A Treatise of Episcopacy, Part 1 · Chapter 12
CHAP. XII. The juſt opening and underſtanding of the true nature of the Paſtoral office and Church Government, would end theſe controverſies about Epiſcopacy.
THe name of Church Government ſo far deceiveth undiſtinguiſhing groſs crinconſiderate wits, as that they take the controverſie to be but whether we ſhall have order or anarchie, Church Government or none. As if neither the Magiſtrates Government of the Sword were any thing, nor yet the Paſtors Government by the word. But I would fain know of theſe men what more it is that they would have, and what is the Church Government which they ſo much contend for?
1. Is it an Univerſal Legiſlation? It is high and damnable Treaſon againſt Chriſt for any mortal men to claime it. Univerſal Legiſlation is the prerogative of the Univerſal King. There is no Univerſal King but Chriſt, who elſe is Governour of all the world or all the Churches in the world? And Chriſt hath in nature and Scripture given the world already an Univerſal Law. If he hath done it well, take not on you to amend it. If you ſay he hath done it ill, either take not on you to be Chriſtians, or elſe call your ſelf the Chriſt, that is Anti-Chriſt, if you will take Chriſts place and take upon you to amend his work. If you dream of an Univerſal Pope or General Council as having this power, you will but make true Anti-Chriſts of them, and fooliſhly confound a humane conſtitution with a Divine, and the Roman Empire with all the world. For you are ignorant in Church Hiſtory if you ſee not plainly that Popes, Patriarks, and Primates ſtand all on the ſame foundation; And that both they and Councils (falſly called, General,) were but Imperial, or confined to one Princes Dominion, called or ruled uſually by the Emperours, who had no power in other Princes Territories: No Councils conteining any conſiderable members, but ſuch as were in that one Empire, or formerly had been of it, and ſo kept the cuſtome which then they had received, except that the Romans placed one Biſhop on the borders of Scythia or Tartary, and one on the borders of Perſia, in hope that he might have influence further into the Countries, and rarely one or two ſuch might be at a Council called General, ſo that certainly there is no Univerſal Law-giver or Judge but Chriſt. This therefore is not the Church Government of Biſhops which men contend for.
2. What is it then, is it an Univerſal Expoſition of the Scripture or of Chriſts Laws? why an expoſition truly Univerſal is for Regulation as the Law it ſelf: And none ever had ſuch power (even in civil Government) but the Law-givers themſelves: Elſe the Expoſitor of the Lawes ſhould be King, and not the maker, ſeeing it is his ſence that the ſubject muſt be ruled by. But if it be a particular deciſive expoſition which you meane, ſuch as a Judge in deciding particular controverſies, I ſhall ſay more to that anon.
3. If it be any Coactive or Coercive power of Church Government that you meant, by mulcts or Corporal penalties▪ no Biſhops as ſuch have any thing to do with it; not only Bilſon, but the generality of the Prelatiſts diſclaime it, and confeſs that it belongeth only to the King and Magiſtrates and that they receive it from the King, if ever they exerciſe any ſ…h.
4. What is it then, is it to be the Kings Eccleſiaſtical Council, to prepare ſuch Canons as he ſhall enact? Of Canons I ſhall ſay more anon. But though Paſtors may be the fitteſt to Council Kings, yet that giveth them no power, nor doth aptitude make an office, nor is the King tyed to them, but may adviſe whith whom he pleaſe. And experienced preſent Paſtors, are uſually fitter to give advice in the matters of Religion, than they. And even Civil impartial Noblemen have uſually proved wiſer, ſob…rer and more peaceable and happy Church Councellours, than the intereſſed partial Clergy.
I am not of Eraſtus mind, that all Church Government belongeth to the Magiſtrates. I have lately publiſhed my judgment of that matter in certain Propoſitions to Ludov. Molinaeus. But I grant to him, and all ſober impartial Divines do grant, that all forceing Government by the Sword, belongeth to Magiſtrates (and Parents) only, and not to any Biſhops as ſuch.
It followeth therefore that no Biſhops power extendeth to any other effect, but only to work on the Conſciences of Volunteers, unleſs as the Magiſtrates or Parents may conſtraine them by penalties to ſubmit to it. Suppoſe therefore a while that the Magiſtrates force were withdrawn from your diſcipline, and left it to itſelf, you would then know better by experience wherein its ſtrength conſiſted: That man would then Rule the people moſt, who did moſt effectually convince their reaſon, aud prevaile with Conſcience: and further nothing would be done, Are not our Biſhops well aware of this—Do they not themſelves confeſs how little their Government would ſignifie above the Government of preſent Presbyters, unleſs they could give clear convincing Reaſons to the people, which abſent ſtrangers are unlike to do? What do you think your peculiar power would ſignifie in one year above a Presbyrers, if the Magiſtrate left all at liberty in their Church obedience to their Paſtors, would not the preſent Paſtors carry almoſt all, with the beſt and ſobereſt of the flocks? Eſpecially where Biſhops make it their office to forbid the Paſtors to do theirs, and to keep them from Preaching the word of life? Their holding faſt the ſecular conjunct power, and uſing it ſo much doth ſhew what they truſt to! they ſay themſelves, what would the Keys ſignifie without the Sword? and the Piſhops Government prevail, where none are puniſhed for deſpiſing it if the Biſhop excommunicate a faithfull Preacher, neither he nor his flock will much regardit, but goe on in the ſervice of the Lord. And perhaps ſome will excommunicate the Biſhop and be even with him. O! that the Magiſtrates would a few Years try what the Keys can do in England of themſelves, and valeant quantum valere poſſunt. Not that I would wiſh him to leave off his own duty, to puniſh ſin; but let it not be mixed with Church Offices, ſo, as that all that ſhall be imputed to the Biſhops Keys, which is effected only by the Magiſtrates Sword. I deny not but the Magiſtrate may moderately drive men to hear Gods word, and to do the immediate duties of their places? But not to profeſs that they are Chriſtians when they are not, or that they conſent to Church Communion, when they do not: Nor to take thoſe Privileges which belong not to them: No man hath right to Church Communion, who had rather be excommunicated then repent of ſin: Therefore if Gods word and an excommunication will not bring him to profeſs Repentance, he ſhould not be either Rackt or Impriſoned, to force him to ſay he doth repent, when it is certain that he doth not indeed repent, who will not profeſs it by eaſier means: Nor hath that man right to abſolutiaon and Church Communion, who only prefereth it before a Goale. The effects of the Church Keyes are talked of but are indeed unknown, where ſecular force doth deterr men into lyeing profeſſions of repentance and drive unwilling perſons in to the Communion of the Church: No unwilling perſon ſhould have the Seal of pardon put into his hands.
Obj. But we cannot ſay they are unwilling who conſent, though moved by the penalty of the Law and Sword.
