothy and Titus doth give such full and punctual Directions concerning the other Church-officers not only the Bishops but also the Deacons describing their prerequisite qualifications their office and directing for their Ordination and conversation Yea he condescendeth to give such large Directions concerning Widows themselves that were serviceable to the Church Now is it probable that a perfect Directory written for the Church to the worlds End largely describing the qualifications and office of Deacons which is the inferiour would not give one word of direction concerning subject Presbyters without power of Ordination or Rule if any such had been then intended for the â—hurch No nor once so much as name them I dare not accuse Pauls Epistles written to that very purpose and the whole Scripture so much of insufficiency as to think they wholly omit a necessary office and so exactly mention the inferiour and commonly less necessary as they do Reason 10. The new Episcopal Divines do yield that all the texts in Timothy Titus and the rest of the New Testament that mentitn Gospel Bishops or Presbyters do mean only such as have power of Ordination and Iurisdiction without the concurrence of any superiour Bishop The common Inerpretation of the Fathers and the old Episcopal Divines of all ages of most or many of those texts is that they speak of the office of such as now are called Presbyters Lay both together and if one of them be not mistaken they afford us this conclusion that the Presbyters that now are have by these texts of Scripture the power of Ordination and Iurisdiction without the concurrence of others And if so then was it never the Apostles intent to leave it to the Bishops to ordain a sort of Presbyters of another order that should have no such power of Ordination or Jurisdiction without the Bishops Negative Reason 11. We find in Church History that it was first in some few great Cities especially Rome and Alexandria that a Bishop ruled many settled worshipping Congregations with their Presbyters when no such thing at that time can be proved by other Churches therefore we may well conceive that it was no Ordinance of the Apostles but was occasioned afterwards by the multiplying of Christians in the same compass of ground where the old Church did inhabite and the adjacent parts together with the humane frailty of the
Elders having no power of Ordination or Government And to say that by Elders in each Church is meant only one Elder in each Church is to forsake the letter of the text without any proved Necessity We suppose it therefore safer to believe according to the first sence of the words that it was Elders in every Church that is more then one in every Church that were ordained And what sort of Churches these were appears in the following verses where even of the famous Church of Antioch its said Verse 27. when they were come and had gathered the Church together they rehearsed all that God had done by them So that its plain that this Church was a Congregation to whom they might make such rehearsal And Chap. 15.3 It s said that they were brought on their way by the Church And if it be not meant of all but a part of the Church yet it intimateth what is aforesaid To conclude though many of these texts may be thought to speak doubtfully yet consider 1. That some do most certainly declare that it was particular stated Assemblies that were then called Churches even Governed Churches having their Officers present 2. That there is no certain proof of any one particular Political Church that consisted of many such stated Assemblies 3. That therefore the Texts that will bear an exposition either way must be expounded by the certain and not by the uncertain texts so that I may argue thus If in all the New Testament the word Church do often signifie stated worshipping single Assemblies and often is used so as may admit that interpretation and is never once used certainly to signifie many particular stated worshipping Assemblies ruled by one fixed Bishop then we have any just cause to suppose that the particular Political Churches in Scripture times consisted but of one such stated Congregation But the Antecedent is true therefore so is the Consequent As for the New Episcopal Divines that say There were no subject Presbyâ—ers in Scripture times I suppose according to their principles they wâ—ll grant me all this as is aforesaid And for others the Instances that they bring to the contrary should be briefly considered The great swaying Instance of all which did sometime prevail with me to be my self of another mind is the Numerous Church at Ierusalem Of which its said that three thousand were converted at once and five thousand at another time and the word mightily grew and prevailed and daily such were added to the Church as should be saved to whâ—ch some add the mention of the Miriades of believing Jews yet zealous of the Law which the brethren mentioned to Paul Acts 21.20 And the instance of Ephesus and Rome come next But I remember how largely this business is debated between the late Assembly at Westminster and the Dissenting Brethren that I think it unmeet to interpose in it any further then to annex these few considerations following 1. That all that is said on that side doth not prove certainly that that one Church at Ierusalem was the eighth part so big as Giles Cripple-gate Parish or the fifth part so big as Stepney or Sepulchres nor neer so big as Plimoth or some other Country Parishes 2. That it is past doubt that the magnitude of that Body of Believers then at Ierusalem was partly acccidental and the members cannot at all be proved settled cohabitants nor that Church as in its first unordered Mass be the proved to be the fittest pattern for imitation 3. That Christ hath not punctually determined how many members shall be in a particular Church 4. But the ends being personal holy communion are the Rule by which humane prudence must determine it 5. That its fitter one Church instance give way to many in point of our imitation then of many to that one caeteris paribus 6. That it s known among us that more then are proved to have been members of that Church may hear one man preach at the same time I have none of the loudest voices and yet when I have preached to a Congregation judged by judicious men to be at least ten thousand those farthest off said they could well hear as I was certainly informed 7. That its certain by many passages historicall in â—cripture that men did then speak to greater multitudes and were heard at far greater distance then now they can orderly be which I conjecture was because their voices were louder as in most dryer bodies which dryer Countreys have is commonly seen when moister bodies have ofâ—er hoarser voices and other reasons might concur 8. That it is confessed or yielded that the Church at Ierusalem might all hear at once though not all receive the Lords Supper together And if so then they were no more then might at once have personal communion in some holy Ordinances and that the Teachers might at once make known their minds to 9. And then the reason of receiving the Supper in several places seems to be but because they had not a room so fit to receive all in as to hear in And so we have now in many Parishes Assemblies subordinate to the chief Assembly For divers families at once may meet at one house and divers at another for repetition prayer or other duties and some may be at Chappels of ease that cannot come to the full assembly 10 They that are for Presbyâ—erial Churches of many Congregations do not say that There must be many to make the first political Church but only that There may be many If then there be no Necessitâ— of it 1. Should it not be forborn when it appeareâ—h to prudence most inconvenient as frequently it will no doubt 2. And when it is Necessary for a peaceable Accommodation beâ—ause others think it a sin should not a May be give place to a Must not be in pacificatory consultations caeteris paribus 11. It is granted also by them that the Pastors of one Congregation have not a charge of Governing other neighbour Congregation in Consistory one rather then another which they gâ—vern not though perhaps as neer them but bâ— conâ—ent And therefore as there is but a licet not an oportet of such consent pleaded for so while no such consent is given we have no such châ—â—ge of Governing neighbour Congregations and none may force us to such consent 12. And Lastly that if a siâ—gle Congregation with it own Officer or Officers be not a true particular Political Church then our ordinary Parish assemblies are none and where the Presbyterian Government is not set up which is up but in few places of England it would then follow that we have no true Political Churches left among us perhaps never had which I meet yet with few so uncharitable as to affirm except the Papists and the Separatists and a few of the new sort of Episcopal Divines who think we have no Churches for want of â—ishops except where Bishops yet are retained and acknowleged For my part I
Oratoriâ—s then one though their Altar were but one there namely where the Bishop was Die solis saith Justin Martyr omnium qui vel in oppidis vel ruri degunt in eundem locum conventus fit Namely as he there tells us to celebrate and participate the holy Eucharist Why was this but because they had not many places to celebâ—ate in and unless this were so whence came it else that a Schismatical Bishop was said constituere or collocare aliud Altare and that a Bishop and an Altar are made correlatives See S. Cyprian Epist. 40.72 73. de unit Eccles. And thus perhaps is Ignatius to be understood in that forequoted passage of his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Unum Altare omni Ecclesiae unus Episcopus cum Presbyterio Diaconis So far Mr. Mead. I hope upon the consent of so admirable a Critick and learned man it will not be so much blame-worthy in me if I speak somewhat the more confidently this way and say that I think that the main confusion and Tyranny that hath overspread the Churches hath been very much from the changing the Apostolical frame of Churches and setting up many Altars and Congregations under one Bishop in one pretended particular Church I had three or four passages ready to cite out of Ignatius but these are so express that I apprehend the rest the less necessary to be mentioned The next therefore that I shall mention shall be the forementioned words of Iustin Martyr Apol. 2 cited by Mr. Mead and by others frequently to this purpose In which I observe all these particulars full to the purpose 1. That they had but one Assembly each Lords day for Church communion for one Church 2. That this was for reading and prayer and the Eucharist 3. That the President who is commonly by those of the Episcopal judgement said to be here meant the Bâ—shop did preach and give thanks and administer the supper so that it was administred but to one Congregation as under that Bishop of that Church for he could not be in two places at once 4. That to the Absent the Deacons carried their portion after the consecration so that they had not another Meeting and Congregation by themselves for that end This is all so plain that I shall think it needeth no Vindication So that were there but these two Testimonies I should not marvail if Bishop Downam had extended his confession a little further when he acknowledgeth Dâ—f li. 2. cap. 6. page 104. that At the first and namely in the time of the Apostle Paul the most of the Churches so soon after their Conversion did not each of them exâ—eed the proportion of a populous Congregation And then we are not out in so interpreting the words of Paul and other writers of the holy Scripture The next that I shall mention whoever was or when ever he lived is Dionys. de Eccles. Hierarch cap. 4. where he tells us that the Praefect who was the Bishop if there were any did Baptize those that were converted and the Presbyters and Deacons did but assist him And abundance of work he mentioneth whâ—ch they had with all that they Baptized and they called all the Congregation together who joyned in Prayers with the Bishop at the Baptism All which shews that he was then the Bishop but of one particular Church which ordinarily Assembled together for publick worship For 1. If he had many such Churches or Congregations under him he could not be thus present to celebrate Baptism in them all Nor would one only be mentioned as his charge 2. Nor is it possible that one Bishop should with so long a way of Baptisme as is there described be able to Baptize all the persons in a Diocess such as ours or the twentieth part of them much less in those times when besides the Infants of Believers the most eminent sort of Baptism and greatest labour was about the multitudes of Adult Converts that by the Gospel were daily added to the Church Gregory Thaumaturgus was as by force made Bishop of Neocesarea and yet his whole Diocess or City had but seventeen â—hristians in it at his entrance though when he died he found upon enquiry but seventeen Pagans so great a change was made by the Gospel and by Miracles But by this Diocess of seventeen souls we may conjecture what the Churches were in those times though we should allow others to be an hundred times as great they would not be so great as the tenth part of many Parishes in England See the truth of this passage in Greg. Nissen Oratio in Greg. Thaumatur twice over he recites it And Basil. Mag. l. de Spir. Sanc. c. 19. And Roman Breviar Die 15. Novemb. And the Menolog Graec. mentioned before Greg. Neocesar works Printed ad Paris 1622. But I shall return to some before Gregory The next that I shall cite is Tertullian that well known place in his Apolog. c. 39. Corpus sumus de conscientia Religionis Discipline unitate spei federe Coimus in coetum Congregationem ut ad Deum quasi manu facta precationibus ambiamus orantes Cogimur ad divâ—narum literarum Commemorationem Certè fidem sanctis vocibus pascimus spem erigimus fiduciam figimus disciplinam praceptorum nihilominus inculcationibus densamus ibidem etiam exhortationes Castigationes censura Divina nam judicatur magno cum pondere ut apud certos de Dei conspectu summumque futuri judicii praejudicium est siquis ita deliquerit ut à communicatione Orationis conventus omnis sancti commercii relegetur Praesident probati quiq seniores c. If I be able to understand Tertullian it is here plain that each â—hurch consisted of one Congregation which assembled for Worship and Discipline at once or in one place and this Church was it that had Presidents or Seniors to guide them both in Worship and by Discipline So that if there were any more of these Assemblies in one particular Political Church then there were more Bishops then one or else others besides Bishops exercised this Discipline But indeed it s here plainly intimated that Bishops were then the Guides of Congregations single and not of Diocessâ—s consisting of many such I shall put Tertullians meaning out of doubt by another place and that is de Corona Militis cap. 3. Eucharistiae Sacramemtum in tempore victus omnibus mandatum à Domino etiam antelucanis ritibus nec de aliorum manu â—uam praesidentium sumimus And if they received this Sacrament of none but the Presidents and that every Lords day at least as no doubt they did then they could have no more Congregations in a Church then they had Presidents And though Pamelius say that by Presidents here is meant also Presbyters yet those that we now dispute against understand it of the Prelates And if they will not so do then may we will interpret the foresaid passage Apol. to be
and not till then we shall have perfect Holiness so when we come to Heaven and not till then we shall have perfect Vnity and Peace But till then I shall take that which you call Patching as my Duty and our great Benefit If you think one man have not a Negative voice we neither urge you to say that he hath nor so much as to seem to own his claim You shall have leave in the publike Register of the Association to put it under your hand that Not as owning the claim of the Presidents Negative voice but as yielding in a Lawful thing for Peace you do Consent to forbear Ordaining any without him except in Cases of Necessity This you may do without any shew of contradicting your Principles and this is all that is desired § 30. Quest. And may we not for peace sake grant them as much in point of Iurisdiction as of Ordination and Consent to do nothing without Necessity but when the President is one and doth Consent Answ. Either by Iurisdiction you mean Law making or Executive Government The first belongs to none but Christ in the substance of his Worship and the Circumstances no man may Vniversally and Vnchangeably determine of but pro re nata according to emergent occasions the Magistrate may make Laws for them and the Pastors may make Agreements for Concord about them but none should determine of them without need and therefore here is no work for Legislators the Usurpers that have grievously wronged the Church And for Executive Government either it is over the People or over the Pastors To give a Negative voice to the President of an Association of the Pastors of many Churches in Governing the People of a single Church is to set up a new Office a fixed Pastor of many Churches and to overthrow Government and introduce the noxious sort of Prelacy which for my part I intend not to be guilty of And for proper Government of the Pastors I know none but God and Magistrates that have that Power Every Bishop saith Cyprian and the Council of Carthage hath Power of his own will and is responsible for his Actions to God and none of us are Episcopi Episcoporum Bishops of Bishops But there is a Communion among Pastors and Churches to be exercised and so an avoiding or rejecting from Communion and this some call improperly a Government And in this for my part I should consent where peace doth require it that we will not agree upon the rejecting of any Pastor of our Association no more then to the Accepting or Ordaining of them without the President but in cases of Necessity and that just on the terms exprest about Ordination § 31. As for instance in a particular Church there is a Communion to be held among all the members though none of them but the Officers are Governors of the Church And in many cases where the Peoples Consent is needful its common to stand to a Major vote and so great a stress is laid on this that by many of the Congregational way the Government of the Church is said to be in the Major vote of the people and yet 1. This is indeed no Government that belongs to them but Consent to Communion or Exclusion and 2. No Scripture doth require a Minor part to stand in all cases to the decision of a Major vote nor give a Major vote any Rule over the Consciences of the Minor part shew us this voting power in Scripture And yet 3. All agree that upon natural Reasons and General Rules of Scripture the Churches are allowed yea obliged in lawful things for maintaining Vnity and Peace to stand to the judgement of a Major vote in Cases that belong to them to vote in though there be no particular word for it in the Scripture Even so Associate Pastors have not a proper Government of one another neither by Presidents or Major votes though over the people they have but are all under the Government of God and the Magistrate only And yet they may in acts of Consent about Communion or Non-communion with one another prudentially agree to take the Consent of the President or of the Major vote of Pastors or of both where Peace or Order or Edification requireth it except in cases of Necessity § 32. Quest. But what will you take for a Case of Necessity which you will except Answ. 1. If the President be dead 2. Or sick or absent and cannot come 3. Or if he be malignant and wilfully refuse to Consent that the Church be well provided for or Governed 4. And withall supposing that without the great hurt or hazzard of the Churches we cannot delay the business till he be one or do Consent 5. Especially if he be set in enmity against the welfare of the Church and by pretence of a suspending vote would destroy the Church and bring in unworthy hurtful persons or things In all such Cases of Necessity its time to lay by our humane Rules for peace and Order § 33. Object But who shall be judge of this Necessity Answ. The Magistrate only shall be the Compelling Iudge The people shall be the Discerning Iudges the Pastors shall at least have as much power as the People each of them shall Discern so far as they must obey and execute And God only shall be the final Iudge § 34. Object But this will but cause Divisions and Confusions while the President thinks one thing Necessary and the Pastors another and the People another Answ. I answered this before Reason must not be cast by and the Churches ruined and poyson and destruction taken in on pretence of such inconveniences If such a Case of difference fall out each man will execute as he discerneth or judgeth being to answer for his own actions and having none that can undertake to answer for him And when we all come to the Bar of God for final Judgement he that was in the right shall be justified and he that falsly pretended Necessity against duty shall bear the blame § 35. Object But in the mean time the Churches will be divided Answ. 1. I told you there is no more hope of â— perfect Vnity on earth then of perfect Holiness 2. When two evils are before us though neither must be chosen for Evil is not an Object of choice unless as seeming good yet the Greater Evil must be first and most studiously repelled And the deformity and destruction of the Churches and the casting out of the Gospel and Worship of God is a greater Evil then disorder about good actions and differences about some Circumstances of Necessary works § 36. All this that I have said about the Negative de facto though not de jure that I would have Consented to for peace I intend not to extend to those Cases and Countries where peace requireth it not but rather the contrary muchâ—less to encourage any to think such a Negative Necessary in it self Some things may be Lawfully
either Prayer Praise or other part but we speak of the whole frame and therefore of a Liturgy or Prescribed words in General because that is the controversie that the times call us to decide That which I take to be the Truth and usefull to our Healing I shall lay down in these ten Propositions following Prop. 1. A stinted Liturgy is in it self Lawfull 2. A stinted Liturgy in some parts of publick holy service is ordinarily necessary 3. In the Parts where it is not of Necessity it may not only be submitted to but desired when the Peace of the Church requireth it 4. There is so great dâ—fference between Ministers and People and Times that it may be convenient and eligible to some at some times and unfit and not eligible to others and at other times 5. The Ministers and Churches that earnestly desire it should not by the Magistrate be generally or absolutely forbidden the use of a convenient prescribed Liturgy 6. To prescribe a frame of stinted service or Prayer c. and lay a Necessity or the Peace of the Church upon it and to punish siâ—ence suspend excommunicate or reproach the able peaceable godly Ministers or people that justly or unjustly scruple the using of it is so great a sin that no conscionable Ministers should attempt it or desire it nor any godly Magistrate suffer it 7. The safest way of composing such a Publike Form is to take it all for matter and words out of the Holy Scriptures 8. Yet is not this of such Necessity but that we may join in it or use it if the form of words be not from Scripture 9. The matter of a common Liturgy in which we expect any General Concord should not be any unnecessary things much less things doubtfull or forbidden 10. Forms of Publick Prayer should not be constantly used by Mâ—nisters that are able to pray without them and none else should be admitted ordinarily to the Ministry but such as are able competently to pray without such Forms unless in great Necessities of the Church These ten Propositions are the summ of all that I shall trouble you with which I shall now review and prove in order Prop. 1. A Stinted Liturgy is in it self lawful This is thus proved Argument 1. That which is not directly or consequentially forbidden by God remaineth lawfull A stinted Liturgy is not directly or consequentially forbidden by God therefore it remaineth lawfull The Major is undoubted because nothing but a Prohibition can make a thing unlawfull Sin is a transgression of a Law Where there is no Law there is no transgression And yet I have heard very Reverend men answer this that it is enough that it is not commanded though not forbidden Which is plainly to deny both Scripture and Civil Principles Precept makes Duty or a Necessity ex praecepto Prohibitions make an action sinfull which is prohibited as Precepts prove an Omission sinfull of the Duty commanded But Licitum which is between Duty and sin is that which is neither commanded nor forbidden And such an act is not Actus Moralis being neither good nor evill Here note these two things 1. That though we say that a Liturgy is in it self lawfull and that all things not forbidden are Lawfull yet in the actuall exercise hic nunc it will be hard to find one actuall use of it which is not a duty or a sin For though I am not of their mind that think every act both simply and respectively considered is a duty or a sin For 1. then every act must be Actus Moralis and so deliberate and chosen which is not true as for instance the winking of the eye c. 2. Then nothing were indifferent 3. Then every act must have a Reason for it 4. And the Consciences of Christians must be perpetually tormented as e. g. to give a reason when I walk why I set the right foot forward before the left or when two eggs of a bigness are before me why I take one rather then the other these are not moral acts Yet I must needs think that in the worship of God its hard to imagine such a case in which the using of a Liturgy will do neither good nor harm Or in which a man cannot discern whether it be like to do more good or harm and so make it the matter of election or refusal And therefore as Paul makes Marriage indifferent in it self when its hard to find a case in which it shall not be a duty or a sin to particular persons so say I of the point in question and yet possibly sometime such cases there may be A man sometimes in Prudence may find that constantly to use a form would be to him a sin by reason of the ill consequents and so it would be constantly to disuse it And therefore may find himself bound by accident sometimes to use and sometimes to disuse it And yet may see no reason at all as to the particular day and hour why he should use or disuse it this day rather then another or in the the Morning rather then the Evening 2. Note also that God being the supream Lawgiver of the Church having by Moses given a Law to Israel did in general command Deut. 12.32 that they should add nothing thereto nor take ought therefrom And consequently we may conclude it prohibited under the Gospel Nay indeed the very prohibition of self-idolizing makes it a sin for any man to arrogate that Legislation which is the Prerogative of God For that were to deifie himself And so this General prohibition doth make all unwarrantable Additions to be sinfull that is all Additions which God hath not authorized men to make But then such additions are not sinfull formally because not commanded but because forbidden by the General prohibition of not adding Now for the Minor that a stinted Liturgy is not forbidden we need no other proof then that no Prohibition can be produced If it be prohibited it is either by some special Prohibition or by the General prohibition of not adding But it is by neither of these therefore not at all Speciall prohibition I never yet saw any produced God hath nowhere foâ—bidden a form of Prayer And the General prohibition of not adding extends not to it For 1. It is the Worship of God which is the matter that we are there forbidden to add But the Praying with a form or without a form as such are neither of them any part of the worship of God nor so intended as we now suppose by them that use it It is but an indifferent Mode or Circumstance of Worship and not any part of Worship 2. If Prayer with a form be an Addition to Gods Worship then so is praying without a form for God only Commands Prayer but neither commands a form nor that we forbear a form But the Consequent is false as the Opponents will confess therefore so is the Antecedent 3. Undetermined mutable Modes and Circumstances
do more hurt by breaking the Churches peace then they do good by converting souls But who was it that laid these snares in their way Who laid the Churches peace upon your inventions Had not the Church a sure Rule and an happy order and unity and peace before your Common prayer Book or Ceremonies were born Why must the Church have no peace but upon such terms Who made this Necessity that all men must be taken for intolerable schismaticks that dare not stint themselves in the publick worship by your impositions Will you not be confounded before God when these Questions must be answered The Church might have kept both Peace and her Pastors if you had let all alone as the Apostles left it and had not turned the forms of your Devotions to be a snare for others 9. And it is great unmercifulness to the Souls of particular men when you will drive them into such snares and câ—mpell them to go against their consciences in indifferent things what ever is not of faith is sin And whether they believe it good or bad you will compell them to practise all that you impose Have you not Consciences your selves Do you not know what it is for a man to be driven against his Conscience If not you are no Christians and then no wonder if you want the Charity and compassion of Christians and so easily for nothing abuse and injure the Christian cause 10. And in thus doing you deal unjustly and do not as you would be done by You would have Liberty your selves now to use a Liturgy And why should not others have Liberty to disuse it Either you take it for a thing Necessary in it self or for Indifferent If as Necessary then you are so much the more arrogant and injurious to the Churches and your usurpation is the more intolerable and you do much to Justifie them that deprive you of your own liberty For I know no Liberty that you should have to make universal Laws for the Church or to make new duties by your own meer wills or turn Indifferent things into Necessary and so to multiply our work and burden and danger and to silence suspend or excommunicate all that dare not submit to your usurped Dominion But if you take it for a thing in it self Indifferent whether we pray in a Form of prescribed words or not then as we are content that you have your Liberty on one part you have as just cause to allow us our liberty on the other and to do as you would be done by 11. And by these Impositions you set up a New Office or Power in the Church Consisting of a New Legislation and a Government of the Church by such new humane Laws We know no Law-giver but 1. Christ as to universal Laws of standing necessity to the Churches in the matters of Salvation And 2. Magistrates to make by-laws under Christ for a just determination of those mutable circumstances that ought to be determined by humane Prudence and 3. The Ministers or Pastors of particular Churches to direct and guide the people as there is cause As for Bishops or Councils we know of no Legislative Power that they have over their Brethren though Agreements they may make which may be obligatory 1. by consent as other contracts 2. and in order to unity where the case requireth such Agreements But to set up a New sort of Jurisdiction in the Church by Legislation to make Forms and Ceremonies obligatory and by Executions to punish Pastors that will not practise them is a dangerous device 12. Lastly by this means you will harden the Papists that by their Inventions and Impositions have divided the Church and been guilty of so much usurpation and tyrannie For how can we condemn that in them that is practised by our selves And though in number of Inventions and Impositions they exceed yet it is not well to concur with them in the kind of unnecessary Impositions and so far to Justifie them in their injury to the Church If none of these or other Reasons will alloy the Imperious distemper of the Proud but they must needs by a usurped Legislation be making Indifferent things become necessary to others and domineer over mens Consciences and the Church of God we must leave them to him that being the Lord and Lawgiver of the Church is Jealous of his Prerogative and abhorreth Idols and will not give his glory to another and that delighteth to pull down the Proud and humble them that exalt themselves But yet how far an Agreement or voluntary Consent of the Churches is desirable as to a Liturgy I shall shew more anon Prop. 7. THE safest way of composing a stinted Liturgie is to take it all or as much as may be for words as well as matter out of the Holy Scriptures Reas. 1. This way is least lyable to scruple because all are satisfied of the infallible Truth of Scripture and the fitness of its expressions that are not like to be satisfied with mans And it is a laudable disposition in the Creature to prefer the words of God before all other and therefore not to be discouraged in any Reas. 2. This way tends most to the peace of the Church All will unite in the words of God that will not unite in the forms and words of men If they understand not a word of God yet knowing it to be true they will not quarrel with it but submit But if they understand not the words of men they will be ready to suspect them and so to quarrel with them and so the Churches peace will be broken Besides the judgements of men being fallible many will suspect that its possible there may be some error in their forms though we see them not and God should be worshiped in the surest way Reas. 3. There is no other words that may be preferred before the words of God or stand in Competition with them and therefore me thinks this should easily be decided Object But the Scripture hath not forms enough for all the Churches uses Answ. It hath matter and words for such Forms Without any additions save only terms of Connection the sentences of holy Scripture may suffice the Church for all its uses as to forms Object But men may speak untruths in Scripture words if they will and by misplacing and misapplying them may make them speak what was never meant in them Answ. But 1. When they use no expository terms of their own but meerly recite the words of Scripture the perverting them will not be so easie or common And 2. When they have placed them how they please the people are left at liberty 〈…〉 to the sence they have in the 〈…〉 to what mens misplacing 〈…〉 put upon them when we professedly make our forms out of Gods word we do as it were tell the people that they must give each sentence its proper interpretation as it s meant in Scripture because we pretend not to change it
