work and duty belonging to a Presbyter who is no bishop Not one place of Scripture doth set forth any Presbyter as less than a bishop Phil. 1 1. Paul makes mention of Bishops and Deacons in the Church at Philippi in the inscription of his Epistle but no mention of Presbyters that were not bishops And it seems by that Text that in the Apostles times there were more bishops than one placed in one city and 't is to be noted that Philippi was but a little City under the Metropolis of Thessalonica Thus bishop and elder in the places aforecited are names of the same office whatsoever it be and the Hierarchical Divines grant as much but are not agreed what office is there set forth by those names One part of them think that those Texts speak of or at least comprehend such Presbyters as are now so called The other part of them think they speak of such bishops as are now distinct from presbyters Now they that hold that the said Texts speak of or include such presbyters as are now so called must needs hold that such presbyters are pastors and bishops in the Scripture sence of those names and so an identity of the bishop and presbyter is confessed and it rests upon them to prove the divine institution of bishops of a higher order over such presbyters and they that hold that the said Texts speak of such bishops as are now distinct from presbyters must needs grant the qualification ordination and work of presbyters inferior to bishops is not set forth in Scripture If it be said that the order of inferior and subject presbyters is of divine institution and yet not defined or expressed in Scripture let a satisfactory proof be brought from some other authority of its divine institution and what its nature is If it be said that at first the function of a bishop and presbyter was one but afterwards it was divided into two and that the division was made by divine warrant the asserters are bound to prove it by sufficient authority To have the power of the keys of binding and loosing of remitting and retaining sins in Christs name as his commissioned Officer is to have Episcopal power and this power belongs to a Presbyter The Asserters of Prelacy answer this by distinguishing the power of the keys in foro interiore or the Court of Conscience within and foro exteriore in the exterior Court to wit that of the Church and say that the former belongs to the Bishop and Presbyter both and the latter to the Bishop only To which I reply 1. The Scripture makes no such distinction and where the Law distinguisheth not we may not distinguish 2. The distinction is vain for all power that belongs to the Pastors of the Church purely respects the conscience by applying to it the commands promises and threatnings of God and it respects the conscience as having the conduct of the outward man and that in reference to Church communion as well as other matters 3. If Presbyters may in the name of Christ bind the impenitent and loose the penitent as to the conscience in the sight of God which is the greater and primary binding and loosing then by parity of reason and that with advantage they may bind and loose as to Church-communion which is the lesser secondary and subsequent binding and loosing That Officer is a Bishop that hath power of authoritative declaring in Christs name that this or that wicked person in particular is unworthy of fellowship with Christ and his Church and a power of charging the Congregation in Christs name not to keep company with him as being no fit member of a Christian Society and also a power of Authoritative declaring and judging in Christs name that the same person repenting of his wickedness and giving evidence thereof is meet for fellowship with Christ and his church and a power of requiring the Congregation in Christs name again to receive him into their Christian fellowship For these are the powers of Excommunication and Ecclesiastical Absolution and a Presbyter hath apparently the said powers As he can undoubtedly declare and charge and judg as aforesaid touching persons in general so by parity of reason touching this or that person in particular all particulars being included in the general He hath undoubtedly a power of applying the word in Christs name as well personally as generally That a Presbyter hath the said powers is granted by the Church of England in the common usage of the Ecclesiastical Courts wherein a Presbyter is appointed to denounce the sentence of Excommunication tho the Chancellor doth decree it And the Excommunication is not compleat till a Presbyter hath denounced it in the congregation That the Apostles have no successors in the whole of their Office is confessed on all hands but if they have successors in part of their Office viz. in the Pastoral Authority in this respect the Presbyters if any are their successors Peter exhorting the Presbyters stiles himself their fellow-Presbyter which is to be understood in respect of the power of Teaching and Ruling The Pastoral Authority of Presbyters is further cleared in many passages in the publick forms of the Church of England touching that Order The form of Ordaining Presbyters in this Church lately was Receive the Holy Ghost whose sins thou remittest they are remitted and whose sins thou retainest they are retained and be thou a faithful dispenser of the word of God and of his holy Sacraments in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost Amen Now the former part hereof is intirely the words used by our Saviour John 20.21 22. towards the Apostles expressing their Pastoral Authority And the latter part is no derogation or diminution from the power granted in the former part If Presbyters are not partakers with the Apostles in the Pastoral Authority how could they have Right to that Form of Ordination Likewise this Church did in solemn form of words require the presbyters when they were ordained to exercise the discipline of Christ as the Lord hath commanded and this Realm hath received the same according to the commandment of God And that they might the better understand what the Lord hath commanded therein this Church did appoint also That at the ordering of Priests there be read for the Epistle that portion of Acts 20. which relates St. Paul's sending to Ephesus and calling for the Elders of the Congregation with his exhortation to them To take heed to themselves and to all the flock whereof the Holy Ghost hath made them overseers to rule the congregation of God Or else 1 Tim. 3. which sets forth the Office and due Qualifications of a Bishop These portions of Scripture this Church appointed to be read to the Presbyters as belonging to their Office and to instruct them in the nature of it And afterwards the Bishop speaks to them that are to receive the Office of Priesthood in this form of words
because it cannot be seen without an act of the understanding no more may the unity of the Catholick Church be for that reason judged invisible I have already shewed that the adequate notion of visible and invisible in this subject is to be not only the object of the bodily eye or other external sence but also of any humane intuition or certain perception or that which falls under humane cognizance and judgment § 9. The Polity of the Catholick Church THE Catholick Church is not as secular Kingdoms or Commonwealths are autonomical that is having within it self that Power of its own fundamental constitution and of the laws and officers and administrations belonging to it as a Church or spiritual polity but it hath received all these from Christ its Head King and Law giver Indeed as it includes Christ the Head it is in reference to him autonomical but here we consider it as a political Body visible upon earth and abstracted from its Head Nevertheless it hath according to the capacity of its acting that is in its several parts a power of secondary Laws or Canons either to impress the Laws of Christ upon its members or to regulate circumstantials and accidentals in Religion by determining things necessary in genere and not determined of Christ in spâ—câ—â— but left to humane determination The spiritual authority seated in the Church is not seated in the Church as Catholick so as to descend from it by way of derivation and communication to particular Churches but it is immediately seated in the several particular Churches as similar parts of one political Body the Church Catholick The Church Catholick is as one universal or Oecumenical Kingdom having one supream Lord one Body of Lawâ— one Form of Government one way of Enrollment into it and subiects who have freedom throughout the whole extent thereof radically and fundamentally always and actually to be used according to their occasions and capacities but having no Terrene Universal Administrator or Vicegerent personal or collective but several administrators in the several provinces or parts thereof invested with the same kind of authority respecting the whole kingdom radically or fundamentally but to be exercised ordinarily in their own stated limits and occasionally any where else according to a due call and order Wherefore tho it be one political society yet not so as to have one terrestrial vicarious Head personal or collective having legislation and jurisdiction over the whole And indeed no terrestrial Head is capable of the Government and Christ the Supream Head and Lord being powerfully present throughout the whole by his spirit causeth that such a vicarious Head is not wanted Indeed the Apostles as such were universal officers having Apostolick authority not only radically or habitually but actually also over the whole Catholick Church in regard they were divinely inspired and immediately commissioned by Christ under him to erect his Church and to establish his religion even the Doctrine Worship Discipline and Government that was to be received by all Christians But this office was but temporary in the nature and formal reason of it and so expired with their persons and was not of the essence or a constitutive part of this society § 10. The Headship of a General Council examined BY Headship over the Church in this inquiry is not meant a dominion and Desporick power over it for the Church hath no Lord but Christ nor soveraign authority over it which is the power of legislation and final decisive judgment by which men stand or fall finally for the Church hath no King but Christ I exclude Headship in any such sence as not fit to come under consideration But the Query is Whether a general Council be supream in that kind of power which resides in the Church and is only ministerial and dispensatory that is whether it hath a supream ministry or Geconomy over the Catholick Church so that all Churches and ministers have their power conveyed to them from the same not as from the Fountain which is Christ alone but as from the first receptacle thereof and are subject to its authoritative regulation and determinations and finally accountable to it for their administrations Who can affirm that an Oecumenical council rightly so named was ever in being The councils that have born that name were conventions of Bishops within the Roman Empire except some very few that were without it and those living near the confines of it Whereupon let it be considered whether the said councils were truly Oecumenical or just representatives of the Catholick Church That which is wont to be said for the affirmative is that no Bishops were excluded from the right of voting therein but from all parts of the world they might come to them as rightful members of them if they would But what if no greater number of Bishops meet upon a summons to a General council than did at the council of Trent May such a convention be called an Oecumenical council because all might come that would when so small a number came as was comparatively nothing to the number of bishops throughout the world Or can the convention of a greater number suppose as many as met in the first Nicene council be justly called a representative of the Catholick Church or carry the sence of it when it bears no more proportion to it Surely it is not their freedom of access but their actual convening at least in a proportionable number that can justly give the denomination And what if the bishops without the limits of the Roman Empire would not come to a General council called by the Mandate of the Roman Emperour especially they that lived in the remoter parts as Ethiopia and India c Were they obliged to come to a general council in case it had been summoned in another especially a remoter Empire or Dominionâ— Moreover what if they could not come which may well be supposed by reason of the restraint of their several Princes or the length of the journey or insuperable difficulties or utter incapacities Tho the most illustrious part of the Catholick Church was contained in the Roman Empire yet an assembly of the bishops thereof could no more make a representative of the Catholick Church than an assembly of the bishops of the other part of the world without them could have done if there had been such an assembly Besides the ancient General councils were usually called in the Eastern parts of the Empire and tho the bishops of those parts might convene in a considerable number yet the number from the Western parts was inconsiderable and as none comparatively to a just proportion Let it be hereupon considered whether the said councils were a just representative and did carry the sence of that part of the Catholick Church that was included in that Empire And in this consideration it is not of little moment to observe what numbers of bishops were ordinarily congregated in the many provincial assemblies and that within
provinces of narrower circuits of ground And how doth it appear that an Oecumenical council rightly so named can be For suppose it be not necessary to consist of all the bishops in the world but of some as delegates in the name of all yet it must consist of so many proportionably delegated from all in the several quarters as may signifie the sence and consent of all Hereupon let it be considered whether there be a possibility of such assemblies much more whether there be a possibility of the continuation or of the succession of them in such frequency as would be requisite in case such an assembly were Head of the Church Nor doth it stand with reason that an Oecumenical council in case it were existent can possibly execute the authority that belongs to the head of the Universal Church in overseeing all in receiving appeals from all in making authoritative determinations for all either immediately by it self or mediately by subordinate councils judicatories and ministers to be superintended regulated and determined by it in their proceedings Nor is there any notice given of the said headship of a General council more than of the Popes or any other bishops universal headship in the primitive and authentick records of the Charter that Christ hath given to his Church to wit the Holy Scriptures Nor is any rule given therein for the constitution of a General council whether it shall be made up only of the Clergy or only of such bishops as are of a higher order thâ—â— Presbyters or of all such bishops of the Catholick Church or if of some in the name of all what number there must be either definite or indefinite and proportionate to the number of those that are represented It is evident de facto that the officers of the Catholick Church as the particular bishops or pastors and the associations and conventions of them do not derive their spiritual authority from a General council Nor doth it appear that de jure they should derive their power from it any more than from the Pope § 11. The infallibility of the Catholick Church examined THE Romanists assert an insallibility about matters of faith somewhere seated within the Catholick Church as the perpetual priviledg thereof some of them place it in the Pope and others in a General council Hereupon this priviledg is to be considered whether it be and what it is The meaning of the term is a being not liable to be deceived or to deceive about those matters about which it is said to be That the catholick church is infallible in the essentials of the christian religion is a most indubitable truth for every member of the catholick church so remaining is infallible so far it involves a a contradiction that any such should err therein for it were as much as to be a christian and no christian The Query therefore is whether it be liable to errour in the integrals aâ—d accidentals of Religion Now the church remaining such is not necessarily or in its nature infallible so far and therefore if it be infallible it must be so from the free grant of Christ But it doth not appear in the Holy Scripture that any such grant is made to the church What was the Apostles doctrine and consequently the doctrine of the Church in their days obedient to their authority we know what the church universally held in any one age touching all the integral parts of religion much more concerning accidentals I conceive extreamly difficult if not impossible to be known But that the church hath de facto if not universally yet very generally erred in the same errour about some integrals of religion appears by the ancient general practise of some things now generally accounted erroneous as for instance the giving of the Lords Supper to infants Moreover it is evident that the whole Church in its several parts hath erred some in one point some in another and that no part thereof hath been found in which hath appeared no error in some point of Religion or other And if all the parts may variously err in several points why may not they also harmoniously err all of them in one and the same point If the Catholick Church be not infallible in all doctrines of Faith much less is any such Council infallible as was ever yet congregated or is ever like to be congregated Hereupon it follows that in all Controversies of doctrine we cannot stand finally to the decision of the Catholick Church if it were possible to be had or to the decision of any the largest Council that can possibly convene We cannot tell what the Catholick Church is nor what particular Churches or persons are sound parts thereof but by the holy Scriptures For what Criterion can be brought besides them Mens bare testimony of themselves is not to be rested on How can we know that the first Nicene Council was orthodox in its determination about the Sacred Trinity and the second Nicene Council erroneous in its determination for Image-worship but by finding that the former was consonant and the latter dissonant to the Scripture in their aforesaid determinations If it be said That of Councils called General those that consist of greater numbers of bishops must carry it against those that consist of lesser numbers let some proof either from Scripture or Reason be given for it What ground is there from either to conclude that in the time of the Arrian Heresie the major part of bishops in the Roman Empire or the major part of those that assembled in Council and for instance in the first Council at Nice might not possibly have been Arrians Moreover if the major part were to carry it in the first six Centuries why not also in the ten last That promise of Christ Mat. 28. I am with you always to the end of the world may imply That there shall be a successive continuation of Bishops or Pastors in the Catholick Church to the worlds end that shall be Orthodox in the Essentials yea and in the Integrals of Religion yet it doth not imply that they shall be the greater number of those that are called and reputed bishops or pastors within Christendom nor that the greater number of those being convened in Councils shall not err in their Conciliar determinations about matters of Faith § 12. Of the Indefectibility of the Catholick Church CHRIST hath promised the perpetuity of the Church in general in saying that he would build it on a Rock and the gates of Hell should not prevail against it and I am with you always to the end of the world but how far and in what respect this perpetuity and indefectibility is promised ought to be enquired into lest we expect or insist upon more than the promise hath ensured That which Christ hath promised cannot be less than that there be always upon earth a number of true believers or faithful Christians made visible by their external profession of Christianity successively
against the Episcopacy of a bishop infimi gradus over many Churches makes not against the right of an overseer of other bishops such as Titus must needs be if he were indeed bishop of Crete which contained a hundred Cities and where bishops or elders were ordained in every City If either Scripture or Prudence guided by Scripture be for such an office I oppose it not Now a bishop of bishops may be taken in a twofold notion either for one of a higher order that is to say of an office specifically different from the subordinate bishops or for one of a higher degree only in the same order I suppose our Archbishops of Provinces do not own the former notion of a bishop of bishops but the latter only But the bishop of a Diocess is de facto that which the Archbishop of a Province doth not own namely a bishop of bishops in a different order from the Presbyters of his Diocess who have been already proved from Scripture to be bishops Hereupon the present inquiry is Whether the Word of God doth warrant the office of a bishop of bishops in either of the said notions And in this inquiry I shall consider what kind of Government the Apostles had over the Pastors or Elders of particular Churches 2. The Episcopacy of Timothy and Titus much alledged by the Hierarchical Divines 3. The preeminence of the Angels of the seven Churches of Asia◠Apoc. 1. and 2. § 9. The BISHOPS Plen of being the Apostles Successors in their Governing-Power examined THO the Apostles in respect of that in them which was common to other officers call themselves Presbyters and Ministers but never bishops yet it is asserted by the asserters of Prelacy that bishops superior to Presbyters are the Apostles successors and thereupon have a governing-power over Presbyters Wherefore the Apostles governing-power and the said bishops right of succession thereunto is necessarily to be considered As touching this claimed succession in the governing power the defenders of prelacy say that Presbyters qua Presbyters succeed the Apostles in the office of governing But the Scripture doth not warrant this dividing of the office of teaching and governing And if the division cannot be proved in case there be a succession it must be into the whole and not into a part and so the Presbyters must succeed as well in ruling as in teaching Besides it hath been already proved that an authoritative Teacher of the Church is qua talis a Ruler The Apostles had no successors in their special office of Apostleship For not only the unction or qualification of an Apostle but also the intire Apostolick office as in its formal state or specifick difference was extraordinary and expired with their persons It was an office by immediate Vocation from Christ without the intervention of man by election or ordination for the authentick promulgation of the Christian Doctrine and the erecting of the Christian Church throughout the World which is built on the foundation of their Doctrine and for the governing of all churches wherever they came and it eminently contained all the power of ordinary bishops and pastors The continuation of teaching and governing in the Church doth no more prove that the office of teaching and governing in the Apostles was quoad formale an ordinary office than that the office of teaching and governing in Christ himself was so But their teaching and governing was by immediate call and authentick and uncontrolable and therefore extraordinary And I do not know that the bishops say they are Apostles tho they say they are the successors of the Apostles Moreover in proper speaking the ordinary bishops or elders cannot be reckoned the successors of the Apostles for they were not succedaneous to them but contemporary with them from the first planting of churches and did by divine right receive and exercise their governing-power And the bishops or elders of all succeeding ages are properly the successors of those first bishops or elders and can rightfully claim no more power than they had Nevertheless let the Apostles governing power be inquired into as also what interest the bishops of the Hierarchical state have therein And in this query it is to be considered That the Presbyters whom the Apostles ordained and governed were bishops both in name and thing and consequently their example of ordaining and ruling such Presbyters is not rightly alledged to prove that bishops as their successors have an appropriated power of ordaining and ruling Presbyters of an inferior order which in Scripture times were not in being Further it is to be considered Whether the said governing-power were only a supereminent authority which they had as Apostles and infallible and to whom the last appeals in matters of religion were to be made or an ordinary governing power over the Churches and the bishops or elders thereof I conceive it most rational to take it in the former sense For we find that the ordinary stated government of particular Churches was in the particular Bishops or Elders and we find not that any of the Apostles did take away the same from them or that it was superceded by their presence or that they reserved to themselves a negative voice in the government of the Churches Now if their governing power were only the said supereminent Apostolick authority they had no successors therein and tho teaching and ruling be of standing necessity and consequently of perpetual duration in the Church yet there is no standing necessity of that teaching and ruling as taken formally in that extraordinary state and manner as before expressed But if they exercised an ordinary governing-power over the Churches and bishops to be continued by succession such kind of Bishops over whom that power was exercised cannot claim a right of succession into the same but they must be officers of an higher orb Consequently if the Hierarchical Bishops claim the right of succession to the Apostles in their governing-power they must needs be of a higher orb than the first Bishops of particular Churches over whom that power was exercised And if this Hypothesis of the Apostles having an ordinary governing-power over the Churches and Bishops do sufficiently prove the right of the succession of Bishops of a higher orb in the same power I shall not oppose it But only I take notice that these higher Bishops are not of the same kind with those first bishops that were under that governing power and of which we read in Scripture That the Apostles should be Diocesan Bishops was not consistent with their Apostolick office being a general charge extending to the Church universal That any Apostle did appropriate a Diocess to himself and challenge the sole Episcopal authority therein cannot be proved The several Apostles for the better carrying on of the work of their office did make choice of several regions more especially to exercise their function in There was an agreement that Peter should go to the Circumcision and Paul to the Uncircumcision But as
it doth not hence follow that Peter was a fixed Bishop of the Jews and Paul of the Gentiles no more were any of the Apostles fixed Bishops in those places where they were more especially imployed and we know that they made frequent removes §. 10. Of the Episcopacy of Timothy and Titus THE Name of Bishop is not given either to Timothy or Titus except in the Postscripts of the Epistles But those Postscripts are taken for no part of Canonical Scripture For if they were free from the objected Errors about the places from which the Epistles were written they cannot in reason be supposed to be Pauls own words and written by him when the Epistles were written Moreover the travels of Timothy and Titus do evidently shew that they were not diocesan bishops nor the setled Overseers of particular churches And those passages 1 Tim. 1.3 I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus and Tit. 1.5 For this cause I left thee in Crete shew an occasional and temporary employment And whatsoever stress may be laid upon these texts to prove they were bishops of those places yet they do not sound like the fixing of them each in their proper diocess The name of an Evangelist is expresly given to one of them 2 Tim. 4.5 and the work enjoined both of them and accordingly performed by them being throughout of the same kind there is all reason to believe that they had the same kind of office Now by several texts of Scripture compared together we find the work of Evangelists to be partly such as belonged to the Apostles whose Agents or Adjuncts they were and partly such as was common to Pastors and Teachers whose office was included in theirs Their work in common with the Apostles was the planting and setling of churches by travelling from place to place and in this regard they have been well called Apostles of the Apostles And in doing this Vice-apostolick service they did also that which was common to pastors and teachers in teaching and ruling but with this difference that the ordinary pastors did it statedly in those churches where they were fixed but these transiently in several churches which they were sent to erect or establish or to set things in order therein as the Apostles saw need Or if Timothy and Titus were not in an office essentially divers from the ordinary pastors and teachers yet they were in extraordinary service as being the Apostles Agents and being in that capacity might have their intrinsick spiritual power enlarged to a greater extent and higher pitch of exercise than the ordinary Ministers Howbeit I rather judg that they had an office specifically different from that of the ordinary pastors because in the enumeration of the several sacred offices Paul mentions the office of an Evangelist as a distinct kind from the rest But if it can be proved that the Superiority of Timothy and Titus over bishops or elders of particular churches was not as they were the Apostles assistants or as extraordinary and temporary officers but as ordinary superiors it will indeed follow that Archbishops or bishops of bishops are of divine Right Nevertheless the Episcopal authority of bishops or presbyters of particular churches such as the Scripture-bishops were remains unshaken § 11. Of the Angels of the Churches ANother allegation for the divine right of bishops of an higher order than presbyters is from the Angels of the seven Churches Apoc. 1. and 2. To which many things are said by those of the other persuasion As that those Angels are not called Bishops nor any where implied to be bishops in the present Vulgar sense of the word That the denomination of Angels and Stars in the judgment of ancient and modern Writers do belong to the Ministers of the Word in general That in mysterious or prophetick Writings and Visional Representations a number of things or persons is usually expressed by singulars and that it is very probable that the term Angel is explained under that plurality you distinguished from the rest Apoc. 2.24 but to you and the rest in Thyatira c. and to be a collective name expressing all the Elders of that church Also some observe that it might be expressed in the same manner as Gods providence in the administration of the World by Angels is expressed wherein one being set as chief over such a countrey the things which are done by many are attributed to one Angel president It is further to be considered that in the church of Ephesus one of the seven the Scripture makes mention of many bishops who were no other than presbyters Acts 20.28 Against this some say That the Elders there mentioned were not the presbyters of the church of Ephesus but the bishops of Asia then gathered together at Ephesus and sent for by Paul to Miletum But 1. This is affirmed altogether without proof 2. The text saith Paul sent from Miletum to Ephesus to call the elders of the church which in rational interpretation must be the Elders of the church to which he sent 3. If the bishops of all Asia had been meant it would have been said the Elders of the churches For in Scripture tho we find the Christians of one city called a church yet the Christians of a Region did ever make a plurality of churches as the churches of Judea the churches of Galatia and the churches of Asia 4. There is not the least hint given of the meeting of the bishops of Asia at Ephesus when Paul sent for the elders of the Church 5. The asserters of prelacy hold that Timothy was the first bishop of Ephesus now Paul did not send for him for he was already present with him and accompanied him in his travels Nor did he commit the charge of the church to him but to the Elders that were sent for 6. It could not be the sence of the church of England that those Elders who are declared to be bishops were bishops in the Vulgar meaning of the word when she appointed that portion of Scripture to be read at the ordination of Presbyters to instruct them in the nature and work of their Office Some say That by the Angel of the church is meant the Moderator or President of the Presbytery who might be either for a time or always the same person and the Epistle might be directed to him in the same manner as when the King sends a Message to the Parliament he directs it to the Speaker Now such a Moderator or President makes nothing for bishops of a higher order than Presbyters § 12. A further Consideration of the Office of an EVANGELIST and of a general Minister COncerning the Office of Evangelists such as Timothy and Titus the query is Whether it was temporary or perpetual An eminent Hierarchical Divine saith That Evangelists were Presbyters of principal sufficiency whom the Apostles sent abroad and used as Agents in Ecclesiastical Affairs wherâ—ver they saw need Now this description doth not make them of a specifically