Anſ. Yes; he is to be called unwilling, who hath not the willingneſs which Chriſt maketh neceſſary: He that is not willing to have Church Communion for it ſelf, and for Chriſt and his ſalvation, is not willing of it at all indeed, nor in Gods account: For it is only freedome from a Priſon that he is willing of, and of Church Communion as a means to that, and not as a means to the end that God appointed it: As he that conſenteth to be Baptized only to heal the Kings evil, or to ſave his life, is not to be Baptized nor taken for a Chriſtian, nor is it Baptiſm indeed, but touching only which he conſenteth to; ſo is it in this caſe.
Obj. But how know you but them in hath righter ends together with theſe, puniſhment brings many a man to reaſon and true repentance.
Anſ. You ſuppoſe your ſelves that the word and Keys will not prevail with him of themſelves; and therefore it is that you deſire force; your own Conſciences tell you that it is but to avoid puniſhment that you ſuppoſe him to profeſs repentance: Otherwiſe when your threats have brought him to repentance, try what is the cauſe by remitting the penalty on his body, and after freely leaving him to himſelf.
Obj. But ſome are like Children that will hear reaſon when their ſtubbornneſs is taken down: Therefore it may alſo have better motives for ought you know.
Anſ. 1. Men that are dealt with in the matters of Salvation, are not to be thus uſed as Fools and Children about common things; but as men that muſt live and die as they chooſe. 2. And God hath left us no ſuch means to bring men into a right Choice in things of this nature. Otherwiſe you might ſet Infidels on the Rack till they conſent to be Baptized, or ſend them to Priſon, and then ſay, how know you but this, as the Rod doth Children, hath brought them to their witts. But the Church of Chriſt never took this courſe, nor never thus underſtood his will. 3. The caſe is plain to men that will underſtand: When God hath made mens free conſent the Condition of their Salvation and the Profeſſion of a free conſent to be the Condition of Church Communion (and what wiſe man would have lower that will not make the Church a ſwine ſtie)? It followeth that the Paſtors muſt have the evidence of ſuch a Profeſſion of free and voluntary conſent, or elſe they muſt not receive ſuch perſons: Now ſuch a one that hath been long tried by the word, and by the penalty of Excomunication it ſelf, and refuſeth to profeſs Repentance, but only profeſſeth it when no other means will eſcape a Priſon, doth not give the Paſtor an evidence in the Court of Reaſon acceptable, to ſignifie a voluntary Repentance or conſent; and therefore what ever poſſibly may be known to God, he is not to be taken into the Church: For we muſt judge by evidence, and that is by ſuch free profeſſion of Repentance, as Chriſt hath taught us to expect: and therefore we can only Judge that perſon to be one, that had rather ſay he repenteth than be impriſoned, but not as one that indeed repenteth or deſireth Church Communion as ſuch, and for true ends.
Obj. But if he be in the Church though without Repentance, he may there he brought to Repentance afterward.
Anſ. Poſſibilities are no Rule for us to go by in ſuch caſes, ſo you may ſay if one be Baptized, before he profeſs to believe or repent, he may be brought to it after by hearing in the Church: But this is but to make Lawes for the Church inſtead of Chriſts, when we have caſt out his Lawes, and to confound the world and the Church by our fooliſh adverſe reaſon. He that is in the Church notoriouſly againſt or without his will, ſtands there but as a teſtimony of the Biſhops perfidiouſneſs: And he that will not come in by any reaſoning or intreating, without the violence of the Sword, is in all proceſs of humane Judgments to be eſteemed unwilling: The ancient Churches would indeed importune men to Baptiſm; but they never baptized any (at age) that did not intreat to be baptized, and voluntarily make profeſſion of faith and repentance. And Papiſts and Proteſtants commonly affirm, that none ſhould be conſtrained to be baptized, or to make profeſſion of Chriſtianity. But the Papiſts come after and tell us that vet when one is baptized, he may be compelled by force to all his duty, and ſo may be conſtrained to ſtay in the Church, or to return if he forſake it: Their Reaſons are, 1. Becauſe now he is obliged by his own conſent. 2. Becauſe he hath put himſelf under the Government of the Church, and therefore muſt be Governed by it. Anſ. But 1. to conſent to be a Chriſtian Ruled by Chriſt, and to conſent to be conſtrained by force to continue this conſent, are two things. Prove the latter if you can to be included in our Baptiſm? Contrarily as we freely and not forcedly conſent, it is ſuppoſed that we are accordingly to continue it as we began it. 2. And to put our ſelves under the Government of the Church, is not to put our ſelves under the ſword: the Church puniſhment reacheth no further then excomunication: and where a man is fully excomunicated, he is caſt out of the Church again: and when he is out of it, he is not under its Government: Indeed he is under the Magiſtrates Government: But if that will prove that he may be puniſhed for not repenting and returning to the Church when Excomunicate, it will prove too that he might be puniſhed before Baptiſm, for not repenting and being baptized. For though there be ſome aggravations of his ſin that Apoſtatizeth to it, yet that differeth the caſe but as to the degree. It is for the quality of the crime itſelf, that the Magiſtrate is to puniſh (as Murder, Theft, Adultery, Blaſphemy &c.) Whether it be in the unbaptized, or baptized, or excomunicate: But it is for Impenitency only in ſome crime that the Church doth excommunicate. And if the Magiſtrate muſt impriſon or kill men properly for Impeni…encie, it muſt be as it aggravateth the crime itſelf, and it may be as well the unbaptized as the baptized, for he is the Governour of both: It is therefore a meer fiction of Papiſts Church Tyrants, that there is ſuch a difference between the unbaptized and the excommunicate, as that the firſt muſt not have Church priviledges till they diſire them, and the later may have them if they be but commpelled to keep them, or return to them by the ſword.
And ſo ſchiſmaticaly different are they from the Catholick Church for many hundered years after Chriſt, as directly to contradict them. For all the Canons as well as the Hiſtory tell us, that all the antient Churches when they had excommunicated a ſinner, would not receive him till he had penitently begged readmiſſion: Yea they uſed to caſt down themſelves on the earth (as even great Theodoſtus did before Ambroſe when but ſuſpended), and to beg pardon and readmiſſion with tears: nay for great faults, this was not received till many months or years continued penitence, ſhewed their deſires to be ſincere; and now Prelates muſt have a Blaſphemer, or a common Drunkard, compelled by the ſword to ſay that he repenteth, that he may the next day have the honour and priviledge of a Chriſtian: Communicant, whether he will or not. O kind-natured-cruell-Church▪
And when Gyri… of Alexandria began to uſe the ſword, and when the Circumcellian Donatiſts tempted Augiſtine to change his opinion about uſing force in matters of Religion; yea and when Ithacius and his partakers offended Martin and Ambroſe by ſtirring up Maximu… againſt the Priſcillianiſts, none of all this was to force theſe Hereticks by the ſword, to Communicate in the Church before they had ſhowed a voluntary repentance, nor to make them Church members againſt their wills, even that Ithacius whom Hooker himſelf acknowledgeth ſo bad, was not ſo fooliſh▪ But only they would have forced them from thier own waies, and puniſhed them as ſedu…eis of the people, and as diſturbers of the Churches purity and peace. Though yet it is too evident, that the pride and paſſion of the Prelates that were orthodox, did quickly and ſterely flame out to the conſtagration of the Churches, when they found that the Chriſtian Emperours were ready to ſerve their paſſions with the ſword
It is then paſt denial, that all the power of Biſhops or any Paſtors is but the …dgement of the word of God, upon the Conferences of men that believe them and voluntarily receive that word: only with this advantage, that they do not this as private men, but as Officers appointed ſo to mannage this word. And therefore he that diſobeyeth the word of God truly delivered and applied by them, committeth a double ſin; one as he diſobeyeth Gods word as ſuch, in the matter in hand, and the other as he diſobeyeth that particular word of God, which commandeth him to hear and obey his Paſtors. But if men will ſo ſin, we have nothing but that word of God, which they deſpiſe to cure them by.