but to use it But when it s our own words that we compose our own imposed forms in the people are left more uncertain of the soundness For the maker is the Interpreter Object But the Church hath antient venerable foâ—ms already and who may presume to alter them Answ. 1. Hath it any that are more Ancient or more venerable then the Scripture undoubtedly it hath not nor any but must stoop to Scripture 2. All that is in the words of Scripture we are contented be continued at least 3. If it were lawful for the first devisers or compilers of these Forms to make a new Liturgy when the Church had so many before then is it lawful for others to do the like And if the compilers of the first of those Liturgies might make a new one in their own words why may not others make a new one in the Scripture words that will be new only as to the connexion of Sentences 4. The Church of Rome that is most for their forms have yet so often innovated that they have no reason to condemn it in others Prop. 8. THough it be safest and most venerable in Scripture words yet is not this of so great necessity but that we may lawfully use a Liturgy that is not thus taken out of Scripture As long as the matter is agreeable to Scripture it is more for Conveniency then necessity that the words be thence as is easily proved 1. In our Preaching we judge it lawfull to speak words that are not in the Scripture therefore by parity of reason we may do so in Prayer 2. In our extemporaâ—â— Prayers we judge it lawfull to use our own words that are 〈…〉 out of Scripture therefore we 〈…〉 〈…〉 strange to Scripture language that 〈…〉 Phrases may be more edifying to 〈…〉 4. Words are but to express our minds If therefore our words are congruous expressions of sound and well ordered conceptions they are not only lawful but convenient And therefore it is not warrantable for any man to quarrel with expressions because they are not Scriptural nor to scruple the use of Liturgies because the forms are not in the words of Scripture Prop. 9. THE matter of a common Liturgy in which we expect any general Concord should not be any doubtfull or unnecessary things 1. It should impose no doubtfull or unnecessary ceremonies of which I shall speak by it self in the next Disputation 2. It should not restrain men needlesly in things indifferent by determining of mutable circumstances as time place gesture vestures words c. Of which also in the next 3. It should not make those things to be of general indispensable immutable necessity that are but sometimes necessary or meet but Pastors should have their Liberty to vary them as there is occasion 4. Much less should any thing Materially dubious and uncertain be put in For God will be worshipped in knowledge and faith And as is said before the Church will be divided and the Consciences of men ensnared by laying so much on unnecessary things And therefore though such imposers pretend to a perfecter Unity and Concord then in a few Generals or Necessaries can be had yet they will find they miss their mark Prop. 10. HVmane Forms of publick prayer or other worship excepting the fore-excepted Necessary cases as Psalms c. should not be constantly used by Ministers that have their liberty and are able to pray without them Nor should any be ordinarily admitted into the Ministry except in the great necessities of the Church that are not able to pray without such forms In this Proposition are these considerable points implyed and expressed 1. That it is not unfit to have forms by the common Agreement of the Pastors to be used when its meet as is before and after expressed There are few Nations in the world so well provided for with able Ministers but that some places must be supplied with men that have need of forms of Prayer if not of Preaching composed by others And therefore it is fittest that such should have Forms that are Agreed on by all And therefore I doubt not but when we came newly out of Popery and had not a full supply of preachers it was a wise and lawfull course to compose a common form of Prayer For 1. It will be the surest way to keep out unsoundness and abusive passages when nothing is allowed as a publick form but what hath obtained the common consent 2. It will be the way of fullest concord when forms are necessary there is more of Concord in it to have one â—that is approved sound then to have as many as men please 3 The Churches may the better know whom to hold communion with in Prayer though the Pastors may be unable to pray without forms when they know the substance of their Prayers 4. The Magistrate may the better do his duty and be responsible for the service that is offered to God even by the weakest Pastors and see that Gods name be not abused It is therefore desirable that a Common Liturgy be extant 2. And for the use of it let these Rules contained in the Proposition be observed 1. â—et no man be ordained a Minister that is not able to Pray without a Form in such a manner as is not dishonourable to the worship of God unless the Necessity of the Churches shall require it All friends of the Church will agree to this that the Church have the ablest Pastors that can be got 2. But because it is not to be hoped for that all the Churches can be thus supplied at least in haste if the Orâ—â—iners or Approvers shall appoint any to the work in Wales or other necessitous places that are not able competently to administer Sacraments c. without a Form of Prayer let them tye such to use the Form Agreed on 3. If they approve only of such as are able to do it without a form but yet so weakly some of them as is less to the Churches Edification then the form would be let such be advised sometimes to use the Form and sometime to forbear it till they are more able 4. And that it may be no dishonour to the publick Form that it is used only by the weak let the Ablest Ministers sometime use it but with these cautions 1. Let them not be compelled to it against their judgements but perswaded 2. Let not the ablest use it so frequently as the weak unless their own judgement require it Let the weaker use it ofter and the Abler more seldom 5. Let neither of them that can competently worship God without it use it Constantly but sometime use it and sometime forbear it And this is the main point that I intend in this Proposition and therefore shall now briefly give my Reasons for Reas. 1. The constant use of forms and so of Ceremonies and any Indifferent things doth potently tend to perswade the people that they are matters of Necessity and
5.1 2 3. The Elders which are among you I exhort who am also an Elder Feed the flock of God which is among you taking the oversight thereof not by constraint but willingly not for filthy lucre but of a ready mind neither as being Lords over Gods Heritage but as ensamples to the flock See Dr. Hammond expounding it as spoken to Bishops q. d. The Bishops of your several Churches I exhort take care of your several Churches and govern them not as secular Rulers by force NB but as Pastors do their sheep by calling and going before them that so they may follow of their own accord Heb. 13.7 Remember them that have the Rule over you who have spoken unto you the word of God Dr. Hammond Paraphr Set before your eyes the Bishops and Governors that have been in your Church and preached the Gospel to you O all you Inhabitants of Yorkshire Lincolnshire Norfolk Suffolk Essex Middlesex Kent Worcestershire c. how many of your Parishes did ever hear a Bishop preach the Gospel to them Vers. 17. Obey them that have the Rule over you and submit your selves for they watch for your souls as they that must give account D. H. Obey those that are set to Rule you in your several Churches the Bishops whose whole care is spent among you as being to give account of your proficiency in the Gospel O dreadful account for him that must give it for so many thousands whose faces he never saw and whose names he never heard much less did ever speak a word to them 1 Tim. 5.17 Let the Elders that Rule well be counted worthy of double honour especially they who labour in the word and doctrine see Dr. H. expounding it of Bishops 1 Thes. 5.12 And we beseech you Brethren to know them which labour among you and are over you in the Lord and admonish you and to esteem them very highly in love for their works sake Dr. H. Pay all due respects to the Bishops of your several Churches Tell us ye Parishes of England what labours have Bishops bestowed among you or how many of you have they admonished and which of them are you hence obliged to honour for their works sake and is it them or is it the Presbyters I mention none of this as blaming Bishops for negligence but as blaming them that will plead for and undertake an impossible task and after all with an hardened forehead will defend it with violence and separation from dissenters when so many ages have told the world to their faces that the undertaken task was never done 3. It is the work of Bishops to confirm the Baptized and is now made peculiar to them D. H. on Heb. 13. a. To teach exhort confirm and impose hands were all the Bishops office in that place And if so then the examining all the persons in a Diocess till they have just satisfaction that they are fit to be confirmed and the actuall Confirmation of them all will be a considerable task of it self 4. It is the Bishops work to exercise Discipline in the Church by admonishing the unruly and disorderly and hearing the case when the Church is told of those that have continued impenitent and openly to rebuke them and to cast them out by Excommunication if they remain impenitent and unreformed Dr. H. on Tit. 3.10 It is thy office and duty toward such an one first to admonish him once or twice and if that will not work upon him or reduce him then to set a mark upon him to inflict the censures on him and to appoint all men to break off familiar converse with him And O what abundance of work is this in the several parts even in one Parish much more in a Diocess see Dr. H. on Mat. 18.17 18. 5. It is the Bishops work to take the principal care of the poor and their stock or the contributions for them which contributions were made at every Assembly See Dr. H. on 1 Cor. 12.28 e. The supream trust and charge was reserved to the Apostles and Bishops of the Church So in the 41. Canon of the Apostles A Bishop must have the care of the monies so that by his Power all be dispensed to the poor by the Presbyters and Deacons and we command that he have in his Power the goods of the Church So Iustin Martyr Apol. 2. That which is gathered is deposited with the Prefect or Bishop and he helps relieves the Orphans and Widdows and becomes the Curator or Guardian to all absolutely NB that are in want So Ignatius to Polycarp After the Lord thou shalt be the Curator of the Widdows And Polycarp himself speaking of the Elders or Bishops They visit and take care of all that are sick not neglecting the Widdow the Orphan or the poor So Dr. H. read him further Remember this all you that are for our English Prelacy See that the Bishop be at once in every Parish in his Diocess to receive the contributions Or see that you put all into his hands and custody see that he take care of all the poor and widdows and orphans in all your Country and that all their monies be disbursed by him or his special appointment and be the common Overseer of the poor for his Diocess And when you and he have tryed this one seven years come then and tell us whether he will be any longer a Prelate or you will any longer be for Prelacy In the mean time judge in your Consciences by these passages of Antiquity cited by D. H. whether the antient Bishops had one Congregation or many score or hundred to be their Pastoral charge 6. Also it is a part of the Bishops work to visit the sick and pray with them and for them Iam. 5.14 Is any sick among you let him call for the Elders of the Church and let them pray over him see Dr. H. that by Elders is meant the Bishops e. Because there is no Evidence whereby these inferiour Presbyters may appear to have been brought into the Churâ—h so early and because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the plural doth no way conclude that there were more of these Elders then one in each particular Church any more then that the sick man was bound to call for more then one and because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elders of the Church was both in the Scripture stile and in the first writers the title of Bishops and lastly because the visiting of the sick is anciently mentioned as one branch of the Office of Bishops therefore it may very reasonably be resolved that the Bishops of the Church one in each particular Church but many in the Universal are here meant so far Dr. H. Remember all you that are all for Prelacy to send for the Bishop when you are sick every person in the Diocess according to this express command And if he would do his work by a Deputy remember that in all that Diocess which was the Bishops charge in the Scripture-times
them when written and the like after the printing for the collecting the Errata of the Press I find by this hasty review and by some observation of mens readiness to misunderstand me that it is necessary to speak a little more about the following particulars that I may be understood by such as are willing to understand me and the mistakes of others I shall easily bear Sect. 1. Pag. 89. There is somewhat that requireth correction of the pen and somewhat that requireth explication In translating that passage of Ignatius Unus panis qui pro omnibus fractus est must be written next effusus est before unus Calix And for the following objection though it was made by a discreet person yet I know no ground for it unless Is. Vossius his Edition leave out 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which I have not now at hand but is likelyest I know not of any Greek copy that leaves it out Indeed Bishop Ushers Latine doth and the Vulgar Latine leaves out the translation of the next words before it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of which saith Bishop Usher Ex interpretatione hac excidisse videantur And noting the corruption of the Vulgar Translation in this very place I there premised to my Answer that it might occasion a change in the Text that it hath done so in many places I think is easie to prove but that it hath done so here there is no probability if any Greek Copy be as is objected and the Reasons of my conjecture of the possibility are so little for a probability that as I express them not so I think them not worth the expressing but rather bid you take that as non dictum Though of the general I find Bishop Usher himself saying both of his Latine Version Ex eâ solâ integritati suae restitui posse Ignatium polliceri non ausim and of the first Greek Edition Hanc reliqui sequuti sunt editores non ex Graco aliquo codice alio sed partim ex ingenio partim ex vetere Vulgato Latino Interprete non paucis in locis eandem corrigentes Epist. ad Lect. ante Annot. pag. 26. Dissert Sect. 2. I must intreat the Reader to observe that my drift in this writing is not so much to oppose any form of Government meerly as contrary to the Institution or Apostolical Rule as to plead against that which I take to be destructive to the Ends of Government Not that I desire not a careful adhering to the sacred Rule but 1. Because I suppose that many circumstantials of Discipline undetermined in the Word are feigned by some to be substanstantial necessary things and that many matters are indifferent that some lay the Peace if not the being of the Church upon 2. Because I so far hate contention that if any Government contrary to my Iudgement were set up that did not apparently in the nature of it wrong the Church I would silently live under it in peace and quietness and accordingly would be now loth to enter a quarrel with any Writers that differ from us in tolerable things But if I know that their judgement reduced to practice is like to be the undoing of many souls and to cast Discipline almost wholly out of the Church I think it better to displease them then let them undo the Church without contradiction The best is the serious Christians of this age have experience to help them to understand the case and I suppose my Disputation to be unto them as if I Disputed before a man that is restored from want or banishment or sickness whether he should be reduced to the Condition from which he is restored Sect. 3. Some passages here will occasion the Question as p. 5. Whether and how far Church Government is jure Divino But of this in the main I am agreed with them that I dispute To speak further my own judgement is 1. That the Spirit of God hath established all the Officers and worship-Ordinances of his Church and that no new Church-office or Ordinance of worship as to the substance may be instituted by man 2. But that there are many Circumstantials about the Exercise of those Offices and Ordinances that are not determined particularly by a Law but are left to humane prudence to determine of by the General directions of the Law And so I suppose that Bishops and Presbyters are but one Office of Gods institution but in the exercise of this Office if one for order be made a Moderator or President of the rest or by agreement upon a disparity of parts or interest do unequally divide their work between them in the exercise it is a thing that may be done and is fit where the Edification of the Church requireth it but not a thing that always must be done nor is of it self a Duty but a thing indifferent The following Case therefore I hence resolve Sect. 4. Quest. Whether the Order of subject Presbyters might lawfully be created by Bishops or any humane Power and whether the Order of Bishops might lawfully be created for the avoiding of Schism by the consent of Presbyters or Metropolitans by Bishops Answ. If you understand by the word Order a distinct Office none may create any of these but God But if by Subject Presbyters be meant only men of the same Office with Bishops that do for the Churches benefit subject themselves to the direction or Presidency of another upon some disparity in their gifts or the like in the exercise of that Office I suppose that this is a thing that by Consent may be lawfully done And so I verily believe that betimes in the Church it was done of which anon So if by Bishops be meant no distinct Office but one of the Presbyters chosen from among the rest to exercise his Ministery in some eminency above the rest by reason of his greater Gifts or for Peace and Order I doubt not but it is a thing that consent may do And accordingly the Canon Law defines a Bishop that he is Unus è Presbyteris c. So if by a Metropolitan be not meant another Office but one in the same Office by reason of the advantage of his Seat chosen to some acts of Order for the common benefit I doubt not but it may be done but every such Indifferent thing is not to be made Necessary statedly and universally to the Church Sect. 5. When I do in these Papers plead that the Order of Subject Presbyters was not instituted in Scripture times and consequently that it is not of Divine Institution I mean as aforesaid that as a distinct Office or Species of Church ministers as to the Power from God it is not of Divine Institution nor a lawful Institution of man but that among men in the same Office some might Prudentially be chosen to an eminency of degree as to the exercise and that according to the difference of their advantages there might be a disparity in the use of their
authority and gifts I think was done in Scripture times and might have been after if it had not then And my judgement is that ordinarily every particular Church such as our Parish Churches are had more Elders then One but not such store of men of eminent gifts as that all these Elders could be such But as if half a dozen of the most judicious persons of this Parish were Ordained to be Elders of the same Office with my self but because they are not equally fit for publick preaching should most imploy themselves in the rest of the Oversight consenting that the publick preaching lie most upon me and that I be the Moderator of them for Order in Circumstantials This I think was the true Episcopacy and Presbytery of the first times From the mistake of which two contrary Errors have arisen The one of those that think this Moderator was of another Office in specie having certain work assigned him by God which is above the reach of the Office of Presbyters to perform and that he had many fixed Churches for his charge The other of them that think these Elders were such as are called now Lay-elders that is Vnordained men authorized to Govern without Authority to Preach Baptize or Administer the Lords Supper And so both the Prelatical on one side and the Presbyterians and Independents on the other side run out and mistake the ancient form and then contend against each other This was the substance of what I wrote to Mr. Vines which his subjoyned Letter refers to where he signifieth that his judgement was the same When Paul and Barnabas were together Paul was the chief speaker and yet Barnabas by the Idolaters called Jupiter Nature teacheth us that men in the same Office should yet have the preheminence that 's due to them by their Age and Parts and Interests c. and that Order should be kept among them as in Colledges and all Societies is usual The most excellent part of our work is publick preaching but the most of it for quantity is the rest of the Oversight of the Church in Instructing personally admonishing reproving enquiring into the truth of accusations comforting visiting the sick stablishing the weak looking to the poor absolving answering doubts excommunicating and much more And therefore as there is a necessity as the experienced know of many Elders in a particular Church of any great number so it is fit that most hands should be most imployed about the said works of Oversight yet so as that they may preach as need and occasion requireth and administer Sacraments and that the eminent Speakers be most employed in publick preaching yet so as to do their part of the rest as occasion requireth And so the former Elders that Rule well shall be worthy of double honour but especially these that labour in the Word and Doctrine by more ordinary publick preaching And such kind of seldom-preaching Ministers as the former were in the first times and should be in most Churches yet that are numerous Sect. 6. When I speak in these Papers therefore of other mens Concessions that there were de facto in Scripture times but One Bishop without any subject Presbyters to a particular Church remember that I speak not my own judgement but urge against them their own Concessions And when I profess my Agreement with them it is not in this much less in all things for then I needed not disspute against them but it is in this much that in Scripture times there was de facto 1. No meer Bishop of many particular Churches or stated worshipping Congregations 2. Nor any distinct Office or Order of Presbyters that radically had no Power to Ordain or Govern or Confirm c. which are the subject Presbyters I mean Sect. 7. Specially remember that by Bishops in that dispute I mean according to the Modern use one that is no Archbishop and yet no meer Presbyter but one supposed to be between both that is a Superior to meer Presbyters in Order or Office and not only in degree or modification of the exercise but below Archbishops whether in Order or Degree These are they that I dispute against excluding Metropolitans or Archbishops from the question and that for many Reasons Sect. 8. If it were proved or granted that there were Archbishops in those times of Divine Institution it would no whit weaken my Arguments For it is only the lowest sort of Bishops that I dispute about yea it confirmeth them For if every combination of many particular Churches had an Archbishop then the Governors of such Combinations were not meer Bishops and then the meer Bishops were Parish Bishops or Bishops of single Churches only and that is it that I plead for against Diocesan Bishops that have many of these Churches perhaps some hundreds under one Bishop of the lowest rank having only Presbyters under him of another Order Sect. 9. If any think that I should have answered all that is written for an Apostolical Institution of Metropolitans or of Archbishops or of the subject sort of Presbyters or other points here toucht I answer them 1. In the former my work was not much concerned nor can any man prove me engaged to do all that he fancieth me concerned to do 2. Few men love to be contradicted and confuted and I have no reason to provoke them further then necessity requireth it 3. I take not all that I read for an argument so considerable as to need Replyes If any value the Arguments that I took not to need an Answer let them make their best of them I have taken none of them out of their hands by robbing them of their Books if they think them valid let them be so to them Every Book that we write must not be in folio and if it were we should leave some body unanswered still I have not been a contemner or neglecter of the writings of the contrary-minded But voluminously to tell the world of that I think they abuse or are abused in is unpleasing and unprofitable Sect. 10. And as to the Jus Divinum of limited Diocesses to the Apostles as Bishops and of Archbishops Metropolitans c. I shall say but this 1. That I take not all for currant in matter of fact that two or three or twice so many say was done when I have either cross testimony or valid Reasons of the improbability I believe such Historians but with a humane faith and allow them such a degree of that as the probability of their report and credibility of the persons doth require 2. I take it for no proof that all that was done in all the Churches that I am told was done in some 3. I take the Law of Nature and Scripture to be the entire Divine Law for the Government of the Church and World 4. And therefore if any Father or Historian tell me that this was delivered by the Apostles as a Law to the Vniversal Church which is not contained in Scriptures
nor to be proved by them I will not believe them no more then I would have believed Papius and all his Millenary followers that pretended Tradition from Saint John nor any more then I would have believed the Asians or Romans that pretended different times for Easter as a Tradition Apostolical binding the whole Church 5. If it were proved that de facto the Apostles did thus or thus dispose of a circumstance of Government or Worship which yet is undetermined in Scripture I take it not for a sufficient proof that they intended that Fact for an Universal Law or that they meant to bind all the Churches in all ages to do the like no more then Christ intended at the Institution of his Supper to tie all ages to do it after Supper in an upper room but with twelve and sitting c. 6. Yea if I had found a Direction or Command from the Apostles as Prudential determiners of a Circumstance pro tempore loco only as of the kiss of love hair covering eating things strangled and blood c. I take it not for a proof that this is an universal standing Law One or two of these exceptions wil shake off the proofs that some count strong for the universal obligation of the Church to Diocesans or Metropolitans Sect. 11. That the Apostles had Episcopal Power I mean such in each Church where they came as the fixed Bishops had I doubt not And because they founded Churches according to the success of their labors and setled them and if they could again visited them therefore I blame not the Ancients for calling them the Bishops of those Churches But that each man of them was really a fixed Metropolitan or Patriarch or had his proper Diocess in which he was Governor in chief and into which no other Apostle might come as an equal Governor without his leave this and such like is as well proved by silence as by all that I have read for it of Reason or History that is the Testimonies of the Ancients I find them sometime claiming a special interest in the Children that they have begotten by their Ministry But doubtless when Paul Barnabas or Silas went together some might be converted by one and some by another within the same Diocess or City If any man shall convince me that any great stress doth lie upon this questioÌ„ I shal be willing to give him more of my reasons for what I say Sect. 12. And as to them that confidently teach that the Apostles suited the Ecclesiastical Government to the Politick and that as by a Law for the Church universally to obey All the confutation at present that I will trouble them with shall be to tell them that I never saw any thing like a proof of it to my understanding among all the words that are brought to that purpose and to tell them 1. That if Paul chose Ephesus Corinth and other the most populous places to preach in it was but a prudential circumstantiating of his work according to that General Law of doing all to Edification and not an obligation on all the Pastors or Preachers of the Gospel to do the same where the case is not the same 2. And if Paul having converted many in these Cities do there plant Churches and no other can be proved in Scripture times it follows not that we may plant no Churches but in Cities 3. And if the greatest Cities had then the most numerous Churches and the most eminent Pastors fitted to them and therefore are named with some note of excellency above the rest it followeth not that the rest about them were under them by subjection 4. Yea if the Bishops of the chief Cities for order sake were to call Provincial Assemblies and the meetings to be in their Cities and they were to be the Presidents of the rest in Synods with such like circumstantial difference it followeth not that they were proper Governours of the rest and the rest to obey them in the Government of their proper charges Nor that they had power to place and displace them 5. Much less will it prove that these Metropolitans taking the name of Diocesans might put down all the Bishops of two hundred Churches under them and set up none but Presbyters in order distinct from Bishops over the flocks besides themselves and so the Archbishops having extinguished all the first Order of Bishops of single Churches to take the sole Government of so many Churches even people as well as Presbyters into their own hands 6. And I do not think that they can prove that the Apostles did institute as many sorts of Church-Government then as there were of civil â—olicy in the world All the world had not the Roman form of Government Nor had lesser Cities the same dependence upon greater in all other Countryes 7. Was it in one degree of subordination of Officers only or in all that the Apostles suited the Ecclesiasticall Government to the Civil If in One how is it proved that they intended it in that one and not in the rest If in all then we must have many degrees of Officers more then yet we have Inferiors very many and Superiors some of all conscience too high then we must have some to answer the Correctors the Consular Presidents and the Vicars and Lieutenants the Pro-consuls and Prefects and the Emperor himself Even one to be Vniversal in the Empire that 's yet some Limit to the Pope and will hazzard the removing of the Supremacy to Constantinople by the Rule that the Apostles are supposed to go by And great variety must there be in the several Diocesses of the Empire which Blondell hath punctually described de primatu in Eccles. pag. 511. to 519. shewing the causes of the inequality of Bishopricks and Churches 8. According to this Opinion the form of Church must alter as oft as Emperours will change their Policy or Wars shall change them And upon every change of the Priviledges of a City the Churches Preheminence must change and so we shall be in a mutable frame Which if Basil and Anthymius had understood might have quicklier decided their controversie Yea according to this opinion Princes may quite take down Metropolitans at pleasure by equalling the priviledges of their Cities The best is then that it is in the power of our Civil Governours to dissolve our obligation to Metropolitans yea and to all Bishops too if Cities must be their only residence as I have shewed Sect. 13. As for them that pretend humane Laws for their form of Government that is the decrees of General Councils I answer 1. I disown and deny all humane Laws as obligatory to the Church Vniversal It is the prerogative of God yea the greatest point of the exercise of his Soraignty to be the Law-giver to his Vniversal Church There can be no Vniversal Laws without an Vniversal Law-giver and there is no Vniversal Law-giver under Christ in the world 2. And for General
belong to the Office of a Presbyter when yet he might not exercise it The Bishops in the Ordination of Presbyters enabled them to preach the Gospel And yet they were after that forbidden to preach till they had a License and it was put into the Visitation Articles to present those Ministers that preached without License If they will deny us the exercise of the Power that they first confess belongeth to our Office we are not answerable for their self-contradictions 2. By Discipline I suppose they mean but our Instruction and our publishing their Orders for Penance Excommunication or Absolution 3. They were the Judges of the sense of the Laws as far as the executâ—on required And the Vniversal Practice of England with their writings shewed us to our cost their judgement What good would it do us if the Law had been on our side while the Concurrent Iudgement and Practice of the Governors denyed it and went against it 4. He that had kept a man from the Sacrament according to the plain words of the Rubrick was to have been accountable for it at their Courts and so likely if he had been a man of serious piety and not a persecutor of Puritans to have been undone by it and was like to make so little of it as to the Ends of Discipline all men being compelled by the Presentments to receive the Sacrament that I never knew one to my best remembrance in 25 years time that I lived under the Bishops that was kept from the Sacrament except a Puritan that scrupled to take it kneeling And what was this to true Church-Government Sect. 17. Object But either they did it according to the established Law or not If they did the fault was in the Law and not in them If they did transgress the Law then the fault was in mens abuse and the Law and Order cannot be blamed Answ. A sad case to poor ignorant miserable souls that they must be left in obstinacy and deprived of Gods means of Reformation without Remedy because either the Law or Iudges must be excused The Iudges are the mouth of the Law to us that is Law in the issue to us which they unanimously call Law If the fault were in the Law it was time it should be altered if it was in the Bishops universally it was time they should be altered Let us but have a Remedy and enjoy Gods Ordinances which he that is the Churches Head and King hath appointed for our benefit and we have done Sect. 18. Object But may not Bishops when they Ordain Delegate what measure of Ministerial Power they please and if you never received more why should you use it Answ. A poor relief to the forsaken Church Deprive her of Government and then tell us that we had no power Is the Power desirable to us if the Ordinance were not desirable to the Church 2. What Power have Bishops and whence did they receive it to change the Office of Christs institution or his Apostles If so they may turn the three Orders which the Papists themselves say the Pope cannot alter into as many more Then they may create an Office for Baptizing only and another for the Lords Supper only and another for praying only and so of the rest which is worse then making Lay-elders or then taking away the Cup in the Sacrament Hath Christ by his Spirit instituted Church-offices and are they now at the Bishops power to transform them 3. If they had power to distribute the work in the exercise part to one and part to another yet they have no power to deprive the particular Churches of the whole or any part but one or more must do it and the Office must be the same and the power exercised to the edification and not the confusion and corruption of the Church Sect. 19. Object But the Keys were given only to the Apostles and not to the seventy Disciples nor to Presbyters Answ. 1. If the seventy were only Disciples and not Church-officers the Ancients and the English Bishops have been much mistaken that have so much urged it that Presbyters succeed them as Bishops do the Apostles But if they be Officers then they have the Keys 2. The Episcopal Divines even the Papists commonly confess that part of the Keys are given to the Presbyters and Christ gave them together 3. Were they given only to Apostles for themselves or to convey to others If to themselves only then no one hath them now If to convey to others then either to Apostles only as their Successors but there 's none such or to Patriarchs or Primates or Metropolitans or Archbishops only but none of this will please the Bishops or to Bishops only which I grant taking Bishops in the Scripture sense And I desire to see it proved that it was not a presumptuous Innovation in them whosoever they were that after the days of the Apostles Ordained a new sort of Presbyters in the Church that should have no power of the Keys 4. They that must use the Keys must have Power to use them But Parish Bishops must use them as the nature and necessity of the work doth prove Therefore Parish Bishops must have the Power If only one man in a Diocess of an hundred or two hundred Churches shall have the power of the Keys we may know after all the talk of Discipline what Discipline to expect Sect. 20. Object Why blame you Lay-chancellors Registers Proctors c. when you set up Lay-elders we are as well able to call Chancellors Ecclesiastical as you can call Lay-elders so Answ. I never pleaded for Lay-elders If other men erre will it justifie your error But I must tell you an unordained man in a single Parish having power only to assist the Pastor in Government is far unlike a Lay-Court to Govern all the Churches of a Diocess Sect. 21. Object Do not your Arguments against Bishops for excluding Discipline make as much for the casting out of Ministers of whom you complain in your Reformed Pastor for neglect of Discipline Ans. 1. The Nature of Prelacy as set up in England â—here only one man had the Government of so many Churches unavoidably excludeth it if the best men were Bishops till it be otherwise formed But the nature of a Parochial Episcopacy is fitted to promote it 2. Those Presbyters that I blamed for neglecting the higher acts of Discipline do yet keep away more prophane persons from the Lords Supper in some one Church then ever I knew kept away in all places under the Prelates 3. If Ministers sinfully neglect Discipline yet as Preachers and Guides in publick worship c. they are of unspeakable need and value to the Church But few Bishops of England preached ordinarily And 4. We are desirous that Bishops shall continue as Preachers but not as Diocesan excluders of Parochial Church-Discipline Sect. 22. Object By pretending to agree with them that say there were no Presbyters in Scripture times you would put down