experience consider we whether a man may and ought to have a Certainty therein and of what sort it is On the one hand doubtless it is not such a Certainty as expels all fear of carefulness On the other hand it is doubtless such a Certainty at least as expels anxiety and is sufficient to settle the peace of conscience And I think in this both Papists and Protestants do agree There is a Certainty that expels all apprehension that the contrary may be true whereof this is an instance That there were such persons as Alexander the Great and Julius Cesar and this hath gained the name of moral Certainty tho I think it may be called natural as grounded on naturally certain evidence And that a man may have such a Certainty of his unfeigned faith is held by Protestants in general and some Papists Nevertheless the Papists in general grant not this kind but only a lower kind of Certainty hereof which they call conjectural yet they tell us that it is certainty truly so called that it expels fluctuation and suspence and brings peace and joy and security and withal they say that the Just believe indeed that they are not herein deceived but not that they cannot be deceived But how this lower kind can be certainty properly so called I see not For an apprehension that the thing is otherwise than I think excludes all Certainty properly or strictly so called The above said moral Certainty of justification or being in the state of Grace is not attained by all justified persons and where it is attained it is not ordinarily continued without interruption nor ordinarily in the same degree because justified persons even the best of them do not continue without interruption in the same degree of faith and holiness on the internal sense whereof this Certainty depends THE TRUE STATE Of The ANCIENT EPISCOPACY § 1 What was anciently a Bishops Church THE Name Church is the first and only Scripture-name properly belonging to a Bishops charge In the beginning of Christianity Bishops or Pastors had their Churches in Cities or Towns And commonly the Converts of the Adjacent Villages were by reason of their paucity taken in as parts of the City Congregation and all made but one particular Church the members whereof had local Communion with each other Accordingly the name of city applied to a Bishops charge could be but extrinsecal it being not the name of the thing it self but only of the place where it was congregate The name of Parish came next in use for the said charge And this name is still in use for a particular Church or Congregation which hath its proper and immediate Bishop or Pastor The word Diocess as relating to a Bishop was unknown for several ages of Christianity but afterwards it was borrowed from civil use and applied to the Church A Diocess was one of the larger divisions of the Roman Empire and comprehended several Provinces Accordingly when it was first applied to the Church it was used for the same circuit and as a Province was the charge of a Metropolitan who had many Bishops under him so a Diocess was the charge of a Patriarch who had many Metropolitans under him And according to this sence there was a Canon made to forbid the running for ordination without the Diocess that is without or beyond the foresaid patriarchal circuit But the use of the word for the charge of such a Bishop as had no Bishops but only Presbyters under him came up in latter times From the first and only Scripture-name properly belonging to a Bishops charge it is inferred that a Bishop and a particular Church are correlates A particular Church as such hath its own proper Bishop and a Bishop as such hath his particular Church as his proper and immediate charge The bishops Church was anciently but one society Ecclesiastical which might and did personally meet together at once or by turns for Worship and Discipline under the same immediate Pastors which appears by the proofs here following 1. All the members thereof even men servants and maid-servants as well as others might and should be known by name to the bishop Ignat. Ep. to Policarp Id. ad Trall In the Panegyrick of Paulinus Bishop of Tyre Euseb lib. 10. cap. 4. It is said 'T is the work of a bishop to be intimately acquainted with the minds and states of every one of the flock when by experience and time he hath made inquiry into every one of them 2. One Church had but one Altar and consequently but one stated assembly for full Communion Ignat. Ep. ad Philadelph To the Presbyters and Deacons my fellow servants If one bishop must here be taken numerically so must one altar The Apostles Canons c. 5.32 make it appear there was but one altar and one bishop with the Presbyters and Deacons in a church Also Council Antiochen c. 5. Hereupon Mr. Mede saith that before diocesses were divided into parishes they had not only one altar in one church or dominicum but one altar to a church taking church for the company or corporation of the faithful united under one bishop or pastor and that was in the city or place where the bishop had his Sea or Residence Add hereunto that to set up another altar was accounted a note of schism 3. Each single church had its proper and immediate bishop Ignat ad Philad as before to every church one altar one bishop He shews also that without a bishop the state of a church exists not Ep. ad Smyrn Wheresoever the bishop appears there is the church as wheresoever Jesus Christ appears there is the Catholick church A particular church was then no larger than that where the bishop appeared Id. ad Trall The bishop is a type of the highest father and the Presbyters are as the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of God and the bond of Apostolical concord Ib. Be subject to the bishop likewise to the presbyters and deacons This shews that the bishop and presbyters were together in one and the same particular church and jointly took the immediate charge of the flock 4. Some of the Ancients testifie that the Apostles placed only bishops without presbyters in some churches Epiphan Heres 65. 5. Concerning the largeness of a bishops church let that instance of Gregory Thaumaturgus be considered He was made bishop of Neocaesarea when he had but seventeen Christians afterwards when many were converted at Comana a small town that was near he did not make it a part of his own diocess but ordained Alexander the Collier a right worthy person to be their bishop And they were of no greater number than what met to chuse him and hear him preach 6. The ordinary work of a bishop shews that it was but one single church that he had charge of Justin Martyr setting forth the manner of the church assemblies tells us that the President himself preached gave thanks administred the Eucharist and exercised discipline Tertullian
no resolved point of faith among them whether bishops differ from presbyters only in degree or in order and office Catalogus Testium veritatis Tom. 2 reports that Wicklief held but two orders of ministers Walsing Hist. in Rich. 2 p. 205. saith That it was one of Wickliefs errors that every priest rightly ordained had power to administer all Sacraments Dr. Reynolds in his Epistle to Sir Francis Knolls shews That they who had laboured for Reformation of the Church for five hundred years past held that all pastors be they intituled bishops or priests have equal authority by the Word of God Ockham a great Schoolman faith that by Christs institution all priests of whatsoever degree are of equal authority power and jurisdiction Catal. Test Verit. Richardus de Media Villa in 4 Sent. distinct 24 q. 2. saith That Episcopacy is to be called not an order which is a Sacrament but rather a certain dignity of an order Council Colon. Enchirid. Christ Religion Paris edit An. 1558. p. 169. of holy orders saith bishops and presbyters were the same order in the primitive church as all the Epistles of Peter and Paul and Jerom also and almost all the Fathers witness Richardus Armachanus l. 9. c. 5. ad quest Armen saith There is not found in the Evangelical or Apostolical Scripture any difference between bishops and simple priests called presbyters It. lib. 11. q. Arm. c. 5. Johan Semeca in his gloss dist 95. c. Olim saith In the first primitive church the name and offices began to be distinguished and the prelation was for the remedy of Schism Gratian distinct 60 c. null ex urb pap saith The primitive church had only those two holy orders presbyterate and diaconate And Dr. Reynolds saith That this was once enrolled in the Canon-Law for sound doctrine Peter Lombard the father of the Schoolmen Lib. 4. distinct 24. tit 1. saith the same and that of these two Orders only we have the Apostles precept Sixtus Senensis heaps up the testimonies of others upon his own to the same thing § 6. The Testimony of Antiquity for the identity of Bishops and Presbyters HERE I first observe by way of preface That Michael Medina de Sacr. Orig. accusing Jerome of holding the sameness of bishops and presbyters saith that Ambrose Austin Sedulius Primasius Chrysostome Theodoret Oecumenius Theophylact were in the same Heresie as Bellarmine reports him lib. 4. de Eccles Milit. c. 9. The same Medina gives this reason why Jerome Austin and others of the Fathers fell into this Heresie as he calls it because this point was not then clearly determined of Hist of the Council of Trent lib. 7. p. 570. And Bellarmin de clero l. 1 c. 15. saith that this Medina assures us That St. Jerome was of Aerius his opinion in this point Touching Aerius Whitaker Controv. 2. q. 5. saith that he was not accounted an Heretick by all but by Eustathius who opposed him Dr. Reynolds in his Epist to Sir Francis Knolls shews out of bishop Jewel that Chrysostome Jerome Ambrose Austin Theodoret Primasius Sedulius Theophylact and most of the ancient Fathers held that bishops and presbyters are one in Scripture with whom Oecumenius and Anselm of Canterbury and another Anselm and Gregory and Gratian agree The Testimony of Clemens Romanus Clemens in his Epistle to the Corinthians mentions but two Orders Bishops and Deacons Pag. 96. The Apostles preaching through Regions and Cities did constitute their first fruits proving them by the Spirit to be bishops and deacons to those which should afterward believe With him bishops and presbyters are every where the same Ib. p. 4. Ye walked in the Laws of God subject to them that have the rule over you 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and giving due honour to the Presbyters among you ye warned the young men that they should follow things moderate and grave Ib. p. 100. Our Apostles foreknowing there would be contentiona bout the name of Episcopacy for this cause having received certain foreknowledg appointed the aforesaid Episcopacy and gave Ordination 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that if they dyed other approved men might successively receive their Ministry 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It will not be a light sin to us if we eject out of thier Episcopacy those that have unblameably and holily offered that gift blessed are those presbyters who are gone before who have received a fruitful and perfect dissolution for they fear not lest any one should cast them out of the Charge wherein they are set Ib p. 108. Base things very base and unworthy of Christian conversation are reported That the most firm and ancient Church of Carinth for one or two persons doth move sedition against the presbyters Ib. p. 120. Who then is generous among you and let him say if the sedition and contention and schisms be risen because of me I will depart whithersoever ye will and do the things commanded by the multitude only let the flock of Christ be in peace with the presbyters set over it Ib. p. 128. You therefore that have laid the foundation of schism be subject to the presbyters be instructed unto Repentance c. These are the passages in that Epistle relating to the point here in question And who cannot see that here are only two Orders of Ministers bishops and deacons and not three bishops priests and deacons Also Presbyters and those in the Episcopacy and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are evidently the same And here is no mention of any office above the presbyters and to them the church were required to be subject As concerning that passage p. 7. To the High Priest proper ministrations were appointed to the priests their own place was assigned and upon the Levites their proper ministry lay and the Laick man bound to Laick precepts I conceive that it alone affords no argument for three Orders of ministry or essentially different offices in the Gospel-church For it respects the present matter but only in way of similitude and no more is signified thereby than as under the Mosaical Oeconomy there were several orders and several ministrations pertaining to them so it is also in the Gospel-church but it may not be used in argumentation beyond what is plainly designed in it much less may it be urged to prove any thing contrary to the tenor of the whole Epistle besides the High-priests office was not of another kind from the priests but a higher degree in the same office for some particular ministrations which also in time of his incapacity might be ordinarily performed by another priest And let the comparison be forced to the utmost it will shew no greater difference between a bishop and a presbyter than between an Archbishop and an ordinary bishop It is Grotius his argument That this Epistle of Clemens is genuine because it no where makes mention of that excessive authority which began to be afterwards introduced or was at first introduced at Alexandria by the custom of that church after the
death of Mark and in other places by that example And it plainly shews as the Apostle Paul doth That the Churches were governed by the Common Council of Presbyters who were also Bishops The Testimony of Irenaeus It is clear that this Father makes the presbyters to be the same with bishops and the successors of the Apostles and with him the succession of bishops is all one with the succession of presbyters Lib. 4. c. 43. We must obey those presbyters which are in the Church who together with the succession of Episcopacy have received the gift of truth Id. l. 3. c. 2. Unto that tradition which is in the church by the succession of presbyters we challenge them that say they are wiser not only than the presbyters but the Apostles Id. l. 3. c. 3. declaring the tradition of the greatest and ancientest church and known to all even the church of Rome founded by Peter and Paul at Rome that which it hath from the Apostles and the Faith declared to men and coming to us by the succession of bishops c. Id. lib. 4. c. 4. We must forsake unjust Presbyters serving their own lusts and adhere to those who with the order of presbytery keep the doctrine of the Apostles found and their conversation without offence unto the information and correction of the rest The church nourisheth such presbyters whereof the Prophet speaks I will give thee princes in peace and thy bishops in righteousness Id. lib. 4. c. 63. The true knowledg of the doctrine of the Apostles and the ancient state in the whole world according to the succession of bishops to which they gave the church which is in every place which is come even to us From these citations it is evident that this Father doth express one and the same order of Episcopacy in all presbyters If any do use this evasion that he calls all those that were true bishops by the name of presbyters let them shew where he mentions presbyters of another order or makes two different orders of Episcopacy and Presbyterate Here I will take notice of the words of Irenaus concerning those Elders of the church mentioned Acts 20. lib. 3. c. 14. viz. In Miletum the bishops and presbyters which were from Ephesus and other the next Cities being convocated Tho it seems most reasonable by the Elders of the church there sent for by Paul to understand the elders of that particular church of Ephesus to which the Apostle then sent and indeed if they had been from other Cities also it would have said according to the Scripture way of expression the elders of the churches yet admitting what this Father saith hereof observe we that he speaks of bishops and presbyters as congregated in the meeting and he might mention two names of the same office And the Apostle speaks to all those presbyters that there convened as those whom the Holy Ghost had made bishops of the flock And suppose they were the bishops of Asia as some would have it yet it cannot be proved that they were any other than bishops of single Congregations or that they were such bishops as had subject presbyters of a lower order under them The Testimony of Clemens Alexandrinus He thus writes Stromat lib. 6. p. 667. He is really a presbyter of the church and a true Deacon of the will of God if he teach the things of the Lord not as ordained by men nor esteemed just because he is a presbyter but taken into the presbytery because he is just Here in the Church are progressions of bishops presbyters deacons imitations as I think of the Angelical glory and of the heavenly dispensation which the Scripture speaks they expect who treading in the footsteps of the Apostles have lived in the perfection of righteousness according to the Gospel These the Apostle writes being taken up into the clouds shall first be made deacons and then shall be taken into the presbytery according to the progress of glory Here this Father first mentions only two orders presbyters and deacons afterwards a progression of bishops presbyters and deacons as imitations of the heavenly dispensation but in the close applying the similitude to blessed men taken into heaven he makes the progress to be only in being first as deacons then as presbyters mentioning no higher order Hence I conceive may be inferred that he speaks of presbyters and deacons as of two different orders and of bishops but as a higher degree in the order of presbyters This also may be further confirmed Stromat lib. 7. p. 700. where distinguishing of a twofold 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or employment in secular affairs viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he saith that presbyters hold that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which makes men better and the deacons that which consists in service His meaning is that as in the Civil State there are two orders the one governing and the other ministring so there are likewise in the Church the Presbyters holding the one and the deacons the other These passages of this Author I thought fit to mention and have not found in him any more relating to the distinct ministers of the church The Testimony of Jerome This Father also speaks of presbyters as the same with bishops and successors of the Apostles On the Epistle to Titus c. 1. he saith As presbyters know that they are by the custom of the church subject to him that is set over them so let the bishops know that they are greater than presbyters rather by custom than by the verity of the Lords appointment He also testifies that they did and ought to rule the church in common and that imparity came in by little and little In his Epistle to Evagrius he shews that the presbyters of Alexandria from Mark till Heraclas and Dionysius had always one chosen out of them and placed in a higher degree and named bishop as if an Army made an Emperor and Deacons chose one whom they knew industrious and called him Arch-deacon Here he mentions no other making of bishops than by presbyters And that the presbyters made the bishop is an argument brought by him to prove the identity at first and afterwards the nearness of their power And he ascribes to presbyters the making of their bishop and placing him in a higher degree and naming him bishop And he distinguisheth the ancient way of making bishops by presbyters from that way of making them which followed the times of Heraclas and Dionysius which was by Episcopal ordination This evidence is confirmed by the testimony of Eutichius Patriarch of Alexandria who out of the Records and Traditions of that Church in his Arabick Originals saith according to Seldens Translation in his Commentary p. 29 30. That the presbyters laid hands on him whom they elected till the time of Alexander Patriarch of Alexandria for he forbad the presbyters any longer to create the Patriarch and decreed that the Patriarch being deceased bishops should
convene and ordain one to the Patriarchate and that they might chuse the Patriarch out of any Region Jerome as an Historian only mentions from the testimony of Eusebius some bishops made by the Apostles But who can prove that those bishops were of a higher order than Presbyters The Testimonies of other Ancients in the same point Cyprian lib. 3. Epist 9. Erasmus his Edit to Rogatianus The Deacons must remember that the Lord chose Apostles that is bishops and Praepositi but after the ascension of the Lord the Apostles made Deacons to themselves as ministers of their Episcopacy and the church Here are but two Orders mentioned 1. bishops and Praepositi who were as the Apostles 2. Deacons who are ministers to them and the church Id. lib. 1. Epist 11. to Pomponius When all ought to maintain discipline much more the Praepositi and the Deacons From this and the other place before cited it may plainly appear that there was no middle office between that of the Praepositi and the Deacons And all the Presbyters being Praepositi must needs be of the same Order with bishops that title importing the very nature of the bishops office Chrysostome on the first to Timothy consesseth that there is little or no difference between a bishop and a presbyter That a bishop had not a different ordination from a presbyter Ambrose shews on 1 Tim. c. 3. in these words Why after the bishop doth he come to the ordination of a deacon Why but because there is one ordination of a bishop and presbyter for either of them is a priest but the bishop is the first every bishop is a presbyter but every presbyter is not a bishop for he is a bishop who is first among the presbyters Here note that the difference lies in this that the bishop is the first among the Presbyters Vid. Sedulius on Tit. 1. Anselm of Canterbury on Phil. 1. Beda on Acts 20. Alcuinus de divinis officiis c. 35 36. all agreeing in this point § 7. Testimonies to prove That the Episcopal Authority is really in the Presbyters 1. THAT Presbyters have the power of the keys and that the Apostles received it as Presbyters is commonly agreed on all sides Mr. Thorndike in his form of primitive Government and Right of Churches p. 128. saith That the power of the keys that is the power of the Church whereof that power is the root and source is common to bishops and presbyters Bishop Morton in his Apology Dr. Field and many others say much more 2. Presbyters have the power of jurisdiction and discipline particularly of excommunication and absolution Spalatensis proves that the power of excommunication and absolution is not different from the power of the keys which is exercised in foro poenitentiali and is acknowledged to belong to presbyters L. 5 c. 9. n. 2. l. 5. c. 2. n. 48 c. Jerome in his Epistle to Heliodor saith If I sin a presbyter may deliver me to Satan In the Church of England a presbyter is set to pass the sentence of excommunication in the Chancellors Court tho he doth but speak the words when the Court bids him Tertullian in his Apology c. 59. saith that probati quique seniores all the approved Elders did exercise discipline in the Church Clemens Alexandrinus Strom. l. 7. saith that in the Church the presbyters keep that discipline which makes men better Irenaeus l. 4. c. 44. With the order of presbytery they keep the doctrine of the Apostles sound and their conversation without offence unto the information and correction of the rest This place shews that discipline for correction as well as doctrine for information did belong to the presbyters Epiphanius haeres 42. reports that Marcion was expell'd by the Roman presbyters the Sea being vacant Id Heres 47. That Noetus was convicted judged and expelled by a session of presbyters Many Diocesses have been long without bishops upon several occasions and governed all that time by presbyters Vid. Blondels Apol. sect 3. p. 183 184. The Church of England allows presbyters in the Convocation to make Canons Also it allows presbyters to keep persons from the Communion of the Church for some offences and to receive them again if they repent To say that the presbyters cannot exercise this power without the bishops consent doth not derogate from the truth of their power herein for in some ancient times it was so ordered that presbyters could perform â—o sacred ministrations without their bishop They might not baptize as hath been observed without the bishops command but that limitation respected only the exercise of the power but not the power in it self 3. Presbyters have power of ordaining Acts 13.1 2 3. The Church of Antioch had not many Prelates at that time if any but the prophets and teachers there are mentioned as Ordainers Whereas some say they were bishops of many Churches in Syria they speak without proof and against the text which saith there were in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers c. which clearly expresseth that they all belonged to that Church this right of presbyters is confirmed by the passages before cited concerning the ordaining and making the bishops of Alexandria by the presbyters of that Church Firmilian in Cyprian Ep. 75. saith of them that Rule in the Church that they have the power of baptizing of laying on of hands and ordaining and who they be he expressed a little before viz. Seniors and Praepositi by which the presbyters as well as the bishops are understood Foelicissimus was ordained a deacon by Novatus one of Cyprians presbyters schismatically yet his ordination was not nulled by Cyprian but he was deposed for mal-administration The first Council of Nice in their Epistle to the Church of Alexandria and all the Churches of Egypt Libia and Pentapolis thus determine concerning the presbyters ordained by Meletius Socrat. l. 1. c. 6. Let those that by the grace of God and helped by our prayers are found to have turned aside to no schism but have contained themselves within the bounds of the Catholick and Apostolick Church free from spot of error have authority of ordaining Ministers and also of nominating those that are worthy of the Clergy c. Now tho they had not this power granted them to be exercised apart without their bishop yet it is to be noted that they had the power tho the Bishop as president guided in all those acts The Author of the Comment on the Ephesians that goes under the name of Ambrose saith That in Egypt the presbyters ordain consignant if the bishop be not present Also Austin faith that in Alexandria and all Egypt if the bishop be wanting the presbyters consecrate Presbyters sent bishops into England and ordained bishops for England Bedes Hist l. 3. c. 4 5. The Abbot and other presbyters of the Island Hye sent Aydan c. at King Oswalds Request and this was the ordinary custom tho in respect of the custom
