in Afrâ—ca and call the rest Cecilians and let the Papists reduce it to the subscribers to their Trent confession or to them only that believe in the Popes universal Headship and Government and call all others Hereticks yet will all true Catholicks imitate Augustine and the Councils that were called against the Donatists who still described the Catholike Church to be that which was dispersed over the world having begun at Ierusalem and though to Gods praise we dare rejoycingly affirm that the most illustrious and the soundest part of it is in Europe among the Reformed yet dare we not say that it is all or the greatest part here Nay we confess that we are but a small part of Christs Church And therefore common sobriety may tell us that the Peace of so great a part of Christs Church as is in all the rest of the world is highly to be valued and sought with all our might in righteousness Moreover even among the reformed Churches there are many for some Episcopacy or Superintendency As the Church of England and Ireland was lately for Diocesan Episcopacy so the Churches in Denmark Sweden Saxionie and other parts of Germany Transilvania c. are for a lower sort of Episcopacy called Superintendency among them 3. And the quality of many of the Divines of that way is such as bespeaks our greatest reverence to them and should move us to thirst after Unity and Reconciliation with them Many of them are men of eminent Learning and Godliness and sound in the faith I know that it is commonly objected that they are generally ungodly men that are that way and though some of them are Learned men yet they are all or almost all of careless and carnal lives or meerly formal and superstitious and therefore their Communion is not much to be desired To which I answer 1. The plain undenyable truth is that it was so here with the most of them in the Bishops dayes where ever I was acquainted There were more Ministers in many places that would have scorned threatned or troubled a man for a godly diligent life then that would lead him that way by a good example We must speak that truth that cannot be hid whoever be displeased To this day too many of that way are careless and scandalous But then Consider withall 2. That it is but too common for the common sort even of Ministers as well as people to be careless and bad what ever opinions they are of Especially if the times do discountenance practical Religiousness the greater part are likely to follow the times being that way also so strongly enclined by nature 3. Consider also that we have had and have men of that Judgement that have been excellent Instruments of the Churches good and so eminent for Gods graces and gifts that their names will be pretious whilest Christ hath in England a Reformed Church were there in all England but one such man dissenting from us as Hooper Farrar Latimer Cranmer Ridley Iewel Abbot Davenant Vsher Hall c. what sober Godly man would not be exceeding solicitous for a reconciliation I am sure besides the godliness of their lives and painful preaching One Iewel One Vsher One Davenant hath done so much against the Roman Usurpers as they will never well claw it off them to the last Moreover who knoweth not that most of the Godly able Ministers of England since the Reformation did judge Episcopacy some of them Lawful and some of them most fit for the Non-conformists were but few and that even before this late trouble and war the most even almost all of those that were of the late Assembly at Westminster and most through the land did subscribe and conform to Episcopal Government as a thing not contrary to the word of God so that it is evident that it is very consistent with a Godly life to judge Episcopacy lawful and fit or else we should not have had so many hundred learned and godly men of that mind And I am not altogether unapt to believe that many of them yet are so far reconcileable to it moderated that if it were again established they would submit to it as they did For I hear but of few that have made any recantation of their former conformity but contrarily have known divers of them profess a reconcilableness as aforesaid as Mr. Gataker doth in one of his books express his own Judgement If I have proved this preparatory proposition which I think needeth but litle proof then have I also proved 1. That they have sinned much who have hitherto forborn the use of any means for Peace which was in their power 2. And that we are bound our selves to desire and seek after a peace with such men and that we cannot discharge a good conscience while we neglect such means as is within our reach and fit for us to use The second Proposition is that A Certain Episcopacy may be yielded to for the peace if not also for the right order of the Church In the declaration of my judgement concerning this I make no doubt but I shall displease both sides the one for yielding so much the other for yielding no more But jacta est alea I live not upon mens favour nor the air of their applause That truth which displeaseth at present may tend to peace and produce it at the last when the angry humour is allayed or at least when the angry age is gone For the clearer determination of this and the main Question following it is necessary that I here stay 1. To open the nature of Church-Government in general 2. To open the sence of the word Episcopacy and the several sorts of Bishops And then 3. I shall tell you what sort of Episcopacy it is that I could yield to for the Churches peace 1. I must confess I think that the greatest part of the controversie by far is in this first question of the nature of Ecclesiastical Government strictly so called which is only in the hands of Christs Ministers Bishops or whomsoever commonly called Clergy men Aâ—d concerning this having written my thoughts more largely elâ—ewhere I shall now lay down these few Propositions Prop. 1. All this power Ecclesiastical is Jure divino given from God himself and that either immediately or by the mediation only of the Apâ—stles I mean as to the determination in specie what it shall be and the constitution of that order and power in the Church though perhaps some other causes at least sine quibus non may intervene for the reception of this power by an individual person These therefore that plead only the Laws of the Land or only Canons of former Bishops for their standing or authority do say nothing that as to our controversie is regardable Whâ—t men do they may undo if there be reason for it and if it depend on their authority we must submit to their reason Prop. 2. This Divine Constitution of the Species of Church-Power