Presbyters and then the Government of the Church will be such as you blame Ans. It is the thing I plead for that every Church may have such Bishops as they had in the Apostles days and not meer new devised Presbyters that are of another Office and Order Sect. 23. Object Bishops had Deacons to attend them in the Scripture times though not Presbyters therefore it follows not that Bishops had then but One Congregation Answ. Yes beyond doubt For Deacons could not and did not perform the Pastoral part in the whole publick worship of any stated Churches They did not preach as Deacons and pray and praise God in the publick Assemblies and administer the Sacraments It 's not affirmed by them that are against us therefore there were no more Churches then Bishops Sect. 24. Object But what doth your Arguing make against the other Episcopal Divines that are not of the opinion that there were no meer Presbyters in Scripture times Answ. 1. Other Arguments here are as much against them though this be not if they maintain that sort of Episcopacy which I oppose 2. They also confess the smalness of Churches in Scripture times as I have shewed out of Bishop Downam and that is it that I plead for Sect. 25. Object But if you would have all reduced to the state that de facto the Church Government was in in Scripture times you would have as but one Church to a Bishop so but One Bishop to a Church as Dr. H. Dissert 4 c. 19 20 21 22. hath proved copiously that is that Scripture mentioneth no assistant Presbyters with the Bishop and would that please you that think a single Congregation should have a Presbyterie You should rather as he teacheth you c. 21. p. 237. be thankful to Ignatius and acknowledge the dignity of your Office ab â—o primario defensore astrui propugnari Answ. As we make no doubt from plain Scripture to prove and have proved it that single Churches had then many Presbyters some of them at least So having the greatest part of Fathers and Episcopal Divines of our mind herein even Epiphanius himself we need not be very solicitous about the point of Testimony oâ— Authority 2. We had rather of the two have but one Pastor to a Congregation then one to a hundred or two hundred Congregations having a Presbyter under him in each authorized only to a part of the work 3. Either the distinct Office of the Presbyters is of Divine Institution to be continued in the Church or not If not Bishops or some body it seems may put down the Office If it be then it seems all Gods Vniversal standing Laws even for the species of Church Officers are not contained in Scripture And if not in Scripture where then If in the Fathers 1. How shall we know which are they and worthy of that name and honor 2. And what shall we do to reconcile their contradictions 3. And what number of them must go to be the true witnesses of a Divine Law 4. And by what note may we know what points so to receive from them and what not But if it be from Councils that we must have the rest of the Laws of God not contained in the Scripture 1. Is it from all or some only If from all what a case are we in as obliged to receive Contradictions and Heresies If from some only which are they and how known and why they rather then the rest Why not the second of Ephesus as well as the first at Constantinople But this I shall not now further prosecute unless I were dealing with the Papists to whom have said more of it in another writing 4. Ignatius his Presbyters were not men of another Office nor yet set over many Churches that had all but one Bishop But they were all in the same Churches with the Bishop and of the same Office only subject to his moderation or presidency for Vnity and Order sake and this we strive not against if limited by the general Rules of Scripture Sect. 26. Object Those that you have to deal with say not that There were no Presbyters in the Apostles days but only that in the Apostles writings the word Bishops always signifies Bishops and the word Elders either never or but rarely Presbyters But it is possible for them to be in the time of those writings that are not mentioned in those writings and the Apostles times were larger then their writings as you are told Vind. against the Lond. Minist p. 106. Ans. 1. The words I cited from Annot. in Act. 11. faithfully which you may peruse which say that there is no evidence that in Scripture times any of the second Order were instituted So that it is not Scripture writings only but Scripture times that 's spoken of And 2. If there be no evidence of it the Church cannot believe it or affirm it for it judgeth not of unrevealed things and therefore to us it is no Institution that hath no evidence 3. The Apostles were all dead save John before the end of Scripture times So that they must be instituted by John only And John dyed the next year after Scripture times as the chief Chronologers judge For as he wrote his Apocalypse about the 14 th year of Domitian so his Gospel the year before Trajan and dyed the next year being after the commoner reckoning An. D. 98. and some think more And what likelihood or proof at least that John did institute them the year that he dyed when the same men tell us of his excursion into Asia to plant Elders bâ—fore that year it 's like 4. And if they were not instituted in Scripture time then no testimony from Antiquity câ—n prove them then instituted But indeed if we had such testimony and nothing of it in the Scripture it self we should take it as little to our purpose For 5. doth Antâ—quity say that the Institution was Divine of Universal obligation to the Church or only that it was but a prudential limitation of the exercise of the same Office the like I demand of other like Testimonies in case of Diocesses Metropolitans c. If only the later it binds us not but proveth only the licet and not the oportet at least as to all the Church And then every Countrey that finds cause may set up another kind of government â—ut if it be the former that is asserted as from antiquity then the Scripture containeth not all Gods Vniversal Laws Which who ever affirmeth must go to Fathers or Councils instead of Scripture to day and to the infallibility of the Pope or a Prophetical Inspiration to morrow and next Sect. 27. Once more to them that yet will maintain that the Apostles modelled the Ecclesiastical form to the Civil and that as a Law to the whole Church we take it as their Concession that then we ow no more obedience to the Archbishop of Canterbury then to the Civil Magistrate of Canterbury and especially
and Government is to be found wholly in the written word of God called the holy Scriptures This we are agreed on against the Papists who would supply the supposed defects of Scripture by their unwritten Traditions which they call the other part of Gods word Church Canons and Laws of men may determine of some modes and circumstances for the better execution of the Laws of God by the People whom they are over but they cannot make new Church Ordinances or Governments nor convey a Power which God the fountain of Power did not ordain and convey nor can they give what they themselves had not The Church-office and Authority therefore that is not proved from the Holy Scripture is to be taken as the fruit of humane arrogancy and presumption Yet I deny not but that we may find much in Antiquity in Fathers and Councils about matters of fact to help us to understand some Scriptures and so to discern the matter of right Prop. 3. The Scripture doth not Contradict but suppose and confirm the light of Nature nor doth it impose upon any man Natural impossibilities nor constitute offices which cannot be executed or which would destroy that end to which they are supposed to be Constituted Prop. 4. Ecclesiastical Authority comprehendeth not the power of the sword nor any power of using violence to mens bodies or laying mulcts or confiscations on their estates The Ecclesiastical Power which Christ ordained was exercised for the first three hundred years without any touching of mens bodies or purses before there were any Christian Princes Prop. 5. Magistrates are not eo nomine obliged to punish men because they are Excommunicated whether upon every just Excommunication they should punish I will not now dispute but they are bound to know that their penalties be deserved before they inflict them and therefore must themselves take Cognisance of the Cause and as rational agents understand before they act and not blindly follow the Judgements of the Bishops as if they were but as Executioners where the Bishops are Judges Prop. 6. The Power of the highest Church-governours is but an Authority of Directing in the way to salvation It is but Directive but then there is no room for the common Objection that then it is no greater then any other man may perform for it is one thing to Direct Occasionally from Charity and another thing to Direct by Authority in a standing office as purposely appointed hereunto The Power of Church-Governors is but of the same nature as is the Power of a Physitian over his Patients or of a School-master over his Schollers supposing he had not the power of the rod or actual force but such a power as the Professors of Philosophy or other sciences had in their several schools upon the adult nor all so great neither because the Laws by which we must rule are made to our hands as to the substantials Hence therefore it is plain that as we can bind or force no man to believe us or to understand the truth and to be Christians but by the power of demonstrated Evidence and by the light which we let in through Gods grace into their Consciences so neither can we cause any to execute our sentences against offenders further than by light we convince them that it is their duty so that if all the Bishops or Presbyteries in the land should judge such or such an opinion to be heresie and should Excommunicate those that own it as hereticks in this case if the Church do believe as the Pastors believe they will consent and avoid the Excommunicate person but if they take it to be Gods truth which the Pastors call heresie they will not take themselves bound by that sentence to avoid him nor will the Offender himself any further be sensible of a penalty in the sentence then he shall be convinced that he hath erred and if the Church avoid him he will justifie himself and judge that they do it wrongfully and will glory in his suffering so that it is on the Conscience that Church-Governors can work and no otherwise on the outward man but mediante Conscientiâ Prop. 7. The ground of this is partly because no Church Governors can bind any man contrary to Gods word Clave errante ita apparente if the people know that he erreth they are not to obey him against God Yet in the bare inconvenient determination of some Circumstantials by which the duty is not destroyed but less conveniently performed the people are bound to obey their Governors because it is not against Gods determination and because he erreth but in an undetermined point of which God appointed him to be the orderly determiner But if God have once determined no mans contrary determination can oblige nor yet if they go beyond the sphere of their own work and determine of an aliene subject which God did never commit to their determination else a Minister or Bishop might oblige every Taylor how to cut his garment and every Shoâ—-maker how to cut his shoe so that they should sin if they did disobey which is ridiculous to imagine and if they go about to introduce new stated Ordinances or Symbols in the Church which they have nothing to do with or in any other work shall assume to themselves a power which God never gave them it doth no more oblige then in the former case Prop. 8. Another reason of the sixth Proposition is because The People have a Iudgement of discerning whether the Governors do go according to Gods word or not else they should be led blindfold and be obliged by God to go against Gods word whensoever their Governors shall go against it It is not bruits or Infants but rational men that we must rule Prop. 9. The three things which Church power doth consist in are in conformity to the three parts of Christs own office 1. About matter of Faith 2. About matter of Worship 3. About matter of Practice in other cases 1. Church-Governors about Doctrine or Matters of Faith are the Peoples Teachers but cannot oblige them to Err or to believe any thing against God nor make that to be truth or error that is not so beâ—ore 2. In matter of Worship Church-guides are as Gods Priests and are to go before the people and stand between God and them and present their prayers and prayses to God and administer his holy mysteries and bless them in his name 3. The Commanding Power of Pastors is in two things 1. In Commanding them in the name of Christ to obey the Laws which he hath made them already And this is the principal 2. To give them new Directions of our own which as is said 1. Must not be against Gods Directions 2. Nor about any matter which is not the object of our own office but is without the verge of it 3. But it is only in the making of under laws for the better execution of the laws of Christ and those
they might nor possibly can do it To be for them is to consent that all should be undone and that Drunkards and Railers and all wicked persons shall continue so still or continue members of our Churches in all their obstinacy and that there shall be nothing but the name of Government and Censure without the thing It s hard making men of Conscience believe the contrary that have had the triall that we have had If where good men were Bishops thus it was what hope of better by that way We cannot shut our eyes against so great experience And certainly those Learned men among us that think so much Discipline may serve turn to all the Congregations in the whole Diocess as the Bishop can perform or have a Negative Vote in do too manifestly shew that they are less friends to real godliness and greater friends to sin and care too little for the matter it self while they contend about the manner or agent then serious Christians should do If men once plainly shew themselves meer formalists and would set up a scarecrow and pull down all true Discipline by setting up one man to do the work of five hundred and making the exercise of it impossible what serious Christian will ever take their part Not I while I breath Who can choose but see that such do seek their dignity and Lordships and worldly Mammon more then the Kingdom of Christ. I know they will be angry with me for this language but so are most impenitent persons with reproofs I would advise all of them that survive to lay to heart before the Lord what they did in undertaking such an impossible task and leaving so many souls and Congregations without Christs remedy and suffering the Churches to be so foul while they had the Beesom in their hands This being so manifest that it is impossible for an English Bishop to Govern as they undertook so many Congegations I may well next argue from the mischiefs that follow Argum. 2. THat Government which gratifieth the Devil and wicked men is not to be restored under any pretence of the Order or Peace of the Church But such was the English Episcopacy therefore c. The Major is unâ—enyable supposing that it do not this by an avoidable accident but by natural Necessity as I have proved I confess some of the Men were so Learned and Good men that I think few men honour their names more then my self But it is the way of Government that I have spoke of And for the Minor it is as plain from experience and the argument before used If it necessarily exclude the exercise of Christs discipline from most Congregations then doth it gratifie Satan But c And if it keep wicked obstinate sinners from the power of discipline then doth it gratifie sinners in their Sins and consequently please Satan But this it doth therefore c. Who knows not for it cannot be denied that the generality of the rabble of ignorant persons worldlings drunkards haters of Godliness c. are very zealous for Episcopacy whilest multitudes of truly conscientious people have been against it And who knows not that they both fetcht their chief Motives from experience The ungodly found that Bishops let them keep their sins and troubled them not with this preciseness but rather drove away the precise preachers and people whom they abhorred And the godly people that disliked Epâ—scopacy did it principally on the same experience observing that they befriended the wicked at least by preserving them from the due rod of discipline but exercised their zeal against them that scrupled or questioned at least their own standing or assumed power or the abuse of it And then further Argum. 3. THat Government which unavoidably causeth separations and divisions in the Church is not â—o be restored under any pretence of its Order and Peace But such is the English Episcopacy therefore c. I know the clean contrary is strongly pretended and they tell us that we may see how Episcopacy kept men in Unity by the many Sects that since are risen But let it be observed 1. That these Sects were hatched in the separation which was caused by themselves 2. That the increase hath been since there was no Government at all 3. It was not Episcopacy but the Magistrates Sword whose terror did attend it that kept under heresies in that measure that they were Had Episcopacy stood on its own legs without the support of secular force so that it might have workt only on the conscience then you should have seen more Sects then now Do you think that if Episcopacy were in Scotland in the Case as Presbytery is now without the Sword to enforce it that it would keep so much Unity in Religion as is there It s known in France and other places that Presbytery hath kapt more Unity and more kept out Heresies and Schisms even without the Sword then Episcopacy hath done with it 4. But the thing that I speak of it undenyable that it was the pollution of our Churches that caused the Separatists in the Bishops dayes to withdraw This was their common cry against us Your Churches bear with Drunkards Whoremongers Railers open Scorners at Godliness with whom the Scripture bids us not eat And we could not deny it for the Bishops did keep it so by keeping out all effectual Discipline Only we told them that it was the Prelates sin and not theirs that could not help it and that a polluted Church might be a true Church And so the Disciplinarian Non-Conformists were fain by many painful writings to suppress the spirit of separation or else it had been like to have overwhelmed all Mr. Iohn Paget Mr. Bradshaw Mr. Arthur Hildersham Mr. Iohn Ball Mr. Brightman Mr. Paul Bains Mr. Dod Mr. Parker Dr. Ames and many other such were fain to make it a great part of their business to quench the fire of separation which even their persecutors kindled by the exclusion of Discipline And yet the sense of the Churches uncleanness was so deep in mens minds that it had bred such abundance of discontended humors that they easily broke out and turned into this disorderly swarm which we have seen as soon as the wars had but given them liberty And even to this day it is the uncleanness of our Churches wherein I would the Pastors were wholly innocent which maintaineth much of the separation among many sober godly men For the Churches were left so polluted by the Bishops that in most places the Presbyters dare scarce go roundly about the cure unless they had the help of the sword wherein yet for my part I think them deeply sinful Argum. 4. THat Episcopacy which degradeth all the Presbyters in the Diocess or causeth them to suspend the exercise of an Essential part of their Office is not to be restored under any pretence of right order or peace But such was the late English Episcopacy therefore I confess this is the
were Churches And the Text saith that they ordained them Elders in every Church or Church by Church and therefore Cenchrea being a Church must have such Elders ordained to it according to the Apostles Rule And that it was a Parish with one Presbyter subject to Corinth is all unproved and therefore to no purpose 5. Yet I prove that the English Prelacy on their own grounds is not Iure Divino in that it is against the word of God according to their own interpretation of which next Argum. 10. THat Episcopacy which is contrary to the wâ—rd of God or Apostolical Institution according to their own interpretation is not to be restored But such is the late English Episcopacy therefore c. I prove the Minor for the Major needeth none according to their own interpretation of Tit. 1.5 and other Texts Every City should have a Bishop and if it may be a Presbytery And so many Councils have determined only when they grew greater they except Cities that were too small but so did not Paul But the late Episcopacy of England is contrary to this for one Bishop only is over many Cities If therefore they will needs have Episcopacy they should at least have had a Bishop in every City and though we do not approve of confining them to Cities yet this would be much better then as they were for then 1. They would be nearer their charges and within reach of them 2. And they would have smaller charges which they might be more capable of overseeing for there would be ten or twenty Bishops â—or one that be now If they say that except Bath and Wells Coventry and Licâ—fiâ—ld or some few they have but one City I answer it s not so For every Corporation or Burrough-Town is truly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and therefore should have a Bishop Let them therefore either prove that a Market-Town a Burrough a Corporation is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or else let every one of these Towns and Burroughs have a Bishop to govern that Town with the Neighbouring Villages by the consent and help of the Presbyters of these Vilâ—ages according to their own grounds And if it were so they would be no more then Classical Bishops at most Perhaps they 'le say that while we pretend to take down Bishops we do but set up more and would have many for one while we would have every Corporation or Parish to have a Bishop To which I answer its true but then it is not the same sort of Bishops which we would exclude and which we would multiply we would exclude those Bishops that would undertake two or three hundred mens work themselves and will rule a whole Diocess alone or by a Lay Chancellor when every conscionable man that hath faithfully tryed it doth feel the oversight of one Congregation to be so great a burden that it makes him groan and groan again We would exclude those Bishops that would exclude all others in a whole Diocess that they may do the work alone and so leave it undone while they plead that it belongs to them to do it If they will come into the Lords Harvest and exclude from the work of Government the Labourers of a whole County or two we have reason to contradict them But this is not to bring in more such Bishops as they that will shut out others but to keep in the necessary labouring Bishops whom they would shut out Nor do we shut out them themselves as Labourers or Rulers but as the excluders of the Labourers or Rulers If we have a Church to build that requireth necessarily two hundred workmen and some Pillars in it to Erect of many hundred tun weight if one of the workmen would say that it belongs to him to do it all himself or at least when the materials are brought to the place prepared to rear and order and place every stone and pillar in the building I would no oâ—herwise exclude the vain pretender then by introducing necessary help that the work may be done and I should think him a silly Civiller â—hat would tell me that while I exclude him I do â—ut multiply such as he when his every fault consisted in an hinderance of that necessary multiplication I know that some will say that we feign more work then is to be done and we would have the sentence of Excommunication pass upon every light offence I answer that its a thing that we abhor we would have none Excommunicated but for obstinacy in hainous sin when they will not hear the Church after more private admonition But there 's much more of the work of Government to be done on men that are not Excommunicable to bring them to Repentance and open confession for manâ—feâ—â—aâ—ion of that Repentance to the satisfaction of the Church but what need we plead how great the work is which every man may see before his eyes and experience putteth beyond dispute Furthermore that the English Episcopacy is dissonant from all Scripture Episcopacy I prove thus The Scripture knoweth but two sorts of Episcopacy the one General unfixed as to any Church or Country or Nation which was not called Episcopacy in the first times the other â—ixed Overseers of determinate Churches appropriated to their special charge these were called Bishops in those times whereas the former were some called Apostles from their immediate mission and exâ—raordinarâ— Priviledges or Evangelists or Fellow labourers and heâ—pers of the Apostles or by the like titles signifying their unlimited indeterminate charge But our English Bishops are neither of these therefore not any of Scripture appointment but different from them 1. They are not of the Apostolical Order of General Ministers for 1. Their principal work was Preaching to convert and congregate and then order Churches but our Bishops seldom preached for the most part 2. They were not tyed to any particular Church more then other save only as prudence directed them pâ—o tempore re nat for the succeâ—s of their work for the Church Unâ—veâ—sâ—l nor were they excluded or restrained from any part of the world as being another mans Diocess save only as prudence might direct them for the common good to distribute themselves pro tempore This is apparenâ— 1. by Christs Commission who sendeth them into all the world only by certain advantages and particular calls sitting Peâ—er more for the Circumcision and Paul for the Uncircumcision when yet both Petâ—r and Paul and all the rest did preach and look to both Circumcision and Uncircumcision 2. By the History of their peregrinations and labours which shew that they were not so fixed whatever some writers may ungroundedly affirm Eusâ—bius discrediting by fabulous mixtures the lighter sort of his Testimonies and censured by some rejection by Gelasius and others and some with him do tell us of some such things as some Apostles being fixed Bishops but with no such proofs as should satisfie a man that weighs the contrary
intimations of Scripture and the discord of these reporters among themselves Only it is certain that nature it self would so restrain them that as they could be but in one place at once so they could not be in perpetual motion and prudence would keep them longest in those places where most work was to be done And therefore Pauls three years abode at Ephesus and the neighbouring parts of Asia did not make him the fixed Diocesan Bishop of Ephesus And what I say of the Apostles I say also of many such Itinerant unfixed Ministers which were their helpers as Silas Apollo Barnabas Titus Timothy c. For though Timothy be called by some Anâ—ients the first Bishop of Ephesus and Titus of Crete yet it is apparent they were no such fixed Ministers that undertook a Diocess durantâ— vita as their proper charge which were then called Bâ—shops but they were â—tinerant helpers of the Apostles in gathering planting and first ordering of Churches And therefore Titus was left in a whole Nation or large Island to place Bishops or Elders in each City and set things in order and this but till Paul come and not to be himself their fixed Bishop and Timothy is proved by Scripture to have been unsetled and itinerant as a helper of Paul after that he is by some supposed to be fixed at Ephesus I will not needlesly actum agere let any man that is unsatisfied of this read impartially Mr. Prins unbishoping of Timothy and Titus and note there the Itinerary of Timothy from Scripture Texts If therefore our Bishops would have been of the Apostles and their General helpers race they should have gone up and down to gather and plant Churches and then go up and down to visit those which they have planted or if they live where all are Enchurched already they should go up and down to preach to the rudâ—r sort of them and by the power of the word to subdue men further to Christ anâ— to see that all Ministers where they come do their duty reproving and admonishing those that neglect it but not forbidding them to do it as a thing belonging only to them And by Spiritual weapons and authority should they have driven Ministers to this duty and not by meer secular force of which more anon 2. And as for the fixed Bishops of Apostolical Institution our English Prelacy are not like them For the fixed Bishops established by the Apostles were only Overseers of one particular Church But the English Prelates were the Overseers of many particular Churches Therefore the English Prelates were not the same with the old Bishops of the Apostles institution The course that the Prelates take to elude this argument is by giving us a false definition of a particular Church That we may not therefore have any unprofitable strife about words I shall signifie my own meaning By a Particular Church I mean an Associated or combined company of Christians for Communion in Publick Worship and Furtherance of each other in the way to heaven under the Guidance of Christs Church Officers one Elder or more such as are undivided or Churches of the first order commonly called Ecclesiae Primae as to existence and which contain not divers Political Churches in them A family I mean not for that 's not a Political Church having no Pastor An accidental company of Christians I mean not For those are no Association and so no Political Church Nor do I mean a National or Diocesane or Classical Church or any the like which are composed of many particular Churches of the first order conjunct It is not of Necessity that they alway or most usually meet in one Congregation because its possible they may want a capacious convenient room and its possible they may be under persecution so that they may be forced to meet secretly in small companies or there may be some aged weak people or children that cannot travail to the chief place of Meeting and so may have some Chappels of ease or smaller meeting But still it must be a number neither so big nor so small as to be uncapable of the ends of Association which enter the definition how ever weaknâ—ss age or other accidents may hinder some members from that full usefullness as to the main end whith other members have So that they which are so many or live at such a distance as to be uncapable of the ends are not such a Church nor are capable of so being For the number will alter the species In a word it cannot I think be proved that in the Primitive times there was any one fixed Bishop that Governed and Oversaw any more then one such particular political Church as was not composed of divers lesser political Churches nor that their Churches which any fixed Bishop oversaw were more then could hold Communion in Worship in one publick place for so many of them as could ordinarily hear at once for all the families cannot usually come at once they were not greater then some of our English Parishes are nor usually the tenth part so great I have been informed by the judicious inhabitants that there are fourscore thousand in Giles Cripple-gate Parish in London and about fifty thousand in Stepney and fourty thousand in Sepulchres There cannot any Church in Scripture be found that was greater nor neer so great as one of these Parishes No not the Church at Ierusalem it self of which so much is said No not if you admit all the number of moveable Converts and Sojournours to have been of that particular Church which yet cannot be proved to have been so I know Bishop Downam doth with great indignation Dispute that Diocesses were beâ—ore Parishes and that it was more then one Congregation that was contained in those Diocesses We will not contend about the name Diocess and Parish which by the Ancients were sometime used promiscuously for the same thing But as to the thing signified by them I say that what ever you call it a Diocess or a Parish there were not near so many souls as in some English Parishes nor take one with another their Churches commonly were no more Numerous then our Parishes nor so numerous A Diocess then and a Parish were the same thing and both the same as our particular Churches now are that is the Ecclesiae primae or Soceities of Christians combined under Church-Rulers for holy Communion in Worship and Discipline And there were no otherwise many Congregations in one Church then as our Chapples of ease or a few meeting in a private house because of rainy weather are many Congregations in one Parish The foresaid Learned and Godly though angry Bishop Downame saith Def. li. 2. cap. 1. page 6. that Indeed at the very first Conversion of Cities the whole Number of the people converted being some not much greater then the Number of the Presbyters placed among them were able to make but a small Congregation Call that Church then a Diocess or a Parish I
sort with theirs for ours is of the first sort and if theirs be of the same we are both agreed And that the Lord Jesus Christ should settle one kind of Government de facto during Scripture time and change it for ever after is most improbable 1. Because it intimateth levity or mutability in a Law-giver so suddenly to change his Laws and form of Government either something that he is supposed not to have foreseen or some imperfection is intimated as the cause Or if they say that it was the change of the state of the body Governed viz. the Church I answer 2. There was no change of the state of the Church to necessitate a change of the kind of Officers and Government for as I shall shew anon there was need of more Elders then one in Scripture times and the increase of the Church might require an increase of Officers for Number but not for Kind There was as much need of assisting Presbyters as of Deacons I may well conclude therefore that he that will affirm a Change of the Government so suddenly must be sure to prove it and the rather because this is the Bishops own great and most considerable Argument on the other side when they pâ—ead that the Apostles themselves were Rulers of Presbyters therefore Rulers over Presbyters and many Churches should continue as Gods Ordinance many on the other side answer them though so do not I that this Ordinance was temporary during the Apostles times who had no Successors in Goveâ—nment to whâ—ch the Prelates reply that it s not â—â—agiâ—abâ—e that Christ should settle one sort of Church-Governmeâ—t for the first age and another ever after abolishing that first so soon and thaâ— they who affirm this must prove it For my part I am overcome by this Argument to allow all that the Apostolical pattern can prove laying aside that which depended on their extraordinary gifts and priviledges but then I see no reason but they should acknowledâ—e the â—oâ—ce of their own Mediâ—m and conclude it s not imâ—ginable that if God setâ—led â—ixed Bishops only over particular Congregations without any such order as subject Preâ—byters in the first age he should change this and set up subject Presbyters and many Churches under one man for ever after If they say that this is not a change of the speâ—ies but a growing up of the Church from Infancy to Maturity I answer It is a plain change of the Species of Government when one Congregation is turned into Many and when a new order of Officers viz. subject Presbyters without power of Ordination or Jurisdiction is introduced and the Bishops made Governours of Pastors that before were but Governours of the People this is plainly a new Species Else I say again let them not blame us for being against the right Species 3. The third Reaâ—on is this They that affirm a change not of the Governours but also of the very nature or kind of a particular Governed or Political Church from what it was in Scripture times do affirm a thing so improbable as is 〈◊〉 without very clear proof to be credited But such are they that affirm that Congregational Bishops were turned to Diocesan therefore c. The Church that was the object of the Government of a fixed Bishop in Scripture times was A competent Number of persons in Covenant with Christ or of Christians co-habiting by the appâ—intment of Christ and their mutual expressed consent united or associated under Christs Ministerial Teachers and Guides for the right worshipping of God in publick and the Edification of the Body in Knowledge and Holiness and the maintaining of obedience to Christ among them for the strength beauty and safety of the whole and each part and thereby the Pleasing and Glorifying God the Redeemer and Creator Iâ— would be too long rather then difficult to stand to prove all the parts of this Definition of the first particular Political Church That part which most concerneth our present purpose is the Ends which in Relations must enter the Definition which in one word is The Communion of Saints personally as Associated Churches consisting of many particular Churches are for the Communion of Saints by officers and Delegates And therefore this communion of Saints is put in our Creed next to the Catholick Church as the end of the combination I shall have occasion to prove this by particular Texts of Scripture anon A Diocesan Church is not capable of these Ends. What personal communion can they have that know not nor see not one aonther that live not together nor worship God together There is no more personal communion of Saints among most of the people of this Diocess then is between us and the inhabitants of France or Germany For we know not so much as the names or faces of each other nor ever come together to any holy uses So that to turn a Congregation into a Diocesan Church is to change the very subject of Government Obj. This is meer independency to make a single Congregation the subject of the Government Answ. 1. I am not deterred from any truth by Names I have formerly said that its my opinion that the truth about Church-Government is parcelled out into the hands of each party Episcopal Presbyterian Independents and Erastian And in this point in Question the Independents are most right Yet I do dot affirm nor I think they that this one Congregation may not accidentally be necessitated to meet in several places at once either in case of persecution or the age and weakness of some members or the smalness of the room But I say only that the Church should contain no more then can hold communion when they have opportunity of place and liberty and should not have either several settled Societies or Congregations nor more in one such Society then may consist with the Ends. And that these Assemblies are bound to Associate with other Assemblies and hold communion with them by the mediation of their Officers this as I make no doubt of so I think the Congregational will confess And whereas the common evasion is by distinguishing between a Worshipping Church and a Governed Chuch I desire them to give us any Scripture proof that a Worshipping Church and a Governed Church were not all one supposing that we speak of a settled society or combination I find no such distinction of Churches in Scripture A family I know may perform some worship and accordingly have some Government And an occasional meeting of Christians without any Minister may perform some Worship without Government among them But where was there ever a Society that ordinarily assembled for publick worship such as was performed by the Churches on the Lords dayes and held communion ordinarily in worship and yet had not a Governing Pastor of their own Without a Presbyter they could have no Sacraments and other publike Worship And where was there ever a Presbyter that was not a Chuâ—ch Governour