For inſtance, 1. In our admonitions and reproofs, of the greateſt ſinners, we can do no more but ſhew them Gods Law, which they have broken, and which threatneth damnation to them, and to perſwade them by Scripture arguments to repent that they may eſcape.
2. In excommunication it ſelf, we have nothing to do but to ſhew them the ſame word, and ſhew them how God hath threatned to puniſh them, and to ſhew them and the Church that word which commandeth us to have no Communion with them but to avoid them, and according to that word to declare them (Impenitency openly Characterizing them) to be perſons unmeet for Chriſtian Communion, and ſuch as (till they repent) are under the wrath of God, and muſt expect his dreadful judgment; and to command the Church in Chriſts name to withdraw from the Impenitent perſon, and to have no Communion with him. And all this is but the application of Gods word to his Conſcience and the Churches. If his ſeared Conſcience deride it all, we can do no more. If he will forcibly intrude into the Communion of the Church againſt their wills, it is like ones breaking into my houſe; the Magiſtrate muſt reſtrain him as a violater of the peace as well as of the Churches liberties: If the Magiſtrate will not, the Church moſt remove from him. If they cannot, they muſt pronounce him morally abſent, as a forcible intruder and none of their Communion. If the Church will not obey the Paſtors ſentence, he hath no inſtrument but the ſame word to bring them to it. Now all this being paſt denial, let us come more particularly to enquire in all this, what part there is eſſential to a Biſhops office as ſuch.
1. Is it the making of Church Lawes or Canons? About what? 1. Either theſe Canons are but the Commanding of that which Gods Law made a duty before, or of ſomewhat newly made a duty by themſelves: 2. Either they are Lawes or Commands to the Laity only, or to the Presbyters, or to the particular Biſhops, or all.
1. If they do but urge the performing of ſome duty already made ſuch by God, in Scripture or Nature, who ever doubted, but Presbyters may do that even to teach and charge the people from God to obey his Laws.
And note that God daily maketh new duties by the Law of nature, even providentially altering the Nature of things; And ſo he maketh this or that to become Decent and Orderly and ſo a duty. And maketh it my duty to ſpeak this or that word, to this or that perſon, or to do this or that particular good work. Even by varying occaſions, accidents and circumſtances of things.
2. But if theſe Canons make new duties which God hath not made, 1. If it be to the Laity, the Presbyters may do the like; for they are Guides alſo of the Laity, unleſs they are forbidden by a ſuperior power: If it be only to the Presbyters, that will not reach our preſent caſe, as ſhall be further ſhewed afterward. 3. If it be to the Biſhops themſelves, they cannot be Laws, but meer agreements, becauſe one Biſhop is not the proper Governour of another; nor many of one; nor the preſent in Council of the abſent as ſuch.
And here by the way it is worthy to be noted how much the Dioceſanes contradict themſelves, in this claim of Government: They ſay that they are of a diſtinct order and office from meer Presbyters, becauſe they have power to Govern them. And yet they make, 1. A Council of Biſhops to have as high a governing power over particular Biſhops of the ſame order: 2. And an Arch-Biſhop to be the Governour of Biſhops; 3. And a Primate or Patriarch to be the Governour of Arch-Biſhops; and yet not to be of a diſtinct Order, or office, but only of a diſtinct degree in the accidentals of the ſame order. If Government prove a diſtinct Order, or Office in one, it will do ſo in the other. And why may not the Magiſtrate make all the ſame Canons who ruleth them all?
But let us conſider what theſe Canons may be. 1. The Biſhops make Canons, how often Synods or Councils ſhall be held, and when and where, and when they ſhall be diſſolved. But, 1. May not the King do the ſame? And can that be proper to Biſhops which the King may do? Yea which all Emperours have formerly uſed? 2. And is not this Cannon made to rule Biſhops themſelves? who is it but Biſhops (or ſo much as them) that you think ſhould be called unto Councils? And are the Biſhops in Council of another order than themſelves out of Council? Need we an office of Biſhops to rule Biſhops of the ſame office?
2. Canons are made about Temples, Buildings, Tithes, Glebes, Bells, Pulpits, Seats Tables, Cups, Fonts, and other utenſils. And 1. who doubteth but the Magiſtrate may do all this? yea that it belongeth to him to regulate ſuch things as theſe? 2. And who knoweth not that even Biſhops are under theſe Canons alſo, who are of the ſame order? 3. And that Presbyters (even in England) are members of theſe Synods, and ſo make Canons to rule the Biſhops? Ergo they are of a ſuperior order to Biſhops by your reaſoning.
3. Canons are made for the regulating of Miniſters attire, in the Church and out, and for officiating garments, as ſurplices &c. And of theſe I ſay the ſame as of the former. The King may do the ſame as Biſhops may do, and Biſhops themſelves are bound by them, and Presbyters make them, which three things prove that it is not the proper work of Biſhops as a diſtinct order from meer Presbyters.
4. Canons are made for worſhip Ge…ures; in what geſture to pray, to receive the Sacrament, to uſe the Creed, &c. And the ſame three anſwers ſerve to this alſo, as to the caſe in hand.
5. Canons are made for Holidaies, publick Faſts, and Thankſgivings, and Lecture daies. And the ſame three conſiderations fall in here.
6. Canons are made for the ordering officers, fees, and ſuch like in Biſhops Courts. And here all the ſame three things fall in, 1. The King may do it, 2. It is Biſhops that are ruled, 3. Presbyters alſo make the Canons, therefore it is not jure divino the proper work of a diſtinct Order.
7. Canons are made for the choice of what Tranſlation of the Bible ſhall be uſed in all the Churches, and what verſion or meetre of the ſinging Pſalmes. And of this alſo the three former things hold true.
8. Canons are made to impoſe a Liturgie, in what words Miniſters ſhall ſpeak to God and to the people. And, 1. This alſo the King may do and doth, 2. And it obligeth Biſhops. 3. And Presbyters make it.
9. Canons are made againſt Schiſmaticks, new Diſcipline and conſtitutions, non-ſubſcribers, unlicenſed Preachers, for the book of Articles, of ordination, for Catechizing, Preaching, Marrying, Burying, Chriſting, and ſuch like: In all which each of the ſaid three anſwers hold.