of the Empire it is said to be unusual That presbyters may ordain see Anselm on 1 Tim. 4.14 also Bucer Script Anglic. p. 254 255 259 291. The Lollards and Wickliefists in England held and practised ordination by meer presbyters Walsingham Hist Ang. An. 1389. so did the Lutheran protestants Bugenhagius Pomeranus a presbyter of Wittenberg ordained the Protestant bishops of Denmark in the presence of the King and Senate in the chief Church at Hafnia See Melchior Adam in the Life of Bugenhagius and Chytraeus Saxon Chronicle l. 14 15 16 17. Forbes in his Irenicum l. 2. c. 11. saith that presbyters have a share with bishops in the imposition of hands not only as consenting to the ordination but as ordainers with the bishop by a power received from the Lord and as praying for grace to be confer'd on the persons ordained by them and the bishop That the Ancients did argue from the power of baptizing to the power of ordaining is evident out of the Master lib. 4. distinct 25. 4. Presbyters with Bishops laid on hands for Restoring the excommunicate and blessing the people Cyprian Epist 12. Nor can any return to communion unless hands be laid upon him by the Bishop and Clergy Vid. also Ep. 9. 46. Id. l. 3. Ep. 14. Erasm Edit To the presbyters and deacons against some presbyters who had given the peace of the Church rashly to some of the lapsed with the knowledg of the Bishop In lesser offences sinners after a just time of penance and confession receive Right of Communication by the imposition of hands of the Bishop and Clergy Clemens Alexandrin paedag p. 248. speaking against women wearing other hair than their own saith On whom doth the presbyter lay hands whom doth he bless Not on the woman adorn'd but on anothers Hair and thereby on anothers Head § 8. Testimonies in reference to the Bishops Plea of being the Apostles Successors FOR the diversity of order between a bishop and a presbyter it is alledged That bishops are the Apostles successors which presbyters are not To this it is answered 1. The ancient Fathers make presbyters as well as bishops the successors of the Apostles Irenaeus lib. 4. c. 43 44. We must obey the presbyters that are in the Church even those that have succession from the Apostles who have received the certain gift of truth according to the pleasure of the Father with the succession of Episcopacy Here presbyters are said to have succession from the Apostles and to have succession of Episcopacy This cannot be evaded by saying he intended it only of presbyters of a superior order which are bishops for this is to beg the question and in this Father there is no footstep of any order of presbyters but what are bishops Cyprian l. 3. Ep. 9. The Deacons must remember that the Lord chose Apostles that is bishops and Praepositi but after the ascension of the Lord the Apostles made deacons to themselves as Ministers of their Episcopacy and the Church Now in the names of Bishops and Praepositi the presbyters are included as I have before made manifest And it is plain that in this place all in the sacred Ministry above Deacons are included in those names and called Apostles Jerome in his Epistle to Heliodor speaks in general that Clericks are said to sucreed the Apostolical degree The late form of Ordination in the Church of England viz. Receive the Holy Ghost whose sins thou dost forgive they are forgiven and whose sins thou dost retain they are retained and be thou a faithful dispenser c. is for the former part the very form of words used by our Saviour to his Apostles to express their Pastoral Authority and fully proves that the office of a presbyter is Pastoral and of the same nature with that which was ordinary in the Apostles and in which they had successors 2. Some conceive there is no proper succession to the Apostles whose office as to its formal state and specifick difference was extraordinary and expired with their persons And in proper speaking the ordinary Bishops or Elders cannot be reckoned the successors of the Apostles for they were contemporary with them in the first planting of the Churches and did by divine right receive and exercise their governing-power which the Apostles did not supercede by their presence tho it were under the regulation of their supereminent authority and the Bishops or Elders of all succeeding ages are properly the successors of those first bishops Bellarmine l. 4. de Pontif. c. 25. saith That bishops do not properly succeed the Apostles because the Apostles being not ordinary but extraordinary Pastors have no successors and that the Pope of Rome properly succeeds Peter not as an Apostle but as an ordinary pastor of the whole church 3. Whereas some say That the Order of bishops began in the Apostles and the order of presbyters in the seventy disciples it is answered 1. As concerning the bishops order when the Fathers speak of Apostles or Evangelists long residing in one church they did by way of similitude call them bishops thereof Reynolds against Hart saith That the Fathers when they term an Apostle the bishop of this or that City mean in a general way that he did attend that Church for the time and supply that room in preaching which the bishop afterwards did And not only the Apostles but itinerant Ministers or Evangelists were in such a general sence bishops of the places where they came Paul staid at or about Ephesus three years Acts 20.31 yet he was not bishop there in the strict and proper sense of the word James was either no bishop of Jerusalem or no Apostle but as many think another James 2. As concerning the order of inferior presbyters said to be instituted in the seventy disciples it is spoken without proof and against Reason Spalatensis saith those seventy had but a temporary commission and therefore that he cannot affirm that Presbyterial Order was directly and immediately instituted in them de Rep. Eccles l. 2. c. 3. n. 4. Saravia acknowledgeth that the seventy disciples were Evangelists de Minist Evang. grad c. 4. § 9. Testimonies concerning the Episcopacy of Timothy and Titus 1. TImothy was not a fixed bishop His travels we find upon sacred Record When Paul went from Beraea to Athens he left Silas and Timothy behind him Acts 17.14 Afterwards they coming to Paul at Athens Paul sent Timothy thence to Thessalonica to confirm the Christians there 1 Thes 3.6 An. C. 47. Thence he returned to Athens again and Paul sent him and Silas thence into Macedonia Acts 18.5 and thence they returned to Paul at Corinth An. 48. Afterwards they travel to Ephesus whence Paul sent Timothy and Erastus into Macedonia Acts 19.22 whither Paul went after them An. 51. from Macedonia they with divers brethren journied into Asia Acts 20.4 and come to Miletum where Paul sent to Ephesus to call the elders of the Church An. 53. Then Paul did
was referred to a Synod consisting of bishops and presbyters Other precepts given them were above the proper work of a bishop of a particular Church To erect and govern Churches in a hundred Cities and to govern such presbyters who according to Dr. Hammond were bishops belonged not to an ordinary bishop of a particular Church Wherefore this latter sort of duties belonged to Timothy and Titus as Evangelists or General Ministers who had a kind of Vice-Apostolick office of which sort were Barnabas Silas Apollos Titus Timothy and Epaphroditus and others Ambrose on Eph. 4. saith they are stiled Evangelists who did Evangelizare sine Cathedra It often happened that those unfixed Officers resided for a longer time in some places and then they managed the affairs of those Churches in chief during the time of their residence § 10. Concerning the Angels of the Seven Churches in ASIA IT is much insisted on that these Angels were bishops of a superior Order to that of presbyters Whereupon let it be considered 1. That the title of Stars and Angels are not proper but figurative and mystical names made use of in a mystical book and that the said names are common to all ministers Gregory the Great l. 34. Mor. on Joâ— c. 4. saith that these Angels are the preachers of the Churches 2. That the name Angel may be taken collectively not individually Austins Homily on the Apoc on these words I will remove thy Candlestick saith that John calls the Church the Angel As the Civil state of the Pagano-Christian Empire is called the Beast and the Ecclesiastical state the Whore so Angel may signifie the whole Presbytery but put in the singular number to hold proportion to the seven stars which signifie the same thing and the seven Candlesticks In these Epistles to the Churches there are indications that not a single person but a company is represented under this name Rev. 2.10 16 24 25. 3. Beza saith that this Angel was only praeses Indeed he to whom the title of bishop was appropriated by the ancient Fathers was the President of the presbytery Ambrose on 1 Tim. c. 3. saith He is the bishop who is first among the presbyters This priority or presidency is in History observed to have begun first at Alexandria the people whereof above other men were given to schism and sedition as Socrates saith of them l 7. c. 13. If this presidency began at Alexandria upon the death of Mark it must needs be long before the death of John the Apostle Howbeit Clement in his Epistle to the Corinthians takes no notice of such a priority or presidency of one above the rest in that Church And Jerome having mentioned John as the last of the Apostles saith that afterwards one was set over the rest Now whereas Jerome called the imparity of bishops and presbyters an Apostolical tradition it is to be noted that with him an Apostolical tradition and Ecclesiastical custome are the same But the main thing still remains unproved for ought that is to be gathered from this title of Angel or from any thing contained in these Epistles to the Asian Churches namely that these Angels whatsoever they might be were bishops of a superior order than that of presbyters or that they had a superiority of jurisdiction over the presbyters or that they were bishops set over divers setled Churches or fixed Congregations with their Pastors or that they had the sole power of jurisdiction and ordination The main point in controversie is not Whether bishops but whether such as the present Diocesan bishops have continued from the Apostles times to this Age. The ancient bishop was the Officer of a particular Church not a general Officer of many Churches He was not a bishop of bishops that is he did not assume a power of ruling bishops who have their proper stated Churches Cypr. in Conc. Carth. saith None of us calls himself or makes himself to be a bishop of bishops or by tyrannical terror drives his Colleagues to a necessity of obeying The ancient bishop did not govern alone but in conjunction with the presbyters of his Church He did not and might not ordain without the Counsel of his Clergy Ignatius in his Epistle to the Trall saith What is the presbytery but the sacred Assembly of the Councellors and Confessors of the bishops Cyprian in his epistle to Cornelius wisheth him to read his Letters to the flourishing Clergy at Rome that did preside with him Id. l. 3. Ep. 14. Erasm Edit From the beginning of my Episcopacy I resolved to do nothing without your counsel and without the consent of my people 4. Conc. Carthag 23. The sentence of a bishop shall be void without the presence of his Clericks Concil Caâ—thag c. 22. Let not a bishop ordain Clericks without a Council of his Clericks The Present Ecclesiastical Government compared with the Ancient EPISCOPACY IT is commonly objected against the Nonconformists That they are enemies to Episcopacy and that they renounce the Ancient Government received in all the Churches The truth of this Objection may easily be believed by those that hear of Episcopal Government and consider only the name thereof which hath continued the same till now but not the thing signified by that name which is so changed that it is of another nature and kind from what was in the first Ages There be Nonconformists who think they are more for the Ancient Episcopacy than the Assertors of the present Hierarchy are and who believe they are able to make it evident may they be permitted Something to this purpose is here in a short Scheme tendered to consideration and proof is ready to be made of each particular here asserted touching the state and practice of the Ancient Church 1. IN the first ages a Political Church constituted as well for Government and Discipline as for Divine Worship was one particular Society of Christians having its proper and immediate bishop or bishops pastor or pastors In these times the lowest political Church is a Diocess usually consisting of many hundred parishes having according to the Hierarchical principle no bishop but the Diocesan Yet these parishes being stated ecclesiastical Societies having their proper pastors are really so many particular Churches 2. In the first Ages the bishops were bishops of one stated Ecclesiastical Society or particular Church But in the present age bishops that are of the lowest rank according to the Hierarchical principle are bishops of many hundred churches which kind of bishop the ancient churches did not know and which differs as much from the ancient bishop as the General of an Army from the Captain of a single Company 3. The bishop of the first Ages was a bishop over his own Church but he was not a bishop of bishops that is he was not a Ruler of the Pastors of other Churchs But the present bishop even of the lowest rank according to the Hierarchical principle is a bishop of bishops namely of the presbyters of
permanently or unalterably holy as well sanctifying the duties therein performed as sanctified by them so I suppose that the appointed feasts or at least some of them are set apart by the Church to a state of like holiness I confess that as touching the dedication of such days and times as some of those are which are appointed by the Church I have not a clearness of judgment to determine for or against the warrantableness thereof Nor would I break with the Church upon this account but would make those days an occasion of joining in the unquestionable divine worship then celebrated But I know not how to declare an unfeigned assent and consent to the sanctifying of those days because in so doing I should not speak the truth while I doubt of the warrantableness thereof Of the Order for Morning and Evening-prayer THE second Rubrick before Morning-prayer is taken to enjoin the use of the Surplice Supposing that the use thereof is not in it self unlawful nevertheless I question whether I may lawfully consent to a Rule enjoining the use of it to such Ministers and in such Congregations by which the use thereof is judged unlawful or to which it is odious or greatly offensive by invincible or inveterate prejudice I enquire Whether a consent to the use of this Rubrick doth not imply a consent to the enjoining of this Vestment for the enjoined retaining and using of it so that sacred Ministrations shall not be performed without it is the subject matter of the Rubrick I enquire also Whether I may lawfully declare my consent to the use of this Vestment supposing that tho I do not scruple the bare lawfulness of using it yet I wish in my heart the use thereof were not retained but laid aside in regard of the great offence taken at it it being a thing unnecessary and the worship of God being as decently and profitably performed without it as with it Moreover what were those Ornaments in the Church which were in use by authority of Parliament in the second year of the reign of King Edward the sixth I do not well know Some say this Rubrick seems to bring back the Cope and other Vestments forbidden in the Common-prayer-book 5 6. of Edw. 6. to the use whereof I do not see it fit for me to declare my consent The Responsals of the Clerk and people the multiplied repetitions of the Gloria Patri and the Lords Prayer the omission of the Doxology in the Lords Prayer the composure of many short Collects instead of one continued prayer I can submit unto and declare my consent to them as to things passable But if the declaration of consent imply not only the simple allowableness but also the laudableness and comparative usefulness or expediency of these things I am not clear therein Of the Creed of St. Athanasius I Heartily own the whole Doctrine of the Trinity and of the incarnation of the Son of God as set forth in this Creed yet I am not satisfied to declare my assent to these assertions Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled without doubt he shall perish everlastingly Also This is the Catholick faith which except a man believe faithfully he cannot be saved Also he therefore that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity This Creed doth contain deep mysteries as that the Son is not made nor created but begotten That the Holy Ghost is neither made nor created nor begotten but proceeding The difference between eternal generation and eternal procession being a mystery wherein the greatest Divines see but darkly we may be justly afraid to condemn all persons as uncapable of salvation who do not understand and explicitely believe these mysteries Likewise the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and the Son being here delivered as a part of the faith concerning which it is asserted That except every one do keep whole without doubt he shall perish everlastingly the undoubted damnation of those Churches and Christians who hold that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father only seems to be thence inferred The best answer to these objections that I have seen I here transcribe out of a book lately written It is to be considered That in this Creed there be some things contained and expressed as necessary points of Faith and other things for the more clear and useful explication of the truth tho they be not of equal necessity to be understood and believed even by the meanest capacity Thus if we first consider the contexture of this Creed the Faith declared necessary concerning the Trinity is thus expressed in the beginning thereof The Catholick Faith is this That we worship one God in Trinity and Trinity in Vnity neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance After this follows an explication useful to set forth the true Christian Doctrine which begins For there is one person of the Father c. After which explication the same necessary doctrine to be known and believed is thus again expressed and distinguished from that explication in these words So that in all things as aforesaid the Vnity in Trinity and the Trinity in Vnity is to be worshipped he therefore who will be saved must thus think of the Trinity What is contained in this consideration is the more clear by the following observation That our Church doth both here and in her Articles evidently receive the Athanasian Creed and yet from the manner of using the Apostles Creed in the form of Baptism as containing the profession of that Faith into which we are baptized in the Catechism as containing all the Articles of the Christian Faith and in the Visitation of the sick as being the Rule to try whether he believe as a Christian man should or not it is manifest that no more is esteemed in our Church of necessity to salvation for all men to believe than that only which is contained and expressed in the Apostles Creed Hereunto I make this Reply In this point the question is not What the Church of England but what the Athanasian Creed appointed by this Church to be read on certain solemn days instead of the Apostles Creed declares to be of necessity to salvation Now the thing that is manifestly asserted in this Creed to be of necessity to salvation is the intire belief of the Catholick Faith as it is there expressed For it is said Which Faith except every one keep whole c. Wherefore to distinguish the summary of the doctrine of the Trinity set down in the beginning and the conclusion from the whole intermediate explication thereof as if the belief of the one but not of the other were affirmed to be necessary to salvation is a very forc'd and unwarrantable narrowing of the intendment of the Words The explication as well as the said Summary is set forth as that Catholick Faith which except every one keep whole and undefiled he shall without doubt perish everlastingly Yea it is expresly said in
in a higher or lower degree about ones part in this Society according to its Invisible form yet it can ground a judgment of certainty about ones part in the same according to its Visible form So that altho God only knows those whom he accepts yet the Church may know certainly whom she ought to admit And as God in the matter belonging to his cognizance to wit the sincerity of profession and the rights consequent thereunto so the Church in the matter belonging to its cognizance to wit the credibility of profession and the rights consequent thereunto proceeds upon certain knowledg § 5. Of the Catholick Church Invisible and Visible IT hath been well observed That the term Catholick Church hath been sometimes used of a particular Church holding the true Doctrine of the Apostles and is the same with Apostolical and in this sence any Bishop of a true Apostolical Church may be called a Catholick Bishop But here the term Catholick signifies the same with Oecumenical or the Church that is throughout the whole World or the whole World of Christians And in this sence the Church is termed Catholick not as actually extending to the whole World but potentially no Nation or People being excluded but all having Liberty to accept and injoy the Priviledges thereof In this notion there is one Catholick Church both in the Invisible and Visible form The Catholick Church Invisible is the whole company of true Believers throughout the World who make that part of Christs Mystical Body which ia militant here on Earth The Catholick Church Visible is the whole company of Visible believers throughout the World or believers according to humane judgment § 6. The Vnity of the Catholick Church Visible THE Catholick Church is not only notionally but really existent and hath Relation to particular Churches as an intregal whole to integral parts The same relation it hath also to particular Christians yea and to such as are not fixed members of a particular Church There being one peculiar Kingdom of Christ throughout the World distinct from the World in general visibly constituted and administred not by humane Laws and Coercive Power as Secular Kingdoms are but by Divine Laws and Power directly and purely respecting the conscience there must needs be one Caetholick Visible Church The Catholick Church in its Visible form is one political Society or Spiritual Commonwealth the City of God the more special Kingdom of Christ upon Earth for the World in general is his Kingdom at large The Unity of the Catholick Church being a political Society ariseth not out of a local contiguity but out of the moral and political Union of the parts And if the Invisible Church be one body the Visible must be so likewise For these terms the Church Visible and Invisible do not signifie two Societies as hath been shewed but the same Society distinguished by its diver considerations The Visible Catholick Church hath one Head and Supreme Lord even Christ one Charter and Systeme of Laws Members that are free denizons of the whole Society one form of admission or solemn initiation for all its Members one Spiritual polity or one Divine form of Government and one kind of Ecclesiastical Power The members of one particular Church are intituled to the priviledges granted of God to visible Christians in any other Church wheresoever they come to be injoyed by them according to their capacity and in a due order And wheresoever any Christian comes as a stranger he is by his relation to the Universal Church bound to have communion with the particular Church or Churches of that place in Gods ordinances according to his capacity and opportunity And if it be said he is looked upon as a transient member of that particular Church where he comes as a stranger I answer that it ariseth from his being a member of the Catholick Church which contains all particular Churches as an integral whole its several parts for it is his right and not a favour or a matter of mere charity Whosoever is justly and orderly cast out of one Church is thereby vertually cast out of all Churches and ought to be received by none This cannot be meerly by compact among the Churches or by the mutual relation of mere concordant or sister Churches but by their being integral parts of one society for the ejection out of all de jure follows naturally necessarily ipso facto from the ejection out of one The Apostles were general officers of the whole Catholick Church as of one visible society And it is not to be imagined that it lost its unity by their death The ordinary Pastors and Teachers tho actually and in exercise overseeing their own parts are habitually and radically related to the whole Catholick Church and thereby are inabled to exercise their ministerial authority in any other parts wheresoever they come without a new ordination or receiving a new pastoral authority so that they do it in a due order This shews that the several Churches are parts of one political society otherwise the officers could not act authoritatively out of their own particular congregation no more than as one well observes a Mayor or Constable can exercise their offices in other Corporations § 7. The Priority in nature of the Catholick Church to particular Churches FOrasmuch a◠men are Christians in order of nature before they are members of a particular Church and ministers in general before they are ministers of a particular Church they are members and ministers first of the Catholick Church in order of nature and then of particular Churches And the Charter and Body of Laws and Ordinances by which the Church subsists doth first belong to the Catholick Church and then to particular Churches as parts thereof To be a member of a particular congregation gives only the opportunity of injoying divine ordinances and Church priviledges but immediate right thereunto is gained by being a visible believer or a member of the Church Catholick One may be a member of the Church Catholick and yet not a fixed member of any particular Church and that in some cases occessarily and in that state he hath right to Gods ordinances The Ethiopian Eunuch was of no particular Church and yet baptized by Philip. The Promises Threatning and Precents of Christ are dispensed by his Minister to the members of his Church primarily not as members of a particular but of the universal Church And therefore the Minister dispenseth the same with authority in Christs Name even to strangers that come into his Congregation 8. The Visibility of the Catholick Church AS a large Empire is visible to the eye of sence not in the whole at one view but in the several parts one after another so is the Catholich Church As a large Empire is visible in the whole at one view by an act of the understanding which is the eye of the mind so is the Catholick Church As the unity of a large Empire is not judged invisible
continued till the end of all things It is also ascertained that there shall be at least the essentials of a Church-state or Church organical as some express it consisting of a part governing and a part governed always continued somewhere upon earth For Christs promise is to be with his Apostles in the executing of their Ministry always to the end of the world and it must be understood of them not barely considered as persons but as his commissioned Officers including their successors not in the Apostolical and Temporary but in the ordinary and perpetual Authority which they had in common with Pastors Bishops or Presbyters And Eph. 4.11 shews that the Ministry is to endure till the whole Mystical body of Christ be compleated But the promise doth not import that any particular Church or any particular combination of Churches in one frame of Ecclesiastical Polity how ample or illustrious soever shall be perpetuated by an uninterrupted succession of Pastors and secured from a total defection and rejection either from a Church state or from Christianity it self If any particular church or any one larger part of the Catholick church hath been preserved from the Apostles days till now when others have been extinct it is by the good pleasure of God whose ways and counsels are wise and holy yet unsearchable and past finding out Nor doth the promise import that the true church shall be perpetually conspicuous tho it be perpetually visible for in some Ages it may be more obscure in others more apparent It is granted by that party that much insists upon the conspicuousness of their church as a city on a hill That in the time of Antichrist the church shall scarcely be discerned Now in such a state it may be said to be tho not absolutely yet comparatively invisible that is being compared with what it is when more conspicuously Visible Nor doth it import that any particular church or any most ample and illustrious part of the Catholick church shall perpetually abide in the Apostolick purity of doctrine worship and government but that it may depart from it and fall into most enormous errors and practises in the said points and yet may not lose the essentials of Christian doctrine and church-state The Scripture foretels of a great falling away and a lasting defection in the Christian church and a long continued predominancy of an Antichristian state therein Nay for ought can be cogently inferred from the aforesaid promise the said defection might have been so universal as to leave no part of the Catholick church divided from the Apostatical or Antichristian state and party by a different external church-polity but the sound and sincere part of the Church may truckle under it and be included in its external frame and keep themselves from being destroyed by it some of them discerning and shunning the bainful doctrine and practise and others that are infected with it holding the truth predominantly in their hearts and lives and so tho not speculatively yet practically prevailing against the wicked errours If in all times there have been some societies of Christians that did not fall away in the great defection nor incorporate with the antichristian state but were by themselves in a severed church-state yet Christ hath not promised that there shall be notice thereof throughout all Christendom in the times when the said societies were in being nor that histories should be written thereof for the knowledg of after ages Howbeit we have sufficient notice by credible history that there have been many ample christian churches throughout all ages that were not incorporated with the antichristian state and that did dissent from their great enormities in Doctrine Worship and Government also that many Worthies living in the midst of that great apostacy did during the whole time thereof successively bear witness for the truth against it and that for a great part of the time huge multitudes also living in the midst of the said apostacy separated from it and were embodied into churches of another constitution more conformable to the Primitive Christianity § 13. The frame of the particular Churches mentioned in Scripture AS we find in Scripture one Catholick church related as one Kingdom Family Flock Spouse and Body to Christ as its only King Master Shepherd Husband and Head so we find particular churches as so many political societies distinct from each other yet all compacted together as parts of that one ample Society the Catholick church as the church at Antioch Acts 13.1 the church at Jerusalem Acts 11.22 Acts 15.4 the church at Cesarea Acts 18.22 the church at Cenchrea Rom. 10.1 the church at Corinth 1 Cor. 1.2 the churches of Galatia Gal. 1.2 the church of the Thessalonians 1 Thes 1.1 the church at Babylon 1 Pet. 5 13. and the seven churches in Asia Apoc. 1. 2. viz. of Ephesus Smyrna Pergamos Thyatyra Sardis Thiladelphia and Laodicea We likewise find that the Christians of a city o◠lesser precinct made one church as the church at Corinth the church at Cenchrea c. but the Christians of a Region or a larger circuit made many churches as the churches of Asia the churches of Galatiae We find also that each of these particular churches did consist of a part governing and a part governed and consequently were political Societies Every church had their proper Elder or Elders Acts. 4.23 which Elders were the same with Bishops Acts 20.28 Tit. 1.5 7. 1 Pet. 5.1 2. and they were constitutive parts of those churches considered as Political Societies We find also that these Elders or Bishops did personally superintend or oversee all the Flock or every member of the church over which they did preside Acts 20 28 29. 1 Thes 5.12 Heb. 13.17 This appears further by their particular work expresly mentioned in Scripture to be personally performed towards all viz. to be the ordinary Teachers of all Heb. 13 7. 1 Thes 5.12 13. to admonish all that were unruly and to rebuke them openly 1 Tim. 5.20 Tit. 1.10 to visit and pray with the sick and all the sick were to send for them to that end James 5.14 and no grant from Christ to discharge the same by Substitutes or Delegates can be found § 14. The Form of a particular Church considered FROM the premises it is evident That all particular churches mentioned in the New Testament were so constituted as that all the members thereof were capable of personal communion in worshipping God if not always at once together yet by turns at least and of living under the present personal superintendency of their proper Elder or Elders Bishop or Bishops Whether to be embodied or associated for personal communion in worship and for personal superintendency of the Pastors over all the members be the true formal or essential constitution of particular churches by divine right I leave to consideration But this is evident that all those churches that the Scripture takes notice of were so constituted and that