Certainly if subject Presbyters were not till after Scripture times nor any settled Worshipping Church without a Presbyter unless the people preached and administred the Sacraments then there could be no Worshipping Church that had not their own proper Governour nor any such Governour fixed that had more Churches then one Reason 4. The contrary opinion feigneth the Apostles to have allotted to each Bishop a space of ground for his Diocess and to have measured Churches by such spaces and not by the number of souls But this is unproved absurd 1. Unproved For there is no place in Scripture that giveth the Bishop charge of all that space of ground or of all the Christians that shall be in that space during his time Indeed they placed a Bishop in each City when there was but a Church in each City But they never said there shall be but one Church in a City or but one Bishop in a City much less in all the Country region 2. And its absurd For it s the number of souls that a Church must be measured by and not a space of ground so they do but co-habite For if in the same space of Ground there should be twenty or an hundred times as many Christians it would make the number so great as would be uncapable of personal communion and of obtaining Church Ends. If a Schoolmaster have a School in the chief City or Town of this County and there come as many from many miles compass as one School can hold and there be no more there so long all that space may belong to his School not for the space sake but the number of Schollars For if there be afterward an hundred times as many in that space to be taught they must set up more Schools and it were no wise part in the old Schoolmaster to maintain that all that Country pertaineâ—h to his School because that it was so when there were fewer So that to measure our the matter of Churches by space of ground and not by number of souls is plainly against the Reason of the Relation Reason 5. The opposed opinion doth imply that God more regardeth Cities then Country Villages or that Churches are to be measured according to the number and greatness of Cities rather then according to the number of souls For they suppose that every City should have a Bishop if there be but twenty or fourty or an hundred Christians in it but if there be five hundâ—ed Country Parishes that have some of them many thousand souls in them these shall have no Bishops of their own but be all ruled by the Bishop of the City Now how unreasonable this is methinks should not be hard to discern For 1. What is a City to God any more then a Village that for it he should make so partial an institution Doth he regard Rome any more then Eugubium or Alexandria more then Tanis for their worldly splendor or priviledges No doubtless it is for the multitude of inhabitants And if so its manifest that an equal number of inhabitants elsewhere should have the same kind of Government 2. Is it probable that God would have twenty thousand or an hundred thousand people in a Diocess and in some a Million to have but one Church-Ruler and yet would have every small congregation in a City to have one though there be none else under him What proportion is there in this way of Government that an hundred or fifty men shall have as many Governours as a Million as if ten thousand or an hundred thousand Schollars ouâ— of a City shall have no more Rulers then an hundred in a 〈◊〉 and all because one part are in a City and the other not Or a Physitian shall have but an hundred Patients to look to in a City and if there be a Million in that City and Country he shall also upon pain of Gods everlasting wrath undertake the care of them all Let them that strive for such a charge look to it I profess I admire at them what they think 1. Of the needs of men souls 2. Of the terrours of Gods wrath 3. And of their own sufficiency for such a work Were it my case if I know my own heâ—rt at all I should fear that this were but to strive to damn thousands and to be damned with them by undertaking on that penalty to be their Physitian under Christ when I am sure I cannot look to the hundreth man of them and I had rather strive to be a gally-slave to the Turks or to be preferred to rid Chaâ—els or the basest office all my dayes Reason 6. According to the opposâ—d opinion it is in the power of a King to make Bishops to be either Congregational or Diocesan to make a Bishâ—p to haâ—e a Million of souls or a whole Nation in charge or to have but aâ— few For if a King will but dissolve the Priviledge and title and make that no City whâ—ch was a City though he diminish not the number of souls and if he will do thus by all the Cities save one in his dominion then must there be but one Bishop in his dominion And if he will but make every countrey Town that hath four or five hundred or a thousand inhabitants to be incorporate and honour it with the title and priviledges of a City thâ—n shall they have a Bishop Moreover thus every Prince may de jure banish Episcopacy out of his Dominions without diminishing the number of Christians if he do but defranchise the Cities and be of the mind as I have heard some men have been that Cities are against the Princes interest by strengthening the people and advantaging them to rebellions Also if there be any Indian Nations so barbarous as to have no Cities though they were converted yet must they have no Bishops Also it would be in the Princes power de jure to depose any of those Bishops that the Apâ—stles or their Successors are supposed to set up For the Râ—man Emperour might have proclaimed Antioch Alexandria or any of the rest to be no Cities and then they must have no longer have had any Bishops And what Bishâ—ps shall Antioch have at this day Now how absurd all this is I need not manifest that whole Contreâ—eâ— shâ—ll have no Government for want of 〈◊〉 that Kings shall so alter Church Officers at their pleâ—sure â—hen they intend it not meerly by altering the Civil Priviledgâ—s of their people that a King may make one Diocess to become an hundred and an hundred become one by such means And yet all this doth undenâ—ably follow if the Law be that every City and only every City shall be a Bishops Sea where there are Christians to be governed Reason 7. There is no sufficient Reason given why subject Pâ—â—sâ—byters should not have been set up in the Scripture times as well as after if it had been the Apostles intent that such should be instituted The Necessity pretended was
Bishops who gathered as many as they could under their own Government when they should have erected new Churches as free as their own Reason 12. If the Description of the Bishops settled in the New Testament and the work affixed to them be such as cannot agree to our Diocesan Bishops but to the Pastors of a single Church then was it never the mind of the Holy Ghost that those Bishops should degenerate afterwards into Diocesan Bishops But the Antecedent is certain therefore so is the Consequent I here still suppose with Learned Dr. H Annot. in Act. 11. passim that the name Presbyter in Scripture signifieth a Bishop there being no Evidence that in Scripture time any of that Second Order viz. subject Presbyters were then instituted Though I am far from thinking that there was but one of these Bishops in a Church at least as to many Churches Now as we are agreed de facto that it was but a single Church that then was under a Bishop and not many such Churches for that follows undenyably upon the denying of the existence of subject Presbyters seeing no such Churches can be nor the worshipping Assemblies held without a Bishop or Presbyter so that it was the mind of the Apostles that it should so continue is proveed by the Desciption and work of those Scripture Bishops Argument 1. From Acts 20.28 29 31. The Bishops instituted and fixed by the Holy Ghost were and are to take heed to all the Flock over which the Holy Ghost hath made them overseeers to feed the Church of God and to watch against Wolves and to warn every one night and day But this cannot be done by Diocesan Bishops nor any that have more then one Church Therefore Diocesan Bishops are not the Bishops that the Holy Ghost hath so fixed and instituted such as Paul describeth were to continue and that 's such as can do that work Argument 2. The Bishops that the Holy-Ghost settled and would have continue and had the Power of Ordination given them were such as were to be Ordained in every City and every Church Acts 14.23 Tit. 1.3 4 5. See Dr. Hammonds Annotat. But it is not Diocesan Bishops that are such for they are over many Churches and Cities therefore it is not Diocesan Bishops that were settled by the Holy Ghost nor meant in those texts Ar. 3. The Bishops which were instituted by the Holy Ghost and are meant in Scripture were to watch for their peoples souls as those that must give account Ruling over them and to be obeyed by all and speaking to them the word of God Heb. 13.7 17 24. But this cannot be done by a Bishop to a whole Diocess nor will they be willing of such an account if they be wise therefore it is not Diocesan Bishops that are meant in Scripture Argument 4. The Bishops settled for continuance in Scripture were such as all the people were to know as labouring among them and over them in the Lord and admonishing them and to esteem them very highly in love for their work sake 1 Thes. 5.12 13. But this cannot be meant of our Diocesan Bishop whom the hundreth part of the flock shall never see hear nor be admonished by therefore it is not such that were settled for continuance in the Church Argument 5. The Bishops settled by the Holy Ghost must by any that are sick be sent for to pray over them But this a Diocesan Bishop cannot do to the hundreth or thousandth person in some places therefore it is not Diocesan Bishops but the Bishops of a single Church that are capable of these works that are meant by the Holy Ghost to continue in the Church and consequently to whom the power of Ordaining was committed If any question whether the Texts alleadged do speak of subject-Presbyters or Bishops I refer them to the foresaid Reverend Doctor with whom I am agreed that there were no subject-Presbyters instituted in Scripture times Reason 13. It was not one or two or all Churches for a year or two or more in their meer fieri or infancy before they were well formed that consisted only of one settled worshipping Assembly and its guides but it was the formed and stablished state of the particular Churches To prove this I shall briefly do these three things 1. I shall shew it in respect to the Jewish Synagogues 2. As to the Churches in the Apostles dayes after many years growth even of every Church that 's mentioned in the New Testament as a particular Political Church 3. As to some of the Churches after the Apostles dayes mentioned by the ancients 1. It is apparent that the Jews Synagogues were particular Congregational Churches having each one their several Rulers and as many Learned men suppose they had an Ecclesiastical Judicature of Elders belonging to each of them where fit men could be found and this distinct from the Civil Judicature Or as others think they had a Sanhedrim which had power to judge in both Causes and one of these was in every City that is in Places of Cohabitation For in every City of Israel which had one hundred and twenty families or free persons say others they placed the Sanhedrim of twenty three And in every City which had not one hundred and twenty men in it they set the smallest Judicature of three Judges so be it there were but two wise men among them fit to teach the Law and resolve doubts See Aâ—nsworth on Numb 11.16 citing Talmud Bab. Maimonides more at large And doubtless many of our Country Villages and almost all our Parishes have more then 120. and every Country Village may come in in the lesser number below 120. which are to have three Elders and that say some was every place where were ten men And that these were under the great Sanhedrim at Ierusalem is nothing to the matter For so we confess that such particular Churches as we mention have some such General officers over them de jure as the Apostolical men were in the Primitive Church but not that any of these Synagogues were under other Synagogues though one were in a great City and the other but in a small Town And that these Synagogues were of Divine institution is plain in divers texts particularly in Lev. 23.1 2 3. where a convocation of holiness or a holy Convocation is commanded to be on every Sabboth in all their dwellings which most plainly could be neither the meeting at Ierusalem at the Temple nor yet in single families and therefore it is not to much purpose that many trouble themselves to conjecture when Synagogues began and some imagine it was about the Captivity For as their controversie can be but about the form of the meeting place or the name so its certain that some place there must be for such meetings and that the meetings themselves were in the Law commanded by God and that not to be tumultuary confused ungoverned Assemblies If the scourging in
would not lay too great a stress upon any forms or modes which may be altered or diversified Let the Church have but such a Number of souls as may be consistent with the ends and so the essence of a particular Church that they may held personal holy communion and then I will not quarrel about the name of one or two Congregations nor whether they must needs all meet together for all ordinances nor the like Yea I think a full number so they be not so full or distant as to be uncapâ—ble of that communion are desireable for the strength and beauty of the Church and too smal Churches if it may be to be avoided So that all the premises being considered out difference appears to be but small in these matters between the Congregational and Presbyterian way among them that are moderate I shall not presume more particularly to enter into that debate which hath been so far proceeded in already by such Reverend men but shall return to the rest of the task before promised against the Diocesan Churches as the supposed subject of the Bishops Government As for Scripture times and the next succeeding together I shall before I look into other testimonies propound these two Arguments 1. From the Bishops office which was before mentioned If the office of a Bishop in those times was to do so much work as could not be done by him for a Church any greater than our Parishes then were the Churches of those times no greater then our Parishes But the Antecedent is true therefore so is the consequent The works are before mentioned Preaching Praying administring the Lords Supper visiting the sick reducing hereticks reproving censuring absolving to which they quickly added too much more of their own The impossibility of a faithful performance of this to more is so undenyable that I cannot suppose any other answer but this that they might ordain Presbyters to assist them in the work and so do much of it by others But 1. I before desired to see it proved by what authority they might do this 2. Their office and work are so inseparable that they cannot depute others to do their work their proper work without deputing them also to their office For what is an office but the state of one Obliged and Authorized to do such or such a work A Presbyter may not authorize another to preach as the Teacher of a Congregation and to administer the Sacraments without making him a Presbyter also Nor can a Bishop authorize any to do the work of a Bishop in whole or by halves without making him a Presbyter or half a Bishop And he is not authorized either to make new officers in the Church or to do his work by deputies or substitutes 2. I argue also from the Identity of that Church to whâ—ch the Bishops and Deacons were appointed for ministration It was not a Church of many stated Congregations or any larger than our Parishes for number of souls that the Deacons were made Ministers to therefore it was no other or bigger which the Bishops were set oveâ— The consequence is good because where ever Deacons are mentioned in Scripture or any Writer that I remember neer to Scripture times they are still mentioned with the Bishops or Presbyters as Ministers to the same Church with them as is apparent bâ—th in the seven chosen for the Church at Ierusalem and in Phil. 1.1 2. and in the Direction of Paul to Timothy for ordaining them And the Antecedent is proved from the nature of their work For they being to attend on the tables at the Love feasts and the Lords Supper and to look to the poor they could not do this for any greater number of people then we mention Whether they had those feasts in one house or many at once I determine not but for the number of people it was as much as a Deacon could do at the utmost to attend a thousand people I shall proceed a little further towards the times next following and first I shall take in my way the confession of one or two learned men that are for Prelacy Grotius in his Annotat. on 1 Tim. 5.17 saith Sed notandum est in una Vrbe magna sicut plures Synagogas ita plures fuisse Ecclesias id est conventus Christianorum Et cuique Ecclesiae fuisse suum praesidem qui populum alloqueretur Presbyteros ordinaret Alexandriae tantum eum fuisse morem ut unus esset in tota urbe praeses qui ad docendum Presbyteros per urbem distribueret docet nos Sozomenus 1.14 Epiphanius ubi de Ario agit dicitque Alexandriae nunquam duos fuisse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 voce â—a sumpta 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ita ut significat jus illud quod habebat 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So that Grotius affirmeth that Bishops had not then so much as all the converted persons of a great City under their care but the Churches and Assemblies were the same and each Assembly had a Prelate and in the great Cities there were many of these Churches and Prelates and that only the City of Alexandria had the custom of having but one such Bishop in the whole City 2. Those learned men also must grant this cause who maintain that Peter and Paul were both of them Bishops of Rome at once there being two Churches one of the Circumcision under Peter the other of the uncircumcision under Paul and that one of them had Linus and the other Cletus for his Successor and that this Church was first united under Clemens and the like they say of two Churches also at Antioch and elswhere If this be so then there is no Law of God that Bishops should be numbred by Cities but more Bishops then one may be in one City and were even when Christians comparatively were a small part of them 3. Also Mr. Thorndike and others affirm that it was then the custome for the Bishops and Presbyters to sit in a semicircle and the Bishop highest in a Chair and the Deacons to stand behind them This he gathereth from the Apost Constitut. Ignatius Dionysius Arcop and the Jews Constitutions in his Apost form page 71. and Right of the Church c. p. 93.94 95. And if this were so it seems that Bishops Presbyters and Deacons were all the Officers of one such stated Congregation and had not many such Congregations under them For the Bishop could be but in one place at once and therefore this could be the custome but of one Church in his Diocess if he had many whereas it is made the form of the ordinary Christian Assemblies The same learned man Right of Church p. 65. saith that About Saint Cyprians time and not afâ—re he finds menâ—ion of setled Congregations in the Country By which it may be well conjectured what a small addition the Bishops had out of the Countreys to their City Chuâ—ches and how many Congregations they Governed in the Apostle
dayes and after He affirmeth also that the power of the Keyes belongeth to the Presbyters and that its convertible with the power of celebrating the Eucharist and that 's the Reason Why it belongs to them page 98. ibid. and that the Power of the Keys that is the whole power of the Church whereof that power is the root and sourse is common to Bâ—shops and Presbyters page 128 and that to this all sides agree page 106. and that by their Grant Deacons and others may preach but not Rule or administer the Lords Supper see page 118.123 And he is far from being of their mind that think in Scripture times there was but one single Bishop without other Presbyters in a Diocesan Church For he supposed many in a Congregation Page 126 he saith You see by St. Paul 1 Cor. 14. that one Assembly whereof he speaks there furnished with a great number of Prophets whether Presbyters or over and above them In the Records of the Church we find divers times a whole Bench of Presbyters presiding at one Assembly And before he had shewed how they sate about the Bishop and the congregation stood before them And page 127. he saith that Clemens the Disciple of the Apostles in his Epistle to the Corinthians to compose a difference among the Presbyters of that Church partly about the celebration of the Eucharist adviseth them to agree and take their turns in it I confess I knnw not whence he hath this doubtless not in the true approved Epistle of Clement but it shews in his judgement 1. That there were then many Presbyters in the Church of Corinth 2. And that that Church was but one Congregation or not very many Else what need the Presbyters take their turns when they might have done it at once 3. That the word Presbyter in Clemens signifieth not a Prelate 4. And it seems this intimateth there was then no Bishop in Corinth else no question but Clemens would have charged these disagreeing Presbyters to obey their Bishop and used some of Ignatius language 5. Nay if Bishops had been then known in the world is it not likely that he would have charged them to get a Bishop if they had not to Govern such a disagreeing Presbytery And page 129 130 131. he shews that the condemning of Marcion at Rome and of Noelus at Ephesus are expresty said by Epiphanius Haeres 42. num 1. 2. Haeres 57 num 1. to have been done and passed by the Act of the Presbyters of those Churches And which is of later date the Excommunication of Andronicus in Sâ—nesius 57. Epist. I find reported to have passed in the same sort and all this agreeable to the practice recorded in Scripture alledging 1. Tim. 5.19 Acts 21.18 citing Cyprian Ep. 46. and the Apost Constit. and saith Bloudell in this might have spared his exact diligence it being granted c. Mr. Thorndike also tells us pag. 62. of the words of Ninius that in Ireland alone Saint Patrick at the first plantation of Christianity founded three hundred and threescore and five Bishopricks And can any man believe that all these had Cities or more then one of our Parish Churches when all Ireland to this day hath not seven Cities and when all this was done at the first plantation of the Gospel I think we had this sort of Episcopacy Even since the Reformation there is reckoned in Ireland but four Arch-bishops nineteen Bishops What think you then were 365. Bishops at the first plantation of the Gospel To proceed to some further Evidence 1. It s manifest in Clemens Rom. Epist. to the Corinthians there is mention of no more but two Orders the one called sometime Bishops sometime Presters the other Deacons page 54.55.57 and this he saith the Apoâ—â—les did as knowing that contention would arise about the name of Episcopacy and that they so seâ—led the Ministerial Offices that others should succeed in them when some were deceased For my part I cannot see the least reason to be of their mind that think Clemens here doth speak only of Prelates or supereminent Bishops of which I refer the Reader to Mr. Burtons notes in his English Translatâ—on of Clemenâ— But suppose it were so If at that time the Churches had none but single Bishops it is plain then that they were but single Congregations For no other Congregations having communion in theâ—r-then-ordinary publike worship could be managed without a Bishop or Presbyter to do the work But for them that sleight Mr. Burtons other mens plain Reasons concerning the judgement of Clem. Romanus and force his words to speak what they mean not I desire them to observe the judgement of Grotius whom they profess so much to value who in his Epistol 162 ad Bignon gives this as one Reason to prove this Epistle of Clemens genuine Quod nusquam meminit exsortis illius Episcoporum autoritatis quae Ecclesiae consuetudine post Marci mortem Alexandriae atque eo exemplo alibi introduci cepit sed planè ut Paulus Apostolus ostendit Ecclesias communi Presbyterorum qui iidem omnes Episcopi ipsi Pauloque dicuntur consilio fuisse gubernatas Nam quod 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nominat omnia ista nomina non ad Ecclesiam sed ad Templum Hieros pertinent unde infert omnia recto ordine agenda si Iudaeis tanto magis Christianis You see that Grotius then and Clemens in his judgement were against Prelacy 2. The very same I say of Prelacie Epist. ad Philip. which mentioneth only two sorts Presbyters and Deacons 3. And though Ignatius oft mention three it seems to me that they were all but the Governours or Ministers of one Congregation or of no more people then one of our Parishes In the Epist. ad Smyrâ— he saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. Vbi Episcopus praesens fuerit illuc plebs Congregetur sicuti ubi Christus est omnis militia coelestis aâ—est as the common interpreter translateth it ut vid. est in Edit Perionii Vsherii c. Vbi comparuerit Episcopus ibi Multitudo sit quemadmodum ubi Christus ibi omnis astat exercitus coelestis as Hier. Vairlenius Videlius translate it Or Vbi utique apparet Episcopus illic multitudo sit quemadmodum utiq ubi est Christus Iesus illic Catholica Ecclesia as Vshers old Tranlation And by the Context it appeareth that this plâ—bs or multitudo is the Church which he ruleth and not only one Congregation among many that are under him For this doth without distinction bind all the people one as well as another to be where the Bishop is or appeareth viz. in the publick Assembly for Communion in Worship It is plain therefore there that were not then many such Assemblies under him otherwise all save one must have necessarily disobeyed this command And in the Epistle to the Philadelphians he hath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e.
undertake more fully to wipe off this reproach for the learned adversaries are tall Cedars in knowledge in comparison of many of us and if men of parts do not grapple with them herein they will easily carry the vote in many mens judgements for they judge that the greater Schollars by far certainly have the better in the contest Sir We beseech you that you would improve your acquaintance in Antiquity for our help in this case Not that we would engage you in wrangling with particular men by name who will not want words but however you would evidence it that our Ordination by Presbyters is not void and of no effect I have this reason ready to give for this request for besides what I had formerly heard I was lately with some of those not of the meanest influence who urged Episcopacy as of absolute necessity affirming that this order the Church of God ever observed and that it was doubtless of Apostolical institution being a thing of Catholick tradition and that 's the best standard to intepret Scripture by What then are we arrived at that have forsaken the whole Church herein Though I am little versed in the Ancients yet I tell them we acknowledge that soon after the Apostles times the name Bishop came up as distinct fâ—om the Presbyters but then I call for their proof that the Primitive Bishops had the power of jurisdiction over Presbyters or that to him only ordination was appropriated I tell them also that we have certain evidence that in some Churches these Bishops were made by Presbyters so was the custom in Alexandria and when did ever the Church judge them to be no Bishops or Ministers And also of Tertullians Praesident probati quique Seniores and of Cyprians Salvo inter Collegas pacis concordiae vinculo and that doubtless if Cyprian be to be believed the Church was then ruled by the joint consent of its Pastors of whom one was indeed the President or Moderator who yet called himself compresbyter and the Presbyters sâ—atres not filios as it was of lâ—te This answer I have had from some of them that the Church in those times was much under the cloâ—d being persecuted and had not that liberty to settle Diocesan Episcopacy in that Glory which the Apostolical institution aimed at and that the Church was then what it could be and not what it would be Do you judge of its weight For my part I am most stumbled at the reading of Ignatius whom Dr. H. so strenuously dâ—fends and cannot tell how to evade that Testimony in the behalf of Episcopacy if it be indeed the testimony of the true Ignatius But methinks his phrase is much unlike either that of Clemens or of Cyprian in this case It s great pity that Dr. Bloudel wants his eyes and so we are hindred of enjoying of more of his labours in this point His Notion of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a very pretty on and it were well if we had fuller evidence added to that which he hath endeavoured after in his Preface to his Apology for Hierom. Or if your judgement about the power of every single Pastor were fully improved it would conduce much to the clearing of these controversies I could methinks be glad of the practice of those proposals which Bishop Usher hath made in a late printed sheet But these angry Brethren who now oppose us are of a higher strain But I run out too far and forget whom I am writing to Truly I am deeply sensible what mischief those seeds which are as yet but thin-sown as I may say may grow up to in time I know not how it is with yoâ— but with us I fear 〈◊〉 for one at least would be easiâ—y drawn to â—uch an opinion of us if the temptation were but somewhat stronger multitudes observing how câ—vil transactions have 〈◊〉 in a round begin also to think we shall also arive at our old Church-customs again now â—f thâ—se Episcopal 〈◊〉 judgement should but be dispersed moâ—e abroad how easily would it make these people think that we have dâ—luded them all this whiâ—â— and so will not regard us Alas that a sad thought is it if I should study and preach and pray for mens souls and yet be reâ—ected as one that had no chaâ—ge of them as a Mâ—nister laid on me for God We thank you for what you said in your Christian Concord and 〈◊〉 you would enlarge further on this Subject as you see convenient That the striplings in the Ministry may be furnished with arguments against our 〈…〉 such able hands as yours are I have doâ—e only I shall desire your pardon for my interrupting you in your other business and if I shall hereafter crave your assistance and direction iâ— some cases I pray you excuse me if uncivil and vouchsafe to let me hear from you for I am about to settle where the charge is great The Lord continue you 〈◊〉 us that you may be further an instrument of good I rest Ian. 8. 1657. Your Affectionate friend and weak Brother M. E. Assert Those who nullifie our present Ministry and Churches which have not the Prelatical Ordination and teach the people to do the like do incur the guilt of grievous sin CHAP. I. Sect. 1. FOR the making good this Assertion 1. I shall prove that they groundlesly deny our Ministry and Churches and 2. I shall shew thâ— greatness of their sin In preparation to the first I must 1. Take some notice of the true Nature of the Ministerial function and 2. Of the Nature and Reasons of Ordination Sect. 2. We are agreed ore tenus at least that the Power and Honour of the Ministry is for the Work and the Work for the Ends which are the revelation of the Gospel the application or conveyance of the benefits to men the right worshiping of God and right Governing of his Church to the saving of our selves and our people and the Glorifying and Pleasing God Sect. 3. So that A Minister of the Gospel is an Officer of Iesus Christ set apart or separated to preach the Gospel and thereby to convert men to Christianity and by Baptism to receive Disciples into his Church to congregate Disciples and to be the Teachers Overseers and Governours of the particular Churches and to go before them in publick worship and administer to them the special Ordinances of Christ according to the word of God that in the Communion of Saints the members may be edified preserved and be fruitful and obedient to Christ and the Societies well ordered beautified and strengthened and both Ministers and People saved and the Sanctifier Redeemer and the Father Glorified and Pleased in his People now and for ever Sect. 4. In this Definition of a Minister 1. It is supposed that he be competently qualified for these works For if the Matter be not so far Disposed as to be capable of the Form it will not be informed thereby There are some Qualifications necessary