10. Canons are made to keep Parents from open covenanting to God for their Children in Baptiſm, that they ſhall not be urged to be preſent, that God-fathers do that office and not they; As alſo that none be baptized without the tranſient Image of a Croſs, and ſuch like: whether this be well or ill done, the three former anſwers all hold in this.
11. All the Canons that are for the reſtraint of ſin, as neglect of Church worſhip, prophaning of it, and other abuſes, have the ſame cenſure.
12. The circumſtantiating Canons, how oft Biſhops ſhall confirm, and whom they ſhall ordaine, and how oft, and how oft the Common prayer be read, the Surplice worne, the Sacraments adminiſtred, in what place, what Regiſters to be kept, what order to be obſerved in reading the Scriptures and the Apocrypha, with abundance the like, have all the foreſaid anſwers to prove that they are no proper work of a diſtinct order.
There remaineth therefore but the determination of preſent circumſtances, which are part of the Miniſters proper work, or the Lecturer or Clerkes at leaſt. As, 1. What text to Preach on to day. How to expound it, and apply it: In what method to Preach: What words to uſe: How long to Preach: 2. In what method, words and length to pray (where free Prayer is allowed) 3. What particular Pſalm to Sing, and in what tune; 4. On what particular daies to adminiſter the Lords Supper, beſides the great daies (Eaſter, Whitſontide) &c. At what hour to go to Church, and when to end, 5. What particular ſick perſon to viſit, and when: And what ſinner to reprove or admoniſh perſonally. And who is to be taken for a true penitent and abſolved in foro poenitentiali or privately (as they diſtinguiſh, all theſe are either the perſonal work of him that officiateth) (as chewing his meat of a man before he ſwallow it and degeſt it; or as chooſing his medicaments is to the Phyſician) and belongeth to his calling, which none ſhould hinder him in (of which I make no queſtion; And if ſo, it is not the proper work of a Biſhop. Or elſe it is fit that this liberty be taken from him, and that other men chooſe for him every day his Text, his Method, his words, his tune, his hour and the reſt. And if ſo, when this alſo ſhall be made a Canon, no doubt but the King and Parliament and Presbyters in convocation, will all have a hand in it; and perhaps the Biſhops be under the Canon as well as others. Yet then we have not found out a Biſhops proper work unleſs it were when he is preſent in the ſame aſſemblies to governe the work in all theſe circumſtances, in which I do not contend againſt him.
II. If then it lie not in Legiſlation or Canon making, let us conſider whether it lie in judging or executing. And this muſt be chiefly about Excommunication and Abſolution, as it concerneth the Laity. And here, 1. The buſineſs is not to judge of the Law, but of the Perſon by the Law. It is not to judge in plaine caſes, whether we muſt avoid an impenitent Fornicator, a Drunkard, a Blaſphemer, an Heretick, &c. For if the Biſhops ſay nay, we muſt not believe him or obey him. And for difficult inſtances, of the ſpecies of ſins deſerving, it is partly the work of an expoſitor of Scripture, to determine of them, and partly of the Canons and Laws of the land, where Magiſtrates and Presbyters are efficient, and Biſhops themſelves obliged as well as Presbyters.
The buſineſs therefore is to judge whether this perſon be guilty of suchThat unjuſt excommunications bind not, ſee the judgment of the moſt approved caſuiſts in Bapt. Fragoſo de Regim Reipub. p. 1. l. 1. pag. 112. Col. 2. & Gregor. Sayrus To. 2. l. 1. c. 17. num. 2. 5. 8. &c. And indeed they conclude that out of the caſe of ſcandal, Magiſtrates Laws, unjuſt materially, that is, to the Common hurt, or that are againſt common good, bind not in Conſcience; ut Id. Fragoſo ib. p. 112. n. 234. 336. W… citeth the conſent of Silveſt. Tabien. Bald. Bartol. Hoſtienſ. & Doctorum Communiter. So that Mr. John Humfrey is not ſingular in his reſolution of this Caſe, though I gave him many cautions and limitations in the Letter, part of which he hath printed in the end of his book. a Crime, and. 2. Whether he be impenitent therein. And that this is the work of a Parochus, that is, a Cohabiting Paſtor, who is upon the place, and knoweth the parties, and not of a ſtrange Biſhop over a a thouſand or many hundred Churches, I have partly ſhewed before, and partly ſhall ſhew now, and partly hereafter. At the preſent let the unexperienced conſider of this which any Novice that is upon the place may know.
1. A Biſhop (eſpecially armed with penal terrour) or a Chancellour's Court, is not like to know of one ſcandalous Impenitent perſon of a hundred, which the preſent Paſtor is like to know of. For experience telleth us that few honeſt men will accuſe their neighbours, where they ſhall but get hatred, and foreſee no more probality of procuring the perſons repentance by it: And that Church-Wardens do not and will not do it. Many men that fear perjury, refuſe the oath, leſt they ſhould break it, or ſin in keeping it, as it bindeth them to proſecute many men for Conſcientious Nonconformity: And thoſe that take the Cath, before they fear an oath, will make no Conſcience at all of breaking it. So that a matter of notorious fact is paſt diſpute. The land knoweth that not one Swearer, Curſer, Fornicator, Adulterer, Railer, Thief, Derider of Scripture and Religion, &c. of a multitude, is ever accuſed at the Biſhops Court. Whereas the Preſent Paſtor can ſcarce chooſe but know the greateſt part of theſe in his Pariſh, by dwelling among them, where he ſhall have frequent notice of it. Say as long as you will that this is long of the Miniſter, or Long of the Church-Wardens, or of the Apparitor, we know that the thing is ſo.
2. And in Church judgments where a mans repentance is the cauſe in queſtion, he hath the advantage an hundred fold that is preſent. For the tenor of his life before, and after, will be of great ſignification in judging of this: A man that never fell into ſuch a ſin before, and that quickly lamenteth it by free confeſſion (known to the Paſtor) may eaſily be believed to be penitent. But a man that hath many years continued in a wicked life, and that after all admonition and perſwaſions to repent, confeſſing one day and ſinning the next, and perhaps deriding the Paſtor, and making a jeſt of his own confeſſions, is not ſo quickly to be believed. And yet the ſtrange Dioceſans or Chancellour ſhall not know the difference, nor hear any more at the beſt, than [I repent] And whereas they ſay, if he ſin again he is to be accuſed again] 1. They know de facio, that this is ſeldome done, except againſt ſome Conſcientious Nonconformiſts. 2. And when neighbours ſee that the man whom they enraged againſt them by an accuſation, cometh home again, by ſaying I Repent, and paying his fees, and doth but watch to execute his malice againſt the accuſers, they will meddle in ſuch improfitable work no more.
3. And whereas the Chancelor or Dioceſane muſt go upon the witneſſes report. 1. The credit of the witneſſes will be unknown to them; becauſe it lyeth upon the honeſty of the perſons, whom they know not but by other perſons; nor thoſe other but by others; and they are forced to take all our ſlight reports, uſualy from ſome flatterers of themſelves, almoſt the worſt men in the Pariſh, accounted by them the beſt and moſt credible, becauſe they know not them aright, nor the reſt at all. 2. And how unſatisfactory a thing it is to a mans Conſcience, to Judge at random, or upon the uncertain credit of they ſcarce know who, in a c…ſe of Excommunication or Abſolution; whereas the preſent Paſtor may goe on far more cleare and ſatisfactory grounds.