either by the immediate agency of the Apostles themselves Acts 14.23 or of others by their appointment Tit. 1.5 Yet I do not hereby mean that every Congregation or Assembly for worship or acts of government was a whole political church For some such congregations might be only parts of a church meeting according to convenience but still the said personal communion was in the whole church simul or per vices and there was a personal superintendency of the Bishop or Pastor over the whole in all the acts of his Pastoral office As for such a particular church as consists of many it may be several hundred stated congregations having each of them their proper Presbyter or Presbyters and is governed by one sole Bishop the aforesaid Presbyters being said to be no Bishops and whose members are not capable of personal communion among themselves either simul or per vices nor of the personal superintendency of their Bishop in the necessary acts of his Pastoral Office if there be any Scripture-precedent or divine Rule for the same I am ready to take notice of it § 15. The due place of constituting a particular Church ORdinarily the place of a particular church was a City and from the City the church ordinarily took its denomination Nevertheless nothing is found in Scripture to make a City the only proper Mansion of a church so that no Village could be a fit Receptacle of it yea the Scripture mentions a church which was not a City-church viz that at Cenchrea which was not a City but the Haven of Corinth Cities being places of the confluence of people had ordinarily the Gospel first preached and first received in them and consequently first afforded the materials of a church And they were the fittest places for the erection of a church in order to the making of more converts to be added to them besides other conveniences And therefore right Reason without a particular Divine command would direct those Master-builders the Apostles to erect churches in cities Howbeit the City-churches were not confined to the respective cities but commonly took in all the Christians of the adjacent Villages And in the Apostles times the Christians both of a city and its adjacent Villages did ordinarily but make up one competent congregation or in its numbers it did not exceed one of our parishes Tho some very few churches quickly grew numerous yet most rationally it may be conceived that they did not exceed many nor equal some of our very populous Parishes Here it must be considered that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or a city was any Town corporate and that every such that had Christians in any competent number had a stated church in it And the Rule was not then as now that the church and its bishop did make that a city which otherwise would not be but that every city or town corporate or place of confluence of people where there were christians should have its church with its proper bishop § 16. Each particular Church is a distinct Political Society AS Cities in a Kingdom so are particular churches in the church universal This similitude holds in the main but not in all respects As a whole Kingdom hath its fundamental Constitution by which it subsists and its Magna Charta for priviledges belonging to the whole so the church universal hath its fundamental constitution and charter by which it subsists in its proper state And as every city is a distinct body-politick under the King and hath from him its charter by which it subsists so every particular church as a distinct political Society under Christ hath its charter from him by which it subsists in its proper state The erecting of particular churches as several political societies by the Apostles who were Christs authorized Agents for erecting his special Kingdom the church and guided therein by his infallible spirit and by others at their direction and according to the same Rule is a sufficient Charter for the constitution of such churches wherever there are fit materials Besides the law of nature requires the parcelling the church universal into such distinct Societies under their proper Pastors that church-communion and Pastoral superintendency might not be transient and uncertain but permanent and certain The several cities in the same Kingdom may have their special Laws and Priviledges divers from each other according to the diversity of their charters granted by the King But particular churches have not municipal laws and priviledges divers from each other but the same in common to them all because they have all the same charter in specie Here note that they may be rightly called distinct Political Societies that have each of them their own charter tho it be not divers but the same in kind among them all He that is a citizen or a Magistrate of one city is not a citizen Magistrate or Officer in all cities of the same Kingdom But a member or a Pastor of one particular church hath an habitual or fundamental Right of being a member or Pastor in any particular church throughout the world which is not actually to be made use of but in a due order as hath been above noted Particular churches tho they consist of dissimilar parts are all of them similar parts of the Church Catholick partaking of its name and nature whereas cities are dissimilar parts of a Kingdom From these premises it follows that the qualifications requisite to make men members or ministers of the universal church do sufficiently qualifie them to be members or ministers of any particular church wherewith they are naturally capable of Communion § 17. Of the local bounds of Churches ALL the Christians in the world are one holy society and if it were possible they should have local presential communion one with another but that being impossible by reason of the large extent of the society they are necessarily parcelled into several congregations for the capacity of such communion is the end of erecting particular churches in all reason they should consist of persons who by their cohabitation in a vicinity are made capable of it and there may not be a greater local distance of the persons from each other than can stand with it Moreover all Christians of the same local precinct not more populous nor of larger extent than to allow personal communion are most conveniently brought into one and the same stated church that there might be the greatest union among them and that the occasion of straggling and running into severed parties might be avoided And so we find in Scripture that all the Christians within such a local precinct commonly made but one church Tho it be highly convenient that particular churches be so bounded as to take in all the christians of the same precinct as aforesaid and therefore necessary when some special reason doth not compel to vary yet it is not absolutâ—ly necessary in reason nor do we find any divine institution to make it invariable tho
the Apostles and their coadjutors were led to this way by the natural convenience of it But if any where a greater inconvenience comes or a greater benefit be lost by such a partition of Churches than the convenience of it can countervail there the partition must be made as it may be that is as the state of things will admit It is supposed by some learned men that in the Apostles time there were several Churches at Rome under their several bishops or pastors as one of the circumcision another of the uncircumcision within the same local precincts And if there were not so de facto I think few will deny but that the state of christians then and there might have been such as to have made such a partition of churches among them lawful and expedient § 18. Of the power of a particular Church THE power of a Church is but the power of the ruling part thereof and therefore the power of particular churches is according to the power of their particular bishops or pastors the nature whereof shall be opened when I come to speak of the nature of the pastoral office It appears by what hath been already shewed of the frame of particular churches mentioned in Scripture that they all had the government within themselves Every stated church had its proper pastor or pastors having authority of teaching and ruling it in Christs name If a distinction of churches into such as have Pastoral government within them and such as have it not be asserted it must be proved by the assertors from divine testimony And if it be granted that every organical church hath in it its authoritative Teacher or Guide under Christ and in his name it must be granted as far as I can see that it hath in it its Ruler also for ruling is but by teaching and guiding The smallest Church hath the same power in its narrow Sphere that the greatest Church or any association of Churches have in their larger Spheres that is it hath the same power intensively tho not extensively Indeed the authoritative acts of larger churches and associations in regard of their amplitude may be justly esteemed in degrees more Solemn August and Venerable § 19. The subordination of Churches of the same kind considered TOuching this point of the subordination of Churches there be three parts of the enquiry 1. Whether there be a subordination of one or more particular Churches to another particular Church whose constitution and frame is the same in specie with theirs 2. Whether there be a subordination of particular Churches to some other Church specifically different from them in the frame thereof and being in a state of greater sublimity and amplitude 3. Whether there be a subordination of particular Churches taken distributively to an association or collective body of the same Churches or an assembly thereof and of that collective body to a larger association of more such collective bodies conjunct with it or to an assembly thereof and so forward till we come to the largest that can be reached unto 1. Whether there be a subordination of one or more particular Churches to another particular Church whose constitution and frame is the same in specie with theirs and whose officers are of the same holy order such as the seven Churches of Asia were in relation one to another and as congregational Churches are to each other and as Diocesan Churches are to each other if de jure there be such Churches Now as touching subordination in this kind what hath been or may be by humane right upon prudential considerations either statedly or pro tempore is not here examined but what is by divine right inferring an obligation upon one Church to be subject to another of the same specifick frame with it self Sometimes a Church hath been called a mother-Church in relation to other churches either because they have issued from it as swarms from a hive or because they have received the Christian faith from it or because they have been erected by some sent forth from it c. Now that these latter Churches do owe a reverential regard and observance to the first which is called the Mother-Church is not to be doubted and such regard or observance every small or obscure Church owes to those that are more Ample Illustrious or Renowned But that the said Mother Church can by divine right or warrant claim a governing power over those Churches that have issued from it or that the more Ample and Illustrious Churches can claim the like over the smaller and obscurer I do not find any proof but I judg the contrary because notwithstanding the aforesaid diversity or disparity of condition they all rest upon the same Basi◠Christs Charter by which they are constituted which is the same to all and alike immediately given to all So that in this respect they all stand upon the same level and are equal Now one equal hath not governing power over another in that wherein they are both equal § 20. The subordination of Churches of different kinds considered AS touching the subordination of Churches to some other Church specifically different from them as of parochial or congregational Churches to a Diocesan Provincial National Church be it first observed that the Diocesan Church is not merely the incorporated society of a Cathedral nor any one parcular Church besides the Parochial Churches nor is it materially divers from them jointly taken nor the provincial church from the Diocesan churches nor the national church from the provincial churches jointly taken But in their several ranks they differ formally as being each of them one body politick constituted by the political compages of the churches included in each of them And let what was before observed be here reminded that each congregational or parochial church having its proper Presbyter or Elder invested with the power of the keys is a political church or such as hath its government within it self And thereupon the divine warrant of such a Diocesan Church as is the lowest that hath government within it self and consequently that swallows hundreds of political churches that are of Christs institution was called in question and still I desire the Asserters of it to give some proof of its divine right Indeed the Postscript of the Epistle to Titus mentions him as ordained the first bishop of the Cretians Of what authority that Postscript is I know not but this is certain that where there were Christians there were to be churches in every city of Crete and there were reckoned a hundred cities in that no very large Island and those churches were political societies within themselves having their proper elders or bishops And upon supposition that the whole Island made but one larger church constituted by the political union of the said particular churches in every city under Titus it must be such as is now called a provincial church under one Archbishop Now if the Diocesan church be not looked upon as the
more prevalently in their judgment and practice in their hearts and lives than the superadded errors and corruptions and are ready to Renounce those errors and corruptions if they saw their inconsistence with the essentials are true Christians otherwise they are not such The same church may be a true and a false church in different respects or formal considerations In respect of the essentials of Christian Faith Worship and Ministry it may be a true church and in respect of some devised Church-form superadded by which over and above the said Essentials it is constituted and denominated it may be in that distinct formal consideration a false church OF THE MINISTRY § 1. The Nature of the holy Ministry in general THE Holy Ministry is a state of Authority and Obligation to perform some special Holy Works and Services in the Name of Christ for the edifying of the church So that whosoever is in a holy order or office is qua talis authorized and obliged to the work and service that is appropriated to it and whosoever statedly and de jure doth the work and service appropriated to a holy order is really in or of that order altho men may not give him the name thereof Whether the Magistratical and Ministerial Offices may reside together in the same person is not here considered but if it were granted that they may they would essentially differ from each other For the Magistrate as such hath received no authority formally ministerial nor hath any minister as such the power of a civil magistrate Some thus distinguish between the magistratical and ministerial authority that the one is directive and the other imperative I take not this to be a competent distinction for that authority that infers an obligation on the subject to obey is properly imperative and the ministerial authority doth so as the Scripture speaks expresly Heb. 13.17 Paul was no Magistrate but as a Minister he speaks 2 Cor. 10.6 Having in readiness to revenge all disobedience and he expresly declares his ministerial authority to be imperative Phil. v. 8. The I might make hold in Christ to injoyn thee that which is convenient c. and v. 21. having confidence in thine obedience I wrote unto thee Now they had rightly distinguished if instead of imperative they had put coercive coactive or imperial For all directive authority by special office is imperative Whosoever doth by special office direct unto duty in the name of his King and according to his will as a Minister doth in the name of Christ doth therein command But a coactive power is something more and belongs not to a Minister as such The Magistrate rules by the Sword and the Minister by the Word § 2. Of the efficient cause of the Ministry and its Authority AS Christ alone hath the power of appointing the work or works of the holy ministry to be done in his name either towards believers or the unbelieving towards the church jointly or toward particular persons severally so he alone hath the power of appointing the holy orders or offices that contain an authority and obligation to perform the same And seeing Christ hath already appointed all the ministerial works and appropriated the same to certain ministerial orders no new order or office of the holy ministry can be instituted by men for they cannot institute other ministerial work to be done in Christs Name than what he hath appointed But the circumstances and accidental modes and subservient offices about the work of the ministry are of that nature as that they well may be appointed by men and accordingly the officers for the management thereof may be so appointed and such modes and circumstances being necessarily subject to great variation in regard of the great diversity of occasion cannot well be pre-defined The holy ministry and power belonging to it is conferred neither by Magistrate nor by Prelate nor by any spiritual officer or officers as the proper givers thereof but by Christ alone And tho Christ give it in some respect by the mediation of men yet not by them as giving the office power but as instruments either of designing the person to whom he gives it or of the solemn investiture of that person therein as the King is the immediate giver of the power of a Mayor in a Town corporate when he gives it by the mediation of the Electors not as giving the power but designing the person to be invested with it or by the mediation of some other officers as instruments of the solemn investiture Neither Magistrate nor Prelate nor any spiritual officer or officers can dsiannul or take away that spiritual office whereof they are not the authors nor in proper sence the givers Nor can they inlarge or lessen it as to its essential state or define it otherwise than Christ hath defined it And if the ordainer in conveying the holy office or order should use any any words or actions that import the lessening thereof in its essential state they are void and null as if a Minister that joyns a Man and Woman in marriage according to the true intent of that ordinance shall add some words that forbid the Husband the government of his Wife that addition is a nullity § 3. Of the Office of a Bishop Elder or Pastor THE Ministry of Gods appointment is either extraordinary and temporary as that of the Apostles and Prophets and Evangelists also if so be they were only the itinerary assistants of the Apostles or ordinary and perpetual as that of Pastors and Teachers The words Elder Bishop Pastor are names of the same Sacred Office as appears Acts 20.17 28. where their Ministry towards the Church is set forth in Pauls words to the Elders which he sent for from Ephesus to Miletum Take heed to your selves and to all the flock over which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers to feed the Church of God which he hath purchased with his own blood The Apostles besides their extraordinary Office of Apostleship had also the ordinary Office of Bishops pastors and Elders or to speak peradventure more properly they had these ordinary offices included in their Apostleship Christ saith to Peter Feed my sheep And Peter calls himself an Elder 1 Pet. 5.1 And John in his second and third Epistles so calls himself And indeed if it were not so they could have no successors or partakers Howbeit the Scripture gives us no evidence of their being fixed Bishops or Pastors to particular Churches As for the meaning of these names the word Bishop imports an Overseer Elder is a name of Authority borrowed from age and applied to a Ruling-officer The word Pastor is metaphorical signifying that this Officer is to the Congregation of God as a Shepherd to a Flock of sheep to feed them This feeding consists in teaching and ruling so that every Pastor is in the nature of his office a Teacher and he feeds by doctrine And indeed Pastoral Ruling is by
You have heard brethren as well in your private examination as in the exhortation and holy lessons taken out of the Gospel and the writings of the Apostles of what dignity and how great importance this Office is whereto ye are called that is to say The Messengers the Watchmen the pastors and stewards of the Lord to teach to premonish to feed to provide for the Lords Family I acknowledg the passages here alledged are taken out of the old Book of Ordinanion that was established in this Church till the late alteration made Anno 1662. If those Alterations signifie another meaning about the several Holy Orders than what was signified in the Old Book then the sense of the Church of England in these times differs from the sense of the same Church in all times preceding the said Alterations But if they signifie no other meaning than what was signified in the old Book my Citations are of force to shew what is the sense of this Church as well of the present as of the former times about this matter And let this be further considered That the form of ordaining a Bishop according to the Church of England imports not the conferring of a higher power or an authorizing to any special work more than to what the Presbyter is authorized The old form was Take the Holy Ghost and remember that thou stir up the grace of God that is in thee by imposition of hands for God hath not given us the spirit of fea◠but of power and of love and of soberness What is there in this form of words that might not be used to a Presbyter at his ordination Or what is there in it expressive of more power than what belongs to a Presbyter The new form since the late alteration is Receive the Holy Ghost for the work and office of a Bishop in the Church of God now committed to thee by imposition of our hands in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost Amen And remember that thou stir up the grace of God that is given thee by this imposition of our hands f r God hath not given us the spirit of fear but of power and of love and of soberness And what is there in this form that is expressive of any office power that the Presbyter hath not unless these words for the work and office of a bishop Now both the name and work and office of a bishop belongs to the Scripture-presbyter who is of divine institution and the presbyter to whom it doth not belong is but a humane creature or an ordinance of man § 7. Of the present Diocesan Bishop A Diocesan Bishop according to the hierarchical state is a Bishop of the lowest degree having under him Parish-Ministers that are Presbyters or Priests but not accounted Bishops and by divine right claiming to himself alone the Episcopal Authority over all the Parish Churches and Ministers within his Diocess which may contain a hundred two hundred five hundred or a thousand parishes For an Episcopacy of this kind I discern no Scripture-Warrant nor Divine Right Every particular Church should have its proper pastor or Bishop and particular Churches with their proper pastors are so evidently of divine right that some eminently learned men in the Church of England have declared their judgment that no form of Church-Government besides the mere pastoral office and Church-Assemblies is prescribed in the Word of God but may be various according to the various condition and occasion of several Churches But if it be said that parochial Congregations are not Churches but only parts of the Diocess which is the lowest political Church I desire proof from Scripture that such Congregations as our parishes having their proper presbyter or presbyters invested with the power of the keys are not Churches properly so called The reason of demanding this proof is because the Scripture is a perfect rule for the essential constitution of Churches though the accidents thereto belonging may be regulated by humane prudence And it is most evident in Scripture that a particular congregation of Christians having their proper pastor or pastors presbyter or presbyters are Churches properly so called and a parochial Minister I conceive to be a pastor presbyter or elder according to the Scripture Moreover if a Diocess containing many hundred or perhaps a thousand parishes as it doth in England do constitute but one particular Church and the parishes be not properly to be accounted Churches but only so many parts of that one diocesan Church why may not ten thousand yea ten times ten thousand parishes be likewise accounted but one particular church and brought under one man as the sole bishop or pastor thereof Nor do I discern how it is possible for one man to do the work of a bishop towards so many parishes which is to oversee all the flock to preach to them all to baptize and confirm all that are to be baptized and confirmed to administer the Lords Supper to all to bless the congregation publickly and privately to admonish all as their need requires to excommunicate the impenitent to absolve the penitent and that upon knowledg of their particular estate for all these are pastoral or episcopal acts And let it here be noted that I speak of the work of a bishop infimi gradus or under whom there are no subordinate bishops If such a Diocesan bishop saith it sufficeth that he perform all this to the flock by others namely by the parish ministers as his Curates and by other officers his substitutes It is answered 1. The pastoral Authority is a personal trust 2. He is to shew his commission from Christ the prince of pastors to do his work by others for I am now enquiring what is of divine and not of humane Right 3. None but a bishop can do the proper work of a bishop and consequently the presbyters by whom the Diocesan doth his work either are bishops or their act is an usurpation and a nullity It is matter of divine Right only that is here considered As for the humane Rights of a Diocesan bishop to wit his dignity and his jurisdiction under the King as Supreme and to which he is intituled by the Law of the Land I intermeddle not therewith § 8. Of a Bishop or Bishops THE Divine Right of a bishop infimi gradus Ruling over many churches as their sole hishop or pastor hath been considered and now it is to be considered Whether there be of divine institution such a spiritual officer as hath the oversight of Bishops or is a Bishop of Bishops The Diocesan Bishop is really of this kind tho he will not own it for he is a bishop of Presbyters who are really bishops if they be that kind of Presbyters that the Scripture mentions But if the Presbyters which in the hierarchical state are subject to the Diocesan Bishop be of another kind they are not of Christs institution What hath been already said