as his judgement that the Scotch Ministers then to be Consecrated Bishops were not to be reordained because the Ordination of Presbyters was valid Sect. 5. These Novel Prelatical persons then that so far dissent frrom the whole stream of the Ancient Bishops and their adherents have little reason to expect that we should regard their judgement above the judgement of the English Clergy and the judgement of all the Reformed Churches If they can give us such Reasons as should conquer our modestie and perswade us to condemn the judgement of the Plelates and Clergy of England all other Churches of the Protestants and adhere to a few new men of yesterday that dare scarcely open the face of their own opinions we shall bow to their Reasons when we discern them But they must not expect that their Authority shall so far prevail Sect. 6. And indeed I think the most of this cause is carried on in the dark What Books have they written to prove our Ordination Null and by what Scripture Reasons do they prove it The task lieth on them to prove this Nullity if they would be Regarded in their reproaches of the Churches of Christ. And they are not of such excessive Modesty and backwardness to divulge their accusations but sure we might by this time have expected more then one volume from them to have proved us No Ministers and Churchess if they could have done it And till they do it their whsperings are not to be credited Sect. 7. Argument 2. If that sort of Prelacy that was exercised in England was not necessary it self yea if it were sinfull and tended to the subversion or exceeding hurt of the Churches then is there no Necessity of Ordination by such a Prelacy But the Antecedent is true therefore so is the consequent The Antecedent hath been proved at large in the foregoing Disputation Such a Prelacy as consisteth in the undertaking of an impossible task even for one man tâ— be the only Governour of all the souls in many hundred Parishes exercising it also by Lay men and in the needful parts not exercising it all all a Prelacy not chosen by the Presbyters whom they Govern yea suspending or degrading â—he Presbyters of all those Churches as to the governing part of theâ—â— office and guilty of the rest of the evils before mentioned is not only it self unnecessary but sinful and a disease of the Church which all good men should do the best they can to cure And therefore the effects of this disease can be no more Necessary to our Ministry then the burâ—ing of a feaver or swelling of a Tympany is necessary to the body Sect. 8. No Bishops are Necessary but such as were in Scriture times But there were none such as the late English Bishops in Scripture times Therefore the English Bishopâ— are not necessary He that denyeth the Major must go further in denying the sufficiency of Scripture then I find the Papists ordinarily to do For they will be loth to affirm that any office is of Necessity to the Being of the Church or of Presbyters that is not to be found in Scripture or that was not then in Being Therefore so far we are secure Sect. 9. And for the Minor I prove it thus If the English Bishops were â—either such as the unfixed General Ministers nor such as the fixed Bishops of particular Churches then were they not such as were in Scripture times But they were neither such as the unfixed General Ministers nor such as the fixed Bishops of particular Churches therefore c. Sect. 10. Besâ—des these two sorts of Ministers there are no more in the New Testament And these aâ—e diversified but by the exercise of their office so far as they were ordinary Ministers to continue The unfixed Ministers whether Apostles Evangelâ—sts or Prophets were â—uch as had no special charge of any one Church as their Diocess but were to do their best for the Church in general and follow the direction and call of the Holy Ghost for the exercising of their Ministry But it s known to all that our Engsish Bishops were not such They were no ambulatory itinerant Preachers they went not about to plant Churches and confirm and direct such as they had planted but were fixed to a City and had every one their Diocess which was their proper charge but Oh how they discharged their undertaking Sect. 11. Object The Apostles might agree among them selves to divide their Provinces and did accordingly James being Bishop of Jerusalem Peter of Rome c. Answ. No doubt but common reason would teach them when they were sent to preach the Gospel to all the world to disperse themselves and not be preaching all in a place to the disadvantage of their work But 1. It s one thing to travail several ways and so divide themselves as itinerants and another thing to divide the Churches among them as their several Diocesses to whâ—ch they should be fixed Which they never did for ought is proved 2. And its one thiâ—g prudently to disperse themselves for their labour anâ— another thing to claim a special power over a Circuit or Diocess as their charge excluding a like charge and power of others So far as any man Apostle or other was the Father of souls by their conversion they owned him a special honour and love which the Apostles themselves did sometimes claim But this was nothing to a peculiar Diocess or Province For in the same City a Ierusalem some might be converted by one Apostle and some by another And if a Presbyter convert them I think the adversaries will not therefore make them his Dâ—ocess not give him there an Episcopal Power much less above Apostles in that place Nor was this the Rule that Diocesses could be bounded by as now they are taken Sect. 12. Nor do we find in Scripture the least intimation that the Apostles were fixed Diocesan Bishops but much to the contrary 1. In that it was not consistent with the General charge and work that Christ had laid upon them to go into all the world and preach the Gospel to every creature How would this stand with fixing in a peculiar Diocess Sect. 13. And 2. We find them answering their Commission in their practice going abroad and preaching and planting Churches and sometimes visiâ—ing them in their passage but not sâ—tling on them as their Diocesses but going further if they had opportunity to do the like for other places Yea they planted Bishops in the several Cities and Churches which they had gathered to Christ. Though Paul staid three years at Ephesus and other adjacent parts of Asia yet did not all that abode prove it his peculiar Diocess And yes its hard to find again so long an abode of Paul or any Apostle in one place Elders that were Bishops we find at Ephesus Acts 20. and some say Timothy was their Bishop and some say Iohn the Apostle was their Bishop but its clear that it was
no peculiar Diocess of Paul Sect. 14. And 3. We still find that there were more then one of these general itinerant Ministers in a Place or at least that no one excluded others from having equal power with him in his Province where ever he came Barnabas Silas Titus Timotheus Epaphroditus and many more were fellow-labourers with Paul in the same Diocess or Province and not as fixed Bishops or Presbyters under him but as General Ministers as well as he We never read that he said to any of the false Apostles that sought his contempt This is my Diocess what have â—ou to do to play the Bishop in another mans Diocess Much less did he ever plead suâ—h a Power against Peter Barnabas or any Apostolical Minister Nor that Iames pleaded any such prerogative at Ierusalem Sect. 15. And therefore though we reverence Eusebius and other Ancients that tell us of some Apostles Diocesses we take them not as infallible reporters and have reason in these points partly to deny them credit from the word of God The Churches that were planted by any Apostle or where an Apostle was longest resident were like enough to reckon the series of their Pastors from him For the founder of a Church is a Pastor of it though not a fixed Pastor taking it as his peculiar charge but delivering it into the hands of such And in this sence we have great reason to understand the Catalogues of the Antients and their affirmations that Apostles were Bishops of the Churches For Pastors they were but so that they had no peculiar Diocess but still went on in planting and gathering and confirming Churches Whereas the Bishops that were setled by them and are said to succeed them had their single Churches which were their peculiar charge They had but one such charge or Church when the Apostles that lead in the Catalogues had many yet none so as to be limited to them And why have we not the Diocess of Paul and Iohn and Mathew and Thomas and the rest of the twelve mentioned as well of Peter and Iames Or if Paul had any it seems he was compartner with Peter in the same City contrary to the Canons that requireth that there be but one Bishop in a City Sect. 16. It s clear then that the English Bishops were not such Apostolical unfixed Bishops as the Itinerants of the first age were And yet if they were I shall shew in the next Argument that it s nothing to their advantage because Archbishops are nothing to our question And that they were not such as the fixed Bishops of Scripture times I am next to prove Sect. 17. The fixed Bishops in the Scripture times had but a single Congregation or particular Church for their Pastoral Charge But our English Bishops had many if not many hundred such Churches for their charge therefore our English Bishope were not of the same sort with those in Scripture The Major I have proved in the former Disputation The Minor needs no proof as being known to all that know England Sect. 18. And 2. The fixed Bishops in the Scripture times had no Presbyters at least of other particular Churches under them They Governed not any Presbyters that had other associated Congregations for publick Worship But the English Bishops had the Presbyters of other Churches under them perhaps of hundreds therefore they are not such as the Scripture Bishops were There is much difference between a Governour of People and a Governour of Pastors Episcopus gregis Episcopus Episcoporum is not all one None of us saith Cyprian in Concil Carthagin calleth himself or takes himself to be Episcopum Episcoporum No fixed Bishops in Scripture times were the Pastors of Pastors as least of other Churches Sect. 19. This I suppose I may take as granted de facto from the Reverend Divine whom I have cited in the foregoing Disputation that saith Annotat. in Art 11. that Although this Title of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elders have been also extended to a second order in the Church and now iâ— only in use for them under the name of Presbyters yet in the Scripture-times it belonged principally if not alone to Bishops there being no Evidence that any of that second Order were then instituted though soon after before the writing 〈◊〉 â—gnatius Epistles there were such instituted in all Churches So that he granteth that de facto there were then no Presbyters but Bishops and that they were not instituted and therefore Bishops had no such Presbyters to Govern nor any Churches but a single Congregation For one Bishop could guide but one Congation at once in publick worship and there could be no Worshipping Congregations in the sence that now we speak of without some Presbyter to guide them in performance of the worship Sect. 20. So saith the same Learned man Dissertat 4. de Episcop page 208 209. in quibus plures absque dubio Episcopi â—uere nullique adhuc quos hodie dicimus Presbyteri And therefore he also concludeth that the Churches weâ—e then Governed by Bishops assisted by Deacons without Presbyters instancing in the case of the Church of Ierusalem Act. 6. and alledging the words of Clem. Roman 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. How Grotius was confident that Clemens was against their Episcopacy shewed before To the same purpose he citeth the words of Clemens Alexandrinus in Euseb. of Iohn the Apostle concluding Ex â—is ratio constat quare sine Presâ—yterorum mentione intervenientâ— Episcopis Diaconi immediate adjiciantur quia scilicet in singulis Macedoniae civitatibus quam vis Episcopus esset nondum Presbyteri constituti sunt Diaconis tantum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ubique Episcopis adjunctis Dissertat 4 cap. 10. Sect. 19 20 21. So also cap. 11. Sect. 2. alibi passim Sect. 21. Object But though de facto there were no Bishopâ—â—uling Presbyters then nor ruling any more then a single Worshâ—pâ—ing Church yet it was the Intention of the Apostles that they should afterwards enlarge their Diocess and take the care of many Churches and that they should ordain that soâ—t of subject Presbyters that were not instituted in Scripture-times Answ. Do you prove the secret Intention of the Apostles to be for such a Mutation and then we shall be satisfied in that But till then it is enough to us that we have the same Government that de facto was set up by the Apostles and exercised in Scripture times And that it s granted us that the office was not then instituted which we deny For it is the office of such subject Presbyters having no Power of Ordination that we deny Sect. 22. Object But though in Scripture times there were no Bishops over many Churches and Presbyters yet there were Archbishops that were over many Answ. Because this objection contains their strength I shall answer it the more fully And 1. If there were no subject Presbyters in those times then Archbishops could rule none But there were
none such as is granted therefore c. And what proof is there of Archbishops then Sect. 23. Their first proof is from the Apostles But they will never prove that they were fixed Bishops or Archbishops I have proved the contrary before But such an itinerant Episcopacy as the Apostles had laying by their extraordinaries for my part I think should be continued to the world and to the Church of which after Another of their proofs is from Timothy and Titus â— who thy say were Archbishops But there is full evidence that Timothy and Titus were not fixed Bishops or Archbishops but Itinerant Evangelists that did as the Apostles did even plant and settle Churches and then go further and do the like See and consider but the proofs of this in Prins unbishoping of Timothy and Titus Such Planters and Itinerants were pro tempore the Bishops of every Church where they came yet so as another might the next week be Bishop of the same Church and another the next week after him yea three or four or more at once as they should come into the place And therefore many Churches as well as Ephesus and Creet its like might have begun their Catalogue with Timothy and Titus and many a one besides Rome might have begun their Catalogue with Peter and Paul Sect. 24. Another of their proofs is of the Angels of the seven Churches which they say were Archbishops But how do they prove it Because those Churches or some of them were planted in chief Cities and therefore the Bishops were Metropolitans But how prove they the consequence By their strong imagination and affirmation The Orders of the Empire had not then such connection and proportion and correspondency with the Orders of the Church Let them give us any Valid proof that the Bishop of a Metropolis had then in Scripture times the Bishops of other Cities under him as the Governor of them and we shall thank them for such unexpected light But presumption must not go for proofs They were much later times that afforded occasion for such contentions as that of Basil and Anthymius Whether the bounds of their Episcopal Jurisdiction should change as the Emperours changed the State of the Provinces Let them prove that these Asian Angels had the Bishops of other Churches and the Churches themselves under their jurisdiction and then they have done something Sect. 25. But if there were any preheminence of Metropolilitans neer these times it cannot be proved to be any more then an honorary Primacy to be Episcopus primae sedis but not a Governour of the rest How else could Cyprian truly say even so long after as is before alledged that none of them was a Bishop of Bishops nor imposed on others but all were left free to their own consciences as being accountable only to God Sect. 26. Yea the Reverend Author above mentioned shews Dâ—ssertat de Episcop 4. cap. 10. Sect. 9 10 alibi that there were in those times more Bishops then one in a City though not in una Ecclesia aut Coeâ—u And the like hath Grotius oft So that a City had oft then more Churches then one and those Churches had their several Bishops and neither of these Bishops was the Governour of the other or his Congregation much less of the remoter Churches and Bishops of other Cities And this they think to have been the case of Peter and Paul at Rome yea and of their immediate successors there And so in other places Lege Dissert 5 c 1. Sect. 27. When the great Gregory Thaumaturgus was made Bishop of Neocaesarea he had but seventeen Christians in his City and when he had increased them by extraordinary successes yet we find not that he had so much as a Presbyter under him And if he had it s not likely that Musonius his first and chief entertainer would have been made but his Deacon and be the only man to accompany him and comfort him in his retirement in the persecution and that no Presbyter should be mentioned which shews that Bishops then were such as they were in Scripture-times at least in most places and had not many Churches with their Presbyters subject to them as Dâ—ocâ—san Bishops have And when Comana a small place not far off him received the faith Gregory Ordained Alexander the Colliar their Bishop over another single Congregâ—tion and did not keep them under his own Pastoral charge and Government Vid. Greg. Nysâ—n in vita Thaumat Sect. 28. But because that our Dâ—ocesan Bishops are such as the Archbishops that first assumed the Government of many Churches and because we shall hardly drive many from their presumption that Timothy and Titus were Archbishops besides the Apostles I shall now let that supposition stand and make it my next Argument that Argument 3. Ordination by Archbishops is not necessary to the Being of Ministers or Churches Our English Bishops were indeed Archbishops therefore Ordination by them is not Necessary It is not the Name but the office that is pleaded Necessary Sect. 29. And for the Major I think it will not be denyed All that I have to do with Protestants and Papists do grant the Validity of Ordination by Bishops And for the Minor it is easily proved The Bishops that are the Governours of many Churches and their Bishops are Archbishops The Bishops of England were the Governours of many Churches with their Bishops therefore they were Archbishops The Major will be granted And for the Minor I prove it by parts 1. That they were by undertaking the Governours of many Churches 2. And of many Bâ—shops Sect. 30. He that is the Governour over many Congregations of Christians associated for the publick Worship of God and holy communion and Edification under their Proper Pastors is the Governour of many Churches But such were our English Bishops therefore c. That such Societies as are here defined are true Churches is a truth so clear that no enemy of the Churches is is able to gainsay with any shew of Scripture or reason they being such Churches as are described in the Scriptures And 2. That our Ministers were true Pastors if any will deny as the Papists and Separatists do I shall have occasion to say more to them anon Sect. 31. Argument 4. If Ordination by such as the English Bishops be of Necessity to the Ministry and Churches then was there no true Ministry and Churches in the Scripture times nor in many years after But the consequent is false therefore so is the Antecedent The reason of the Consequence is because there were no such Bishops in those times and this is already proved they being neither the Itinerant Apostolical sort of Bishops nor the fixed Pastors of particular Churches besides which there were no other Sect. 32. Argument 5. If Ordination by such as the English Prelates be Necessary to the Being of the Ministry and Churches then none of the Protestants that have not such Prelates which is almost all are
for Holland he questioned if there was a Church among them or not or words fully to that Purpose Against which abuse of the Dr. the Bishop was fain to vindicate himself See page 124 125. Of his Posthumous Judgement Sect. 15. Moreover 5. We know not of almost any Bishops in England by whom men may be Ordained Four or five Reverend Learned men of that degree are commonly said to survive among us whom we much honour and value for their worth But as these are so distant and their residence to the most unknown so the rest if there be any are known to very few at all that I can hear of It s famed that many Bishops there are but we know it not to be true nor know not who they be and therefore it cannot well be expected that their Ordination should be sought If they reveal not themselves and their Authority and do not so much as once command or claim obedience from the generality of Ministers how can they expect to be obeyed If they plead the danger of persecution I answer 1. What Persecution do they suffer that are known above others of their way 2. If that will excuse them when we never heard of any that suffered the loss of a penny for being known to be a Bishop since the Wars were ended then it seems they take the Being of the Ministry and Churches to be but of small moment that are not worthy their hazzard in a manifestation of their power And if this excuse them from appearing it must needs in reason excuse others from knowing them obeying them and submitting to them Sect. 16. And when they shall declare themselves to be our Bishops they must in all reason expect that the proof of it as well as the naked affirmation be desired by us For we must not take every man for a Bishop that saith he is so They must shew us according to the Canons that the Clergy of the Diocess lawfully Elected them and Bishops Consecrated them which are transactions that we are strangers to If they take the secret Election of six or seven or very few in a Diocess to be currant because the rest are supposed to be uncapable by Schism 1. Then they shew themselves so exceedingly unjust as to be unmeet for Government if they will upon their secret presumptions and unproved suppositions cut off or censure so many parts of the Clergy without ever accusing them or calling them to speak for themselves or heâ—ring their Defence 2. And if upon such presumptuous Censures you make your selves Bishops besides the Canons you cannot expect obedience from those that you thus separate from and censure unheard Sect. 17. It s known that the English Bishops as Grotius himself affirmeth were chosen by the King according to the custom here the Chapter being shadows in the business And if the King may make Bishops he may make Presbyters and then Ordination is unnecessary But if you say that the Consecrators make them Bishops and not the Kings Election then Rome had many Bishops at once when ever three or four Popes were consecrated at once which marrs all succession thence dirived and then if some Bishops consecrate one and some another both are true Bishops of one Diocess and many Pastors may be thus Ordained to one Church Sect. 18. And it concerneth us before we become their subjects to have some credible Evidence that they are so Orthodox as to be capable of the place And the rather because that some that are suspected to be Bishops how truly I know not have given cause of some suspicion Either by writing against Original sin or by owning Grotius's Religion which what it was I have shewed elsewhere or by unchurching the Protestant Churches and Nullifying their Ministry that have not their kind of Ordination while they take the Roman Ordination to be Valid and their Church and Ministry to be true with other such like Sect. 19. And 6. If we should now when better may be had subject our selves to the Ordination and Government of the abolished Prelacy we should choose a more corrupt way of administration and prefer it to a more warrantable way That this way is corrupt is proved in the former Disputation That a way more warrantable may be had I shall prove anon Though submission to a faulty way in some cases of Necessity is excusable yet when we have our choice the case is altered Sect. 20. And a tender Conscience hath very great reason to fear lest by such voluntrary subjection they should incur moreover this double guilt 1. Of all the hurt that this corrupt sort of Episcopacy did before the abolition 2. And of all the hurt that it might do again if it were introduced which is neither small nor uncertain He that hath seen the fruits that it brought forth but for a few years before the abolition and weighs the arguments brought against it methinks should fear to be the restorer of it Sect. 21. If any man as Mr. Thorndike and others do shall write for a more regular sort of Episcopacy it s one thing to find a tolerable Bishop in his Book and another thing to find him existent in England For we know not of any New sort of Regulated Episcopacy planted and therefore must suppose that it is the Old sort that is in being Let them bring their Moderate forms into existence and then its like that many may be more inclined to submit to their Ordination but their moderate principles having not yet made us any Moderate Episcopacy I see not how we should be ever the more obliged for them to submit to the Old but rather are the more justified in disowning it when their own reformed modell is against it CHAP. VII The Ordination used now in England and in other Protestant Churches is Valid and agreeable to Scripture and the Practice of the Ancient Church Sect. 1. HAving already proved that the late English Bishops Ordination is not of necessity it is satisfactory without any more ado to them that would nullifie our Ministry and Churches that have not their Ordination But because we may meet with other adversaries and because in a case of so much weight we should walk in the clearest light that we can attain for the satisfaction of our own Consciences I shall further prove the Validity of our Ordination and the truth of our Call and Minstry and Churches Sect. 2. Argument 1. The Ordination is Valid which is performed by such Bishops as were instituted and existent in Scriture times But our Ordination used in England and other refoâ—med Churches is performed by such Bishops as were institutâ—d and existent in Scâ—â—pture times the refore such Ordination is Valid Thâ— Major will not be denyed being â—â—derstood with a supposition of other requisites that are not now in controversie For those that we have to deal with do grant that such Bishops as are mentioned Acts 20. 1 Tim. 3. Tit. 1. Phil. 1.1 and
in other passages of Scripture had the power of Ordination and that it belonged not only to the Apostles and Evangelists and such as they call Archbishops but that the fixed Bishops of particular Churches had it Sect. 3. The Minor I prove thus that our Ordination is by Scripture Bishops The Scripture Bishops were the Pastors of Particular Churches having no Presbyters subject to them Most of our Ordainers are such Pastors therefore most of our Ordainers are Scripture Bishops Sect 4. The Major is asserted at large by the foresaid 〈◊〉 Dr. H. H. Annot. in Art 11. b. p. 407. Where he shews 〈◊〉 though this title of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elders have been also 〈◊〉 second Order in the Church is now only in use for them under 〈◊〉 name of Presbyters yet in the Scripture times it belonged princâ—pally if not only to Bishops there being no evidence that any of 〈◊〉 second order were then instituted So that the Scripture Bishops were the Pastors of single Churches having no Presbyters under them for there were no inferiour Presbyters that had not the Power of Ordination instituted in those times This therefore may be taken as a granted truth Sect. 5. And that our Ordainers are such is commonly known 1. They are Pastors it is but few of the Prelates that denyed this They are Rectors of the People and have the Pastoral charge of souls 2. They are Pastors of Particular Churches 3. They have for the most part at least no subject or inferiour Presbyters under them therefore they are Scripture Bishops Sect. 6. Object The difference lyeth in another point The Scripture Bishops had the Power of Ordination Your Pastors have not the Power of Ordination thereefore they are not the same Answ. That is the thing in Question I am proving that they have the power of Ordination thus In Scripture times all single Pastors of single Churches had the Power of Ordination there being no other instituted But our Ordainers are the single Pastors of single Churches and of Christs institution therefore they have the Power of Ordination If the Pastors now are denyed to be such as were instituted in Scripture times 1. Let them shew who did institute them and by what authority 2. The sole Pastors of particular Churches were instituâ—ed in Scripture times But such are ours in question therefore c. Sect. 7. There is no sort of Pastors lawfull in the Church but what were instituted in Scripture times But the sort of Pastors now in question are lawfull in the Church therefore they were instituted in Scripture times The Minor will be granted us of all those that were Ordained by Prelates They would not Ordain men to an office which they thought unlawful The Major is proved thus No sort of Pastors are lawful in the Church but such of whom we may have sufficient evidence that they were instituted by Christ or his Apostles But we can have sufficient evidence of none but such as were instituted in Scripture times that they were instituted by Christ or his Apostles therefore no other sort is lawfull The Major is proved in that none but Christ and such as he committed it to have power to institute new Holy Offices for Worship in the Church But Christ hath committed this to none but Apostles if to them therefore c. Whether Apostles themselves did make any such new Office I will not now dispute but if they did 1. It was by that special Authority which no man since the planting of the Churches by them can lay claim to or prove that they have 2. And it was by that extraordinary guidance and inspiration of the Holy Ghost which none can manifest to have been since that time communicated Sect. 8. Moreover if there were a Power of instituting new Offices in the Church since Scripture times it was either in a Pope in Councils or in single Pastors But it was in none of these not in a Pope for there was no such Creature of long time after much less with this authority Not in a Council For 1. None such was used 2. None such is proved 3. Else they should have it still Not in every Bishop as will be easily granted Sect. 9. If such a Power of instituting New Church-Offices were after Scripture times in the Church then it is ceased since or continueth still Not ceased since For 1. The Powers or officers then lâ—â—t continue still therefore their authority continueth still 2. There is no proof that any such temporary power was given to any since Scripture times Nor doth any such continue still Otherwise men might still make us more New Offices and so we should not know when we have done nor should we need to look into Scripture for Christs will but to the will of men Sect. 10. Argument 2. No men since Scripture times had power to change the Institutions of Christ and the Apostles by taking down the sort of Pastors by them established and setting up another sort in their stead But if there be lawful Pastors of particular Churches that have not power of Ordination then men had power to make such a change For the sort of Pastors then instituted were such as had but one Church and were themselves personally to guide that Church in actual Worship and had the power of Ordination and there was no subject Presbyters nor no single Pastors that had not the Power of Ordination All single Pastors of particular Churches had that Poâ—er then But all or almost all such single Pastors of particular Churches are by the Dissenters supposed to be without that Power now Therefore it is by them supposed that Christs form of Church Government and sort of Officers are changed and consequently that men had power to change them for they suppose it lawfully done Sect. 11. Argument 3. The Pastors of City Churches may ordain especially the sole or chief Pastors Many of our present Ordainers are the Pastors of City Churches and the sole or chief Pastors in some Places therefore they may Ordain The Major is proved from the doctrine of the Dissenters which is that every City Church should have a Bâ—shop and that every Bishop is the chief and sometimes only Pastor of a City Church If they say that yet every Pastor though the sole Pastor of a City Church is not a Bishop I answer that then they will infer the same power of changing Scripture Institutions which I mentioned and disproved before Let them prove such a Power if they can Sect. 12. The Minor is undenyable and seen de facto that many of our Ordainers are such Pastors of City Churches and that of two sorts some of such Cities as have both the Name and Nature of Cities And some of such Cities as have truly the nature but in our English custom of speech have not the name such as are all Corporations in the several Market Towns of England Sect. 13. Argument 4. Those Pastors that have Presbyters
our Ordination is Valid The Major is proved from 1. Tim. 4.14 Neglect not the gift that is in thee which was given theâ— by Prophecy with the laying on of the hands of the Pres-Presbyterie Also from Act. 13.1 2 3. They were the Prophets and Teachers of the Church of Antioch that imposed hands on Barnabas and Saul whether it were for their first Ordination to the Office or only for a particular Mission I now dispute not The Church of Antioch had not many Prelates if any but they had many Prophets and Teachers and these and none but these are mentioned as the Ordainers As for them that say these were the Bishops of many Churches of Syria when the Text saith they all belonged to this Church of Antioch they may by such presumptuous contradictions of Scripture say much but prove little Sect. 24. As for them that grant us that there were no subject Presbyters instituted in Scripture-times and so expound the Presbyterie here to be only Apostles and Bishops of the higher order I have shewed already that they yield us the Cause though I must add that we can own no new sorâ— of Presbyterie not instituted by Christ or his Apostles But for them that think that Prelates with subject Presbyters were existent in those times they commonly expound this Text of Ordination by such subject Presbyters with others of a Superior rank or degree together Now as to our use it is sufficient that hence we prove that a Presbyterie may ordain and that undeniably a Presbyterie consisted of Presbyters and so that Presbyters may ordain This is commonly granted us from this Text. That which is said against us by them that grant it is that Presbyters did Ordain but not alone but with the Bishops Sect. 25. But 1. if this were proved it s nothing against us for if Presbyters with Bishops have power to Oâ—dain then it is not a work that is without the reach of their Office but that which belongeth to them and therefore if they could prove it irregular for them to Ordain without a Bishop yet would they not prove it Null Otherwise they might prove it Null if a Bishop Ordain without a Presbyterie because according to this Objection they must concur 2. But indeed they prove not that any above Presbyters did concur in Timothies Ordination whatever probability they may shew for it And till they prove it we must hold so much as is proved and granted Sect. 26. As for 2 Tim. 1.6 it is no certain proof of it It may be Imposition of hands in Confirmation or for the first giving of the Holy Ghost after Baptism ordinarily used by the Apostles that is there spoken of which also seemeth probable by the Apostles annexing it to Timothies Faith in which he succeeded his Mother and Grandmother and to the following effects of the Spirit of Power and of Love and of a sound mind which are the fruits of Confirming Grace admonishing hâ—m that he be not ashamed of the Testimony of our Lord which is also the fruit of Confirmation However the pâ—obâ—bility go they can give us no certainty that Paul or any Apostle had an hand in the Ordination here spoken of when the Text saith that it was with the laying on of the hands of the Presbâ—terie we must judge of the office by the name and therefore 1. we are sure that there were Presbyters 2. And if there were also any of an higher rank the Phrase encourageth us to believe that it was as Presbyters that they imposed hands in Ordination Sect. 27. Argument 9. If Bishops and Presbyters as commonly distinguished do differ only Gradu non Ordine in Degree and not in Order that is as being not of a distinct office but of a more honourable Degree in the same office then is the Ordination of Presbyters valid though without a Bishop of that higher Degree But the Antecedent is true therefore so is the Consequent The Antecedent is maintained by abundance of the Papists themselves much more by Protestants The reason of the Consequence is because ad ordinem pertinet ordinarâ— Being of the same office they may do the same work This Aâ—gument Bishop Vsher gave me to prove that the Ordination of meer Presbyters without a Prelate is valid when I askt him his Judgement of it Sect. 28. Argument 10. If the Prelates and the Laws they went by did allow and require meer Presbyters to Ordain then must they grant us that they have the Power of Ordination But the Antecedent is true as is well known in the Laws and common Practice of the Prelates in Ordaining divers Presbyters laid on hands together with the Bishop and it was not the Bishop but his Chaplain commonly that examined and approved usually the Bishop came forth and laid his hands on men that he never saw before or spoke to but took them as he found them presented to him by his Chaplain so that Presbyters Ordained as well as he and therefore had power to Ordain Sect. 29. If it be Objected that they had no power to Ordain without a Bishop I answer 1. Nor a Bishop quoad exercitium without them according to our Laws and Customs at least â—â—â—ually 2. Ordaining with a Bishop proveth them to be Ordainers and that it is a work that belongeth to the order or office of a Presbyter or else he might not do it at all any more then Deacons or Chancellors c. may And if it be but the work of a Presbyters office it is not a Nullity if Presbyters do it without a Prelate if you could prove it an irregularity Sect. 30. Argument 11. If the Ordination of the English â—relates be valid then much more is the Ordination of Presbyters as in England and other Reformed Churches is in use But the Ordination of English Prelates is valid I am sure in the judgement of them that we dispute against therefore so is the Ordination of English Presbyters much more Sect. 31. The reason of the Consequence is because the English Prelates are more unlike the Bishops that were fixed by Apostolical Institution or Ordination then the English Presbyters are as I have shewed at large in the former Disputation the Scripture Bishops were the single Pastors of single Churches personally guiding them in the worship of God and governing them in presence and teaching them by their own mouths visiting their sick administring Sacraments c. And such are the English Presbyters But such are not the late English Prelates that were the Governors of an hundred Churches and did not personally teach them guide them in worship govern them in presence and deliver them the Sacraments but were absent from them all save one Congregation These were unliker to the Scripture fixed Bishops described by Dr. H. H. then our Presbyters are therefore if they may derive from them a Power of Ordination or from the â—aw that instituted them then Presbyters may do so much more Sect. 32. Argument 12.