4. Moreover the Conviction of a ſinner before Excommunication or Abſolution, requireth a great deal of time, and a great many words, and thoſe choſen with the greateſt skill, and ſet home with the greateſt Life, and Light, and Love, that can be manifeſted by the ſpeaker; Many a time I have tried it, and could never ſatisfie my Conſcience without more frequent, long and earneſt exhortation, and prayer with it, than ever I knew Chancelor or Biſhop uſe to fourty delinquents ſet together. The preſent Paſtor hath opportunity to do this: But the Chancelor or Dioceſane hath not. I never heard of any ſuch means uſed in their Courts that was of ſuch a nature as true Paſtoral exhortations are, to melt a ſinners heart into repentance. But of this before.
2. Another caſe of perticular judgment is, what ſinner in his ſicknneſs before death, is fit for Abſolution. Here they cannot make the Biſhop Judge, who is many a mile off; nor can they tell how to deny it to be without the office of the Pariſh Paſtor, and therefore they allow him to be the Abſolver; and yet, leſt he be the Judge, they bind him to Abſolve all that require it, and do but ſay they repent: which muſt needs be a pernicious deceiving courſe to impenitent ſouls, when it is known that nothing is more ordinary with many in ſickneſs and in health, than to ſay I repent of ſome one groſs diſgraceful ſin, and live in others worſe without any profeſſion of repentance, and die ſo at laſt. And muſt I abſolve him from that ſin which he repenteth of without the reſt? or from all becauſe he repenteth of one? yea, commonly men have a Confeſſion which is like a Profeſſion of their ſin, and a Repentance which declareth it ſelf to be Impenitence it ſelf: ſome ſtoutly ſome ſtupidly ſaying [I comfeſs I am a ſwearer and a drunkard, a whoremonger, but you Preciſians are as bad and worſe, for you are but hypocrites: I repent of my ſins daily, and aske God mercy, though I commit them daily, and I doubt not of forgiveneſs, for all are ſinners] and if one of theſe ſay alſo on his ſick bed, he repenteth, without any ſigns of ſerious contrition or change of heart, we muſt Abſolve him: But yet though we are not free in this, it is no Dioceſanes proper work, and therefore requireth not their office.
3. Another Judgment of individuals neceſſary is who is to be baptized, at leaſt of perſons at age; in Infidell Countries, or ſuch as ours, where many thouſand Anapabtiſts Children are unbaptized till they come to age? The queſtion is not what ſhall be the Law and Rule (whether Scripture or Canon) but who ſhall judge whether the perſon be capable according to the rule. Doubtleſs every one hath not faith: The profeſſion that entitleth to baptiſme muſt be, 1. Of the whole eſſence of our part of the Covenant, faith, conſent and future obedience. 2. With tolerable underſtanding of what they ſay. 3. With ſeeming ſeriouſneſs. 4. With ſeeming Voluntarineſs and fixed reſolution. Now how can a Dioceſan judge of this, that is not within many miles of the place, nor never ſaw the perſon in his life? It hath ever been confeſſed to be part of the Baptizers work, though under the Government of Magiſtrates, and in the Church the preſent Biſhop is not denyed a negative vote or a guiding judgment in the affair.
4. The very fame throughout is to be ſaid of judging what individual perſons in a Pariſh are grown up to a capacity of the Lords Supper; (whither it be done in confirmation or at any other time) certainly they muſt renew their baptiſmal Covenant, and moreover underſtand the ſenſe of the Sacrament, &c. But ſhall the Dioceſan that never ſeeth one of an hundred of his Dioceſe judge of every one of theſe? I will ſtay no longer on ſuch inſtances; I think we need no more.
III. If the caſes of Teſtaments, Adminiſtrations, Licenſes to marry, judgement of caſes of divorce, diſpenſations and ſuch like be pretended as the proper works of Biſhops, I think I need not ſtay to confute them, while it is known that ſo much as is not every Paſtors work in it, belongeth to the Magiſirate, and is done among us by his Commiſſion, and that uſually by Laymen.
IV. We have therefore the Government of the Miniſters themſelves to ſpeak of next, which conſiſteth, 1. In ordination, 2. Inſtituting and inducting, 3. Licenſing, 4. Suſpending, ejecting, ſilencing and degrading.
1. And ordination being that great and notable work, which anciently was taken to be all that was proper to the Biſhop, by many of the Fathers, as well as Hierome, this above all muſt be well conſidered. And 1. Let us conſider of the Reaſons for it; and 2. Of the different caſes.
1. The reaſons given for appropriating ordination to Dioceſans, or Biſhops are theſe, 1. Becauſe no man can give that which he hath not: 2. Becauſe it is an act of ſuperiority: 3. Becauſe none but Biſhops ever did it in Scripture times, or ſince without the Churches condemnation.
1. The firſt of theſe reaſons Dr. Hammond Praemon. Diſſert. is earneſt in urging. To which I ſay, 1. It is granted, that no man giveth that which be hath not. But Presbyters have the office of Presbyters, therefore by your ſuppoſition) they may give it.
Obj. But (ſaith he.) Presbyters had never a power given by the ordainers to ordain.
Anſ. I deny it, and prove the contrary (whatever the ordainers mean) 1. Thoſe who in their ordination had an Office, Power or Keys of Chriſts making, conteining the power of ordination, delivered to them Miniſterially, had the power of ordination delivered to them Miniſterially: But all true Paſtors or Presbyters ordained in England had an Office, Power or K…y…s of Chriſts making, conteining the power of ordination delivered to them Miniſterially. Ergo they had the power of ordination ſo delivered. Nothing needs proof but the Minor. And, 1. That Chriſt and not the Biſhops made the true Paſtoral Office, or Keyes, is paſt doubt among ſober Chriſtians, 2. And that it was the ordainers meaning to deliver them no new humane office, but that which Chriſt (by his Spirit and Apoſtles at leaſt) made, inſtituted and deſcribed, I will ſtand to the ordainers own profeſſion, 3. And if ſo, I think they will confeſs, that if they did miſtake, and think that the office conteined not, what it conteined indeed, their miſtake will not diſable the ordained Miniſter; no more than the Errour of a Recorder or Steward, who thinketh when he giveth the Mayor his Oath, that his office hath leſſer power than it hath: But Gods making and not mans meaning muſt determine of the power, 4. Therefore all the queſtion is whether God put the power of ordination into the Paſtoral office. Of which now I will ſay but this, that Dr. Hammond confeſſeth that there was no Paſtor ordained in Scripture times that had not the power of ordination: And I ſhall after prove, that no other ſhould be introduced ſince by men.
2. And farther the Church of England appointeth Miniſters to impoſe hands with the Dioceſan in ordination: Therefore they take not ordination, but only a Superiority in ordination to be proper to their office; As Biſhop Downame and other of them alſo openly hold and profeſs.