different Order from the ordinary presbyters and it seems to confine their Ministry to the Apostles times Grotius saith they were presbyters tyed to no place and that many such Evangelists were ordained long after and thereupon concludes that not to ordain without a title to some particular place is not of divine right Indeed if the office of an Evangelist be no other than that of a general Minister or a presbyter tyed to no place it seems not only to have been requisite in the Apostles times but to be of standing conveniency if not of necessity in the church And his not being limited to one church is but the extending of the common office of a presbyter or bishop and not the making of a new office For this more extensive power of a general Minister is only the having of that in ordinary exercise which every Minister hath in actu primo by vertue of his relation to the Catholick church in which Teachers and Pastors are set 1 Cor. 12.28 and into which his ministerial acts of teaching and baptizing have influence yea which he hath by vertue of his relation to Christ as a steward to an housholder in his Family and as a delegate to the chief pastor for the calling of the unconverted as well as for the confirming of Converts Now the more or less extensive exercise of an Office is a matter of humane prudence and variable according to time and place But that a general Minister be of a higher order than fixed bishops or presbyters is not of standing or perpetual necessity Nor is it always necessary that he be in a state of superintendency over them Nevertheless if a superintendency be granted to him by the consent of the churches and pastors for the common good or by the Magistrate as to his delegate in his authority in Ecclesiastical affairs I cannot condemn it but rather judg that it may be sometimes not only expedient but necessary Yet it is not of divine right but of prudential determination § 13. A further Consideration of the Angels of the Churches and of a President bishop AS touching the Angel of a Church it being a mystical expression in a mystical book it may be rationally questioned Whether it be meant of one person or of a number of Colleagues as may appear by what hath been already noted But if it be meant of one person it is not necessarily to be understood of one that is the sole pastor and bishop of a Church Nay by what hath been already noted it may with as great if not greater probability be understood of a Prefident bishop who is not of a superior order to the rest of the bishops but the first or chief in degree of the same order and like the Moderator of an Assembly a Chair-man in a Committee and Mayor in a Court of Aldermen And for such a presidency there needs no divine institution it being not a holy order or office of a different species from that of the rest of the Pastors but a priority in the same office for orders sake For it is orderly and convenient that where there are many Presbyters or elders of a particular Church that for concords sake they consent that one that is ablest among them should statedly have a guiding power among them in the ordering of Church-affairs § 14. Of the Office of Ruling Elders THESE have been commonly called Lay-Elders but some have disliked that name alledging that they are sacred officers but they own the name of Ruling Elders Now it is to be noted that the asserters of the divine right of this office make it not an office of total dedication to sacred imployment as the office of a Minister but allow such as bear it to have secular imployments not only occasionally but as their stated particular calling also that they make it not an office of final dedication to sacred imployment as the office of a Minister is but grant that such as bear it may cease from it and again become no Elders Also they make not these Elders to have office power in all Churches as Ministers have actu primo but only in their own particular Churches and in Classical and Synodical assemblies nor do they ascribe unto these Elders the power of the keys of binding and loosing of remitting and retaining sins which belong to Ministers nor do they solemnly ordain these Elders by prayer and imposition of hands as Ministers are ordained Now the Query is whether Christ hath instituted in his Church such a spiritual officer as this ruling Elder who is not totally nor finally dedicated to sacred imployment but statedly left to secular callings and hath no office power no not in actu primo in the church at large but only in his own church or in such an assembly as that Church helps to make up nor hath the power of the keys of binding and loosing of remitting and retaining sins nor is ordained by prayer and imposition of hands I say whether Christ hath instituted such an officer and authorized him in his name as his steward to admit into or cast out of his Family the Church I find nothing in Holy Scripture to warrant his divine right nor can I see in reason how one destitute of the above nanamed capacities can put forth acts of spiritual Discipline or of binding and loosing in Christ Name In the New Testament there be three significations of Presbyter the first belonging to age the second to Magistracy in the greater or lesser Sanhedrim the third to ministers of the Gospel The only place that hath a shew of mentioning the ruling Elder in the Church that is not a Minister of the Gospel is 1 Tim. 5.17 The Elders that rule well c. But this hath nothing cogently to evince two different kinds of officers but that of those in the same office some may be imployed more especially in one part of the work thereof and others in another part and that the being more abundantly imployed in the Word and Doctrine hath the preeminence The Emphasis lies in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifying that some did more especially or abundantly labour therein but not implying that others did not meddle therewith And learned men observe that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is maintenance which is not used to be given to this kind of officer we are now inquiring of For they are such as have secular imployment to live by The Enumerations of divers gifts Rom. 12.6 doth not infer the institution of divers offices For as he that giveth and he that sheweth Mercy may be the same man so he that teacheth and he that exhorteth and he that ruleth may be the same For they are all proper acts of the pastoral office Likewise in 1 Cor. 12.28 those two expressions Helps and Governments do necessarily infer the institution of two Functions no more than Miracles and Gifts of healing there also mentioned do infer the same § 15. That a single Presbyter
may put forth acts of Discipline in his own Church without the concurrence of Ruling Elders that are not Ministers THERE is no necessity of adding the above-named Ruling Elder to the Ministers of the Gospel in the Government of the Church For Christ hath committed to his Ministers the keys or stewardship of his house and he hath committed the same to them not only as to a Presbytery constituted of many but also to each of them as single Presbyters And where there is but one Presbyter in a Church his acts of Discipline are as lawful and valid in his own Church as those that are done by many in a Church where there are many Presbyters And the contrary opinion is precarious and not founded in Scripture As for that passage 2 Cor. 2.6 Sufficient to such a man is this punishment that was inflicted by many from thence to infer that a Church-censure may not be administred by one Minister is to draw a general conclusion from one instance or because a censure was inflicted by many in the Church of Corinth where there were many Ministers therefore it ought to be so in all Churches even where there is but one Minister Moreover if the true nature of a Church-censure were considered there would be no reason to doubt of its being lawfully or validly administred by one person For it is no more than authoritative declaring and judging in Christs Name that such a one is unmeet for fellowship with Christ and his Church and a charging of the Congregation in Christs Name to avoid him Indeed those words of our Saviour Mat. 16. Tell the Church are to be considered and cleared For it is from hence argued that the Church being a collective name betokens a number and therefore not one but many are to hear and censure matters of scandal To which argument it may be first replyed That a Presbytery or company of Presbyters is in Scripture no more called the Church than one Minister But the answer is that by the rule of interpretation words and names must be limited with respect to the matter treated of and so the word Church in the said text is to be understood of the Church as governing and therefore respects not the governed but the governing-part thereof which is but one person in a Church that hath but one Bishop or Presbyter The Apostle wrote his first Epistle to the Corinthians to the whole Church and saith chap. 5. v. 4 5. When ye are gathered together to deliver such a one to Satan v. 13. Put away from yourselves that wicked person Now in these places he doth not explicitely direct his speech to the Elders but in all reason it must be expounded with respect to the governing-part of that Church the company of Presbyter Tho there be no necessity of a Ruling Elder distinct from a Minister of the Gospel to the acts of Church-Discipline yet in point of expedience and prudence such as are no spiritual rulers or have no power formally spiritual may either by the appointment of the Magistrate or by the consent of Pastor and People be joyned with the Pastor for counsel and assistance and more satisfactory management of Church-affairs Act. 15. The Church of Antioch sent some from among themselves with Paul and Barnabas to be present at the deliberation of the Apostles and Elders at Jerusalem and the said Apostles and Elders joyned some of the brethren with them to consider of the matter that was brought before them from the Church of Antioch And Christian Emperors appointed some secular persons as Assessors with the Bishops in Councils But nothing is to be attributed to these Lay-persons so adjoined that belongs to the power of the keys committed by Christ to the Pastors only § 16. Of the Office of a Deacon THE Scripture makes mention of two Holy Orders 1. Presbyters who are also Bishops 2. Deacons as Phil. 1.1 To the bishops and deacons and the third chapter of the first Epistle to Timothy having set forth the Office of a bishop passeth immediately to the deacon without taking notice of a presbyter of a middle order between a bishop and deacon And the mention of a middle order is no where found in Scripture Clemens Romanus in his Epistle mentions but two orders bishops and deacons And Dr. Hammond grants That it cannot be proved that in Scripture-times there were any subject-presbyters and concludes that the churches were then governed by bishops assisted with deacons and without presbyters vid. his Annot. on Acts 11.30 and his Dissertation p 208 c. They that are agreed that there is such an office as a Deacon by divine right are not agreed what it is yet all are agreed that it is an inferior order of ministry assistant to the bishop or elder in the affairs of the church but in what kind of assistance there is diversity of opinion Some hold that this office is to take care of the poor in receiving and distributing among them the churches Alms. Others hold that a deacon may preach and baptize and assist the bishop or elder in administring the Sacrament tho he may not consecrate the Sacramental bread and wine nor lay on hands or ordain In the 6. chap. of the Acts if the institution of this office be there related we find no other ministry there expresly mentioned but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 v. 2 3. and in Phil. 1. the name only is mentioned without any specification of the office In 1 Tim. 3.8 c. the due qualification of this officer is more set forth than the nature and work of the office yet something thereof may be signified v. 13. They that have used the office of a deacon well purchase to themselves a good degree Let it be considered whether by degree is not meant a degree in the Sacred ministry and a step to a higher order therein Acts 8.5 we find that Philip one of the seven preached the Gospel in Samaria and his acts there are related as if he also baptized the converts v. 38. he baptized the Ethiopian Eunuch and v. 40. he passed through and preached in all the cities till he came to Cesarea Now whether Philip did not these things not meerly by the common duty of a Christian but by determinate ordination thereunto it may be considered Some make two sorts of Deacons the deacon of tables and the deacon of the word But this distinction seems not to be allowed by the Church of England because it appoints to be read at the ordaining of Deacons both that part of Acts 6. that relates the ordaining of the seven for ministring unto tables and also that part of 1 Tim. 3. that speaks of the office of a Deacon as a degree in the Holy ministry immediately after the bishop Concerning this office I assent to Grotius That the deacons did serve the Presbyters as the Levites the Priests but the most laborious part of the deacons office is the care of the poor and
multitude but the Eleven Apostles set forth two whereof one was chosen by lot to the Apostleship and the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth not there signifie a numbring by common suffrages for God made choice of Matthias Indeed the election of those seven Deacons Act. 6. is expresly declared to have been by the people But to this it is said that it was for the avoiding of offence and the better to quiet the murmuring among the people It is also said that the peoples electing of them to that office was a matter of special equity because the work thereof as far as is there expressed was the distribution of maintenance as there was need in that extraordinary time for which end there was a trusting of the common stock in the hands of them that were chosen But in whatsoever hand the election of a minister lies the peoples consent is of great importance For he cannot perform the work of a Pastor to any people without their own consent it is plain that he cannot guide and rule them in a pastoral way against their wills Yet I know not but that sometimes they may be obliged to consent that he be Pastor when he is by sufficient warrant and upon good grounds chosen by men for them tho their refusal may render themselves uncapable of receiving benefit by him and him uncapable of doing the work of his office towards them But forasmuch as the peoples consent gives the minister the opportunity of discharging the duties of the relation which otherwise cannot be done it is much to be regarded in the call of a minister to any people and the freer the consent the better it is in respect of the ends of the pastoral relation and consequently their consent before his admission is most desirable yet where there is not a consent before an after consent may suffice The people in electing their Pastors if they have the liberty thereof or in consenting to the election made by others ought ordinarily to be directed by the judgment of other Pastors N. B. That we may carry the Question from the meer name Pastor to the matter all these things must be distinctly considered 1. What Qualifications make a man capable of the sacred office sine quibus non 2. What maketh a man so capable a minister as related to the uncalled world and the universal Church obliged indefinitely to do his best for them and this is Christs mission 1. By his Word 2. And his Spirit giving him a true willingness and consent 3. And by authorized ordainers investing and sending him 3. What maketh a minister to be such a one as the congregation is bound to consent shall be their proper pastor And this is 1. His special fitness 2. His special opportunity 3. And these so judged by the Magistrate and Bishops or other Pastors who are meet discerners and if they be peremptory in their imposition he hath the greater advantage In all these aforesaid the peoples election or consent is no necessary cause 4. What maketh the man and the Church or any person in esse relative formally related as their Pastor and his flock and that is mutual consent if he consent not no Magistrates or Bishops command maketh him their Pastor tho it may oblige him to consent nor yet if they consent not As a Father may make it a Childs duty to marry such an one but it s no marriage without consent 5. What is necessary to the exercise of the office and that also is mutual consent as to every proper part which is a priviledg which an unwilling person can neither have right to nor possess nor use § 20. Of Ordination and the moment thereof in the office of the Ministry ORdination is an outward solemn setting apart of persons to the holy ministry by prayer and fasting and the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery As touching the importance thereof some say that it is the constituting or making of a minister others say it is the solemnizing of his entrance into the office or his inauguration thereinto or his investiture therein and is of the same moment to the ministry with the solemnizing of marriage to the conjugal relation the delivery of a twig and turf to the possession of land These different ways of expression being considered may be found to come to the same issue and the latter may sufficiently set forth the making of a minister as far as mans act can make him The words by which that which we call ordination is set forth in Scripture are 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Act. 14 24. which doth not necessarily evince an ordaining by suffrages but in the New Testament it is used to signifie an ordaining to the office whether by God or man as hath been before noted But if the Text were thus to be read They ordained them Elders by the suffrages of the people yet it is plain that not the people but Paul and Barnabas ordained them 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Tit. 1.5 Which signifies to constitute 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Act. 13.2 Which signifies to separate or set apart Now the latter way of expressing the force of ordination viz. The solemn inauguration or investiture in the office is a separating of one unto it or a constituting of one in it in that sence that mans act of ordainining can bear For it cannot be the act of an efficient cause making and giving the office and power thereof For that as hath been already shewed is not the act of man but of Christ alone But it is a necessary ordinary antecedent and that the most important as being the last and most compleat designation made by men of the person on whom Christ confers the office and the solemn investing of him in it Hence it follows that tho ordination be ordinarily necessary to the ministry yet it is not of that absolute necessity in all cases as that there can be no lawful or valid ministry without it for where it cannot be had there may be otherwise a full signification of the will of Christ that some persons should do the work of the ministry Moreover the work of the ministry is a necessary means of saving souls of upholding and perpetuating a Church unto Christ upon earth of maintaining soberness righteousness and godliness of life among professed Christians and that some take this work upon them is an obligation of the Law of Nature and indispensable But regular ordination is but a point of order and for the interruption or cessation of this latter the former is not to be broken off or cease And if there be in any an obligation statedly to do this work he is in the office of the ministry If any alledg that Christ by his law hath made an uninterrupted regular ordination indispensably necessary to the ministry he is bound to prove it If any pretend an uninterrupted regular ordination of all his predecessors he is bound to make it clear
Christ indeed hath instituted a ministry for the compleating of his church unto the consummation of all things he hath also promised his Apostles and his ministers successively in them that he will be with them alway to the end of the world But I find no promise of an uninterrupted succession of regularly ordained ministers That which is delivered by ordination is the sacred ministerial office at large as respecting the universal Church to be exercised here or there according to particular calls and opportunities § 21. Of Prayer and Fasting and Imposition of Hands in Ordination PRAYER is such a duty as is requisite to the sanctifying of all other duties as the preaching of the Word administration of Baptism and the Lords Supper and therefore is necessary to this sacred action of ordaining ministers Fasting is a service expressive of solemn humiliation and a necessary adjunct of extra ordinary prayer for the obtaining of more special mercy and therefore a necessary preparative and concomitant in this solemnity And we have Scripture Examples for prayer and fasting in the mission of persons to the work of the ministry Luke 6.12 13. Act. 13.2 Act. 14 23. What imposition of hands imports and the moment of it is to be considered from the use of it both in the Old and New Testament In the Old Testament 't was used 1. In solemn benediction the person blessing laid his hand on the person blessed Gen. 48.14 2. In offering Sacrifice as a sign of devoting it to the Lord by him that offered it Lev. 1.4 3. In ordaining to an office as a sign of setting apart therunto Numb 27.18 20. In the New Testament it is used 1. in blessing Mark 10.16 2. In curing bodily diseases Mark 16.18 Luke 13.13 Acts 19.11 3. In conveying the miraculous gifts of the Holy Ghost Acts 8.17 Acts 19.6 4. In ordaining ministers Acts 6.6 1 Tim 4.14 The meaning of imposition of hands spoken of Heb. 6.2 is diversly taken some take it as used for the remitting of sins as they also do 1 Tim. 5.22 and say that Baptism refers to the making of proselytes and laying on of hands to the absolving of penitents Others take it for confirmation Others conceive that the whole ministry is by a synecdoche therein comprehended From the various uses of this Rite we collect that it was a sign of conveying a benefit or of designing to an office or of devoting one to the Lord and particularly of authoritative benediction and designation to the office of the ministry and of devoting to the Lord in that kind There is no sufficient reason to make it but a temporary Rite and to limit the use of it in ordination only to the times of miraeles there being no circumstance in any Text to shew that it was done only for the present occasion And we read not that miraculous gifts were given by imposition of hands in ordination § 22. The power of Ordaining belongs to the Pastors of the Church SOme give this reason why the power of Ordination is not in the people but in the Pastors because the act of ordaining is a potestative or authoritative mission which power of mission is first seated in Christ and from him committed to the Apostles and from them to the Bishops or Elders But this Reason must be taken with a grain of salt or in a sound sense because Bishops or Elders have spiritual power formalier but not efficienter and they do not properly make or give the ministerial power but are only instruments of designation or application of that power to the person to whom Christ immediately gives it by the standing-act of his Law That the power of ordaining belongs not to the people but to the Church officers first appears by Scripture-authority for that in all the New Testament there is no example of ordination by any of the Laity but contrariwise it is therein expresly committed to spiritual officers 2. By Reason for that the Pastors of the Churches are better qualified for the designation of a person to the Holy ministry and for performing the action of solemn investiture as also for that ordination includes an authoritative benediction and that is to come from a Superior as the Scripture saith The less is blessed of the greater and not the greater of the less as it would be if the Pastor were to be ordained by the people that are governed by him Some argue for a popular ordination because election which is the greater belongs to the people But 1. Election is not greater than Ordination in the ministerial Call For in ordination investiture in the Function it self is given but in the peoples election no more is given than the stated exercise of the ministry in that Congregation 2. In case Election were greater than Ordination yet the consequence holds not Several parties may have each their own part divided to them and he that may do the greater may not always do the lesser unless the lesser be essentially included in the greater which is not in this case It is likewise urged for popular ordination That in the consecration of the Levites the children of Israel laid their hands upon them Numb 8.11 To this it is answered That the Levites were taken by God instead of the first born of all the children of Israel which the Lord claimed as his own upon the destroying of the first-born of the Egyptians and so the imposition of hands by the first-born upon the Levites was not strictly an ordaining of them to their office but an offering of them as a sacrifice in their own stead to make an atonement for them as he that brought a sacrifice laid his hand on the head of it Tho in Timothy's ordination the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery be mentioned and where many Presbyters were they joined in this action yet I see not any thing in Scripture or Reason to gainsay the validity of ordination by a single Bishop or Presbyter Nevertheless ordination by the imposition of many hands is more unquestionable and the use thereof most laudabl◠and in no case to be omitted where it may be had according to the custom of the Church in all ages § 23. The Validity of Presbyterian Ordination IF a Bishop and Presbyter of divine institution be the same as hath been before proved the controversie about ordination by Presbyters is at an end And if the Bishop that now is be another kind of officer than the Scripture Presbyter there is no proof of his divine institution That the Presbyter that now is hath the Pastoral or Episcopal office hath been already proved by the form of their ordination and by the nature of that power of the keys that is granted to reside in them If the Prelates have invested them with an office that is truly Episcopal it matters not whether in express terms they gave them the power of ordaining or no or whether they expresly excluded the power of ordaining for not
they grant a kind of Certainty as the one by usurped authority impose upon mens belief in the matter of Religion which is mans highest concernment so the other take away or lessen that security of the mind which is reasonably required in so great a matter and give too great advantage to the pretenders on the other extream The term infallible may be taken first in a passive signification and then it is that which cannot be deceived And so it may be applied either to the propounder or to the believer of a truth It may also be taken in an active signification for that which cannot deceive and so it may be applied to the propounder as also to the truth it self proposed and â—o the evidence thereof as in our English Translation Act. 1.3 by many infallible proofs that is evidence that could not deceive Infallibility as ascribed to the propounder or believer of a truth is subjective infallibility as ascribed to the truth propounded or the evidence thereof it is objective infallibility which signifies no more than that the thing cannot be false and cannot objectively deceive Now if there may be objective there may be also subjective infallibility If there be truth and an evidence of truth that cannot be false then an understanding apprehending that truth as it is cannot be deceived therein nor can deceive in propounding the same to others Besides objective infallibility is an insignificant thing in reference to an understanding uncapable of infallibility An object is denominated infallible with respect to the understanding to which it is or may be propounded as not to be deceived in it § 12. Of Infallibility which is hypothetical and limited and that which is absolute and unlimited INFALLIBILITY therefore denoting an impossibility of being deceived and of deceiving inquire we into the subject to whom it doth belong Some say an impossibility of being deceived belongs only to an infinitely perfect understanding We must distinguish between an impossibility of being deceived that is absolute and unlimited and that which is hypothetical and limited I grant that an absolute impossibility of being deceived belongs not to a finite understanding And no asserter of infallibility in the creature intended the former but the latter kind Hypothetical and limited impossibility of being deceived may belong to a finite and in particular to a humane understanding and it is that which supposeth a full revelation natural or supernatural to the subject in whom it is and is limited to the truth so revealed and this hypothetical infallibility doth not rest barely upon the perfection of the humane nature but upon this principle That God is true in his revelations both natural and supernatural and that he doth not govern the world by falshoods Now this is proper infallibility For upon this principle I am not only sure that I am not deceived but also that I cannot be deceived as to the particular truths so evident to me or to speak it plainer it cannot be that I am therein deceived for it were a contradiction Moreover that which is certain is so upon necessary grounds and therefore cannot be false And he that knows it to be certain knows it upon those necessary grounds and consequently that it cannot be false and this is to know it infallibly If we know nothing infallibly we know nothing either as necessary or as impossible whether absolutely or hypothetically § 13. Of stated or permanent Infallibility and that which is but pro tempore IT hath been shewed that an understanding that is not absolutely or by the perfection of its nature infallible may be secured from possibility of mistake and an understanding that is not universally infallible may be secured from possibility of mistakes and so be infallible in certain cases and to certain intents Now it is further to be noted That there may be a stated or permanent Infallibility and that which is but temporary The former did belong to the established Prophets of the Lord in their declarations to his people and to the Apostles of Christ in matters pertaining to their Apostolical Commission for establishing the Religion and Churches of Christ Also upon supposition of the Saints perseverance it belongs to all true Christians as to the Essentials of Christianity The temporary Infallibility belongs to such persons as receive the Visions of God or are divinely inspired not statedly but occasionally at some particular time or times as among holy men Zacharias John Baptists Father Gideon the Parents of Sampson among the unholy Balaam in his Prophesies before Balaac and Saul who sometime was found prophecying § 14. The Infallibility of a finite Vnderstanding further cleared IT is granted by the deniers of Infallibility That that which is true is not possible to be false And thence I infer If I know it to be true I know it is not possible to be false and so I infallibly know it And my assent to a truth as for instance to the Christian Faith cannot possibly be false Some that say an impossibility of being deceived belongs only to an infinitely perfect understanding do grant that an understanding liable to be deceived may not be deceived and be sure that he is not And I infer thereupon that he cannot be deceived in that particular assent I mean not that he cannot simply but in that state and circumstances wherein he is put he cannot be deceived therein and that he knows he cannot because he knows it implies a contradiction that he should be deceived in that wherein he is sure that he is not deceived For if I may be deceived in such an apprehension or assent not only simply but all circumstances being put I cannot be sure that I am not deceived therein Likewise those that say an impossibility of being deceived belongs only to an infinitely perfect understanding do grant that a man cannot be deceived in that thing with the belief whereof God inspires him and gives him such evidence thereof as cannot be false Now this is a concession of hypothetical and limited insallibility to humane understanding For it is here acknowledged that there may be such evidence of divine inspiration as cannot be false And indeed I take it for a repugnancy in nature that God should inspire the belief of a falshood Nevertheless a man divinely inspired is not simply infallible in his apprehension of divine inspiration for he may sometime be deceived in thinking he is so inspired when he is not Thus it being evident that an understanding that is not simply infallible in a matter may in the state and circumstances wherein he is put be therein infallible I think it better to explain and limit the term and notion of infallibility in the humane understanding than wholly to reject it But howsoever they that reject or dislike it do grant and contend for a sufficiently certrin evidence of truth and I will not quarrel if that will serve for infallibility And they will also grant that they who