choose a certain person to be her Husband and the Minister or Magistrate solemnize their Marriage without any mention of such Governing Power the Power doth nevertheless belong to the man because God hath specified by his Law the Power of that Relation and the man is Lawfully put in the Relation that by the Law of God hath such a Power so is it in the case in hand Sect. 107. But yet 2. I add that the Prelates and the Laws of England gave to Presbyters a Power of Ordination For in all their Ordinations the Presbyters were to lay on hands with the Prelate and did in all Ordinations that I have seen And if they actually imposed hands and so Ordained it was an actual profession to all that they were supposed to have the power of Ordination which they exercised Sect. 108. Obj. But they had no Power given them to do it without a Prelate Answ. 1. By Christ they had 2. You may as well say that Bishops have no Power to Ordain because they were not ordinarily at least to do it without the Presbyters Sect. 109. Obj. Saith the foresaid Learned Author Dissert Praemonit sect 10.11 Vnum illud lubens interrogarem an Hieronymus dum hic esset Presbyteratu secundario fungeretur partiariâ tantum indutus potestate praesente sed spreto insuper habito Episcopo Diaconum aut Presbyterum ordinare aut Presbytero uni aut alteri adjunctus recte potuerit si affirmetur dicatur sodes qua demum ratione ab eo dictum sit Episcopum sola ordinatione ergo ordinatione à Presbytero disterminatum esse sin negetur quomodo igitur Presbytero Anglicano cui nullam quae non Hieronymo potestatem c. Answ. 1. This is none of our case in England we Ordain not praesente sed spreto Episcopo but most Countreyes know of no Bishop that they have but Presbyters 2. Hierom might have Ordained with his fellow-presbyters according to the Laws of Christ but not according to the Ecclesiastical Canons that then obtained or bore sway 3. Hierom plainly tells you that it is by Ecclesiastical appointment for the prevention of schisme that Bishops were set up so far as to have this power more then Presbyters in the point of Ordination 4. The English Presbyters are Parochial Bishops and have an Office of Christs making and not of the Prelates and are not under those Ecclesiastical Canons that restrained Hierom from the exercise of this power And therefore whereas it is added by this Learned Author Quid huic dilemmati reponi aut opponi possit fateor equidem me non adeo Lynceum esse ut perspiciam he may see that he could scarce have set us an easier task then to answer his dilemma Sect. 110. The second and their principal objection is that We have no precept or example in the Church for Presbyters Ordaining without Prelates therefore it is not to be done Answ. 1. I told you before how Bishop Vsher told me he answered this Objection to King Charlâ— viz. from the example of the Church of Alexandria where Presbyters made Bishops which is more Sect. 111. But 2. I answer you haue no example in Scripture or long after that ever Prelates of the English sort did ordain nor any precept for it nor was such a Prelacy then known as is proved and therefore their Ordination hath less warrant then that by Pretbyters Sect. 112. And 3. I have told you before of Scripture warrant for Ordination by a Presbyterie and also by the Teachers and other Officers of a single Church as was the Church of Antioch Prove that there was any Bishop Sect. 113. Lastly it is confessed by the Dissenters that such Presbyters or Bishops as are mentioned Act. 20. Phil. 1.1 1 Tim. 3. Tit. 1 c. had power of Ordination But according to the judgement of most of the Fathers that ever I saw or heard of that interpret those texts it is Presbyters that are meant in all or some of those texts It is granted us also by the Dissenters that the chief or sole Pastors of single Churches in Scripture-times did ordain and had the power of Ordination But the Presbyters of England and other Protestant Churches are the chief or sole Pastors of single Churches therefore c. Sect. 114. Object 3. But the English Presbyters have broak their Oaths of Canoical obedience and therefore at least are schismatical Answ. 1. Many never took any such oath to my knowledge For my part I did not 2. The particular persons that are guilty must be accused and neither must they be judged before they speak for themselves nor yet must others be condemned for their sakes In these parts there is not one Presbyter I think of ten who differs from the Prelates about Ordination that ever took that oath And therefore it is few that can be called Schismaticks on that account Yea 3. And those few that did take that Oath have few of them that I know of done any thing against the Prelates Sect. 115. Object 4. The English Presbyters have pull'd down the Prelates and rebelled against them and therefore at least are guilty of Schism Answ. 1. The guilty must be named and heard their case is nothing to the rest It is not one often I think perhaps of twenty that can be proved guilty 2. It was not the Scripture Bishops that they Covenanted against or opposed but only the irregular English Prelacy before described And the endeavour of reforming this corrupted Preâ—acy and reducing it to the Primitive frame is in it self no schism Sect. 116. Object 5. Ignatius commandeth them to obey the Bishops and do nothing without them Answ. 1. Ignatius also commandeth them to obey the Presbyters as the Apostles of Christ and to do nothing without them 2. The Bishops that Ignatius mentioneth were such as our Parish Bishops or Presbyters are that have a Presbyterie to assist them They were the chief Pastors of a single Church as is before proved out of Ignatius and not the Pastors of hundreds of Churches Sect. 117. I shall trouble the Reader with no more of their objections seeing by what is said already he may be furnished to answer them all but I shall now leave it to his impartial sober consideration whether I have not proved the truth of our Ministry and of the Reformed Churches and the Validity of our administrations and of our Ordination it self CHAP. VIII The greatness of their sin that are now labouring to perswade the People of the Nullity of our Ministry Churches and administrations Sect. 1. HAving laid so fair a ground for my application I think it my duty to take the freedom to tell those Reverend persons that oppose us in this point the Reasons why I dare not joyn with them and the guilt that I am perswaded they heap upon their own souls Wherein I protest it is not mine intent to make them odious or cast disgrace upon them for I do with
you and perhaps search as diligently and pray as hard as you and yet they think that its you that are in the wrong you see that for many years the Reformed Churches have continued in this mind And it appears that if they will not turn to your opinion you would have them all cast out or forsaken Christ shall have no servants nor the Church any Pastors that will not be in this of your Opinion Sect. 13. 8. Hereby also you would run into the guilt of a more grievous persecution when you have read so much in Scripture against persecutors and when you have heard of and seen the judgements of God let out upon them It is an easie matter for any Persecutor to call him that he would cast out a Schismatick or Heretick but it is not so easie to answer him that hath said He that offendeth one of these little ones it were better for him c. God will not take up with fair pretences or false accusations against his servants to justifie your persecution Sect. 14. 9. Yea you would involve the people of the Land and of other Nations in the guilt of your persecution drawing them to joyn with you in casting out the faithful labourers from the Vineyard of the Lord. This is the good you would do the people to involve their Souls into so deplorable a state of guilt Sect. 15. If you say It is you that are persecuted as I read some of you do I answer 1. If it be so you are the more unexcusable before God and man that even under your persecution will cherish defend and propagate such a doctrine of persecution as strikes at no less then the necks of all the Reformed Ministers and Churches that are not Prelatical at one blow 2. For my part I have oft protested against any that shall hinder an able Godly Minister from the service of Christ and the Church if he be but one that is likely to do more good then harm But I never took it to be persecution to cast out Drunkards scandalous negligent insufficient men where better may be had to supply the place no more then it is persecution to suppress an abusive Alehouse or restrain a thief from making thievery his trade 3. The present Governors do profess their readiness to approve and encourage in the Ministry any Godly able diligent mâ—n that will but live peaceably towards the Commonwealth And I am acquainted with none as far as I remember of this quality that have not liberty to preach and exercise the Ministerial Office 4. But if you think you are persecuted because you may not Rule your Brethren and persecute others and take upon you the sole Government of all the Churches in a County or more we had rather bear your accusations then poor souls should bear the pains of Hell by your neglect and persecution if you are persecuted when your hands are held from striking what are your Brethren that cannot by your good will have leave laboriously to serve God in a low estate as the servants of all and the Lords of none Sect. 16. 10 By this means also you shew your selves impenitent in regard of all the former persecutions that some of you and your predecessors have been guilty of Abundance of most Learned Godly men have been silenced suspended and some of them persecuted to banishment and some to death The world hath had too few such men for exemplary abilities diligence and holiness as Hildersham Bradshaw Bayâ— Nicols Brightman Dod Ball Paget Hering Langley Parker Sandford Cartwright Bates Ames Rogers and abundance more that some suffered unto death and some were silenced some imprisoned c. for not conforming to the Ceremonies besides Eliot Hooker Cotton Norton Cobbet Davenant Parker Noyes and all the rest that were driven to New England and besides Ward and all that were driven into Holland and besides the thousands of private Christians that were driven away with them And besides all the later more extensive persecution of such as were called Conformable Puritans for not reading the Book for dauncing on the Lords day and for not ceasing to preach Lectures or on the Evening of the Lords day and such like All this I call to your mind as the sin that should be lamented and heavily lamented and not be owned and drawn or continued on your own heads by impenitencie and how do you repent that would do the like and take your selves to be persecuted if your hands are tyed that you may not do it For my own part I must profess I had rather be a Gally-slave or Chimney-sweeper yea or the basest vermine than be a Bishop with all this guilt upon my soul to continue how light soever many make of it and how impenitently soever they justifie themselves Sect. 17. 11. Yea more after all the warnings you have had in the waies and ends of your predecessors it seems that you would yet incomparably outstrip the most of them in persecution if you had your way For few of them did attempt or make any motion for degrading or denying most of the Protestant Ministers in Europe or such a number as in England and Scotland are not Ordained by Prelates and to unchurch all their Churches This is far higher then these before you Sect. 18. 12. And take heed lest continuing in such a sin after both prohibitions and judgements you should be found fighters against God If those that despise the Ministers of Christ despise Christ himself what shall we think of them that do it themselves and teach men so to do and have pleasure in them that do it It s fearful to draw near that forlorn Condition of the Jews 1 Thes. 2.15 16. and have persecuted us and they please not God and are contrary to all men forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they might be saved to fill up their sins alway for the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost Sect. 19. 13. It is apparent that your doctrine and practice tendeth to let in the old ejected rabble of drunken ignorant ungodly persons into the Ministrie And what can be more odious to the most Holy God! For if once you cast out all those that have not Prelatical Ordination or all that are against it especially after a former Ordination you must take in such as these and with Ieroboam make Priests of the vilest of the people or else the places must be vacant for we know that there are not able godly men to be had of your mind to supply the vacant places Sect. 20. 14. Your doctrine doth tend to harden malignant wicked men in their enmitie against a faithful Ministrie and we see this unhappy success of it by experience Our doctrine is so much against the inclination and interest of the flesh and men are by corrupted nature at such an enmity to God and all that is truly Spiritual and Holy that we have as many enemies as hearers till Grace do
much with Christian comfort when you cannot say that you are sent of God and have nothing but your own overweening conceits of it Could you but say I entered by the way that God appointed and was not my own Judge you might have some more boldness and confidence of Gods assistance Sect. 34. Reas. 18. The most that plead against Ordination that are worthy the name of sober Christians do plead but against the Necessity of it and cannot deny it to be lawful and should not all the reasons before mentioned prevail with you to submit to a lawful thing Sect. 35. Reas. 19. And if it be thus undenyable that men must not be their own Judges it will soon appear that Ministers are the standing Judges of mens fitness for this work because no other Judges are appointed to it or capable of it It must be an ordinary stated way of Approbation that can give us satisfaction for if God had left the case at large for men to go to whom they will it would be all one as to go to none at all but to be Judges themselves And if a standing way of Approbation must be acknowledged let us enquire where it is to be found and look which way you will and you shall find no other but this which is by men of the same Calling with them that are to be Ordained Sect. 36. For 1. Magistrates it cannot be none that I know pretend to that Magistrates in most of the world are Infiâ—els and therefore cannot there be Ordainers and none of them hath the work committed to them by Christ nor do any that I know assume it to themselves Sect. 37. And 2. The people it cannot be For 1. No man can shew a word of precept or example for it nor prove that ever God did give them such a power Consent or Election is all that can be pretended to by them 2. It is a work that they are commonly unable for the Schollars may as well Try and Approve of their Schoolmaster We confess the People must by a judgement of discretion endeavour to find out the best they can but if they had not helps and if they were also called to a judgement of direction and decision what work would they make Do the Major vote or the Minor either in most or almost any Congregations understand whether a man know the meaning of the Scripture or to be able to defend the truth or whether he be Heretical or found in the faith c. God would not set men on a work that is thus beyond the line of their Capacity It is a thing not to be imagined that they that call us to be their Teachers should already be commonâ—y able to Judge whether we are sound or unsound and able to teach them or not for this importeth that they know already as much as we for wherein they are ignorant they cannot judge of us And if they know as much already what need have they of our Teaching 3. And it is contrary to the subjection and inferiority of their Relation they that are commanded to learn and obey us as their Guides may yet consent or choose their Teachers when Approved or to be Approved by abler men but they cannot be imagined to be appointed by God to Ordain their own Overseers this is a most ungrounded fiction Sect. 38. Reas. 20. On the other side it is the Pastors of the Church and only they that are fitted to be the standing Approvers or Ordainers as will appear in these particulars 1. It is they that are justly supposed to be of competent abilities to try a Minister If here and there a Gentleman or other person be able that is a rarity and therefore no standing way for the Church in Ordaining Ministers can be gathered thence 2. Ministers are doubly devoted to God and to his Church and therefore should have and ordinarily have the tenderest care of the Church 3. It is justly supposed that Ministers are ordinarily the most pious and conscionable men that are to be had or els they are too blame that choose them to be Ministers And therefore they may be expected to be most faithful in the work 4. And they are fewer and have lesser perverting interests and therefore are like to be less divided in such determinations then the people that are so many and of so many interests and minds that if it were not for the Moderation of Magistrates and Ministers they would almost everywhere be all to pieces one being for one man and another for another some for one of this mind and way and some for one of another some for the Orthodox and some for the Heretical 5. Lastly it is Ministers whose Office God hath tyed Ordination to and who have time to wait upon it as their duty so that lay all this together and I think the first Proposition is proved for the Necessity ordinarily of the Pastors Approbation and the sinfulness of neglecting it Sect. 39. Prop. 2. It is only the Pastors of one particular Church but also the Pastors of Neighbour chuâ—ches that hold Communion with that Church that should regularly Approve or Ordain Ministers though I deny not but he may be a Minister that hath no Ordination but by the Pastors of a particular Church yet I conceive that this is not a regular course Sect. 40. My reasons are these 1. Because if it be ordinarily tyed to the Pastors of the same Church only to Ordain then it will be done ordinarily without any Pastors at all For most particular Churches in the world have but one Pastor and when he is dead there is none left to Ordain and therefore others or none must do it in such cases Sect. 41. And 2. If there be one left and all the power be left in him the welfare of the Church would run too great an hazzard if every man shall be Ordained a Minister that can procure the Approbation of a single Pastor the Church will be subjected to most of the lamentable miseries before mentioned supposing that men were judges for themselves Sect. 42. And 3. We find in Scripture that it was not the way appointed by the Holy Ghost for single Pastors to Ordain The forecited Texts and examples are a sufficient proof Sect. 43. If any say that the Ruling Elders may concur I answer Though I make no great matter of it nor would not raise a contention about it yet I must say that I never yet saw any satisfactory proof that ever God did institute such Elders as this Objection meaneth in the Church that is 1. Such as are not Ordained but come in by meer Election 2. And such as have the Power of Discipline and Oversight without Authority to preach or administer the Sacraments I think these are but humane creatures though I doubt not but there may be such as Actually shall forbear preaching and administration of the Sacraments when some of their colleagus are fitter for it Sect. 44.
But 2. If such an Office can be proved I despair of seeing it proved from Scripture that they have authority to Ordain 3. And how can they have Authority when most of them have not Ability And I think it is supposed that they have not Ability to Preach in them that deny them Authority and if they want Ability to Preach it s two to one but they want Ability to Try and Approve of Preachers 4. And how come they to have Power to Ordain others that are not Ordained themselves but are admitted upon bare Election 5. And this course would prostitute the Churches to unworthy men as aforesaid Sect. 45. And 4. It is not a contemptible Consideration that the chief Pastor of every particular Church hath ever since the second Century at least been Ordained by the Pastors of other Churches And how it was before we have but very defective Evidence except so much as is left us in the Holy Scriptures of which we have spoke before Sect 46. And 5. The Church of Christ is a Chain of many links a Society united in Christ the Head consisting as a Republike of many Corporations or as an Acâ—demy of many Colledges and a greater Union and Communion is requisite among them then among the parts of any other Society in the world And therefore seeing it is the duty of Neighbour Pastors and Churches according to their Capacity to hold Communion with that particular Church and its Pastors it seems reasonable that they have some antecedent Cognisance and Approbation of the persons that they are to hold Communion with Sect. 47. And 6. It is considerable also that whoever is according to Christs institution Ordained a Minister of a particular Church is withall if not before Ordained a Minister simply that is one that may as a separated Messenger of Christ both preach for the Conversion of those without and gather Churches where there are none and pro tempore do the Office of a Minister to any part of the Catholike Church where he cometh and hath a Call And therefore as he is simply a Minister and the Unconverted world or the Universal Church are the Objects of his Ministry the Pastors or Members of that particular Church where he is settled have no more to do in Ordaining him then any other As a Corporation may choose their own Physitian Schoolmaster c. but cannot do any more then other men in Licensing a man to be in general a Physitian Schoolmaster c. So may a Church choose who shall be their Teacher but not who shall be simply a Teacher or Minister of Christ any more then an other Church may do that 's further from him Sect. 48. And 7. It is also considerable that it is the safest and most satisfactory way to the Church and to the Minister himself to have the Approbation of many And it may leave more scruple concerning our Call when one or two or a particular Church only do Approve us Sect. 49. And 8. It is granted in their writings by those that are for Ordination by a particular Church only that the Concurrence of more is Lawful and if Lawful I leave it to Consideration whether all the forementioned accidents make it not so far convenient as to be ordinarily a plain duty and to be preferred where it may be had Sect. 50. Yet do I not plead for Ordination by Neighbour Pastoâ—â— as from a Governing Authority over that particular Church but as from an interest in the Church Universal and all its Officers within their reach and from an interest of Communion with Neighbour Churches Sect. 51. And it is observable in Scripture that the Itinerant Ministers that were fixed and appropriated to no particular Church for continuance such as the Apostles and Evangelists were and Titus Timothy and such others had a Principal hand in the work of Ordination whereever they came It was they that Ordained Elders in every City in every Church Sect. 52. Prop. 3. If any shall cull out two or three or more of the weakest injudicious facile Ministers and procure them to Ordain him his course is irregular and his call unsatisfactory though the formal part be obtained to the full For it is not for meer formality but to satsfie the person called and the Church and to secure the Ministry and sacred works and souls of men from injury by Usurpers that God hath appointed the way of Ordination And therefore it is fraud and not obedience for any man so to use it as to cheat himsef and the Church with a formality and frustrate the Ordinance and miss its ends Sect. 53. Prop. 4. If any man avoiding the Orthodox and Unanimous Ministry shall apply himself for Ordination to some divided schismatical or heretical persons that will Approve him and Ordain him when the others would reject him this also as the former is fraud and self-deceit and not obedience upon the last mentioned grounds It is the basest treacherous kind of sinning to turn Gods Ordinances against himself and to sin under the shelter and pretence of an institution By using the means in opposition to its end they make it no means and use it not as a means at all Though Pastors must Ordain yet is it not all kind of Pastors Ordination that should satisfie an honest meaning man but that which hath the qualifications suited to the Rule and end Sect. 54. In such cases of unjust entrance if the People sinfully comply and the man have possession it may be the duty of some particular persons that cannot help it having done their own parts in disowning it to submit and not therefore to separate from the Church except in desperate extraordinary cases not now to be enumerated And all the administrations of such a man shall be not only Valid to the innocent but without any scruple of conscience may be used and received with expectation of a promised blessing Sect. 55. But yet quoad debitum it is the Churches duty except in Cases of Necessity to disown such intruders and to suspect and suspend obedience to those that indirectly enter by a few ignorant or schismatical Ordainers refusing the tryal of the unanimous abler Orthodox Ministry till they have either perswaded the man to procure their Approbation or have themselves sought the Judgement of the said United Ministers concerning him And seeing all the Churches of Christ should be linkt and jointed together and hold communion and correspondency according to their capacities the Members of a particular Church are bound in reason and to those ends to advise in such suspicious cases with neighbour Churches and not to receive a Pastor that comes in by way of Discord or that neglecteth or refuseth the concordant way For he that entreth in a divisive way is like to govern them accordingly and still to shun the Communion of the Brethren Sect. 56. This Cyprian fully shews in the fore-mentioned Ep. 68. p 201. perswading the people to shun the
to the end of the world in a way of assistance and owning of our Labours answerable to our engagements for him and service to him Were we deeplier engaged for Christ and did with Peter cast our selves into the Sea or walk on the Waters at his Call we should find Christ acting as if he were answerably engaged for our indemnity or at least for our eminent encouragement and reward If ever we might expect Miracles again it would be upon our engagement in the antient work though I know that even for this they are now no more necessary nor I think promised § 18. And 10. We do hereby seem to accuse Christ unjustly of Mutability supposing that he had setled one sort of Ministry and Government in his Church for one Age only and then changed it for another that is ever after to continue alone I know the extraordinary work of that age to plant Churches by new doctrine and Miracles and reveal the new Articles of Faith and Practice in Scripture to the world did require such enablements thereto which ordinary works do not require and therefore the Apostles as immediatly sent and as inditing Scriptures and working Miracles and Prophetically bringing new Revelations have no Successors But the Apostles as preaching to the Nations and as planting Churches and as setling them and taking care of their prosperity after they had planted them and as exercising their Ministry itinerantly as not fixed to a special charge thus they have Successors the work being ordinary and such as should be done now as well as then and must continue while the necessity of it doth continue § 19. There needeth no other proof of this then by observing that it was not Apostles only but all the Ministry at first that was thus unfixed and itinerant and that the Apostles assumed such to their assistance and employed them all their dayes in this work § 20. The seventy Disciples as well as the Apostles were at first by Christ sent forth in this Itinerant way for the Conversion of the inhabitants of Iudaea And thus Iohn the Baptist had preached before them And after Christs Resurrection and Ascension it was not only the Apostles but it was they that were scattered abroad that went everywhere preaching the Word Act. 8.4 And who were these Act. 8.1 They were all scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judaea and Samaria except the Apostles And the Evangelists of those times are confessed to have exercised this Itinerant Ministry so did Barnabas Silas Mark Epaphroditus Tychicus Trophimus Timothy Titus Luke and others ordinarily It was the first and most ordinary way then of exercising the Ministry § 21. And if we lived our selves in Heathen or Infidel Countreys we should be soon taught by experience that this must be still an ordinary work For what else is to be done till persons be converted and brought into the Church They must be made Disciples before they can be used as Disciples and caught to observe all things that Christ hath commanded § 22. But against this it is objected 1. That the Apostles were extraordinary Officers and therefore have no Successors To which I answer 1. That I have before shewed in what they were extraordinary and in what not in what they have no Successors and in what they have As Apostles sent immediatly by Christ to Reveal a new doctrine and confirm it by Miracles they have no Successors but as general Ministers of Christ to convert souls plant Churches and take a care of many they have Successors call them by what name you please 2. And what if the Apostles have no Successors Had the seventy Disciples none Had Apollo Titus Timothy Silas Barnabas c. none Had all the Itinerant converting Ministers of those times none that were not affixed as Pastors to a particular Church § 23. Obj. 2. But at least in the extent of their charge the Apostles were extraordinary in that they were to preach the Gospel to all Nations I answer in point of exercise being furnished with tongues and Miracles for the work they were obliged to go further or to more Nations then most particular Ministers are now obliged to go but that is not because we want Authority if we had ability and opportunity but because we want ability and opportunity to exercise our Office The Apostles were not bound to go into every Nation of the world inclusively but to avoid none but go to all that is to as many as they could Otherwise they had sinned in not going to Mexico Peru Brasile the Philippine or Molucc◠Islands to Iapon China c. And it is our duty to extend our Ministry for the Conversion of as many as we have Ability and opportunity to do That which was common to the planting and waetering Ministry in the Apostles dayes was not proper to the Apostles but to go up and down the world to Convert and Baptize and plant and water Churches was then common to such as Apollo Silas c. therefore c. § 24. Obj. 3. But say others the Apostles were not at last such unfixed Ministers as you imagine but fixed Diocesan Bishops Peter was Bishop of Antioch first and of Rome after Paul was Bishop of Rome James of Jerusalem c. Ans. That any Apostle was a fixed Bishop taking on him durante vita the special Pastoral charge of one particular Church or Diocess as his peculiar is 1. Barely affirmed and therefore not to be believed 2. And is contrary both to the tenor of their Commission and the History of their Ministrations And 3. Is also contrary to Charity it self and therefore is not worthy of any credit The Apostles were not so lazy or uncharitable as to affix themselves to Parishes or Diocesses and leave the Nations of the world in their unbelief and to cease the work that they were first sent out upon before the necessity of it ceased Peter and Paul were Bishops of Rome as they were of other Churches which they planted and watered and no more even as Paul was Bishop of Ephesus Philippi Corinth c. And Iames was either no Bishop of Ierusalem or no Apostle but as many think another Iames. Indeed pro tempore not only an Apostle but other Itinerant Ministers were Bishops of the places where they came that is were Officers of Christ that might exercise any act of their Office Teaching Governing administring Sacraments c. to any people that gave them a Call or so far as opportunity and need required And so I doubt not but every Minister now may do in any Church on earth If he be invited to stay a day or week or month among them and do the work of a Minister yea or if he be invited but to preach a Sermon to them he may do it not as a private man but as a Minister in general and as their Teacher or Pastor pro tempore ad hoc that give him the invitation For though the first Call to
granted that are unlawfully and upon mistake desired § 37. Lastly understand also that when I speak of yielding to this Negative voice in Ordination to the President of such an Association I intend not to exclude the Presbyterie of a particular Church where it is sufficient from the said Power and exercise of Ordination of which I am to speak in the the following Chapter which is of the President of such a Presbyterie CHAP. IV. It is Lawful for the Presbyters of a particular Church to have a fixed President during life § 1. I Come now to the most Ancient fixed Bishop that the Church was acquainted with except the meer Episcopus Gregis the Overseer of the flock and that is A President of many Elders in one particular Church The Diocesan Bishop was long after this The first Bishops if you will call them so in the Church were the first mentioned Itinerant Bishops that were sent abroad to convert souls and gather Churches and afterward took care to water and confirm them The next sort of Bishops and the first so called were the fixed Pastors of particular Churches that cannot be proved to have any superiority over Presbyters The third sort of Bishops in time and the first fixed Bishops that were superiours to other Pastors were these Presidents of the Presbyteries of particular Churches And these are they that now we have to speak of And I shall prove that it is not unlawful to have such § 2. But first I must tell you what I mean and shew you that such may be had among us I have in one of the former Disputations defined a particular Câ—urch It should ordinarily consist of no more then may hold personal Communion together in Gods publick Worship But yet take notice 1. That it tendeth to the strength and honour of it that it be not too small but consisting of as many as are well capable of the Ends. 2 And it is lawfull for these to have some other meeting places for part of the Church besides the principal place which is for the whole Chappels of ease may lawfully be made use of for the benefit of the weak and lame and aged that cannot alwayes or often come to the common Assembly And where such Chappels are not it is lawfull to make use of convenient houses Yea if there were no Place to be had sufficiently capacious of a full Assembly or else if persecution forbad them to meet it might still be but one Church though the members met in several houses ordinarily as five hundred in one and three hundred in another or one hundred only in several places every one going to which house he pleased and having several Pastors that in Society and by Consent did guide them all But though somewhat disorderly may be born with in cases of Necessity yet 1. As it is Necessary to the Ends and so to the Being of a particular Church that they be a Society capable of personal Communion and the personal Teaching Guidance and Oversight of the same Pastors So 2. It is desirable as much tending to Order and Edification that all of them that are able do frequently meet in one Assembly for the Worshipping of God with one heart and mouth And this is the Church I speak of § 3. It is not of Necessity to the Being of such a particular Church that it have more Pastors then one And when one only is the Pastor or Governour that one alone may do all the works of a Pastor or Governour For what else is his Office but the state or Relation of a man obliged and authorized to do such works The Learned Dr. H. H. thinketh that the Apostles planted none in Scripture times but single Pastors or Bishops called also Presbyters in every Church with Deacons under them without any other Presbyters subject or assistant over that Church This I conceive cannot be proved nor so much as the probability of it nay I think at least a probability if not a certainty of the contrary may be proved of some Churches But yet it is most likely that it was so with many Churches And reason tells us that the thing being in it self indifferent was suted by the Apostles to the state of the particular Churches that they planted A small Church might well have a single Pastor when a large Church especially in times of persecution when they must assemble in several houses at once required more Some places might have many persons fit for the Office and some but one Which cases must needs have some Variety § 4. Where there are more Pastors in such a Church then one I know of no Necessity that one should have any superiority over another nor can I prove that it was so from the beginning Some Divines of the Prelatical Judgement think that this was an Ordinance of the Apostles at the first planting of such Churches Others of them think that it was of their appointment but not actually existent till after Scripture times Others of them think that as Hierom saith it began when factions rose in the Church not by Divine Ordination but Ecclesiastical agreement for the preventing or cure of schism § 5. The first Church that we find it in in History is that of Alexandria And Alexandria was a place exceedingly given to sedition tumults and divisions the contentions between Cyril and Orestes the murder of Hypatia by Peter and his company the assault made upon Orestes by Ammonius the other Nitrian Monks and many such feats in the dayes of Theophilus Dionysius and up to the beginning do shew what they were And Socrates saith of them expresly li. 7. cap. 13. that The people of Alexandria above all other men are given to Schism and contention for if any quarrel arise at any time among them presently hainous and horrible offences use to follow and the tumult is never appeased without great blood-shed such were the Alexandrians § 6. But yet it is certain that the Original of this custom of setting up one as President or chief Presbyter in a particular Churâ—h cannot be found out so as to say by whom and when it was first brought in But if it began upon the death of Mark at Alexandria it must needs be long before the death of Iohn the Apostle in that Church what ever other Churces did But it seems that there was then a difference and indifferency in this point and that other Churces did not presently imitate the Churches of Alexandria and Rome herein He that reads Clemens Epistle to the Corinthians without partiality I think will be of Grotius mind before cited Epist. ad Gal. ad Bignon that Clemens knew not any such Prelacy among the Corinthians when he wrote that Epistle And so we may say of some other Witnesses and Churches in those times and afterwards in many places § 7. It is not another Order of Ministers or Office that was in such Churches distinct from the Presbyters that assisted them