2. The, 2d. Reaſon, that ordination is an Act of Superiority. 1. Is granted; becauſe the perſon to be ordained is yet no Miniſter of Chriſt, and therefore is Inferior to the Presbyters that ordain him, till he have received his office. 2. But that afterward the ordainer muſt be of an higher order (as well as greater antiquity in office) than him that is ordained by him, I deny: For than Biſhops could not ordain Biſhops; nor Arch-Biſhops ordain Arch-Biſhops: and who ſhall ordain the Patriarcks, or (if you be for him) the Pope? Have they all ſuperiours to do it?
3. The third Reaſon from Hiſtory I ſhall confute in due place: only here retorting it thus: In Scripture times no fixed Dioceſan ever did ordain, therefore none ſuch ſhould now ordain.
2. But next let us diſtinguiſh, 1. Between ordaining to the Miniſtry in the Univerſal Church without affixing to a particular Charge, and the fixing of a Paſtor in that particular Church. And, 2. Between ordaining a Biſhop or Plenary Paſtor, and a half Paſtor called now a Presbyter.
1. As Baptiſm as ſuch doth joyn a man to no particular Church, but only to the Univerſal, but yet they that have opportunity ſhould ſecondarily by a faither act of conſent alſo joyn themſelves to the particular Church where they live, but if they live where they have no ſuch opportunity, they muſt do it after as ſoon as ſuch opportunity cometh: Even ſo ordination to the ſacred Miniſtry as ſuch doth fix a man to no particular Church, but make him a Miniſter of Chriſt to the world for mens convertion, and to the Univerſal Church for Chriſtians edification, as he ſhall have any particular opportunity for exerciſe (which the Church of England expreſſeth by the words [when thou ſhalt be thereunto Lawfully called] meaning a call ad exercitium, to the exerciſe of the office received: But yet where there are not many unchurched Infidels to be converted, but all profeſs Chriſtianity, it is not fit ſuch ſhall be ordained ſine titulo, as they ſpeak, leſt it occaſion irregularity and poverty in the Clergy, but be at once affixed to a particular Church, which fixed Miniſters are in Scripture uſually called Biſhops, Presbyters and Paſtors, with relation to their particular flock or Church, beſides their primary relation to the World and to the univerſal Church, from which the extraordinary Officers were called Apoſtles and Evangeliſts, and the ordinary ones Miniſters of Chriſt in general. Though I deny not but even the unfixed may be called Biſhops, Elders and Paſtors, as being virtually ſuch, and in an Office which wanteth nothing but a particular Call to that fixation and exerciſe.
Now 1. To call a Miniſter already made ſuch to a particular Church, and ſo to make a Biſhop or Paſtor or Presbyter of him, doth not neceſarily require a Dioceſan: For, 1. The people that are at liberty may do it, and ordinarily have done (as Blondel hath fully proved) And in our times if a free people only chooſe a man already ordained, and take him for their Paſtor, no man taketh this for a nullity, no not the Prelatiſts themſelves. 2. And a Paſtor Magiſtrate or Prince may do it without a Biſhop, as none deny. 3. And a Miniſter may frequently on juſt occaſion be removed from place to place, and needeth not a Biſhop for every change, at leaſt as to the being of his office.
2. And as to the firſt ordination of a Miniſter as ſuch, if there muſt be a Dioceſan to do it, this is gathered either from the nature of the thing, or from divine inſtitution.
1. As to the nature of the thing, it ſheweth no ſuch neceſſity, but rather contradicteth it; for 1. As to Efficiency, if a Biſhop or Arch-Biſhop or Primate or Patriark may be made without the agency of any one of a higher order, then ſo may a Presbyter. For the reaſon is the ſame.
2. And as to the object; 1. The firſt object of the ſacred Miniſtry as ſuch, is the Infidel world, to whom they are to Preach the Goſpel, and offer Chriſt and Salvation, and beſeech them in Chriſts ſtead to be2 Cor. 5. 19. Act. 26. 18. Mat. 28. 20. reconciled to God, to call them from darkneſs to light, and the power of Satan unto God. And to think that none but Apoſtles ſhould do this, and that all the world muſt be left to the Devil when the Apoſtles were dead, is an unchriſtian thought: To thoſe that muſt do this, Chriſt promiſed his preſence to the end of the world. Now. 1. The Infidel world is no more under the power of a Dioceſan than of a Presbyter: If it be, it is either. 1. As he is a Prelate. 2. Or as a Dioceſan. 1. Not as a Prelate in general. For if the world be the object of the Miniſters office, it can be no more of the Prelates as ſuch. 2. Not as a Dioceſan: For the Infidel world, [Egypt, Tartary, Japan, China, Perſia, &c.] is no part of any Biſhops Dioceſe. 2. And as to the work of a Preacher to the Infidels, it is the very fame whether it be done by a Biſhop or a Presbyter: There is nothing to do for them but preach and baptize, and neither of thoſe is a work proper to a Biſhop.
If it be ſaid that it is not becauſe of the object or the work are proper to a Biſhop, but becauſe the ſending forth a man for that work is proper to him; I anſwer, that when I have proved paſt contradiction that he fendeth a man to do as high a work as he could there do himſelf, and to the very ſame, it ſheweth that ex natura rei there needeth no higher order than the Miniſters to ſend him: No more than there needeth a higher progenitor than a man to beget a man.
2. And as his office is related to the Church-Univerſal, all the ſame argumentation will hold good. For the Church-Univerſal is the object of the Miniſters office as well as of the Prelates; and no more than his own Dioceſe is the ſpecial charge of a Dioceſan as ſuch; and the work to which the Miniſter is ordained in general to the whole Church can no otherwiſe be proved leſs than the Prelates, unleſs by proving a Divine inſtitution (which they will grant.)
2. And as for a Divine inſtitution as to the ordaining power, I will ſay but this much, (which may take with cordate men) till I come to ſpeak more largely of the point. 1. That Doctor Hammond (and as far as he knew, all that owned the ſame cauſe with him) doth grant that the Apoſtles (nor any other) in Scripture times did not ſo much as inſtitute the office of a Presbyter as diſtinct from a Biſhop, much leſs ever ordain any one to ſuch an office: And that in all their Inſtructions to Timothy and Titus about ordination of Biſhops or elders and Deacons, they have not a ſyllable about any ordination or qualification of ſuch ſubject Presbyters, but only about ordaining Biſhops. Therefore if Biſhops be the ſucceſſors of the Apoſtles in ordination, they cannot do more than they did; nor ordain any other Presbyters than Biſhops.
2. That if Biſhops were the Inſtitutors of Presbyters, as diſtinct from them by a Power of parcelling out their office to others than Biſhops, yet have power to make more ſorts of ſacred Miniſters, by ſubdiviſion of their power. They may make one office only to Preach, and another only to baptize, and another only to pray, and another only to adminiſter the Lords Supper, and another to Excommunicate, and why not another to ordaine; and ſo ordination ſhall not be proper to a Biſhop. And ſo a Chancellor that hath the parcel of excommunicating and abſolveing, is as true a Clergy man, and of as high original as a Preſbyter.