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the 57th Canon of the Laodicean Councel do shew that bishops with their Churches had been constituted in villages tho in some dependance on the City-bishop Mr. Beverege in his Annotations on Council Anchyram c. 13. shews that the the Chorepiscopi were truly bishops tho the exercise of some Episcopal functions were denied them by the Canons and by the Canon last mentioned they were not absolutely forbidden to ordain presbyters and deacons but that they should not do it without the permission of the City-bishop under whom they were § 3. Of divers Cities having two Bishops at once THERE are many instances in the antiquity of two bishops allowed at once in the same City Narcissus and Alexander were bishops of Jerusalem at the same time Euseb Hist l. 6. c. 9 10. Ignatius and Euodius were both bishops of Antioch at the same time Clemens const l. 7.46 At Rome Linus and Clâ—tus were fellow bishops in Peters days Platina in the life of St. Peter Epiphanius heresy 68 concerning Meletius saith Alexandria had not anciently two Bishops as other Cities had Austin was made Bishop of Hippo in the days of Valerius and joined with him as his colleague in the Episcopal function Aug. Epist 34. to Paulinus And some learned men of the hierarchical way conceive that Peter and Paul were bishops of Rome at the same time the one of the Circumcision and the other of the Uncircumcision The Nicene Council was the first that decreed that universally there should be but one bishop in a City Can. 8. If any that come from the Novations to the Catholick Church be a bishop let him have the dignity of Priesthood unless it please the Catholick bishop to give him also the honour of the Episcopal Name If it doth not please him let him find a place for him that he may be a Chorepiscopus in the parish or a presbyter in the Clergy that there may not seem to be two bishops in one City As concerning the Catalogues of the ancient bishops in great Cities wherein the succession is by one single person after another It may be considered That Historians being of later ages had respect to the custom of their own times wherein the Episcopacy resided in one And when anciently there were two or more equal in the name and authority of a Bishop the survivor was reckoned the successor whenas he was indeed but the surviving colleague Some do thus labour to remove the contradictions of Historians touching the order of the succession of the first bishops of Rome Linus Cletus Anacletus c. by supposing that these or some of them were presbyters or bishops at the same time ruling that Church in common and that the following writers fancying to themselves such bishops as were set up in the Church in their times fell into those diversities of tradition § 4. Of the more late Erection of many Parishes under one bishop IT is acknowedged by all parties that Christians in great Cities were not divided into divers fixed Congregations or Parishes till long after the Apostles days And tho when they were multiplied they had divers meeting-places yet those places were promiscuously frequented and the people were taught and governed by all the Presbyters in common and were called but one Church It is observed by Epiphanius Heres 68. n. 6. That it was the Custom only at Alexandria to have one president in the whole City and to distribute the presbyters to teach severally vid. Grot. Annot. on 1 Tim. 5.17 Seldens Comment on Eutych Origin Alexand. p. 85. And most agree that it was two hundred and sixty years after Christ before parishes were distinguished And there must be a distinction of parishes before there could be a union of them into Diocesses § 5. That Bishops and Presbyters are of the same order The Testimony of later times concerning it THat this is not the opinion only of those who are now called Presbyterians let the testimonies both of ancient and later times touching this point be considered I begin with those of later times The French and Belgick Confessions assert the parity of order of all Ministers of the Gospel Reynold Peacock bishop of Chichester wrote a book de Ministrorum aqualitate which the Papists caused to be burnt Vid. Erasmus his Annotations on 1 Tim. 4. Cassanders consult Article 14. saith It is agreed among all that of old in the Apostles days there was no difference between bishops and presbyters but for orders sake and avoiding of schism a bishop was put before a presbyter This his opinion he delivered to the Emperor of Germany being sent for by him to inform his conscience about such questions In the time of King Henry the Eighth there was published a book by Cranmer and others called the bishops book wherein is affirmed that the difference of bishops was a device of the ancient fathers not mentioned in Scripture An. 1537. In the book called the Institution of a Christian man made by the Clergy in a provincial synod and set forth by the Kings Authority and approved by the Parliament it is asserted That the Fathers of the succeeding Church after the Apostles instituted certain inferior degrees of Ministry yet in the New Testament no mention is made of any degrees or distinctions in orders but only of Deacons or Ministers and of presbyters or bishops The Parliament Divines at the Treaty in the Isle of Wight in their Answer to the King say This doctrine of the sameness of the order of a bishop and presbyter was published by King Henry the Eighth An. 1543. to be received by all the subjects and was seen and approved by the Lords both spiritual and temporal and by the lower house of Parliament The words of the book are The Scripture mentions these two orders only to wit Presbyters and Deacons and the Apostles confirming them by prayer and imposition of hands Mr. Mede discourse 5. on 1 Cor. 4 1. saith there are properly but two orders Ecclesiastical Presbyters and Deacons the rest are but divers degrees of these two Dr. Hammonds opinion concerning bishops and presbyters is thus declared in his Annotations on Acts 11. Altho the Title of Elders hath extended to a second order in the Church and now is in use only for them yet in the Scripture-times it belonged principally if not alone to the bishops there being no evidence that any of that second order were then instituted in the Churches Now if in Scripture-times presbyters of an inferior order to bishops were not instituted as this learned man supposeth it is evident that all those Church-officers called presbyters mentioned in Scripture were bishops and if this inferior order of presbyters be not to be found in Scripture I desire to know what proof can be made of its divine institution Many if not most Papists acknowledg that presbytery is the highest order in the ministry and that Episcopacy is but a different degree of the same order And it is
not leave Timothy as Bishop of Ephesus but took him with him in his journey to Jerusalem and so to Rome for those Epistles which Paul wrote while he was prisoner at Rome bear either in their inscription or some other passage the name of Timothy as Pauls companion viz. the Epistles to the Ephesians to the Philippians to the Colossians to the Hebrews and to Philemon Pauls beseeching of Timothy to abide still at Ephesus when he went into Macedonia 2 Tim. 1.3 had been needless if he were then a setled bishop there Besides it is granted that Timothy was not bishop of Ephesus when he was with Paul at Miletum yet that Church had then elders which the Holy Ghost had made Bishops Therefore it cannot be that Timothy was the first Bishop that ever Ephesus had which nevertheless is affirmed in the Postscript of the second epistle to Timothy Spalatensis lib. 2 c. 3. n. 60. saith That without doubt Timothy was a General bishop that is an Apostle tyed to no seat 2. Titus was no fixed Bishop His travels we likewise find upon sacred record Paul made him his companion in his journey to Jerusalem Gal. 2.1 An. 43 45. Paul returning to Antioch passed through Syria and Cilicia confirming the Churches Acts 15.41 from Cilicia he passed to Creet where having preached the Gospel and planted a Church he left Titus for a while to set in order the things that were left undone Tit. 1.5 An. 46. Paul injoins Titus to come to him to Nicopolis where he intended to Winter Tit. 3.12 an 51. but changing his purpose he sent for him to Ephesus where his Winter-station was 2 Cor. 1.8 thence he sent him to Corinth to enquire of the state of that Church His return from thence Paul expected at Troas and because there he sound not his expectation answered he was grieved in spirit 2 Cor. 2.12 Thence Paul passed into Macedonia where Titus met him and brought him the glad tidings of the gracions effect which his first Epistle had wrought among the Corinthians 2 Cor. 7.5 c. an 52. Paul having collected the liberality of the Saints sends Titus an 53. again to the Corinthians to prepare them for that contribution 2 Cor. 8.6 And we do not find that after his first removal from Creet he did ever return thither After this we read that Titus was with Paul at Rome and went thence not to Creet but to Dalmatia 2 Tim. 4.10 It is to be noted that after the time of Titus his being in Creet was the greatest part of his travels And if Titus did abide some years in Creet that doth not declare him to be a fixed bishop there for unfixed Ministers were not so obliged to perpetual motion but that they resided long in one place according to the work to be done there as Paul abode three years at Ephesus 3. Of Timothy and Titus jointly these following things may be observed In the New Testament there is no instance of a setled Overseer or Pastor whose motion was so planetary as theirs and there is no evidence that afterwards they return'd to reside at Ephesus or Creet it is granted by the assertors of their supposed Episcopacy that they were not bishops till after Pauls first being at Rome Now the first Epistle to Timothy and the Epistle to Titus were written by Paul before his first going to Rome and his second Epistle to Timothy was written at his first being at Rome Vid. Ludov. Capellus Histor Eccles p. 66 74. All that aver Timothy and Titus to be bishops borrow their testimony from Eusebius and all that he saith is only that it is so written and he had this story from the fabulous Clemont and from Egesippus who is not extant It is observed that Eusâ—bius Irenaeus and others delivered what they received too securely 4. Touching the Postscripts of the Epistles in which they are stiled bishops whether they be canonical or authentick proof let it be considered It cannot be imagined that Paul or his Pen-man would underwrite these wards viz. The first Epistle to Timothy was written c. and the second Epistle to Timotheus ordained the first bishop c. Did he know or mind that there would be a second epistle or bishop Or did he then intend that the first should be distinguished from the second by these words of distinction The first Epistle to Timothy Beza proves was not written from Laodicea but from Macedonia to which opinion Baronius and Serrarius subscribe And the name of Phrygia Pacatilana was not in use in Paul's time nor till the more declining time of the Roman Empire In the postscript of the second Epistle to Timothy these words ordained first bishop c. is not in many ancient Copies saith Beza nor in the Vulgar edition nor in the Syriack Interpreter The Epistle to Titus was not written from Nicopolis as the postscript saith for had Paul been there he would have said I have determined here not there to winter And whereas it faith the first bishop did Paul or his Penman mind the notifying of a succeeding bishop and the distinguishing of Titus from him in this Epistle Moreover bishop of the Church of the Cretians is not the stile of a bishop of a Diocess who hath some City and not a whole Region for his Sea Creet is said to have had a hundred Cities in it and Titus was directed by Paul to ordain elders or bishops in all those Cities that had Christians And the Scripture way of expression would be not the Church but the Churches of the cretians Church being used of a City with its adjacent Villages and Churches of a Region or Countrey of such a circuit as Creet was Thus there is good ground to think that the postscripts are of much later date than the Epistles themselves 5. The precepts given by Paul to Timothy and Titus are either such as concern all presbyters or such as are above the bishop of a particular church 1. Some precepts given them concern all presbyters To be instant in season and out of season belongs to all preachers of the Gospel As a bishop must be able to convince gainsayers so ought all presbyters The stopping of the mouths of subverters is by conviction and extends as well to doctrine as to definitive sentencing Mat. 22.34 and even definitive silencing was anciently by presbyters either alone or in conjunction with their bishops The authority given to Timothy That those who sin be rebuked before all belongs to presbyters and it is that which may be done by equals To lay hands suddenly on no man concerns presbyters to whom belongs the power of laying on of hands Nor doth this precept infer That a bishop hath power to ordain alone and it is granted that one bishop alone may not ordain a bishop Presbyters as well as bishops were concern'd in that precept of not receiving an accusation suddenly against any And in ancient times if a bishop or presbyter were accused the matter
his Diocess who are the proper and immediate Pastors of their several Churches and really bishops according to the true import of that name and office as it is in Scripture 4. The Presbyters of the Church of England if they be not bishops are not of the same order with the presbyters mentioned in Scripture for all presbyters therein mentioned were bishops truly and properly so called Now if they be not of the same order with the Scripture presbyters they are not of divine but meerly humane institution but if it be acknowledged that they are of the same order as indeed they are why are they denied to be bishops of their respective Charges And why are they bereaved of the Episcopal or pastoral Authority therein 5. The bishops of the first Ages had no greater number of souls under their Episcopacy than of which they could take the personal oversight But the present bishops have commonly more souls under their Episcopacy than a hundred bishops can personally watch over The ordinary work of the ancient bishop was to preach give thanks administer the Eucharist pronounce the blessing and exercise discipline to the people under his charge But the bishops of the present age neither do nor can perform these ministries to the people that are under their charge 6. The ancient bishop did exercise his Episcopaâ—y personally and not by Delegates or Substitutes But the present bishop doth for the most part exercise it not personally but either by his Delegates who have no Episcopal authority of themselves but what they derive from him alone or by Substitutes whom he accounts no bishops 7. The ancient bishops did not govern alone but in conjunction with the presbyters of his Church he being the first presbyter and stiled the Brother and Colleague of the presbyters But the present bishop hath in himself alone the power of jurisdiction both over the Clergy and Laity 8. The ancient bishop did not and might not ordain Ministers without the counsel of his Clergy But the present bishop hath the sole power of ordination Tho some presbyters whom he shall think fit join with him in laying on of hands yet he alone hath the whole power of the act without their consent or counsel 9. To labour in the word and doctrine was anciently the most honourable part of the bishops work and it was constantly performed by him in his particular Church or Congregation But now preaching is not reckoned to be the ordinary work of a bishop and many bishops preach but rarely and extraordinarily 10. The ancient bishops were chosen by all the people at least not without their consent over whom they were to preside And when a bishop was to be ordained it was the ordinary course of the first ages for all the next bishops to assemble with the people for whom he was to be ordained and every one was acquainted with his conversation But the present bishops entrance into his office is by a far different way 11. Anciently there was a bishop with his Church in every City which had a competent number of Christians But in the later times many yea most Cities have not their proper bishops I mean bishops in the Hierarchical sense tho they be as large and populous as those that have It is to be noted that the manner was not anciently as now that a Church and its bishop did cause that to be called a City which otherwise would not be so called but any Town-corporate or Burrough was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a City according to the ancient use of the word 12. Because in the first ages the Christians of a City and its adjacent Villages did ordinarily make up but one competent Congregation There was commonly but one Church in a City and that City-church took in all the Christians of the adjacent Villages who were but one stated Society all the members whereof might have personal communion one with another But the dividing of the bishops Cure into such parts as are now called Parishes came not in till long after the Apostles times and when that division first took place they were but as Chappels of Ease to the city-City-church Here it is to be noted That till Constantine's time it cannot be proved that there were above four or five Churches in all the world that consisted of more people than one of 〈◊〉 parishes nor of half so many as some of them 13. In the beginning of Christianity Cities or Towns were judged the â—ittest places for the constituting of Churches because in them the materials of a Church to wit believers were most numerous and in them was the greatest opportunity of making â—ore Converts with other advantages which the Villages did not afford Yet when the number of Christians encreased in a Region Churches having their proper Bishops were constituted in Villages or places that were not Cities one proof whereof is in the Chorepiscopi who were bishops distinct from ordinary presbyters Thus it was in the first ages But in the following times when the worldly grandure of Episcopacy was rising decâ—â—ed were made that bishops might not be ordained in Villages or small Cities lest the name and authority of a bishop should â—e contemptible 14. Tho it hath been decreed by Councils That there be but one bishop in a city and the custom hath generally prevailed yet there in manifold proof that in the first ages more bishops than one were allowed at once in the same city yea in the same church Indeed the Ecclesiastical Historians now extant being comparatively but of later ages and having respect to the government of their own times set down the succession of the ancient bishops by single persons whereas several bishops presiding at the same time the surviving and most noted Colleague was reckoned the Successor 15. The ancient bishops exercised discipline in a spiritual manner by the sword of the Spirit which is the word of God and by arguments deduced from it sought to convince the judgment and awe the conscience according to the true nature of Ecclesiastical discipline But the present bishops have their Courts which are managed like Secular Courts to compel men to an outward observance of their decrees by the dread of temporal penalties annexed to excommunication 16. The present bishops say of their Church-government that without secular force none would regard it But the ancient bishops thought it a reproach to Christs discipline to declare to the world that it is a powerless thing of it self and insufficient to obtain 〈…〉 unless the temporal sword inforce it 17. The Episcopal or Pastoral authority is now commonly exercised by a Lay-chancellor and tho an ordinary priest be present in the Court to speak the words of excommunication yet the Chancellor as Judg decrees it And excommunications and absolutions pass in the bishops name and authority when he never had the hearing of the cause but anciently it was not so In this case I enquire Whether Christ hath authorised any
Calendar yet in other chapters appointed to be read this person who speaks that which was untrue is set forth for a holy Angel And c. 7.3 both the Angel and Tobias are reported to say to Raguel that which was false on the Angels part viz. that they were of the sons of Naphtalim who were captives in Niniveh Tho we read in Scripture that Angels were sometimes taken to be men and so called by them that took them to be such yet we do not read therein that any Holy Angels affirmed that they were men and such particular men by name Tob. 12.15 The Angel is reported to say I am Raphael one of the seven holy Angels which present the prayers of the Saints and which go in and out before the glory of the Holy one The presenting of the prayers of the Saints before God looks like a mediatory act And suppose it here signifies but an act of ministry not of mediation yet I question whether it be right to consent to the use of such a passage as seems to imply the mediation or intercession of Angels for us and which may give an occasion to believe it and be made use of to prove that opinion The story of Bell and the Dragon is thought to be fabulous and there may be some regret in consenting to its being appointed to be read at a time when it being omitted the first Chapter of Isaiah would come in course to be read Moreover the reading of the Apocrypha hath been excepted against as it excludeth much of the Canonical Scriptures and taketh in such Books in their stead as are commonly reputed fabulous yet read for real History Of the Tables and Rules for Holy dayes and times IN this Book is contained the appointment of divers Festivals and other solemn times Now tho I scruple not to join in the publick Worship of God performed in those days yet I hesitate about the expresâ— declaring of assent and consent to the use of Tables and Rules directing to the solemnizing thereof It is to me doubtful whether any humane power may lawfully institute such times and days as some of these are I confess there be arguments for the lawfulness of such institution which I cannot well answer and there be other arguments against it which also I cannot well answer and this later sort I crave leave to propound in this place The occasions of these days and times were existent in the Apostles times and if God would have had these days appointed he could as easily and fitly have done it by his Apostles and have left it recorded in Scripture as he did other like things If the institution of these days and times were necessary it is equally necessary in all ages and parts of the Catholick Church and is the matter of an universal Law and so belongs to the Universal Lawgiver If the Universal Lawgiver hath reserved any thing to his own power it can be no less than the making of such Laws and Ordinances as are universally and perpetually necessary To affirm such institution to be universally necessary when God hath made no Law concerning it in Scripture is to overthrow the sufficiency of Scripture as a Catholick Rule of divine faith and worship For men to institute Ordinances of Worship supposed to be universally and perpetually necessary to the Church supposeth a defect in the divine universal and perpetual Ordinances to be made up by adding other Ordinances by way of supplement The fourth Commandment being one of the Decalogue seems to be of so high a nature that man may not presume to make the like The Table of all the Feasts to be observed begins All Sundays in the year so it calls the Lords day which it seems to put upon the same level with feasts of humane institution And there seems as great a sacredness if not greater conferred upon some of the high festivals as upon the Lords day which is of divine appointment The Lords day doth sufficiently answer the ends for which those festivals that relate to our Saviour are appointed for that being in memory of his Resurrection implies a memorial of all things done for mans redemption If such Institutions as these be not prohibited Deut. 4 2. Deut. 12.32 I enquire of what sort is the prohibited addition there spoken of The prohibition seems to me to be not meerly of adding to the Rule to wit the written law but of doing more than that Rule required as the precept is not of preserving the Rule but observing what is commanded in it I do not question the lawfulness of such humane institutions in divine Worship as are in meer subordination to divine institution and serve for the more convenient modifying and ordering thereof and which indeed are not properly additions thereunto because they are not of the same nature and use but are meerly accidentals of worship But I doubt of such humane Ordinances of divine worship as are coordinate with the divine Ordinances and express the same nature reason end and use with them and are additions properly so called The festival days appointed by the Church of England are in the Table of feasts set in coordination with the Lords day and they are not meerly the accidentals but very important integral parts of divine service in this Church In reason it must needs be that God hath sufficiently provided for his honour in the worship which he hath instituted as much as belongs to the reason and end of those things which he hath instituted Thereupon I enquire Whether it be not a presuming of our own against the divine wisdom to add to the divine Ordinances by way of supplement humane ordinances of the same reason and intent with the divine There is no question of the lawfulness of appointing some certain times besides the Lords day either fixed or variable to be spent in publick worship wherein God is to be glorified for Jesus Christ and the work of redemption wrought by him There is no question of the lawfulness of appointing days of humiliation and thanksgiving either for once or anniversarily upon special occasions and that besides the special occasions of those days things of universal and perpetual concernment ought to be minded in the religious exercises then performed In these cases the appointed days and times are only adjuncts of worship which as all other things must be performed in some certain time and they are for the worship but the worship is not for them and they are not intrinsecally holy but only by extrinsick denomination from the holy worship then solemnizâ—d But these concessions do not infer as I suppose the warrantableness of days appropriated to the same use and ends for which the Lords day is designed of God and made intrinsecally and permanently holy and sanctifying the worship as well as sanctified by it so that it were profaneness to alienate them to other uses Now as I assuredly believe that the Lords day is intrinsecally and
appearance of Regeneration may be qualified for Confirmation according to the terms prescribed in this book and besides all this that children of ungodly Parents to whom the promise of salvation doth not belong cannot be supposed to be really regenerate and pardoned by Baptism Let the tendency of the said assertion as also of that touching the saving regeneration and undoubted salvation of all baptized infants be well considered whether it be to bring men to a sight of their misery in the unregenerate state and an endeavour of their recovery by real regeneration or to keep them from it The Rubrick after Confirmation There shall none be admitted to the Holy Communion until such time as he be confirmed or be ready and desirous to be confirmed This Rubrick is not only in the nature of a Directory shewing that Confirmation according to due order is requisite to be received by persons before they come to the Communion but a rigid exclusion of all from the Communion who are not confirmed or are not ready and desirous to be confirmed according to the prescribed manner It is granted That a credible approved profession of Faith and Repentance may be made necessary to admission because they who do not make such profession are justly excluded from Communion in the Sacrament But there are many that are fit for this Communion that are not willing to submit to this order of Confirmation And if their refusal of it be culpable yet it may not deserve so great punishment as exclusion from the Sacrament Of the Form of Matrimony TOuching this form of words Who hast consecrated the state of Matrimony to such an excellent mystery that in it is signified and represented the spiritual Marriage and unity betwixt Christ and his Church be it considered that this Doctrine is not found in Scripture that Marriage was consecrated to represent the said mystery It is indeed a similitude used to express that mistical union But every similitude used in Scripture to express a holy Mystery as that of the Vine and the Branches to express the Union betwixt Christ and the faithful is not consecrated to a representation thereof Upon this very ground the Papists hold Matrimony to be a Sacrament because God hath put in it the signification of so excellent a thing as the indissoluble conjunction of Christ with the Church The Apostle Eph. 5.30 31. speaking of a great mystery doth not in any respect intend the Marriage-Institution and Union but only the Union of Christ and his Church Now tho this be a small matter for which a peaceable man would not break with a Church yet such a one may question Whether he may declare his unfeigned assent and consent to the use of it while he doth not believe it to be true The Rubrick at the end of Matrimony It is convenient that the new Married persons should receive the Holy Communion at the time of their Marriage or at the first opportunity after their Marriage I question whether it be convenient that the new Married Persons should receive the Holy Communion at the time of their Marriage In case married Persons could at the time of their Marriage be composed to such a holy and spiritual and heavenly frame and so sequester their thoughts from the concernments of the body as requisite for the solemn duty of receiving the Sacrament and withal should abstain from those heightned sensitive injoyments which are used at that time this Rubrick were allowable and commendable But it is not so with one of a thousand if with any one nor do I know that it is requisite it should be so at least ordinarily The rule of Scripture is That Persons should abstain from conjugal embraces in time of most selemn Religious exercises 1 Cor. 7.5 This also is but a small matter for which no breach should be made But a sober peaceable man may question whether he may assent and consent to the use of such a Rubrick as to that part of it Yet questionless it may be convenient that the new-married Persons if duly qualified should receive the Holy Communion at the first opportunity after their Marriage Of the Order for Visitation of the Sick RUbrick The Sick person shall be moved to make a special confession of his sins if he shall feel his conscience troubled with any weighty matter After which confession the Priest shall absolve him if he humbly and heartily desire it Here the Priest is desired and required to absolve every Sick person after special confession of sin in case he feel his conscience troubled with any weighty matter if he humbly and heartily desire it And the Absolution is to be given absolutely unto every such person and not conditionally if he truly repent In defence of Absolution given upon the only terms prescribed in this Book it doth not satisfie to say that if the Sick person shew himself truly penitent his Absolution ought not to be left to the Ministers discretion For every Minister ought to exercise a judgment of discretion about his own Act especially an Act of such importance as the absolving of a sinner from all his sins in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost And the question still remains whether every Sick person that can verbally express as much as is here required be truly penitent yea or make a credible profession thereof To presume every one is truly penitent who is desirous to receive Absolution is a charity larger than of Gods allowing That the Absolution should be pronounced absolutely and never conditionally it doth not satisfie to say that the condition is understood For it is not reasonably supposed that all the Sick who can say so much as is here required of them do understand or consider that it is spoken to them conditionally Too many be stupidly sensless and grosly ignorant of their own spiritual estate and of the true conditions of reconciliation with God In the Rubrick of the Communion of the Sick the Curate is required to administer the Sacrament of the Lords Supper to every Sick person that is desirous to receive it but he is not allowed to consider whether he be fit to receive it To presume that every one is fit to receive that is desirous to receive is a Charity larger than of Gods allowing It is known by sad experience that many very bad men are desirous to receive the Sacrament when they are Sick It may be considered whether this manner of giving Absolution and administring the Sacrament to every Sick person that is desirous to receive the same tend to bring men to repentance or to harden them in impenitency Of the Order for Burial of the Dead THese ensuing forms Forasmuch as it hath pleased Almighty God of his great mercy to take unto himself the Soul of our dear Brother here departed we commit his Body to the ground c. in sure and certain Hope of the Resurrection to eternal Life Also we