Accommodation § 10. A fourth witness is Dr. Forbs of Scotland who having written purposely a Book called his Irenicon for Accommodation on such terms I need to say no more of him but refer you to the Book I shall name no more of the Episcopal party These four are enow to my purpose § 11. That the Presbyterians of England specially are willing to close upon these terms of a fixed Moderator I prove 1. By the profest Consent of that Reverend Learned servant of Christ Mr. Thomas Gataker a Member of the late Assembly at Westminster who hath professed his judgement of this matter in a Book against Lilly I refer you to his own words for brevity sake § 12. My next witness and for brevity many in one shall be Mr. Geree and the Province of London citing him in their Ius Divinum Ministerii pag. Append. 122. the words are these That the Ancient Fathers in the point of Episcopacy differ more from the high Prelatist thâ—n from the Presbyterian for the Presbyterians alwayes have a President to guide their actions which they acknowledge may be perpetual durante vita modo se bene gesserit or temporary to avoid inconvenience which Bilson takes hold of as advantagious because so little discrepant as he saith from what he maintaineth See the rest there § 13. 3. Beza the Leader against Prelacy saith de grad Minist Evang. Instituti Divini est ut in omni coetu Presbyterorum unus sit qui ordine praeat praesit reliquis It is of Divine Institution that in every Assembly of Presbyters there be one that go before and be above the rest And dividing Bishops into Divine Humane and Diabolical he makes the Humane tolerable Prelacy to be the fixed President § 14. 4. Calvin who is accused for ejecting Episcopacy besides what he writes of it to Card Sadolet saith in his Institut lib. 4. cap. 4. § 1. Ea cautione totam suam Oeconomiam composuerunt Ecclesiae veteris Episcopi ad unicam illam Dei verbi normam ut facile videas nihil fere hac parte habuisse à verbo Dei alienum § 2. Quibus ergo docendi munus injuâ—ctum erat eos omnes nominabant Presbyteros Illi ex suo numero in singulis civitatibus unum eligebant cui specialiter dabant titulum Episcopi ne ex aequalitate ut fâ—â—ri solet dissidia nascerentur Neque tamen sic honore dignitate superior erat Episcopus ut Dominium in Collegas haberet sed quas partes habet Consul in Senatu ut referat de negotiis sententias roget consulendo monendo hortando aliis praeâ—at authoritate sua totam actionem regat quod decretum Communi Consilio fuerit exequatur id munus sustinebat Episcopus in Presbyterorum coetu § 4. fine Gubernationem sic constituti nonnulli Hierarchiam vocarunt nomine ut mihi videtur improprio certe scripturis inusitato Cavere enim voluit spiritus sanctus nequis principatum aut dominationem somniaret quum de Ecclesiae gubernatione agitur Verum si rem omisso vocabulâ— intueamur N. B. reperiemus veteres Episcopos non aliam regendae Ecclesiae formam voluisse fingere ab ea quam Deus verbo suo praescripsit This he writes after the mention of Archbishops and Patriarcks as well as of Bishops governing in Synods § 15. Where by the way let me give you this observation that Bishops Governing but in Synods can have no other power of Government then the Synods themselves have But Synods themselves as such are not directly for Government but for Concord and Communion of Churches and so consequently for well-governing the several flocks Nor hath a Synod any Governing Power over a particular Pastor as being his superiour appointed to that end but only a Power of Consent or Agreement to which for unity and communion sake he is consequentially obliged not by Virtue of Gods Command that requireth us to obey the Higher Power for three Pastors are not made so the Rulers of one but by virtue of Gods commands that require us to do all things in Unity and to maintain the Peace and Concoâ—d of the Churches and to avoid Divisions and discord § 16. If any think that this doth too much favour the Congregational way I must tell him that it is so true and clear that the Episcopal men that are moderate acknowledge it For instance the Reverend Bishop Vsher did without asking of himself profess to me that it was his judgement that certainly Councils or Synods are not for Government but for Vnity and that a Bishâ—p out of Council hath the same Governing Power as all the Council though their vote may bind him for Vnity to consent § 17. This being so it must needs follow that an Archbishop or the President of a National Provincial Diocesan or Classicall Assembly or of any Association of the Pastors of many Churches hath no superiour Governing power over the Parochial or Congregational Bishop of one Church but only in concurrence with the Synod a Power of Determining by way of Agreement such points as he shall be obliged for Unity and Communion to consent to and perform if they be not contrary to the word of God This evidently follows from this Reverend Archbishops doctrine and the truth § 18. And if any shall think that the Presbyterians will not yield that a particular Church do ordinarily consist but of one full Congregation I confute them by producing their own Concessions in the London Ministers Ius Divinum Ministerii Append pag. 123. they plainly say that The later Bishops were Diocesan the former that is the Bishops of the first or ancient times were Bishops only of one Congregation And pag. 82. they say These Angels were Congregational not Diocesan In the beginning of Christianity the number of Believers even in the greatest Cities were so few as that they might well meet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in one and the same place And thâ—se were called the Church of the City and therefore to ordain Elders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are all one in Scripture Thus far they yield to the Congregational men § 19. 5. One other witness of the Presbyterians readiness to accommodate on these terms I shall give and no more and that is Mr. Richard Vines a man that was most eminent for his management of the Presbyterian cause in the Assembly and at Vxbridge Treaty and in the Isle of Wight the Papers there presented to the King are to be seen in Print When we did set up our Association in this County I purposing to do nothing without advise and designing a hearty closure of all sober Godly men Episcopal Presbyterian Congregational and Erastian did consult first about it by Letters with Mr. Vines and in his answer to mine he approved of the design and thought our distance very small and yielded to a fixed Presidency though not to a Negative
voice which I would have none forced to Because they are too long to put into this section I will adjoyn that part of his Letter that concerns this subject prefixing one that went next before it against the selling of the Church lands that the Bishops may see how little such men as he consented to it or liked it and may take heed of charging them with Sacriledge § 20. Lastly the Erastians are known to be for Episcopacy it self so be it it come in by the power of the Magistrate And that nothing proposed crosseth the Principles of the Congregationall men I have shewed before But whether really we shall have their consent to a Peace upon these proposed terms I know not because their writings that I have seen do not meddle with the point save only one Congregational man Mr. Giles Firmin hath newly written for this very thing in his Treatise of Schism against Dr. Owen page 66 67 68. I desire you to read the words to save me the labour of transcribing them In which he giveth us to understand that some of the Moderate Congregational Party will joyn with us in a Reconciliation on these terms Whether many or all will do so I know not Let their practise shew whether they will be the first or the last in the Healing of our Divisions But if they refuse we will not for that refuse to Love them as Brethren and study to perform our duty towards them as knowing that we suffer much more when we come short of our duty and love to others then when they come short of their duty and love to us Mr. Richard Vines his Letters before mentioned as a Testimony that the Presbyterian Ministers are not against a fixed President or that Episcopacy which Bishop Hall c. would have been satisfied with Reverend Friend I Received your two last and as for a Schoolmaster I shall do the best I can to propound one to you c. As for your Question about Sacriledge I am very near you in present opinion The point was never stated nor debated in the Isle of Wight I did for my part decline the dispute for I could not maintain the cause as on the Parliaments side and because both I and others were unwilling it was never brought to any open debate The Commissioners did argue it with the King but they went upon grounds of Law and Policy and it was only about Bishops Lands for they then averred the continuance of D. and Chapiters Lands to the use of the Church Some deny that there is any sin of Sacriledge under the Gospel and if there be any they agree not in the definition Some hold an alienation of Church goods in case of Necessity and then make the Necessity what and as extensive as they please The most are of opinion that whiles the Church lies so unprovided for the donations are not alienable sine Sacrilegio If there were a surplusage above the competent maintenance it were another matter It s cleer enough that the Dâ—nors wills are frustrated and that their General intention and the General use viz. the maintenance of Gods worship and Ministers should stand though the particular use might be superstitious I cited in my last Sermon before the Parliament unprinted a place touching Sacriledge out of Mr. Hildersham on Psal. 51. It did not please You may find the words in his book by the Index If his description of it be true then you will still be of your own mind I dare encourage no purchasers but do desire to have some more of your thoughts about it and I shall return you mine as I do my thanks for your excellent and worthily esteemed Treatise which you vouchsafed to prefix my name before Sir I have no more time or paper but to subscribe my self Your truly loving Friend R. Vines London July 20. Sir THough I should have desired to have understood your thoughts about the point of Sacriledge that so I might have formed up my thoughts into some better order and cleerer issue then I did in my laâ—t yet to shew unto you how much I value this correspondence with you I am willing to make some return to your last And first touching the Schoolmaster intended c. The Accomodation you speak of is a great and a good work for the gaining into the work such useful parts and interests as might very much heal the discord and unite the strength of men to oppose destructive ways and in my opinion more feasible with those men then any other if they be moderate and godly for we differ with them rather about some pinacles of the Temple then the foundation er abbuttresses thereof I would not have much time spâ—ut in a formula of doctrine or worship for we are not much distaxt in them and happily no more then with one another But I would have the agreement attempted in that very thing which chiefly made the division and that is Government heal that breach and heal all there begin and therein labour all you can What influence this may have upon others I know not in this exulceration of mens minds but the work speaks it self gâ—od and your reasons for the attempting of it are very considerable For the Assembly you know they can meddle with just nothing but what is sent uâ—to them by Parliament or one house thereof as the order saith and for that reason never took upon them to intermedle therein What they do in such a thing must be done as private persons and not as in the capacity of Assembly men except it come to them recommended by the Parliament The great business is to find a temperament in ordination and government in both which the exclusion or admittance of Presbyters dicis causa for a shadow was not regular and no doubt the Presbyters ought and may both teach and govern as men that must give account of souls For that you say of every particular Church having many Presbyters it hath been considered in our Assembly and the Scripture speaks fair for it but then the Church and City was of one extent no Parishes or bounds assigned out to particular men as now but the Ministers preacht in circuitu or in common and stood in relation to the Churches as to one Church though meeting haplâ— in divers houses or places as is still the manner of some Cities in the Low Couâ—tries If you will follow this model you must lay the City all into one Church particular and the Villages half a dozen of them into a Church which is a business here in England of vast design and consequence And as for that you say of a Bishop over many Presbyters not over many Churches I believe no such Bishops will please our men but the notion as you conceive it hath been and is the opinion of learned men Grotius in his commentary on the Acts in divers places and particularly Cap. 17. saith that as in every particular Synagogue many
the Pastors prayer which they must pray over with him and not only hear it is a stinted form to them even as much as if he had learnt it out of a Book They are to follow him in his method and words as if it were a Book prayer Argum. 7. It is lawful to use a form in Preaching therefore a stinted Liturgy is lawful 1. Because preaching is a part of that Liturgy 2. Because the reason is the same for prayer as for that in the main Now that studyed formed Sermons are lawful is so commonly granted that it shall save me the labour of proving it which were easie Argum. 8. That which hath been the practice of the Church in Scripture times and down to this day and is yet the practice of almost all the Churches of Christ on earth is not like to be unlawful buâ— such is the use of some stinted forms of publick service therefore c. That it was so in the Jews Church and approved by Christ I have shewed That it hath been of antient use in the Church since Christ and is at this day in use in Africk Asia Europe even among the Reformed Churches in France Holland Geneva c. is so well known that I think I need not stand to prove it yea those few that seem to disuse it do yet use it in Psalms and other parts of worship of which more anon Prop. 2. A Stinted Liturgy in some parts of publick holy service is ordinarily necessary This Proposition is to be proved by instances and the proof of the parts The parts where a set form is usually necessary I shall enumerate desiring you by the way to understand 1. That I speak not of an Absolute Necessity ad finem as if no other could be accepted but a Necessity of Duty it ought to be done as the best way 2. That I say but ordinarily as excepting some unusual cases 1. The Communication or revealation of the will of God to the Church by Reading of the Holy Scriptures is part of the publick service of God As Moses and the Prophets were read every Sabbath day so by parity of reason should the Gospel and Paul required the publick reading of his Epistles Act. 13.27 15.21 2 Cor. 3.15 Luk. 16.29 Col. 4.16 1 Thes. 5.27 Rev. 1.3 But this Reading of the Scriptures is the using of a set form in publike service For they are the same words that we read from day to day and usually Must read 2. The Publick Praysing of God by singing of Palms is a part of publick worship and a most excellent part not usually to be omitted But this part of worship is ordinarily to be used in a stinted form because the gift of composing Psalms ex tempore without a prepared form is not usual in the Church and if it were so to one it is not to the rest that must use this worship Had we not stinted forms of Psalms we should have ill-favoured work in the Church 3. Baptisme is usually to be administred in a form of words for Christ hath prescribed us a form Matth. 28.19 Baptizing them in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost I think few sober men will think it ordinarily meet to disuse this form 4. The use of a form in the Consecration and Administration of the Lords Supper though not through the whole action is ordinarily most fit for Christ hath left us a form of words Take ye Eat ye c. which are most exact and safe and none can mend And Paul reciteth his form 1 Cor. 11. And small alterations in the very words of Baptisme or Delivering the Lords Supper may easily corrupt the Ordinance in time 5. The very Sacramental Elements and Actions are stinted forms of Administration which none may alter As the washing with water the breaking of bread and powring out of wine and giving them and taking them and eating and drinking c. These are real forms not to be changed at least without Necessity if at all 6. The Blessing of the people in the Name of the Lord was done by a prescribed form of old Num. 6.23 and is usually to be done in a form still For in all these forementioned parts of worship should we still use new expressions when so few and pertinent must be used we should be put to disuse the fittest and use such as are less fit 7. In our ordinary Preaching a form not imposed unless in cases of great Necessity and unfitness but of our own premeditating is usually fittest I think few men are so weak as to prefer with most preachers unprepared Sermons before those that have more of their care and study And then at least the Text Method and somewhat of the words must be premeditated if not all 8. Ordinarily there should be somewhat of a form in Publick Confessions of the Churches faith For how else shall all concur And it is a tender point to admit of great or frequent mutations in so that in Baptisme and at other seasons when the Christian faith is to be openly professed by one or more or all a form that is exact is usually meet to be retained though in many personal Cases explicatory enlargements may do well 9. If there be not a frequent use of many of the same words and so somewhat of a form in Marriage Confirmation Absolution Excommunication the danger will be more then the benefit by mutation will be 10. And with some Ministers of whom anon even in Prayer especially about the Sacraments where there must be great exactness and the matter ordinarily if not alwayes the same the ordinary use of a form may be the best and fittest way In the most of these Cases 1. The Nature of the thing sufficiently proves the ordinary fitness of a form 2. The constant Practice of almost all Churches if not all is for it even they that scruple forms of Prayer use constantly forms of Praise of Reading of Sacraments c. 3. The rest are proved fittest as aforesaid by the Apostles generall Rules 1 Cor. 14.26 40. Let all things be done to Edifying and Let all things be done decently and in order Now in the cases before mentioned the Edification of the Church to say nothing of Order requireth the ordinary use of forms Prop. 3. IN those parts of publick worship where a form is not of ordinary necessity but only Lawfull yet may it not only be submitted to but desired when the Peace of the Church doth accidentally require it This Proposition needs no proof but only explication For he is far from the temper of a Christian that sets so light by the Peace of the Church that he would not use a Lawfull means for the procurement of it when Paul would become all things to all men to save some and would eat no flesh while he lived rather then offend his weak brother But here you must take these cautions lest
exercises He hath indeed given us the Lords Prayer which is our Rule for matter and Method and a lawfull form for words but he hath not tyed us to this only nor told us what words we shall use besides this whether we shall use words long before premeditated call'd a form or only such as are immediately or neer before our speaking premeditated or in speaking adapted to the matter in hand whether our premeditated prayers shall be expressed in our own words or such as are prescribed us by others whether such forms shall be expressed in Scripture words or not whether we shall sing the Psalms of David or compose any Evangelical Hymns our selves whether many Churches shall use one and the same form of words or various whether our Sermons and Catechisms and Confessions of faith shall be a studied or prescribed form of words or the matter and method only studied c These with many other such like are left by God as things undetermined that men may determine of them prudentially as occasions require according to his directions § 17. 11. He that hath commanded us to express our minds in severall cases about his worship as in Confession of our sins in Profession of our faith in choosing of our Pastors in Consenting to the casting out or taking in or restoring of members in renewing promises of obedience and the like hath hereby made a Profession necessary in general and so hath made it our duty to signifie our Consent in all these cases by some convenient sign For mans mind is not known to others but by signs But he hath not tied us absolutely to any particular sign If a Confession of faith be read and we are called to signifie our Consent or if we are called to signifie our Consent to be Church members or to be guided by our Pastors or submit to Discipline God hath not tyed us in such Cases whether we shall signifie this Consent by speaking or by subscribing our names Isa. 44.3 4 5. or by lifting up the hand or by laying it on a Book as in swearing or by standing up or such like A sufficient signification or Profession of our minds is necessary but the special sign is left to our own or our Governors determination Of which I shall speak more anon § 18. To this end and on these terms was the sign of the Cross used heretofore by Christians and to this end they used standing in publick worship every Lords day forbidding kneeling and afterward standing up at the Creed as also adoring with their faces towards the east c. They used these only as significations of their own minds instead of words As the Prophets of old were wont by other signs as well as words to prophesie to the people And as Eusebius tells us how Constantine measured the length and bredth of a man on the earth with his spear to tell the Covetous how little must serve them only a grave place after death And I dare not condemn the Cautelous use of such Professing signs as these Though the tongue be the chief instrument yet not the only instrument to express the mind and though words be the ordinary sign yet not the only sign Dumb men must speak by other signs And usually more silent signs are fitter for Assemblies to avoid disturbance And sometimes more Permanent signs as subscription or a stone or pillar of Remembrance as Iosh. 24 c. are more desirable And this is left to humane prudence § 19. And therefore I durst not have reproved any of the ancient Christians that used the sign of the Cross meerly as a Professing signal action to shew to the Heathen and Jews about them that they believed in a Crucified Christ and were not ashamed of his Cross. The occasionall indifferent use of this when it is meerly to this end I durst not have condemned Nor will I now condemn a man that living among the enemies of a Crucified Christ shall wear a Cross in his hat or on his breast or set it on his doors or other convenient place meerly as a professing sign of his mind to be but instead of so many words q. d. I thus profess my self the servant of a Crucified Christ of whom I am not ashamed Whether these things be fit or unfit the time place occasion and other circumstances must shew but the Lawfulness I dare not deny § 20. 12. He that hath commanded us to celebrate the publick worship and to preach pray praise God c. doth imply in this command that we must do it in some Gesture or other For it is impossible otherwise to do it But he hath not tied us to any one In prayer we may kneel or stand In singing Praises and Petitions to God we may kneel stand or sit At the Lords Table though we have an exmaple of sitting at the celebrating and receiving that Sacrament yet no express command nor a certain obligation It is therefore left to humane prudence to order our gestures by the general Rules of Order Decency Edification c. in Preaching Praying Hearing Singing Receiving c. For God hath not tied us himself to any one particular gesture § 21. 13. God that hath required us to celebrate his worship doth imply that we must do it in a decent Habit Nakedness is a shame Cloathing we must wear but he hath not told us what it must be Whether Linnen or Woollen whether black or white or of what shape and fashion This therefore is left to humane Prudence § 22. 14. God that hath commanded us to celebrate his Praise and other publick worship hath left it to our Liberty and Prudence to make use of such Helps of Nature or of Art as may most conduce to further our obedience and stand in a due subserviency to his institutions As for instance he that hath commanded us to study his word and works hath not prescribed me a certain Method for my studies nor told me what Languages or Sciences I shall learn or first learn nor what Authors I shall read in Logick Physicks Metaphysicks c. It is implyed that in all I use the best helps and in the best order that I can So he that bids me read the Scripture hath not tyed me to read only a Printed or only a Written Bible nor to read with spectacles or without He that hath commanded me to Preach hath not told me whether I must write my Sermon before or not or use Notes for the help of my memory or not but hath left these to be determined as general Rules and emergent accasions and circumstances shall direct us And he that hath commanded us to preach and pray hath not told us whether we shall use the help of a Book or not nor whether we shall use an hour-glass or a clock to measure our time by He that hath commanded us cheerfully and joyfully to sing his Praises hath not told us whether we shall use the meeter or
of his Government and Justice And the laying the hand upon the Book or Kissing it is but a Professing sign of my own Intentions such as my words themselves are and therefore is left to humane choice and a lawfull thing And I have met but with very few among all our Ceremonies that questioned this § 45. 5. And for Organs or other instruments of Musick in Gods worship they being a Help partly natural and partly artificial to the exhilarating of the spirits for the praise of God I know no argument to prove 〈◊〉 simply unlawfull but what would prove a cup of wine unlawful or the tune and meeter and melodie of singing unlawful But yet if any would abuse it by turning Gods worship into carnal Pomp and levity especially by such non-intelligible singing or bleating as some of our Choristers used the Common people would have very great reason to be weary of it aâ— accidentally evil § 46. 6. And as for Holy daies there is great difference between them Those are lyable to most question that are obtruded on the Church with the greatest confidence As for such daies as are appointed upon some emergent occasions that arose since Scripture was indited and are not common to all times and places of the Church there is no more question whether the Magistrate may command them or the Pastors agree upon them then whether a Lecture-day or fast-day or thansgiving-day may be commanded or agreed on some time for Gods worship besides the Lords Day must be appointed And God having not told us which the Magistrate may on fit occasions And this is no derogation from the sufficiency of Scripture For the occasion of the day was not exâ—stent when the Scripture was written such occasions are various according to the various state of the Church in several ages and Countries And therefore to keep an Anniversary day of Thanksgiving such as we keep on the fifth of November for our deliverance from the Papists powder plot is no more questionable then to keep a â—ecture Nor for my part do I make any scruple to Keep a Day in Remembrance of any eminent servant of Christ or Martyr to praise God for their doctrine or example and honour their Memorial But the hardest part of the Question is whether it be lawfull to keep daies as holy in celebrating the memorial of Christs Nativity Circumcision Fasting Transfiguration Ascention and such like And the great reasons of the doubt are 1. Because the occasions of these holy daies was existent in the Apostles daies and therefore if God would have had such daies observed he could as easily and fitly have done it by his Apostles in the Scripture as he did other the like thingâ— 2. And this is a business that if it were Necessary would be Equally necâ—ssary to all Ages and Parts of the Catholick Church And therefore it cannot be necessary but it must be the Matter of an universal Law And God hath made no such Law in Scripture And â—o Scripture sufficiency as the Catholick Rule of faith and universal Divine obediâ—nce is utterly overthrown which if we grant and turn Papists to day we shall have as strong temptations to make us turn Infidels to morrow so poor is their evidence for the supplemental Traditional Law of God 3. And God himself hath already appointed a day for the same purposes as these are pretended for For the Lords Day is to commemorate the Resurrection as the great Triumphant act of the Redeemer implying all the rest of his works so that though it be principally for the Resurrectiâ—n above any single work of Christ yet also for all the work of Redemption And the whole is on that day to be commemoraâ—ed with holy Joy and Praise Now when God himself hath set apart one day in every week to commemorate the whole work of Redemption it seems an accusing of his Institutions of insufficiency to come after him to mend them and say we must have an anniversary day for this or that part of the work 4. The fourth Commandment being one of the Decalogue seems to be of so high a nature that man is not to presume to make the like Else why may we not turn the ten commandments into twenty or a hundred But it seems a doing the same or of like nature to what God hath done in the fourth commandment if any will make a necessary staâ—ed holy day to the universal Church 5. And it seems also that these Holy daies excepting Easter and Whitsontide and other Lords daies are but of later iâ—troduction Many passages of Antiquity seem to intimate that Christmas Day it self was not of many hundred years after Christ. I remember not any before Gregory Nâ—zianzene that seem to speak of it The allegations out of spurious authors and that of later date such as the counterfeit Clement Dionysius Cyprian c. are brought to deceive and not to convince 6. Yea more the time was a matter of controversie among the Churches of the East and West for many â—undred years after Christ Epiphanius and the Churches of Iudaea and all those Eastern parts took the sixth of Ianuary to be the day see Casaubones Exercitat on this and Cloppenburgius more fully in Thâ—s Chrysostome saith it was but ten years before he wrote that Homilie that the Church at Constantinople was perswaded by them at Rome to change their account of the day And is it possible that when for about four hundred years or more the Churches were utterly disagreed of the day that it was then Commonly kept as an Holy day The keeping oâ— it would sure have kepâ— a common knowledge of the day Or at least the difference of observation would have raised conâ—ention as the difference about Easter did can any believe that the famous Council of Nice and the vigilant Emperour that were so exceeding impatient of a diversity of observations of Easter would have let a diverse observation of Christmas alone without once thinking or speaking of it when they were gathered about the like work if the Church had commonly observed it then as a Holy day Or was the Church of Iudaea where Christ arose in any likelyhood to have lost the true account of the day if it had been observed by Apostolical Tradition from the beginning 7. And it seems that God did purposely deny us the observation of this Day in that he hath certainly kept the time unknown to the world The confidence of some bewrayes but their ignorance Chronologers are never like to be agreed of the year much less of the moneth or day some think we are four years too late some two years c. Many think that Christ was born about October as Scaliger Broughton Beroaldus c. and many still hold to the old Eastern opinion for the Epiphany being the Nativity on Ian. 6. and others are for other times but none are certain of the time 8. Sure we are where there is no Law there is
no Transgression but here is no Law of God commanding Christmas day or the other Holy daies therefore there is no transgression in not keeping them And then 9. it is not so sure that there is no transgression in keeping them therefore the surer side is to be taken 10. And it seems strange that we find not so much as any ancient general Council making any mention of Christmas or such daies though of the Martyrs daies some do All these reasons which I run over hastily and many more which for brevity I pretermit do seem to make it a very hard question whether the keeping of this sort of Holy daies be lawfull § 47. And it is not to be much stuck at that a Day to Christ doth seem more necessary and pious then a Day in commemoration of a Martyr or a particular Mercy For in the highest parts of Gods worship God hath left man least to do as to Legislation and Decisions and usurpations here are far most dangerous A weekly Day is somewhat more then an Annâ—versary And yet I think there is few of the contrary minded but would doubt whether man might impose on the Church the observation of another weekly Holy day in commemoration of Christs Nativity The worship of God is a more excellent and necessary thing then the veneration due to a worthy person And yet we have not so much liberty to make new waies of worshiping God as of veneration to men So is it here though even the Daies that are for the memorial of the Saints are ultimately for the honour of God yet those that are set apart directly and immediately to commemorate the work of Redemption are Relatively much higher and therefore seem to be more exempted from the Determination of humane laws § 48. By this and much more I am fully satisfied 1. That the keeping of these daies is a thing of it self unnecessary 2. And that there being none on earth that can justly pretend to a power of universal Government over the whole Catholick Church it is certain that none on earth can bind the Catholick Church to such observances The Canons of Pastors are Authoritative Directions to their own flocks that are bound to obey them so it be in lawful things but to other Churches or to their fellow Pastors they are but Agreements and how far they bind I shall shew anon 3. And even in a single Church or a Province or Nation I am satisfied that it is a great sin for Magistrates or Pastors to force all that scruple it to the observation of these daies and to lay the unity or Peace of their Churches on it and to cast out censure reproach or punish them that dare not obey such impositions for fear of sining against God And it is a most dsingenuous thing to insinuate and put into the minds of men accusations of the Impiety of the dissenters and to perswade the world that it is irreligiousness or humorous singularity when it is so known a thing to all that know them that the persons that scruple or disown these daies do ordinarily walk in uprightness and the fear of God in other matters and profess that it is only a fear of breaking the Laws of God that keeps them from conformity to the will of others and that they are reproached by the multitude of the observers of these daies for their spending the Lords Day in Holy exercises which the reproachers spend too much in idleness sensuality or prophaness and it is not long since many of them were cast out of the Ministerial service or suspended for not reading a Book authorizing Dancing and other recreations on the Lords day In a word to reproach them as Precisians and Puritans for the strictness of their lives and yet at the same time to perswade men that they are ungodly for not keeping Holy daies or not kneeling at the Sacrament is not ingenuous dealing and draws too neer the Manners of the Pagans who called the Christians ungodly because they durst not offer their sacrifices and when they dragd them to the judgement-seats they cryd Tollite impios as iâ— themselves were the Godly men I compare not the matter of the causes here but only the temper of the persons and manner and justice of proceedings § 49. And yet for all this I am resolved if I live where such Holy daies as these are observed to censure no man for observing them nor would I deny them liberty to follow their judgements if I had the power of their Liberties provided they use not reproach and violence to others and seek not to deprive them of their Liberties Paul hath so long agoe decided these cases Rom. 14. 15. that if men would be Ruled by the word of God the controversie were as to the troublesome part of it at an end They that through weakness observe a Day to the Lord that is not commanded them of God should not judge their brethren that observe it not and they that observe it not should not despise or set at naught their weaker though censorious brethren that observe it but every one should be fully perswaded in his own mind The Holy Ghost hath decided the case that we should here bear with one another § 50. Yea more I would not only give men their Liberty in this but if I lived under a Government that peremptorily commanded it I would observe the outward rest of such a Holy day and I would preach on it and joyn with the Assemblies in Gods worship on it Yea I would thus observe the Day rather then offend a weak brother or hinder any mans salvation much more rather then I would make any division in the Church I think in as great matters as this did Paul condescend when he circumcised Timothy and resolved to eat no flesh while he lived rather then offend his brother and to become all things to all men for their good Where a thing is evil but by accident the greatest Accidents must weigh down the less I may lawfully obey and use the day when another doth unlawfully command it And I think this is the true case § 51. 7. And for the next ceremony the Name and form of an Altar no doubt it is a thing indifferent whether the Table stand this way or that way and the Primitive Churches used commonly the names of Sacrifice and Altar and Priest and I think lawfully for my part I will not be he that shall condemn them But they used them but metaphorically as Scripture it self doth Heb. 13.10 15 16. Rom. 12.1 Ephes. 5.2 Phil. 2.17 4.18 All believers are called Priests and their service Sacrifices 1 Pet. 2.5 9. Rev. 1.6 5.10 20.6 I conceive that the dislike of these things in England the form and name of an Altar and the Rails about it was not as if they were simply evil But 1. because they were illegal innovations forced on the Churches without Law or any just authority