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
use them and only desire a toleration our selves because we dare not wilfully sin against our light will charity deny us this If men forbear a thing suppose indifferent for fear of Gods displeasure and damnation and profess that were it not for this they would conform to the wills of others are those Christians or men that will come behind them and drive them into hell without compassion and that for things indifferent CHAP. IX Prop. 9. There is no meer Humane Vniversal Soveraign Civil or Ecclesiastical over the whole Church and therefore none to make Laws Obligatory to the whole § 1. I ADD this because of the specious pretences of some that say we are bound to an uniformity in Ceremonies by the Church and call all Schismaticks and such as separate from the Catholick Church that disown and disuse such Ceremonies as on these pretences they obtrude And by the Church that thus obligeth us they mean either some Universal Soveraign Power or else an universal Consent of the Church essential as they call it And that Soveraign must be the Pope or a General Council § 2. If it be Universal Consent of all Believers that they suppose to be the obliging power I shall answer them 1. That Believers are not Governours and Law-givers to the Universal Church no nor to a particular Church If that point of the Separatists be so odious that asserteth the multitude of Believers to be the Governours of a particular Church and to have the power of the Keyes what then shall we think of them that give them even to such as they call the Laity themselves the Government yea in the highest point even Legislation over the Universal Church it self § 3. And 2. I add that the Dissent of those Churches that refuse your Ceremonies doth prove that there is no Universal consent If all must consent we must consent our selves before we be obliged We are as free as others we gave none power to oblige us by their consent If we had it had been Null because we had no authority so to do and could not have obliged our selves by a universal Law or perpetual contract Or if we had we had also power on just occasion to reverse a self-obligation But no such thing de facto can be pretended against us § 4. And if such an obligation by consent should be pretended 3. I would know whether it was by this or by some former generation Not by this as is certain Nor by any former For former ages had no power to bind all their successors in Ceremonies about the worship of God Shew whence they had such a power and prove it if you can we are born as free men as our ancestors were in this § 5. And 4. I would be satisfied whether every mans consent in the world be necessary to the Vniversality or not If it be then there are no Dissenters or no obligation because no Universal consent If not then how many must consent before we are obliged you have nothing to say but a Major part where you can with any shew of reason rest And 1. How shall we know in every Parish in England what mind the Major part of the Christians through the world are of in point of such or such a Ceremony 2. Yea by this rule we have reason to think that both Papists and Protestants must change their Ceremonies because the greater part of Christians in East and South and some in the West are against very many of them § 6. But if it be the Authority of a Soveraign Head that is pleaded as obliging the universal Church to an uniformity in Rites and Ceremonies we must know who that Soveraign is None that we know pretend to it but the Pope and a General Council And for the Pope we have by many volumes proved him an Usurper and no authorized Head of the Church Universal The pretended Vice-Christ is a false Christ. The first usurpers pretended but to a Soveraignty in the Roman world but had never any shew of Government over the Churches in Ethiopia India and the many Churches that were without the verge of the Roman Empâ—re § 7. And as for General Councils 1. They are no more the Visible Head and Soveraign of the Church then the Pope is This I have proved in another Disputation by it self 2. There neither is nor can be any Council truly universal as I have there also shewed It s but a delusory name 3. There never was any such in the world since the Church which before was confined to a narrow room was spread over the world Even at Nice there was no proper representative of almost any but the Churches under the Roman Emperours power Few out of the West even in the Empire and none out of almost any of the Churches without the Empire For what 's one Bishop of Persia or such another of another Countrey and perhaps those prove the Roman subjects too that are so called If there was but one from Spain and only two Presbyters of Rome from Italy and one from France if any and none from many another Countrey in the Empire no wonder if there was none from England Scotland or Ireland c. And therefore there can be no universal obligation on this account § 8. Councils are for Concord by Consultation and consent and not a Soveraign or superiour sort of Governing power And therefore we that consented not are not obliged and if we had consented we might on weighty reasons have withdrawn our consent § 9. The Orders established by General Councils have been laid aside by almost all and that without the repeal of a Council Yes such Orders are seemed to presuppose the custom of the Universal Church if not Apostolical Tradition to have been their ground § 10. Among many others let us instance only in the last Canon of the Nicene Council that forbidding Kneeling commandeth all to pray only standing on the Lords Dayes c. And this was the common use of the Church before as Tertullian and others shew and was afterwards confirmed again in a General Council And yet even the Church of Rome hath cast it off much more the Protestant Churches No General Council hath been of more authority then this of Nice No Ceremony of more common use then this standing in prayer on the Lords dayes So that it might as much as any be called the constitution and custom of the Catholick Church And yet we suppose not these now to bind us to it but have cast it off without the repeal of any other General Council And why are we more bound then by the same authority to other Ceremonies then to this And if to any then to which and to how many and where shall our consciences find rest § 11. Even the Jesuites themselves say that the General disuse of a practice established by Pope and Council is equall to an abrogation without any other repeal so it be not by the said