3. But that which Dr. Hammond betaketh himſelf to at laſt (in his Anſwer to the London Miniſters) is as miſerable a ſhift as ever a poor cauſe was reduced to (that had never ſtood if it had not been more beholden to the Sword than to ſuch foundations) he durſt not ſay that the Presbyters office is not of Divine inſtitution: And yet it was not inſtituted in Scripture times: But it was inſtituted in Saint Johns time by him a lone after the writing of his Goſpel (which according to Jerome was about a year or two before he dyed) and the Revelation (which according to Jrenaeus li. 5.) was about four or five years before he dyed. And ſo all the Biſhops power of ordaining ſubject Presbyters dependeth, 1. On one Apoſtles Inſtitution, 2. Not proved at all by Scripture, 3. But only by Church-Hiſtory, which hath not a ſyllable of ſuch a thing, as that Saint John did inſtitute the Presbyters office …. And this is feigned to be done by Saint John many years after Peter and Paul, are ſaid to be Biſhops of Rome and James of Jeruſalem, and Peter of Antioch, and Mark of Alexandria. Yea about thirty two years after Mark was put to death according to Euſebius *Hierome ſaith he dyed in the eighth year of Nero. aid. …oi. Scaliger. Anim. in Euſeb. Dorothaeun reſutantem, pag. 195.ſee then what proof the Doctor giveth us that even at Rome and Alexandria all that time, there was no Biſhop over Presbyters, nor any that ever ordained a Presbyter that was not a Biſhop.
3. But ſuppoſe the Divine inſtitution be proved of Biſhops ordination of ſubject Presbyters, let theſe three things more be noted.
1. That at leaſt we have brought it to the Ancients meaſure, that excepta ſola ordinatione, except only ordination, here is no work for to make a Biſhops office of, but what a Presbyter may do.
2. That in this ordination they themſelves acknowledg that the Presbyters may joyn, even in impoſing hands, which is the note of Superiority (the leſſer being bleſſed by the greater), and ſo Presbyters alſo (by Epiphanius's leave) do generare patres: And Biſhops have not the ſole power of ordination, but the chief.
3. And whether a chief power in inveſting men in the Miniſterial office, do make a diſtinct order or office de nomine, let them contend that pleaſe dere▪ if this wereall, we were agreed: For my part, I had rather that Biſhops had not only a chief power as moderators, But even a Negative voice in ordination, yea and in Removals and fixing of Miniſters, than not: For in ſo weighty a buſineſs two Locks and Keyes to keep out bad men, are ſurer than one. And the poor ſilenced Nonconformiſts have yielded to much more than this.
But yet there remaineth one part of the Dioceſans work to be conſidered, viz, The judging of Hereſie and Schiſm, and the ſilencing, ſuſpending and degrading of Miniſters that deſerve it. The Queſtion is, whether this be not proper to the Prelates office.
And here no man can wiſh us to ſwallow the terms of the queſtions whole, without diſtinguiſhing, as if they ſignifyed: but one thing.
1. As judging is, 1. Either private by diſcerning ones own duty, which belongeth to every private man. 2. Or publick for the deciding of a controverſie… ▪ and this as. 1. Civil, 2. Or properly▪ Eccleſiaſtical; ſo in ſeveral manners and to ſeveral ends, Private men, Magiſtrates and Paſtors may judge of Hereſie &c.
2. And as for ſuſpending, ſilencing and degrading, either. 1. It ſignifieth ſome Correction by the Sword or force; and that undoubtedly belongeth only to the Magiſtrate, and to no private man, nor Clergy man at all, as ſuch.
2. A Private man and much more a Congregation, may and muſt refuſe a notorious Intolerable Miniſter, whether Inſufficient, Heretical or wicked and Malignant, they muſt withdraw from him, and not take him for their guide, and Paſtor, nor truſt their Souls upon his care and conduct. If Cyprian had never ſaid [Plebs maximum habet poteſtatem, vel ſacerdotes dignos eligendi, vel indignos neceſand… ▪ the Law of nature ſaith enough; as it doth warrant a man to refuſe an unskilful or malicious murdering Phyſician. And Scripture requireth every man to take heed of falſe Teachers, and deceivers, and from ſuch to turne away.
3. To ſilence a falſe Teacher by Argument, (by word or writeing) belongeth to every man that is called to contend earneſtly for the faith, and to anſwer a fool according to his folly.
4. To perſwade him by Argument to give over Preaching, or to reform his errours. 1. A private man may do it privately; 2. Any Miniſter of Chriſt may do it both ex charitate & ex officio & authoritate, as a Miniſter of Chriſt in his name. For as a Phyſician doth medicate another Phyſician, not as another man, but as a Phyſician, and a judge doth judge the cauſe of another Judge, not as a private man, but as a Judge; ſo a Miniſter of Chriſt doth Preach to a Miniſter, and perſwade him, not as a private man but as a Miniſter, not as his ſuperiour, but as a Meſſenger of Chriſt who is his Soveraigne.
5. Yea, to Command ſuch a man ex authoritate Nu…ii vel Miniſtri, by Miniſterial authority in the name of Chriſt to forſake his Hereſie and wickedneſs, or to forbear the Sacred Miniſtry, belongeth to Miniſters of the ſame office. For if a Miniſter Preach or ſpeak to another Miniſter as a Miniſter himſelf, and in Chriſts name, then no doubt but he may command in Chriſts name; which is but by Miniſterial office to publiſh the Commands of Chriſt: No doubt but he may ſay to another Miniſter [I Counſel, yea Command you in the name of Chriſt, by vertue of my office and his word, to forbear Adultery, Theft, Blaſphemy, Hereſie, or elſe to forbear the Sacred Miniſtry] Yea he may ſay thus (with due reverence) to a Biſhop, ſo that for a ſilencing by Reaſon or force, or by Miniſterial authority and command as from Chriſt, there is no need of the office of a Dioceſan.
6. The queſtion therefore is whether we muſt have a Biſhop to ſilence men by bare Authority without convincing effectual argument ſatisfying his Conſcience? or elſe by a diſtinct Superior Authority, more powerful than the Miniſters?
And 1. Seing the Dioceſan as ſuch hath not the Sword, it is certain that he ſilenceth no further than he prevaileth with the Conſcience, either of the Miniſter to be ſilent, or of the people not to hear him, or of the Magiſtrates to ſilence him by force.
Now to do this, either he muſt prove to them from the word of God, by argument, that each of theſe are thus far obliged by God; or elſe that God hath made him as Dioceſan the Judge, and they are bound to do it, becauſe he bids them do it.
For the firſt, as is ſaid, it belongeth to every Miniſter, even with office-authority to tell both Magiſtrates, Miniſter and people their duty, in the name of Chriſt: Thus [God hath commanded Adulterers, Hereticks, &c. To forſake their ſins or forbear the Miniſtery, and commanded me to publiſh this in his name, even to particular perſons: But thou art an Adulterer, Heretick &c. go &c. Or [God commandeth me to tell the people that it is their duty to avoid a Heretick, and the Magiſtrate that it is his duty to ſilence him by force: Therefore I require this of you in his name].