give thee hearty thanks for that it hath pleased thee to deliver this our Brother out of the miseries of this sinful World Also that when we shall depart this Life we may rest in him as our Hope is this our Brother doth are to be used at the interment of all persons whatsoever but such as dye unbaptized or excommunicate or have laid violent hands on themselves But multitudes that are not here accepted dye in notorious sin and give no credible evidence of their repentance Tho we be not infallibly certain that such notorious sinners and in all appearance impenitent to the last are damned yet it may be questioned whether there be ground of hope for their being saved and whether they may be owned as Brethren that rest in Christ and whom God of his great mercy hath taken to himself and on whose behalf we ought to give thanks to God that he hath taken them out of the miseries of this life It may also be questioned Whether it be of safe or dangerous tendency for the Church in her publick Leturgy solemnly to declare all this at their interment Tho the words in sure and certain hope of the Resurrection to eternal Life be to be understood of the Resurrection in general and not of the Resurrection of the deceased party yet the very committing of his Body to the ground in sure and certain Hope of the Resurrection to eternal Life in general doth imply some degree of grounded hope of his part in that Resurrection or else the said words seem to be used impertinently Whereas it is said There is some degree of Hope where we cannot determine the contrary I answer that this which is called a degree of Hope is a meer negative or nothing and signifies no more than that we are not infallibly sure of mens final Impenitence and Damnation This is not properly any degree of Hope nor doth it include any Judgment made of the party it being a meer negative And here no Judgment of Charity is included because here is no ground thereof supposed It doth not satisfie to say That the Church supposeth all who dye in her Communion to be hopeful because this supposeth and requireth the due exercise of discipline in the Church Now we see that discipline is not so exercised but that multitudes in whom no credible or hopeful evidence of repentance doth appear dye in her Communion And this omission of discipline is constant general and uncontrolled It is granted that dying-impenitents do not go immediately into the power of the Devil but first into the hands of the great God to be disposed of by him according to the conditions of the Gospel-Covenant which flow from a grant of mercy Nevertheless we know that the Law of Grace and Mercy finally abused and violated doth contain a Denunciation of the greatest Wrath and Vengeance And it seems very improper to say of one whom God hath taken into his own hands to adjudg to everlasting punishment for the final violation and contempt of the Covenant of Grace That God hath taken him to his mercy or unto himself of his great Mercy because he judgeth and condemneth him for violating the Law of Mercy Besides what mortal man certainly knows whether the Judgment and Execution immediately after Death be not the same thing Some geneneral Observations upon the Book of Common-Prayer ACcording to the Tenor of this Book every person in the external Communion of the Church is set forth as godly or regenerate when multitudes in the said Communion are palpably unregenerate and ungodly This appears by several important passages already noted touching every person baptized confirmed interred c. and by these further Instances In the order of Matrimony for every Married couple this form is to be said O Lord save thy Servant and thy Handmaid who put their trust in thee and the like for every Sick person that is visited by the Priest and for every Woman that is Churched It is likewise recommended as convenient that the new married Persons should receive the Holy Communion at the time of their Marriage or at the first opportunity after their Marriage which seems to suppose that all persons who may lawfully be married are fit to receive the Sacrament of Christs Body and Blood The Objection here made is not against the applying of the aforesaid or the like form of words or the vouchsafing of the aforesaid Priviledge of the Holy Sacrament to those that give any credible evidence of their faith and repentance but that it is done to all indifferently whatsoever their state towards God appears to be Indeed the Church may be called Holy as the Apostles writing to the Churches give them the stile of Saints and those that are sanctified and holy Brethren and the like But the query is Wherther they would or we may account every Parishioner who is not excommunicate in this present way of Church-Government to be penitent and believing and holy and wether we may use towards every particular Parishioner such forms of words as import their unfeigned faith notwithstanding a manifest appearance of impenitence and ungodliness If the omission of things most necessary in some main parts of the Liturgy be a just ground of not declaring an unfeigned assent and consent to the forms as there prescribed I may urge that in the general Confession there is no mention of Original sin As for those words the devices and desires of our own hearts they denote actual sins of the heart And that clause There is no health in us betokens there is no Salvation or Deliverance in our selves Or if it were designed in this place to fignify Original sin it is a very obscure expression thereof This Omission is the more liable to exception if it be upon these Principles and Suppositions that all who are in the external Communion of the Church are regenerate that all baptized Persons yea or all baptized in Infancy whether they be the Children of the promise or not are delivered from the guilt of Original sin Or that no reliques of Original sin which are truly and properly sin remain in the regenerate It may be likewise urged that in the said Confession there is no sufficient expressing of actual sins in particular and that the Morning and Evening-prayer mostly consists of meer generals without such particular Confession of sins and Petition for spiritual Graces as is requisite to be made on the behalf of the whole Congregation There may be indeed particular Confessions and Petitions proper for particular Persons which are not here intended But there are others of common concernment and necessity to all Christians And my query is Whether this sort may be statedly omitted in a publick Liturgy Of the form of ordering Bishops Priests and Deacons IN the Preface it is said That it is evident to all men diligently reading the holy Scriptures and ancient Authors That from the Apostles time there have been these Orders of Ministers in
of his name in our abject and forlorn state and posture And the Scripture expresly takes notice of a kind of Will-Worship in a certain voluntary abasement and neglect of the body Col. 2.23 § 14. The nature of Monastick Vows of Obedience Poverty and Chastity considered THat the formale of these Vows as of all others is Divine Worship is not doubted the inquiry therefore is of the subject matter thereof By the matter of these Vows the asserters thereof intend a special religious state over and above the general religious state which is Christianity it self which special state contains an obligation to certain offices and works to be done intended for the direct and immediate honouring and serving of God and that in a more sublime and perfect way than Christianity in general and so they are made direct matter of devotion or Worship But the matter of those Vows may be so intended and managed as to be religious only reductively as being for the advancement of Religion namely for vacancy to holy exercises for more Freedom in the Christian warfare upon which account Caelibate or single life was commended by St. Paul not that he commended the Vow thereof but a constant purpose thereof for those ends in case of the gift or power to continue therein Now whether they be fit matter of Vows in this later sense is afterwards to be considered The like may be said of abstinence as of Caelibate § 15. Of Decency and Order adjuncts of Divine Worship THE Apostles rule Let all things be done decently and in order is of the law of nature and would have obliged the Churches of Christ tho it had not been written in the Holy Scripture Decency as such is no part of Worship but an adjunct it is the convenient setting it off or a mode thereof agreeable to its dignity And it is not proper to it alone but common to all Civil matters and Humane actions of a grave nature viz. that it be performed in a meet habit and posture of Body and Furniture and other like significations of due respect to a holy action Order likewise is an adjunct of Worship and is not to be extended to the making of new Worship for that it is no other than the due disposing of what is already made and the convenient setting and ranking of the several parts thereof for Method Measure Time Place and other circumstances And it belongs to Divine Worship not on a peculiar but common reason as to all humane actions wherein order is both beautiful and advantageous and disorder is deformed and prejudicial The Apostles said Rule intends that necessary Decency and Order the want whereof is undecency and disorder but not Gaudy dresses Theatrical ornaments Pompous formalities Imagery and Various flourishes affected by the sensual fancy Such Decency is injoyned as is suitable to things of a holy and reverend Nature We may know what is injoyned in a Law by what is therein forbidden Now in this Law nothing is forbidden but undecency and disorder and therefore nothing is injoyned but the necessary Decency and Order opposite thereunto And in plain reason whatsoever is not undecent is decent and whatsoever is not disorderly is orderly I mean in a capable subject of these adjuncts Most Matters of Decency and Order are simply necessary only in genere but not in specie any further but that some species or other under the genus is to be made use of according to prudence Some particular species of Decency are in themselves necessary when they are possible and they are those whose opposites are undecent from the nature of the things Some are necessary from extrinsecal circumstances as from custome of the Time and Place the Quality and Condition of persons c. The former kind may be called Natural the later Civil or Customary And the later sort are necessary even by the Law of Nature yet not immediately but mediately such circumstances being supposed But this sort admits of much variety and alteration Less decent hath the nature of undecent when it it chosen in opposition to more decent as less good hath the nature of evil when it is chosen in opposition to greater good But here it is not fit nor safe to contend about magis and minus nor to strain to the uttermost pitch in things that are matter of Controrvesie or Scruple or Jealousie but it is best to take up with that which is most passable among all provided there be no simple undecency For then in that case no necessary Decency is neglected § 16. Of Time and Place considered as Adjuncts or as matter of Worship TIME and Place in general are necessary Adjuncts or Circumstances of Divine Worship For no action Natural or Moral can be performed without them And they are meer Adjuncts when they attend Divine Worship in a way and reason common to it with other humane Actions and are appointed and used about it according to convenience for the due performance of it And then they are only for the Worship performed therein but the Worship is not from them But Time and Place in Gods Worship sometimes have a higher state and become the matter thereof as the old Sabbath and the Lords day and the Tabernacle and Temple under the Mosaical dispensation For as God by his Institution did make those Times and Places not occasionally but statedly holy and a means of sanctifying his people so his people in their submission to his appointment and their very Dedication and Observation or Sanctifying of those Times and Places did perform special Acts of Worship being an Oblation to God and an immediate giving of honour to him And those Times and Places were not only sanctified by the duties therein performed but the duties were partly sanctified and made acceptable by those Times and Places Howbeit those sacred Times and Places that have been advanced to be matter of Worship are also in that state of advancement Adjuncts to that Worship to which they appertain and are appropriated For there is that inferiority and superiority in several parts of Worship that some may be rightly accounted adjuncts to others As God by his Institution can make Times and Places that of themselves are but meer Adjuncts to be matter of his Worship and hath done it in the forementioned instances so men also may by their Institutions make Times and Places statedly or permanently Holy and matter of Worship and an Oblation to God How lawfully they may do so is afterwards to be considered but however the dedicating and observing thereof hath the Nature of Worship in it For the efficient cause Whether it be God or Man is extrinsecal to the formal nature of Worship which lies in the formal Reason and direct and proper end and use of the action by whomsoever instituted Here it may be considered Whether every Adjucnt of Worship instituted of God doth by that Institution become a matter or part of Worship which otherwise it
of the Cross in Baptism are these 1. That it is not a meer circumstance but an Ordinance of Worship as important as an external rite can be 2. That being a solemn and stated Symbolical sign of a Divine Mystery and devised of men it is of that classis or rank of things which are not necessary in genere and so not allowed to be determined and imposed by men as things necessary in genere are allowed 3. That either the whole nature of a Sacrament or at least a part thereof is in it That it is a Sacrament is thus proved It is an outward and visible sign of inward and spiritual Grace The outward sign is the representation of the Cross the instrument of Christs sufferings and the inward spiritual Grace is fortitude in the Christian warfare according to the words of the Liturgy Here is a signification of Grace to be given us of God and of our duty according to that Grace Likewise this sign hath assigned unto it the moral efficacy of a Sacrament for working Grace by teaching and exciting us to the spiritual warfare and minding us of Christ crucified Also it signifies and seals our Relation to Christ or the Grace of being a Christian And the Liturgy so speaks We receive this Child into the Congregation of Christs Flock and sign him c. in token c. The pretence that no rite can be a Sacrament but what God hath instituted is answered before Sect. 4. And tho the imposers thereof say it is not a Sacrament yet if they so declare its meaning as to be of the formal nature and reason of a Sacrament they make it to be one indeed tho in word they deny it If it were granted that it hath not the compleat or intire nature of a Sacrament yet there is one essential part of a Sâ—crament most apparently in it that is to be an ingaging sign on our part in the Covenant For we use it as a token of ingaging our selves to Christ crucified as our Captain and Saviour by his Cross and to perform the duties of his Soldiers and Servants to our lives ends And as Baptism dedicates to Christ so doth the sign of the Cross according to the express words of the Canon viz. It is an honourable badg whereby the party Baptized is dedicated to the Service of him that dyed on the Cross So it hath that in it which is essential to a Sacrament and part of the nature thereof at least Besides it seems to be an Ordinance of that nature and kind which Christ our Lawgiver hath reserved to himself from the reason in Sections 3 4 5. § 12. Of Holy-days THAT some time of every day is to be spent in Religious exercises and that whole days of Humiliation and Thanksgiving are to be kept upon special occasions and that there may be an Anniversary commemoration of great Mercies or Judgments is little doubted I see no reason why it is not lawful for a Nation or People to institute an Anniversary Commemoration of some eminent person sent of God as a great light among them as the first propagator of the Gospel or great Restorer of true Religion among them as of Luther among the Germans and Calvin among the French Protestants For scarce a greater blessing doth arise to a Nation Mr. R B. saith That an Apostolical Ministry being so eminent a mercy he can see no reason why the Churches of all succeeding Ages may not keep an Anniversary day for Peter or Paul c. but he saith also that whether it be lawful to separate an Anniversary for the commemoration of Christs Nativity Circumcision and such like things c. which were equally existent in the Apostles days and the reasons for observing them then equal with the following times is hard for him to determine being not able to prove it lawful and yet not seeing a plain prohibition of it Yet he gives these reasons of doubting their lawfulness First the occasions of these days were existent in the Apostles times and if God would have had these days observed he could as easily and fitly have done it by his Apostles in the Scripture as he did other like things 2. If it were necessary it would be equally necessary in all Ages and parts of the Catholick church and therefore must be the matter of an universal Law and God hath made no such Law in Scripture and therefore to say it is necessary is to overthrow the sufficiency of Scripture as the Catholick Rule of Faith and Universal Divine obedience 3. God himself hath appointed a day for the same purposes as these are pretended for the Resurrection implies all the rest of the Works of the Redeemer 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 He accounts it plainly unlawful for any Earthly Power to appoint a Weekly day in commemoration of any part of our Redemption and so make another stated Weekly Holy-day because it is the doing of the same thing for one day which God hath done by another and so seems an usurpation of power not given and an accusation of Christ and the Holy Ghost as if he had not done his Work sufficiently I think it also an usurpation of Power not given for any Human Authority to make any day or time permanently and unmovably holy as a perpetual oblation to God and not only sanctified by the duties therein performed but also sanctifying the duties and making them the more acceptable But as to the observation much more to the imposing of the observation of Holy-days of human institution regard is to be had not only to what is lawful but also to what is expedient And it is as easie to offend by excess as by defect in the instituting of set-times and days appropriated to Divine Worship § 13. Of a LITVRGY ANY particular form whether stinted or free is not of the essence of prayer but only its accidental shape or mode and pertains to it not as to a holy action but as to an action in general And for that no action can be performed but in some particular mode or other this holy action cannot otherwise be performed Now neither Scripture nor the nature of the thing hath made either a stated and stinted or a free and extemporal form in it self necessary and therefore either the one or the other may be used as expedience requires according to due choice and judgment As on the one hand they are too weak and ill advised that reject all set-forms so they on the other hand are too opinionative that reject all immediately conceived yea or preconceived forms that are not prescribed And both of them shew that they are too much addicted to their Parties § 14. Of Religious Austerities as acts or matter of Divine Worship THere are Austerities inconvenient in their kind such as the self cutting and lancing of Baals Priests and
II. ver 1 2 3 4. JONAH prophesied in Israel in or before the days of Jeroboam the son of Joash 2 King 14 25. He was also sent to preach to Niniveh the chief City of the Assyrian Empire But he disobeyed the call of God and endeavoured to flee to Tarshish The Lord by a mighty storm at Sea pursues him And being by lot and his own confession found guilty and the cause of the tempest the Mariners by his own direction cast him into the Sea where the Lord had prepared a great fish to swallow him up and he was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights This Chapter contains Jonah's exercise in the fishes belly the Narrative whereof was penned after his deliverance with an addition of praise Ver. 1. Then Jonah prayed unto the Lord his God out of the fishes belly Before this trouble he was froward against God and fled from him now he is humble and yielding Our distress and trouble is sanctified to us when our frowardness and averseness from duty is overcome and we are made humble and yielding to God and ready for duty when we are brought to our good behaviour Let us look after this fruit of our distresses troubles or crosses that we be brought in and subdued to God Let us also look after this kindly fruit of pubblick troubles He flees to God by prayer Our distress and trouble is sanctified to us when it drives us to prayer that we set about it in earnest and continue in it and so bring us close to God Isa 26 16. Lord in trouble have they visited thee They poured out a prayer when thy chastning was upon them Let us look after this kindly fruit of our publick and private troubles that we be more in prayer and much visit the throne of Grace that instead of running from God we run to him and cast our selves into the arms of his mercy Then hath God reduced us and brought us home to our true rest that we might be safe then he hath done us good indeed Further we hence learn That prayer to God is a refuge to the afflicted both to the Church and to every faithful soul and they find relief in it All the distressed that take this course find sure comfort Because God is rich in mercy to all that call upon him Rom. 10.12 The same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him Yea God is more especially helpful to the distressed Hos 14.3 In thee the fatherless findeth mercy This instructs us what is our refuge in all our troubles and what course to take wherein we shall not fail to speed Jam. 5.13 Is any among you afflicted let him pray Be sincere in this duty and perform it with unfeigned repentance for your former neglect Moreover it is here said That Jonah prayed unto the Lord his God The Lord was still his God notwithstanding his severe hand upon him When God corrects us for sin he doth not cast us off as none of his Correction is not Rejection Still his gracious relation to us and our Covenant-interest in him abides Wherefore let them that fear the Lord still look to him and claim an interest in him as their God tho he be angry and severely chasten them Thus the Church lays claim to him Isa 63.16 Doubtless thou art our Father c. Thou O Lord art our Father our Redeemer c. And let us take hold of his Covenant whereby he is our God for encouragement in prayer and the ground of our humble confidence toward him Let as many as are humble and willing to accept his grace do this Here is noted the condition whereid he was out of the fishes belly a distress into which he had brought himself by his rebellion or wilful disobedience Hence we learn That after wilful disobedience we may sue to God for mercy He hath not shut up the way against us because there is Forgiveness with him and he hath left room for repentance Let this goodness of God lead sinners to repentance Let such goodness overcome their hearts for it is set forth for this very end God hath not shut up the way Let not them shut out themselves Let a penitent people encourage themselves as Israel is encouraged Hos 14.1 O Israel return unto the Lord thy God for thou hast fallen by thine iniquity Let the children of God after high provocations being duly humbled encourage themselves in his mercy Tho we have wilfully brought our selves into trouble by our own Folly yea run into it yet we must not discourage our selves as if it were in vain to pray to God for help This is indeed a very uncomfortable circumstance in our suffering to draw it upon our selves yet this was Jonah's case Therefore in such a case let us judg and lothe our selves let us fear and tremble in our selves yet let us not despair nor be driven from seeking our relief For God delights to save them that have undone themselves V. 2. I cryed by reason of my affliction unto the Lord and he heard me out of the belly of hell cryed I and thou heardst my voice This verse expresseth the sum of his trouble his exercise in it and his gracious audience His trouble and his prayer in it I cried by reason of my affliction out of the belly of hell cried I. Here was a deplorable state and in appearance desperate yet his Faith could look through to Gods Mercy-seat There is no state so deplorable and seemingly desperate that the people of God may be brought into but their Faith may see a way through it to the throne of Grace whether it be the state of any particular Child of God or of his Church and people in common Is any Child of God so distressed that he can see no outlet yet let him look through it to the Throne of Grace There is hope for him in his God and let him look to God and be comforted Isa 50.10 Doth the condition of the Church appear forlorn and hopeless as Jonah's was that we can see no way to escape yet God can open a way by a strange hand of Providence He is fearful in praises doing wonders Exod. 15.11 Truâ—y our condition is very deplorable if we look to human help Yet the Providence of God and his appearances for us are some glimps of light some token for good Therefore be not faithless but believing do not abandon your hope tho greatly distressed encourage your selves in the Lord your God I cryed by reason of my affliction c. Great distress calls for great importunity in prayer not only to call upon God but to cry to him to cry mightily as the King of Niniveh commanded his subjects Jonah 3 8. Let them cry mightily unto God When we thus cry our own necessity is feelingly acknowledged and Gods mercy is duly valued Let the distress of our Nation and the Church aâ—d people of God therein excite us to send