the Ruler is the Judge of them therefore the people should ordinarily obey when they see them not themselves § 15. Object But in case the Genus is commanded by God and the Species are equal may not the Governour limit us to one of the two Especially in case the people are dâ—vided about them or else will do nothing because they cannot resolve which way to do it For instance if sitting standing and kneeling be equally convenient at the singing of Gods Praises if the people be in a doubt which to use or at least if they fall into contention about it may not the Governours interpose and limit them to one If you be the conductor of Travailers or Souldiers and they come to a place where the way divideth though both wayes are equally good and neer yet you must command them one way and choose for thâ—m because else they will go no way at all § 16. Answ. 1. In this case you are not to choose one Gesture or one Way rather then another unless they make it necessary by Accident But tell them of the Indifferency and Equality and drive them on to Action And so you only choose and cause them to choose Action before Cessation but not this way before that 2. If this will not serve but they will do nothing unless you determine of their Gesture or Way you must then command one rather then another because they can use but one and some one they must use But in thus doing your comparing taking This rather then the other is not to be done by Election nor be a humane act there being no more Reason that 's supposed for one then for the other But though you name them one Way or Gesture only when they necessitate it you do it but as choosing their Action before their cessation this therefore is all that is Moral in your Act and that you Determine them to Action by Naming This way and not the other is good for the Determination for Duty sake was eligible but that it was rather to This then the other was Indifferent and not Moral For of that you had no Reason and where there is no Reason there is no Morality § 17. All this considered I leave it to the consideration of common Reason and of men that have any pitty for the Church or their own souls whether it be a Prudent or Christian course to make Laws for the Church about things Indifferent that have nothing in the Nature of them to induce them hereunto and then to cast out Ministers and other Christians for not obeying them and deprive men of the greatest blessings on the account of things indifferent § 18. If God have left us at Liberty by not commanding or forbidding then man should not take that Liberty from us without great cause and without some Accidental good that is like to come by depriving us of that liberty and the Good must be greater then the Accidental evill Why should any man on earth deprive the Church of Liberty in that thing where God thought not meet to deprive him of it unless he caâ— prove that time or place or some special accident hath altered the case In any case which standeth with us just as it did in Scripture times we must no more be deprived of our freedom by man then we are by God Had it been best for us God would have done it CHAP. VII Prop. 7. Some things may be lawfully and profitably commanded at one Time and Place and to one sort of people that may not at or to another no nor obeyed if commanded § 1. THE case is so plain in point of Commanding that it is past all doubt Many Accidents may make that destructive at one Time and place that would be profitable at another Pauls precepts and practâ—ce in becoming all things to all men do manifest this § 2. The Papists themselves are convinced of this and therefore sometime granted the Bohemians the use of the cup for the Laity in the Lords Supper and profess that it is in the Power of the Pope and Council to do the same by other places Yea when they burn men for the Protestant Religion in one Countrey they tolerate it in another for fear of a greater evil And when they torment men in one age and place for using a Bible in the vulgar tongue in another place or time they themselves translate it § 3. It is therefore a very great sin in Governours unnecessarily to make such things the matter of a common standing Law which is so variable yea and must be varied according to diversity of times and places These things should be left to the Prudence of the Governours that are on the place No wise General will take a Commission for the Command of an Army if he must be tied up before hand when to march and when to stand still and which way to go and how to â—ight in all the variable Circumstances Shall Governours pretend to be so much wiser then God as to make a standing Law for that which God thought best to leave at liberty to be varied as occasions vary § 4. The English Church Laws do tie the Ministers to a particular habit and to the particular Chapters of Scripture that we must read and if the Law-givers had pleased they might as well have tied us to that particular Text which they will have us preach on and forbid us to choose a Text as a Chapter And they might have as well tyed us to particular Psalms in singing as in Reading But all this is against the nature of our office and the good of the Church And therefore it is not fit matter for a Law If I know my hearers to be most addicted to Drunkenness must I be tyed up from Reading or Preaching against that sin and tyed to Read and Preach only against Covetousness or the like because it seemeth meet to Governours to tye me to a constant course If I have a tractable people it may do them no harm to limit them to this or that gesture vesture c. But what if they be prejudiced against a thing that in it self is lawfull and take it to be a sin and resolve that they will rather forbear Gods Ordinances then use a thing that their Consciences are against must I needs exercise or press a Gesture vesture or such Ceremonie when I see it tendeth to the destruction of my flock Must I needs deny the Lords Supper to all my flock if they dare not receive it in this or that gesture let it be sitting or kneeling and all because I am commanded to do so § 5. Suppose it here granted that the thing being lawfull it is the peoples sinful weakness that causeth them to refuse it and that the power commanding me no otherwise to deliver it is such as in things lawful I am bound to obey yet is it not a thing lawfull to punish the peoples infirmity in a
powers contradicted And certainly all such disuse began with a few and proceeded further we are allowed then to disuse such things § 12. It would grieve a man that loves the Church to hear the name of the Church abused by many dark though confident disputers when they are pleading for their Ceremonies and Holy dayes and laying about them with the names of Schismaticks against all that will not do as they do O say they These men will separate from the Catholick Church and how then can they be the Children of the Church And 1. Which is it that is called by them the Catholick Church Little do I know nor am able to conjecture Did the Catholick Church make the English Common-Prayer Book what were the then Bishops in England that consented in that work the whole Church of Christ on earth God forbid Or did ever any General Council authorize it I think not And if they would tell us what General Council commanded Christmas Day or Kneeling at the Sacrament c they would do us a pleasure but I think they will not § 13. And 2. What if these things had all been commanded by a General Council May not a man disuse them without separating from the Church I think as good as you are you do some things your selves that God himself hath forbidden you to do and yet will be loth to be therefore taken for men that separate either from the Church or God And when you read the Books of Heathen Philosophers when you adore not toward the East or when you pray receive the Sacrament Kneeling on the Lords Dayes would you be taken to separate from the Catholick Church for crossing its ancient customs or Canons But these perverse and factious reasonings we must hear to the dishonour of Christianity and Reason it self and that from men that scorn the supposed meanness of others yea and see poor souls seduced into separation by such empty words And this is one of the present judgements on this land CHAP. X. Prop. 10. If it be not our Lawfull Governours that command us but usurpers we are not formally bound to obey them though the things be lawfull which they command § 1. WE may be bound by some other Obligation perhaps to do the thing which they command us but we are not formally though sometime Materially bound to obey them For it is not formally obedience unless it be done eo nomine because commanded or for the Authority of the Commander If the Pope or any usurper should command me to pray or to give alms I will do it but not because he commandeth me but because God commandeth me and therefore I will not obey him but God But if a Parent or Magistrate or Pastor command it me I will do it both because it is commanded me by God and them and so I will obey both God and them If an usurper command me to do a thing in it self indifferent I will not do it because he commandeth it but yet if accidentally it become my duty by conducing to anothers good or avoiding their offence or hurt or any other accident I will use it for these ends though not for his command § 2. The Pope 1. As the Vice-christ or universall Head is an usurper and therefore hath no authority to command me or any man in that relation the smallest Ceremony 2. The Pope as Patriarch of the West is an humane creature and not of Divine institution and was indeed a sinfull institution from the first of his creation but if it had been otherwise yet since is that Patriarchship become unwarrantable since he hath forfeited it and the world hath found the mischiefs of it So that no man is therefore bound to use one lawfull Ceremony because the Pope as Patriarch of the West commandeth it 3. If this were not so yet Brittain and Ireland were from the beginning none of his Patriarchate nor did at Nice consent to it and therefore have the less appearance of any obligation § 3. The Authority of General Councils cannot be pretended as obliging men in Conscience to the English Ceremonies 1. Because indeed General Councils are not a superiour Power for proper Government of the Church having authority to command particular Bishops or Synods as their subjects but they are only necessary for Union and Communion of Churches and mutual assistance thereby and so their Canons bind but by virtue of the General commands that require us to maintain the Unity and Communion of the Churches § 4. And 2. If it were otherwise there is few if any of these Ceremonies that are commanded by any true General Council They that can prove any such thing let them do it but till we see it we will not be forward to believe it Yea 3. Some of them General Councils have made Canons against as I before shewed in the Case of Kneeling at the Sacrament on the Lords dayes And therefore the neglecters of our Ceremonies sin not against a General Council § 5. The Common plea is that we are bound to use these Ceremonies in obedience to the Church of England and that we are not true sons of this Church if we refuse it But what is it that is called by them The Church of England In a Political sense I know no such thing as a Church of England or of any Nation on earth that is There is no one Society united in any one Ecclesiastical Soveraign that can truly be called the Church of England or of any other Nation The whole Catholick Church is One as united in Christ the Head And every particular Chuâ—ch associated for personal Communion in Gods Worshâ—p is one being a part of the Catholick Church and united in and individuated by their relation to their several Pastors But a National Church under one chief Ecclesiastick Government I find no mention of in Scripture but contrarily the Churches of Judaea Galatia c. or any other Countrey where there were many are alway mentioned in the Plural number and never called one Church § 6. Yet will we quarrel with no men about meer names or words If by a National Church â— be meant any of these following we acknowledge that there is such a thing 1. If all the particular Churches in a Nation do Associate for Communion and mutuall assistance and so use to meet by their officers in one National Assembly I confess the Association usefull if not necessary and the Assemblies to be maintained and for unity sake obeyed in things lawfull And though Scripture call not such National Associations by the name of a Church in the singular number yet we shall leave men to their Liberty in such names If all the Schoolmasters in England should hold General Assemblies to agree what Books to read in their Schools c. if any man would therefore call all the Schools in England in the singular number by the name of the School of England I would not differ with him for a
part of our Honour to God they being mentioned there as his officers with whom he himself is honoured or dishonoured obeyed or disobeyed For it is Gods Authority that the Magistrate Parent and Pastor is endued with and empowred by to rule those that are put under them § 6. Reas. 3. What confusion will be brought into the Church if Pastors be not obeyed in things lawfull For instance If the Pastors appoint the Congregation to Assemble at one hour and the people will scruple the time and say it is unlawfull and so will choose some of them one time and some another what disorder will here be and worse if the Pastors appoint a Place of worship and any of the people scruple obeying them and will come to another place what confusion will here be People are many and the Pastors are few and therefore there may be some unity if the people be Ruled by the Pastors but there can be none if the Pastors must be ruled by the people for the people will not agree among themselves and therefore if we obey one part of them we must disobey and displease the rest And their ignorance makes them unfit to rule § 7. Reas. 4. Moreover disobedience in matters of Circumstance will exclude and overthrow the substance of the worship it self God commandeth us to pray If one part of the Church will not joyn with a stinted form of Prayer and the other part will not joyn without it both parties cannot be pleased and so one part must cast off Prayer it self or separate from the rest God commandeth the reading and preaching and hearing of the Scripture and the singing of Psalms but he hath left it to man to make or choose the best Translation of Scripture or version of the Psalms Now if the Pastor appoint one version and Translation and the Church joyn in the use of it if any members will scruple joyning in this Translation or version they must needs forbear the whole duty of Hearing the Scripture and singing Psalms in that Congregation If they pretend a scruple against the appointed time or Place of worship they will thereby cast off the worship it self For if they avoid our Time or Place they cannot meet with us nor worship with us § 8. Reas. 5. And when they are thus carryed to separate from the Congregation upon such grounds as these they will be no where fixt but may be still subdividing and separating from one another till they are resolved into individuals and have left no such thing as a Church among them For they can have no assurance or probability that some of themselves will not dissent from the rest in one Circumstance or other as they did from their Pastors and the Church that they were of before § 9. Reas. 6. By this means the wicked that are disobedient to their Teachers and reject the worship of God it self will be hardened in their sin and taught by professors to defend their ungodliness For the very same course that you take will serve their turns They need not deny any Duty in the substance but deny the circumstance and so put off the substance of the Duty If a wicked man will not hear the word preached he may say I am not against preaching but I am unsatisfied of the lawfulness of your Time or Place I am in judgement against coming to your Steeple-house or against the Lords Day And so he shall never hear though he say he is for hearing If a wicked man will not be personally instructed or admonished or be accountable to the Church or Pastors for any scandals of his life nor submit to any discipline he may say I am for discipline I know it is my duty to be instructed but I am not satisfied that I am bound to come to you when you send for me or to appear at such a place as you appoint the word of God nameth no time or place and you shall not deprive me of my liberty If a wicked man would not hear or read the Scripture or sing Psalms he may say that he is for the duty but he is only against this and that Translation and version And so while every version is excepted against the duty is as much evaded as if it were denied it self By this device it is that the Rebellion of unruly people is defended They run to the circumstances of the duty and ask Where are they bound to come to a Minister or to be examined by him in order to a baptism or Lords supper or to speak their consent to be Church members or to subscribe to a Profession or to read an English Bible or to hear in a Steeple-house with many such like Thus also it is that they put off family prayer and ask Where are they bound to pray in their family Morning and Evening and so keep no constancy in family prayer at all under pretence of denying only the circumstances § 10. Reas. 7. By this disobedience in things lawfull the members of the Church will be involved in contentions and so engaged in bitter uncharitableness and censures and persecutions and reproaches of one another which scandalous courses will nourish vice dishonour God rejoyce the enemies grieve the Godly that are peaceable and judicious and wound the consciences of the contenders We see the beginning of such fires are small but whither they tend and what will be the end of them we see not § 11. Reas. 8. By these means also Migistrates will be provoked to take men of tender consciences for factious unruly and unreasonable men and to turn their enemies and use violence against them to the great injury of the Church when they see them so self-conceited and refusing obedience in lawfull circumstances § 12. Reas. 9. By this means also the conversion and establishment of souls will be much hindred and people possessed with prejudice against the Church and ordinances when they take us to be but humerous people and see us in such contentions among our selves To my knowledge our late difference about some such lesser things hath turned off or hindered abundance of people from liking the holy doctrine and life which we profess § 13. Reas. 10. It will seem to the wisest to savour of no small measure of Pride when people on the account of lawfull circumstances dare set themselves against their Govenors and Teachers and quarrel with the ordinances of God and with the Churches Humble men would sooner suspect themselves and quarrel with their own distempers and submit to those that are wiser then themselves and that are set over them for their guidance by the Lord. There may more dangerous Pride be manifested in these matters then in Apparel and such lower trifles § 14. Reas. 11. Consider also what yielding in things lawfull the Scripture recommendeth to us How far yielded Pa. when he circumcised Timothy Act. 16.3 And when he took the men and purified himself with them in the Temple to signifie
Councils since Scripture times at least there have beeen no such things nor any thing like them unless the Roman Empire yea a piece of it be the whole world I know therfore no humane Vniversal Laws whether it be for forms of Government Liturgies Holy dayes or any thing else Sect. 14. But the principal matter that tends to end our dâ—fference is the right understanding of the Nature of that Government that is properly Ecclesiastical What is it that we must have Diocesans and Metropolitans to do besides what I have granted to Apostolical Bishops in the third Dispute Is it to Teach or Rule the people of the particular Churches They cannot do it at so great distance not knowing them nor conversing with them at least so well as they that are on the place as the ancient Bishops were Is it to Rule the Presbyters only Why then hath not every Church a Bishop to Rule the flock but a Presbyter that is forbidden to Rule them in all that which they call Iurisdiction themselves And how is it that Presbyters shall be Ruled by Diocesans and the Diocesans by Provincials not by force For the Pastors have no coercive power by violence or touching mens bodies or estates Is it by bare commanding Why what will that do on dissenters that disobey shall they depose the Bishops or Presbyters that disobey them But how Not by any force but command or exhortation or Excommunication They can do no more that I know of And what if they excommunicate a Pastor Let the case be supposed as now it is among us What if a Bishop with the few that adhere to him excommunicated all the Pastors in the County that are not satisfied of the Divine Right of Diocesans or of the lawfulness of all his imposed Ceremonies and Forms The people will take it to be their duty most generally where the Ministry hath been savingly effectual to own their Pastors notwithstanding such an Excommunication and the Pastors will take it to be their duty to go on with their work and the excommunication will do no good unless perhaps to make some Division and make both parties the scorn of the ungodly or procure the rabble to rail more bitterly at their Pastors and hate all their advice be a desireable good And as when the Pope excommunicated them some Bishops again excommunicated the Pope so some of these Pastors its like would excommunicate their Metropolitans And why a Bishop or at least a Synod of Bishops may not cast a wicked Metropolitan out of their communion is past my understanding to conceive Synods are for Communion of Churches and if we had a Monarchical National Church in conformity to the Common-wealth I know not how it would stand with the Law of God for the whole Nation to hold Communion with an Heretical Primate A Roman Synod deposed John the thirteenth and other Popes have been deposed by Councils I conclude therefore that what ever power men claim if the Magistate interpose not which is extrinsick to the Church-Government in question it will work but on mens Judgements call it Deposing Excommunicating or what you please and this power no man can take from you but by hindring you to speak You may now depose thus and excommunicate whom you please and when they have sleighted it or excommunicated you again you will have done Nay I think you do excommunicate us already For you withdraw from our Communion and draw many with you and so you exercise your power I mean it of that party that in the second Disputation I have to do with Sect 15. Much of my Opposition to the English Prelacy dependeth on the supposition that they took all the people and not only the Presbyters for the objects of their Government or for their charge And I find some of the younger sort that are sprung up since their fall do doubt of this But 1. all men in England that knew but twenty year ago what belonged to these matters are past doubt of it And I have no mind to dispute against them that contradict the common knowledge of the Nation as if they should doubt whether we had ever a King in England 2. Read over the Canons and the yearly Visitation Articles which the Church-wardens ordinarily sware to present by before they had ever read the Book or heard what was in it and then judge 3. Their arguing for the sole Iurisdiction of Bishops and that they only were properly Pastors and that Presbyters had not the Key of Discipline but of Doctrine is some evidence 4. It is known to the Nation that the Pastors of the Parish Churches had no power by their Laws or sufferance to cast out any the most enormous sinner or Heretick from the Church nor to bring them to open confession of their sin nor to Absolve the penitent but by Reading of their Sentence and publishing what they sent from their Courts and consequently could do nothing of all the means in order hereto For the means cannot be used where the end is known to be impossible All the obstinate scandalous persons and scorners at a holy life we must take as members of our Churches having no power to cast them out Indeed we had the same power as the Church-wardens to put our names to their presentments But a power of accusing to a Chancellors Court is not a Power of Governing especially when Piety under the name of Preciseness and Puritanism was so hated and persecuted that to have accused a man for meer prophaness would have been so far from obtaining the end as that it was like to have been the undoing of the accuser except he had been out of the suspicion of Preciseness as they called it himself But I need not dispute the with any but those that being bred iâ— better times though far from what we desire are unacquainted with the casâ— of their Predecessor Sect. 16. Object But do you not contradict your self in saying the Pastors were degraded or suspended as to the exercise of so great a part of their work and yet say here Pref. to the Reformed Pastor that the Power of Discipline was given them Answ. 1. In their Ordination the Bishops said to them Receive the Holy Ghost whose sins thou dost remit they are remitted whose sins thou dost retain they are detained And in the Book of Ordination it was asked of them Whether they would give their faithful diligence always to administer the Doctrine and Sacraments and the Discipline of Christ as the Lord hath commanded and as this Realm hath received the same according to the Commandements of God And the Rubrick of the Common Prayer Book enableth the Curate to admonish open and notorious evil livers by whom the Congregation is offended and those that have wronged their neighbors that they come not till they have openly declared that they have repented and amended But 1. This doth but serve to leave them unexcusable that acknowledged Discipline to
If the Ordination of Papist Bishops be valid much more is the Ordination of English Preâ—byters so but the Antecedent is true in the judgement of those against whom we dispute therefore the Consequent must be granted by them on that supposition Sect. 33. The reason of the Consequence is because the Popish Bishops are more unlike to the Scripture Bishops and more uâ—capable of ordaining then the Presbyters of the Reformed Churches are For 1. The Papist Prelates profess to receive their Power from a Vice-christ at least quoad exercitium media conserendi which Protestant Presbyters do not 2. The Papist Bishops profess themselves Pastors of a new Catholick Church which is headed by the Papacy as an essential part and which Christ will not own as such But so do not the Protestant Presbyters 3. The Papist Prelates Ordain men to the false Office of turning Bread into the Body of Christ by the way of Transubstantiation in their Consecration and offering it as a Sacrifice for the quick and dead and delivering this as the very Body of Christ and not Bread to the Communicants and perswading them that it is such and holding and carrying it to be Worshipped by them with Divine Worship and the like But the Protestant Presbyters are Ordained and do Ordain others to that true Office of a Presbyter or Pastor or Bishop which Christ hath instituted 4. The Papist Prelates have abundance of false doctrines and practices in Worship which the Protestant Presbyters have not 5. And they have no more to shew for a Power of Ordination then our Presbyters have so that these with many the like considerations will prove that if the Papists Ordination be Valid that of the Protestant Churches by Presbyters is so much more And doubtless they that plead for a succession from the Papist Prelates do hold their Ordination Valid Sect. 34. Argument 13. If the Protestant Churches that have no Prelates be true Churches in a Political sense and the Ordinances among them valid and to be owned and received then are the Pastors of those Churches true Pastors though they have no Ordination but by Presbyters But the Antecedent is true therefore so is the Consequent The reason of the Consequence is clear and granted by them that we have now to do with Because the Pastors are essential to the Church as Political and the said Ordinances of Publike worship as the Lords Supper and Government cannot be allowable without them nor such as the people should submit to or receive This therefore we may take as granted Sect. 35. And for the Minor that the Protestant Churches are true Churches that have no Prelates 1. There are so few of them that have Prelates that he that will unchurch all the rest I suppose when he playes his game above board would take it for an injury to be accounted a Protestant himself 2. If the Churches of the West called Papists and the Churches of Africa Asia and America be true Churches of Christ and have true administrations then much more confidently may we affirm that the Protestants are so too But the Antecedent is maintained by those that we now dispute against excepting the Papists who yet maintain it as of their own Church therefore c. Sect. 36. The reason of the Consequence is because the Papists Greeks Armenians Georgians Syrians Aegyptians Abasines c. have much more to be said against them then we have And if the lesser or supposed imperfection of the Protestant Churches do unchurch them for wanting Prelates then the many great and real defects of the other Churches will unchurch them much more Especially this holds as to the Church of Rome which yet is taken by the Dissenters to be a true Church and by some of them at least denyed to be the seat of Antichrist Their Vicechrist and usurping head and all the Ministry that hold by him afford us other kind of Arguments against their Church then want of Prelates can afford them or others against our Churches Sect 37. And if any will deny the Antecedent so far as to unchurch all the Churches in the world that are more defective then the Protestants he will blot out of his Creed the Article of the Catholick Church and being a Seeker or next one to day is like to be an Infidel ere long as I shall further shew when I speak of the sinfulness of such Sect. 38. Argument 14. If the Administrations of a Usurping Presbyter to an innocent people are Valid and not Nullities then the Ordination of an Usurping Ordainer to an Innocent expectant is Valid and consequently the Ordination of Presbyters is Valid if they were Usurpers as they are unjustly said to be But the administrations of usurping Presbyters to an Innocent people are Valid therefore c. Sect. 39. The Antecedent is granted by Bellarmine himself in the place before cited who saith that no more is required to oblige the people to obey him and submit then that he be reputed a Pastor And all must say so 1. That will not rob the Innocent of the Benefit of Gods Ordinances because of an usurpers fault 2. And that will not leave the people almost commonly in an utter uncertainty whom they should take for a Pastor and obey and when the Ordinances are Valid for their good Sect. 40. The Consequence is made good by the Parity of Reason that is in the two cases If usurpation cause not a Nullity invalidity or unprofitableness in one case to the innocent receiver no nor make it his sin to receive no more will it in the other For there is no Reason for any such difference Nay iâ— it be a duty to submit to an unknown usurper in several cases in receiving the Sacraments hearing praying c. so is it a duty in such cases to receive Ordination Sect. 41. Object But the usurping Presbyter doth nothing but what belongeth to the office of a Presbyter but the usurping Ordainer doth that which belongs not to the office of a Presbyter and therefore his action is a Nullity as being extra proprium forum Sect. 42. Answ. 1. It is proved before to belong to the office of a Presbyter to Ordain 2. But suppose it were not yet the objection is vain because it is the office of a Bishop that the Ordaining Presbyter doth pretend to and which you imagine that he doth usurp They say that subject Presbyters quoad ordinem vel Officium are no creatures of Gods appointment and therefore they renounce that Office and claim that office which you call Episcopacy and hath the Power of Ordination The quarrel between us is not about meer Bishops such as Dr. H. H. describeth as aforesaid These are not denyed but the Parish Ministers profess themselves such Bishops But it is about the other sort of Presbyters subject to Bishops that the quarrel is For they say that the Church should have none such and Dr. H. H. saith there is no Evidence that any such
were instituted in Scripture times Now as a pretended Presbyters administrations are Valid to the innocent receiver of the Sacrament so a pretended Bishops administration in Ordination is as Valid to the innocent caeteris paribus Sect. 43. Argument 15. They that have the Keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven have the power of Ordination But Parochiall Pastors called Presbyters have the Keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven therefore they have the power of Ordination Sect. 44. The Minor is granted commonly by Papists and Protestants as to some of the Keyes but it is by many denyed as to other They say that every Pastor hath the Key of doctrine and of Order but not the Key of Jurisdiction But 1. Christ gave the Keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven together and never divided them Therefore they are not to be divided He did not give one Key to one and another to another but all to the same men And what God hath joyned together let no man put asunder 2. The Apostles in delivering these Keyes to others are never found to have separated them For Subject Presbyters were not instituted in Scripture-times Therefore all that were then Ordained Presbyters had all the Keyes together and so that of Iurisdiction as it is called with the rest 3. That Presbyters had the Key of Order will prove that they may Ordain as is aforesaid 4. But that English Presbyters had the Key of Iurisdiction is proved 1. In that they were with the Bishops to Ordain by Imposition of hands 2. In that they were by the Book of Ordination charged to administer Discipline though this was disused and the Prelates frustrated their power Sect. 45. I shall recite the words of Reverend Vsher for the proof of this Reduction of Episcopacy c. By Order of the Church of England all Presbyters are charged in the Book of Ordination to administer the Doctrine of Sacraments and the Discipline of Christ as the Lord hath commanded and as this Realm hath received the same and that they might the better understand what the Lord hath commanded therein the exhortation of St. Paul to the Elders of the Church of Ephesus is appointed to to be read unto them at the time of their Ordination Take heed unto your selves and to all the flock among whom the Holy Ghost hath made you Overseers to Rule the Congregation of God which he hath purchased with his blood Of the many Elders who thus in common ruled the Church of Ephesus there was one President whom our Saviour in his Epistle unto this Church in a peculiar manner stileth the Angel of the Church of Ephesus And Ignatius in another Epistle written about twelve years after unto the same Church calleth the Bishop thereof Betwixt the Bishop and the Presbyterie of that Church what an harmonious consent there was in thâ— ordering of the Church Government the same Ignaâ—iâ—â— doth fully there declare by the Presbyterie with St Paul understanding the Community of the rest of the Presbyters or Elders who then had a hand not only in the delivery of the Dâ—ctrine and Sacraments but also in the Administration of the Discipline of Christ For further proof of which we have that known Testimony of Tertullian in his General Apology for Christians â—n the Church are used exhortations chastisements and divine censure for judgement is given with great advice as among those who are certain they are in the sight of God and it is the chiefest foreshewing of the Iudgement which is to come if any man have so offended that he be banished from the Community of Prayer and of the Assembly and of all holy fellowship The Presidents that bear rule therein are certain approved Elders who have obtained this honour not by Reward but by good report who were no other as he himself intimates elsewhere but those from whose hands they used to receive the Sacrament of the Eucharist For with the Bishop who was the chief President and therefore stiled by the same Tertullian in another place summus Sacerdos for distinction sake the rest of the dispensers of the Word and Sacraments joyned in the common Government of the Church and therefore where in matters of Ecclesiastical judicature Cornelius Bishop of Rome used the recieved form of gathering together the Presbyterie of what persons that did consist Cyprian sufficiently declareth when he wisheth him to read his Letters to the flourishing Clergy which there did preside or rule with him The presence of the Clergy being thought so requisite in matters of Episcopal audience that in the fourth Council of Carthage it was concluded That the Bishop might hear no mans cause without the presence of the Clergy and that otherwise the Bishops sentence should be void unless it were confirmed by the presence of the Clergy which we find also to be inserted into the Canons of Egbert who was Archbishop of York in the Saxon times and afterwards into the body of the Canon-Law it self True it is that in our Church this kind of Presbyterial Government hath been long disused yet seeing it still professeth that every Pastor hath a right to rule the Church from whence the name of Rector also was given at first unto him and to administer the Discipline of Christ as well as to dispence the Doctrine and Sacraments and the restraint of the exercise of that right proceedeth only from the custom now received in this Realm no man can doubt but by another Law of the Land this hinderance may be well removed Sect. 46. And indeed the stream of Antiquity and the Authors that are principally rested on for Episcopacy are full against them that deny the Government of the people to the Presbyters And it is the principal mischief of the English Prelacy thus to degrade or quoad exercitium to suspend at least all the Presbyters from their office Not as it is a denying them any part of their honour that 's not to be much regarded but as it is a discharging them of their work and burden and consequently leaving the Churches ungoverned And for the Government of Presbyters themselves in Cyprians dayes the Bishop did not could not Ordain or censure any Presbyter without his Clergy and Councils have decreed that so it should be Yea and the plebs universa also was consulted with by Cyprian Sect. 47. And now I come to the Major of my Arrgument which I prove thus Either Ordination is an act of the exercise of the power of the Keyes or of some other power But of no other power therefore of the Keyes If it be the exercise of any other power it is either of a secular power or an Ecclesiastick but neither of these therefore of no other Not of another Ecclesiastick power for there is no Ecclesiastical power at least which Ordination can be pretended to belong to but the power of the Keyes not of a secular power for that belongeth not to Ministers nor is it here pretended Sect. 48. And I think it