are not immediately inspired of God have sufficiently certain evidence in reason to the discerning and chusing of infallible guides that are immediately inspired § 15. Whether Infallibility admit of degrees and in what respect EVery truth is equally impossible to be false for all things that imply a contradiction are equally because utterly impossible All are alike infallible in that wherein they are infallible and therein they cannot be more infallible because therein it is utterly impossible that they should be deceived and so it cannot be more impossible than it is already Nevertheless there are different degrees of evidence for being infallible in such or such a matter Likewise there are different degrees of clear apprehension of being infallible and so the sure knowledg of being infallible admits of degrees That knowledg that is sufficiently certain may be advanced to be abundantly certain and that which is abundant may be advanced to yet more abundant Whereupon I conclude that though infallibility in its formal reason admits of no degrees yet there are different degrees of the evidence and the clear apprehension thereof Moreover infallibility is in a more noble and perfect state in one subject than in another And so the infallibility of a superior intellect as that of Angels is in a more perfect and excellent than the hypothetical and the unlimited than the limited In the same subject infallibility may be in a more perfect state at one time than another according to the rising or falling of the evidence thereof § 16. Of the Infallibility of Sense THAT which is agreeable to sense rightly circumstantiated is impossible to be false and that which is repugnant to sence rightly circumstantiated is impossible to be true For that the one should be false and that the other should be true implies a contradiction supposing the sensitive faculty to be true And if the sensitive faculties be not true it infers that impious and absurd opinion that God cannot or will not govern the material world but by falshood The Popish opinion of Transubstantiation is no deception of the sense but of the understanding for they that have persuaded themselves to believe it do not say they see or tast or feel Christs body and blood but acknowledg what they see feel and tast to be the accidents of the bread and wine which they say remains after Transubstantion Wherefore the imposing is not upon the senses but upon the understanding which ought to judg by sense of matters that are the proper objects of sense § 17. Of Infallibility of Reason IF Sense may be the subject of Infallibility why may not the Understanding be so which is a more excellent Faculty in the kind of perception or knowledg If the Understanding be the subject of Certainty why not also of infallibility in that limited sense as hath been before explained The proper object of Certainty is not that which may or may not be but that which must be or which is known to be such An indubitable Certainty is acknowledged and from an indubitable Certainty properly so called I think a good inference is made unto an infallible Certainty To be indubitable in a matter is to be sure that I am not therein deceived And I cannot rationally be sure that I am not deceived unless I am sure that it cannot be that the thing be otherwise than I apprehend And if I am sure that it cannot be otherwise than I apprehend I am as to that particular infallible Because men in their most confident persuasions are commonly deceived by prejudice from passion interest education and the like it follows not that none can be secure from deception that is to know that it cannot be that they should be deceived in such or such a matter Certainly an impartial and unbiassed judgment may be found § 18. Logical Physical Moral and Theological Conclusisions as well as Mathematical admit of demonstrative Evidence UPON the foregoing enquiries I judg it very disadvantageous to the cause of Religion to speak as some do of a lower evidence for it than demonstration and such as the matter is capable of whereas I suppose there is not surer and clearer Evidence for any thing than for true Religion Not only Mathematical but Logical Physical Moral and Theological Conclusions admit of demonstrative evidence Whereas some say the existence of God is not Mathematically demonstrable because only Mathematical matter admits such kind of evidence if it be meant of that special evidence that is in the Mathematicks it is nothing to the purpose but if it be meant of evidence in general as demonstrative as Mathematical evidence it is false for this Truth admits the clearest and strictest demonstration This Proposition That God is is demonstrative in the strictest sense by a demonstration a posteriori viz of the necessary cause from the effect it being evident that the existence of God is absolutely necessary to the existence of the World for that we cannot attribute the being of the Phanomena or visible things in the world to any other cause than such a Being as we conceive God to be but we must offer violence to our own faculties This Proposition That every word of God shall be fulfilled according to the true and full intent of it is demonstrative in the strictest sense a priori from the veracity of God it being as evident that God is true as that he is As the Existence so the Attributes of God have demonstrative Evidence unless you had rather call them indemonstrable principles as having the greatest self-evidence From the Essence and Attributes of God and mans dependance on him and relation to him Moral and Theological Truths of demonstrative evidence are inferred as touching Gods moral law the good of conformity and the evil of inconformity thereunto and a just retribution to men according to that difference § 19. Of the infallible knowledg of the truth of the Christian Religion and Divine Authority of the Scripture UPON the grounds here laid as the Existence and Attributes of God and mans dependance on him and relation to him and his obligations thence arising may be demonstrated so also that the Christian Religion and the Holy Scriptures are of God as the Author and that the contrary would involve a contradiction And I take this to have been demonstrated by learned men and need not here be largely insisted on Only I shall set down a little of that much that hath been written by Mr. Baxter We may infallibly know the Christian Doctrine to be of God by his unimitable image or impression which is upon it supposing the truth of the historical part Likewise the truth of the historical part namely that this doctrine was delivered by Christ and his Apostles and that those things were done by him and them which the Scriptures mention we may know infallibly The Apostles and other first witnesses knew it infallibly themselves by their present sense and reason with the concomitance of
supernatural help in remembring and attesting it The first Churches received the Testimony from the first witnesses upon naturally certain and infallible evidence it being impossible that those witnesses could by combination deceive the world in such matters of fact in the very age and place when and where the things are pretended to be done and said And these Churches had the concomitance of supernatural attestation in themselves by the supernatural gifts of the Holy Ghost and by miracles wrought by them The Christians or Churches of the next age received the testimony from those of the first with a greater evidence of natural infallible Certainty for that the Doctrine was delivered to them in the records of sacred Scripture and both the miracles and reporters were more numerous and they were dispersed over much of the world and with these also was the supernatural evidence of miracles We of the present age receive it insallibly from the Churches of all precedent ages successively to this day by the same way with greater advantages in some respects and with lesser in others not upon the Churches bare authority but the natural Cerainty of the infallible tradition of the Holy Scriptures or records of this religion and of the perpetual exercise thereof according to those records in all essential points wherein it was naturally impossible for the precedent ages to impose falshoods upon the subsequent And this rational evidence of the Churches tradition was in conjunction with the histories of heathens and the concessions of the Churches enemies infidels and hereticks all which did acknowledg the verity of the matters of fact There is natural evidence of the impossibility that all the witnesses and reporters being so many of such condition and in such circumstances should agree to deceive and never be detected for there is no possible sufficient cause that so many thousand believers and reporters in so many several countries throughout the world should be deceived or be herein mad or sensless and that those many thousands should be able in these matters unanimously to agree to deceive more than themselves into a belief of the same untruth in the very time and place where the things were said to be done And no sufficient cause can be given but that some among so many malicious enemies should have detected the deceit especially considering the numbers of Apostates and the contentions of Heriticks Besides all this there is a succession of the same spirit of Wisdom and Goodness which was in the Apostles and their hearers continued to this day and is wrought by their Doctrine § 20. Of the infallible Knowledg of the Sense of Scripture AS we may be infallibly certain of the Divine Authority of the Holy Scripture so likewise of the sence of the Scripture at least in points fundamental or essential to the Christian Religion and that without an infallible Teacher We may certainly know that an interpretation of Scripture repugnant to the common reason of mankind and to sense rightly circumstantiated is impossible to be true if we can certainly know any thing is impossible to be true and consequently we may infallibly know it The sence of Scripture in many things and those most material to Christian faith and life is so evident from the plain open and ample expression thereof that he that runs may read it if his understanding be notoriously prejudiced And if we cannot know the said sense to be necessarily true we can know nothing to be so and so we are at uncertainty for every thing It will surely be granted by all that we may as certainly know the sense of Scripture in things plainy and amply expressed as the sense of any other writings as for instance of the Writings of Euclide in the definitions and axioms in which men are universally agreed If any say the words in which the said definitions and axiomes are expressed may possibly bear another sense it is answered That they may absolutely considered because words which have their sense ad placitum and from common use being absolutely considered may have a divers sense from what they have by common use but those words being respectively considered as setled by use cannot possibly bear another sense unless we imagine the greatest absurdity imaginable in the Writer Besides they that pretend the possibility of another sense I suppose do mean sense and not nonsense And how a divers sense of all those words in Euclide that is not pure nonsense should arise out of the same words and so conjoined is by me incomprehensible But if the possibility of the thing be comprehensible or so great an absurdity be imaginable in a Writer led only by a humane spirit it is not imaginable in Writers divinely inspired That the Holy Ghost should write unintelligibly and wholly diversly from the common use of words in things absolutely necessary to salvation is impossible If an infallible Teacher be necessary to give the sense of Scripture in all things and no other sense than what is so given can be safely rested in then either the right sense of that infallible Teachers words if he be at a distance cannot be known but by some other present infallible Teacher or else that pretended infallible Teacher is more able or more willing to ascertain us of his meaning than the Holy Spirit of God in Scripture To speak of seeking the meaning of Scripture from the sense that the Catholick Church hath thereof is but vain talk For first the Catholick church never yet hath and never is like to come together till the day of judgment to declare their sense of the things in question nor have they written it in any book or number of books 2. Never did any true Representative of the Catholick Church or any thing like it as yet come together or any way declare what is their sense of the Scripture and the things in question nor is ever like to do 3. Tho it be granted that the Catholick Church cannot err in the essentials of Christian Religion as indeed no true member thereof can for it would involve a contradiction yet there is no assurance from Scripture or Reason but that a great if not the greater part of the Catholick Church may err in the integrals much more in the accidentals of Religion yea there is no assurance from Scripture or Reason but that the whole Catholick Church may err at least per vices in the several parts thereof some in one thing some in another And all this is testified by experience in the great diversities of opinions about these things in the several parts of the Catholick Church yea and by the difference of judgment and practise of the larger parts thereof even from those among us who hold this principle of the necessity of standing to their judgment Wherefore shall we think that God puts men upon such dissiculties yea impossibilities of finding out the true meaning of the Holy Scriptures at least in the main points of
that it was not used in the first Celebration by our Saviour with his Disciples nor in the Apostles time as doth any way appear nor afterwards when General Councils forbad kneeling in any act of adoration on the Lords day To this it may be answered that it is not the enjoyning but the using of this gesture that is consented to and the objected inconvenience follows not the using but the enjoyning thereof in the rigor as to debar from the Sacrament those that scruple it But I further inquire Whether a consent to the use of a Rubrick which hath the nature of an injunction doth not imply a consent not only to the using but to the injoyning of the thing therein prescribed Moreover the very using or observing of this Rubrick by the Minister is an injunction in respect of the people because it includes an obligation upon him not to deliver the Sacrament to them except they use this gesture In the Rubrick after the Communion Note that every Parishioner shall communicate at the least three times in the year whereof Easter to be one That it is the duty of every Parishioner to be fit to receive the Sacrament and accordingly to receive it also that the Church may require this duty of all her Members and Censure those who continue wilfully unfit is not to be questioned But this Rubrick injoyns all Parishioners to communicate and the Parish-Ministers to admit them without any proviso here made touching their fitness or due caution elsewhere taken for it that I know of when it is sadly known that in most Parishes too many Parishioners are notoriously unfit And we see the practice consequent to this Rule a constant general admission or intrusion of notoriously ignorant or ungodly Persons who pollute the Communion of the Church and eat and drink Damnation to themselves Besides this Infidels Papists and such as secretly at least renounce the Communion of the Parish-Churches are Parishioners in many places Now tho such may be compelled to use those means which God hath made universally necessary to bring the ignorant and erroneous to the knowledg of the truth yet I do not see that they may be injoyned in word or deed to profess what they believe not or to take that which is the special Priviledg of Visible Church-Members Of the Order of Baptism THE sign of the Cross in Baptism hath been more suspected to be unlawful than any other ceremony injoyned in the Church of England I shall first set down what hath made me question the lawfulness of it and afterwards what may be said in answer to it Against the lawfulness of the sign of the Cross it is thus objected It is not a meer circumstance but an ordinance of Divine Worship of mans devising and as great as an external rite can be and hath in it the nature of a Sacrament Here is an outward Visible sign of an inward spiritual Grace The outward sign is the representation of the Cross the instrument of Christs Suffering the spiritual Grace is the Grace of being a Christian or a Soldier and Servant of Christ and of Christian fortitude consequent thereunto as the Words of the Liturgy do import And we sign him with the sign of the Cross in token hereafter he shall not be ashamed to confess the Faith of Christ crucified and to fight manfully under his banner against Sin the World and the Devil and to continue Christs faithful Soldier and Servant unto his lives end If it were granted it hath not the compleat Nature of a Sacrament yet one essential part thereof is most apparently in it that is to be an engaging-sign for our part in the Covenant of Grace For in the Liturgy it is declared to be a token of our engagement to Christ crucified in the relations of his Soldier and Servant and to perform the duties of those relations Moreover as Baptism dedicates to Christ so doth the sign of the Cross according to the express words of the Canon viz. It is an honourable badge whereby the party baptized is dedicated to the Service of him that dyed upon the Cross Hereupon I inquire Whether an Ordinance that is of the same import with the Sacraments of the Covenant of Grace or an essential part thereof may be instituted by humane authority or lawfully used by those that are under authority Tho the Imposers say it is not a Sacrament yet while they declare its meaning to be of the formal Nature of a Sacrament they make it to be one indeed tho in word they deny it Whereas to avoid this Argument some say it is imposible for man to make a Sacrament therefore the sign of the Cross cannot be such it is answered That tho God only can institute a lawful and valid Sacrament of his Covenant yet man may presume to institute an Ordinance of the same nature and reason and intent with a Sacrament of divine institution tho it be unlawful and of no effect And such an Ordinance is truly and properly a Sacrament tho an unlawful one as any other Ordinance devised by man that hath the Nature and formal Reason of Religious Worship is truly and properly Worship whatsoever may be said of the lawfulness or unlawfulness thereof The Reply The grand objection against the lawfulness of the sign of the Cross as used in Baptism supposes that it is of the same Nature with a Sacrament of the Covenant of Grace whereupon the proper Nature of such a Sacrament is necessary to be considered Sacraments are signs appointed to ratisie seal and confirm the Covenant of God and to tender and exhibit the Grace of that Covenant to us And if any humane authority constitute any sign to this end it would be a high intrenchment upon the soveraignty of God But the sign of the Cross in Baptism is not used to this end and purpose It is used indeed as a token by way of remembrance and as a testimony of engagement that the party baptized stands obliged to maintain the Christian profession and warfare And altho such profession and engagement be included in a Sacrament yet it is not peculiar thereunto or of its specifically differencing nature Standing at the Creed is a professing and engaging sign of Christianity yet it is not a Sacrament It appears both by the 30th Canon and by the Liturgy it self That the Infant baptized is by vertue of Baptism before it be signed with the sign of the Cross received into the Congregation of Christs Flock as a perfect member thereof and not by any power ascribed to the sign of the Cross And tho it be declared by the Canon That it is an honourable badge whereby the party Baptized is dedicated c. yet this Dedication by the Cross is wholly distinct from the baptismal Dedication to be a Member of the Church We must understand that the Church by this sign engageth the party upon her account to the Service of Christ The Minister acting in the
Name of God baptizeth the party in the name of the Father c. but acting in the name of the Church he signeth him with the sign of the Cross This sign is not any tender of Grace received from God nor any proper consecration to God in his Name and Authority and as by his Symbol but a declarative token of duty and engagement to God The Israelites were circumcised kept the Passover and had their Sacrifices all which were tokens of the Covenant between God and them Yet Joshua did solemnly engage them to God by setting up a Stone as a Witness thereof The Objection and Reply I leave for a while to further consideration I have somewhat more to say touching this point The Stone of Witness set up by Joshua was a meer professing or witnessing-sign of the Israelites acknowledged Relation and Obligation to God and the erecting or using of it was not for their Dedication to God as by an Act of solemn Worship The using of the Cross in Banners and Coyns c. is no Act of Religious Worship but a professing-sign or signal Action to testifie to the World that they who use it do believe in Christ crucified And surely it is not unlawful to profess by other signs as well as by words that we are Christians But the sign of the Cross in Baptism is a solemn and stated Symbol of a Divine Mystery Its usage therein is not a meer circumstance but a very important Act of Divine Worship It is a compleat Institution of it self added to the Ordinance of Christ appearing to be of the same nature and end It is evidently used as a rite of solemn Dedication to God upon the terms of the Covenant of Grace and in this regard it is plainly Sacramental and it seems a Dedication added by way of supplement to the Baptismal Dedication and in that regard derogatory from the sufficiency of Baptism to that end It is also performed by a Minister of Christ acting as his Minister towards one of his Flock Moreover it is a rite not of private arbitrary use but of publick institution and it is made a matter not of occasional temporary Observance but a perpetual Ordinance of Worship of the same reason with those Ordinances which God hath instituted to be universally and perpetually observed by his Church Sacred rites of this nature more than those which God hath instituted are not of that rank of things which are necessary in genere and need to be determined in specie and being not necessary they may be matter of scruple to those who think that unnecessary rites of Worship should not be ordained or statedly used in conjunction with the Holy Sacrament That God hath reserved some things in Religion to his own appointment and left other things therein to humane Determination is not to be questioned But to discern exactly and throughly between the one and the other sort I want a sufficient clearness of Judgment That the sign of the Cross in Baptism as now used is to me a puzling difficulty I am not ashamed to confess tho it may be thought a weakness in me If the sign of the Cross were lawful I am not satisfied to declare an assent and consent to the imposing of it as a bar against the Baptism of the Children of those Parents who judg it unlawful and a sin in them to permit the signing of their Children therewith To this it may be answered That it is not the injoyning but the using of this ceremony that is consented to But here also I inquire Whether I may lawfully declare an unfeigned consent to the use of this Rubrick if I dissent from the injunction of the things thereby injoyned The use of this Rubrick doth include such an Obligation upon the Minister as hinders his Baptizing of the Children of such Parents as are before described Further I inquire Whether I may declare my unfeigned consent to the use of this ceremony if I be perswaded that it is not in it self unlawful yet wish in my heart that the use thereof were not retained in regard it is necessary and an occasion of stumbling to many I may submit to the use of a thing not simply evil when I may not declare a hearty consent to it The saving Regeneration of all baptized Infants and their undoubted Salvation if they dye before actual sin being asserted in the Liturgy is to be considered In the prayer after the Child is Bapt zed are these words We yield thee hearty thanks most merciful Father that it hath pleased thee to regenerate this Infant with thy Holy Spirit c. At the end of publick Baptism there is this Rubrick It is certain by Gods word that Children which are baptized dying before actual sin are undoubtedly saved Admitting that the injoyned Declaration doth not respect this Rubrick as being not a matter of practice but a doctrinal assertion Nevertheless the form of thanksgiving for all baptized Children aforcited is unquestionably contained under it and I am ingaged to examine the truth and lawfulness thereof The extent of the efficacy of Baptism is a point much controverted by Protestant Divines among themselves and the state of Infants seems not to be so fully and clearly express'd in Scripture as the state of adult persons and I acknowledg my self unable to dertermine thereof in the manner here required The Question is not Whether there be any saving-benefit to Infants by Baptism But whether every Infant admitted thereunto be regenerated by the Holy Spirit and received of God for his own Child by Adoption c. That an Infant be a partaker of these saving-benefits besides his being baptized this condition is requisite that he be duly qualified for Baptism and have right thereunto in the sight of God Be it granted that the Sacrament hath its effect where the receiver doth not set a bar against it yet it must be supposed that the receiver is one who hath right to Baptism in the fight of God and to whom the promise of Salvation doth belong But I do not find that the promise of Salvation belongs to Children whose Parents Proparents or proprietors are impious or infidels under the Mask of the Christian profession or that such have right before God to Baptism whatsoever right they may have before the Church while the impiety or infidelity of the Parents c. is not discovered It is not enough to say that the Infants title to Baptism is founded in Christ Institution of the Sacrament For as there must be an Institution of the Sacrament so there must be a due qualification of the subject that receives it The Infants of Jews or Mahomitans or Pagans do not actually set a bar against the efficacy of the Sacrament yet it cannot be said of such Infants in case they were baptized that they are regenerated by the Holy Spirit The Parents infidelity doth put a bar to the efficacy of the Sacrament towards his Infant and this bar
Christs Church Bishops Priests and Deacons Between the Orders of bishops and deacons there is unquestionably an essential difference But if by the orders of bishops and priests be meant several Orders or Offices specifically or essentially different and not several degrees of superiority and inferiority in the same office the essential nature whereof is in both I cannot by subscription declare that the said assertion is not contrary to the word of God Upon diligent reading of the Holy Scripture I cannot find therein the office or order of a presbyter that is no bishop Nor can I consent to this passage in the said Preface No man shall be accounted or taken for a lawful Priest or be suffered to execute the function except he be called according to this form or hath had formerly Episcopal Ordination I am no way satisfied in the disabling or degrading of so many Ministers as are ordained only by Presbyters Of the promissory part of the second Article of Subscription in these words That he himself will use the form in the said book prescribed in publick prayer and administration of Sacraments d n one other Can. 36. THE last words and none other taken in their most obvivious sense seem to exclude all other form of prayer used by the Minister before or after Sermon whether conceived at the present or precomposed For prayer before and after Sermon is publick prayer Now it is expresly promised by the Subscriber that he will use no other form in publick prayer than what is prescribed in the said book I know many Conformists do practise otherwise than is here expressed But I know also that some do urge this and another Canon against their practise and I now enquire into the plain force of the words which ought to be regarded by a considerate Subscriber I suppose it will be granted by all That the Church intends hereby to engage against using any other form whatsoever in the administration of Sacraments and thereupon one would think that she intended hereby to engage also against using any other form whatsoever in publick prayer seeing in the words of the promise the engagement against the use of any other form both in publick prayer and administration of Sacraments is alike expressed If any sufficient reason or good warrant can be produced for restraining the words to the excluding only of the use of any other publick Liturgy as for example the Mass-book or of any other publick Directory of Worship instead of the Common-prayer nevertheless it were to be wished that men might not be enjoined to make a promise in those words which in their plain sense do express an engagement which is not thereby intended I have considered many particulars which come within the compass of the Declaration of unfeigned assent and consent injoined by the Act of Uniformity and the Subscription required by the Thirty sixth Canon In all which my desire and design is not to disaffect any persons to the Book of Common prayer but to receive satisfaction if it may be had concerning the things wherein I am dissatisfied For I own the said form of worship to be in the main sound and good for the matter of it and I sincerely join with the Congregation in the same tho I take it to be less perfect than is to be desired It is not therefore the use of a Liturgy in the publick Worship of God nor the reading of the Common-prayer in the ordinary daily service that makes me a Nonconformist But the high strain of the Declaration and Subscription and the strict observation of all things prescribed are difficulties which I cannot overcome This consideration of the present state of Conformity hath proceeded according to the limited sense of the Declaration as restrained to the use of things which being a probable limitation I have willingly admitted for peace sake But there be those who will not allow it saying that the true intendment of the said Declaration is to be taken from the plain signification of the form of words wherein it is expressed which is no less than a full justification of all things whatsoever contained and prescribed in and by the Book of Common-prayer c. as right and good I confess I am not able with a judgment of certainty to determine which of these two explications doth truly and rightly expound the full intendment of this Declaration And tho I have admitted the more restrained meaning thereof as probable yet the truth is I have not found that it doth any great matter to make the way of Conformity easie or passable as appears by the foregoing examination of many things contained and prescribed in the Liturgy But if the other opinion of the more comprehensive meaning be true the way is yet more difficult for then the Declaration doth imply an acknowledgment of the truth of all assertions any where contained in this Book also of the truth lawfulness and goodness of all expressions not only in the divine Service it self but in all the directing-Rules viz. Rubricks Calendar and Tables also of the lawfulness and fitness not only of the use of things injoined but of the very injunction or imposition the said directing Rules being so many injunctions strictly requiring us to observe the things prescribed in them But as I have before observed if the sense of the Declaration be restrained to the use of things it doth not appear that the injoined Subscription is to be so restrained As I have said I consent to the use of the Common-prayer as a tolerable Form of Worship but that doth not imply my allowing of all and every thing therein contained Upon the review of the whole matter let it be impartially considered whether a Declaration of so high a strain about a book of meer humane and fallible composition containing in it many hundreds of propositions and consequences should be so rigorously exacted If some recognition in this kind be thought necessary it were to be desired that it might be contrived in a form of words less p rplexing and ensnaring yet sufficiently engaging Of the Renouncing of the Obligation of the COVENANT Required by the Act of Vniformity THis Covenant was not meerly a League between men confirmed by an Oath but a Vow to God of several things directly respecting him And tho its intent were to engage men one to another yet that was not the whole nor chief intent thereof but its chief intendment was to engage all the Covenanters jointly to God Howsoever it be called an Oath yet so far as it is an Oath of things which directly and immediately respect God or that are to be performed towards him it hath the nature of a Vow To invalidate the Obligation of an Oath or Vow made to God is a thing of a high nature and had need to be done with a clear judgment One point of this Oath or Vow was to endeavour Church-Reformation according to our Places and Callings And no Reformation