2. But if the Dioceſan claim a Superiour Nuntiative power, as one more to be believed than the Miniſter, this is. 1. But to the doing of the ſame work which a Miniſter may do. 2. And he muſt prove that Superiour credibility. 3. But Miniſterial conviction is efficacious according to the evidence that is brought to do the work. If the hearer believe not that the Major is Gods word (that an Heretick e. g. muſt give over Preaching). Or if he deny the Minor [but thou art an Heretick] it is not a Biſhops word that will convince him, but a Miniſter that is better at proving it may do more.
Obj. but we will command him to be ſilent. Anſ. And he will deride you and command you to be ſilent again.
Obj. Then we will convince the Magiſtrate of his duty to ſilence him by force. Anſ. 1. That was not the way for 300 years after Chriſt: And what was Epiſcopacy for till then? 2. What if the Magiſtrates believe you not, will you convince him by Scripture or by your Authority over the Magiſtrate? It by Scripture, a wiſer Presbyter can do that better, or as well. If by authority, of that anon.
Obj. But at leaſt we will convince the people that it is their duty to forſake that Preacher. Anſ. Again I ſay, if you will do it by Scripture, a Miniſter can do it as well. And thus many Miniſters now do ſilence the Dioceſans and Conformiſts, that is, they perſwade the people not to hear them, or own them. But if by authority, it muſt come to this at laſt, that you are made by God the Judges, and this muſt be believed.
And remember ſtill you ſilence no further than you perſwade the Conſcience to believe that God hath given you this authority. And 1. I ask whether it be ever likely that you will ſilence any Hereticks, falſe Teacher, or Schiſmatick this way by making him take you for one authorized by God to forbid him to Preach. For it muſt be in one of theſe three caſes or all that you have this power. 1. Either to ſilence him as a Heretick that is no Heretick, or not proved ſuch. 2. Or to ſilence him as a Heretick that notoriouſly and provedly is a Heretick. 3. Or to ſilence him as a Heretick in a doubtful caſe to others, but judged Hereſie &c. by you.
1. In the firſt caſe neither the injured perſon, nor any that know that you injure him will or muſt obey you. Elſe a malignant Prelate might ſilence all the holieſt and worthieſt Miniſters of Chriſt, and it would be at ſuch mens mercy, whether Chriſt ſhould have Churches, or the people ſhould be Chriſtians or be ſaved. I am one of the 1800 that have been ſilenced by better authority than the Prelates alone, and yet I think I am bound in Conſcience to exerciſe the Miniſtry which I received, whatever I ſuffer, to the utmoſt of my opportunity. And if the Sword ſtreightened my opportunity no more than my Conſcience of the Dioceſans Prohibition, I ſhould be but very little hindered.
2. In the 2d. caſe (of notorious Hereſie) all good Chriſtians are bound by God to avoid ſuch a man, though you never ſilenced him, yea though you licenſed him; yea though you commanded them to hear him: And ſo Magiſtrates are bound to do their duty in reſtraining him. Can you deny this? Muſt the peoples Souls be poyſoned and damned, till the Biſhop pleaſe to take away the poyſon and to ſave them? muſt the Magiſtrate let Hereticks alone till it pleaſe the Dioceſan to judge them?
2. And in this caſe, no ſober Chriſtian will deny, that a Presbyter ought to call upon people and Magiſtrates to do their duty, as well as the Dioceſans. Yea, and to command men in Chriſts name, to avoid a notorious or proved heretick.
Obj. But a Presbyter cannot examine the case and ſo get proof. Anſ. He may examine it as far as Reaſon with Miniſterial authority will perſwade the guilty or the witneſſes to be examined. And his care of the Church and the peoples Souls obligeth him ſo to do. And a Prelate cannot bring men by ſorce to examination or witneſſing.
3. But let his guilt be never ſo notorious to others, is it like that the perſon himſelf will be ſilent through Conſcience of obedience to a Prelate.
Conſider. 1. that if he will not obey a Miniſter that ſheweth him the word of God, it is unlikely that he will obey a Prelate that ſaith I have authority to ſilence you.
2. A Heretick doth not know that he is a Heretick, nor any erroneous perſon know that it is an errour which he believeth: For it is a contradiction to err in judgment, and to know it to be any errour. And then 1. He knoweth that his office is durante vita, and that he is bound not to ceaſe it without cauſe. 2. He knoweth that you have no power to ſilence Orthodox Preachers as Hereticks, but thoſe that are Hereticks indeed. 3. He taketh himſelf for Orthodox and you for the Heretick. 4. And all his followers are of his mind. How then will you ſilence a Heretick without the Sword? If you convince him of his errour you ſhall not need to ſilence him; for he will leave his errour rather than his Miniſtry: But if you convince him not of his errour, you will hardly convince him, that becauſe of that errour, he muſt be ſilent; (nor convince his followers that they muſt not hear him).
3. All the queſtion therefore that remaineth, is whether in unknown doubtful caſes, you are the Judges of Hereſie, Errour, Schiſin, and of mens unworthineſs to Preach. And here. 1. I need not tell you that by this way you can never ſilence either the Arrians, or any that deny your authority. Of which ſort you know are moſt that you ſilence in this age and Nation. No, nora Donatiſt, a Novatian, or any one that is for the office of Biſhops, but taketh you for no Biſhop as being unduely called: Of which ſort were abundance of Chriſtians towards each others Biſhops in former ages; and ſuch are the Papiſts now towards you. So that neither Papiſt nor Proteſtant that I ever knew ſilenced by you, doth forbear upon Conſcience of this your pretended authority at all. And what a ſilencing power is that which ſcarce any man would be ever ſilenced by? You cannot chooſe but know this to be true.
2. And really, ſhould Magiſtrates themſelves be ſo ſervile to you as to ſilence all Miniſters by the Sword, whom a Prelate judgeth to be ſilent, while he knoweth not whether it be deſervedly or not; God forbid that Proteſtants, like the Popes, ſheald make Kings to be their Executioners, or hangmen. A meer Executioner indeed is not bound to▪ know or examine, whether the ſentence was juſt or not (though in moſt caſes to forbear if it be notoriouſly unjuſt) but what a King or Magiſtrate doth, he muſt do as a publick Judge, and therefore muſt hear the cauſe himſelf, and try whether he be really guilty or not, and not only whether a Biſhop judged him ſo. Elſe Magiſtrates will either be involved in the bloody ſin of perſecution, as ōft as a Prelate will but command them; and ſo muſt be damned and help to damn others, when Prelates pleaſe: Or elſe it is no ſin for a Magiſtrate to ſilence all the holyeſt Miniſters of Chriſt, to the damnation of thouſands of ignorant untaught Souls, ſo be it the Prelates do but bid him, and he keep himſelf unacquainted with the cauſe. And next they muſt obey the Counſel at Laterane ſub. Inoc. 3. And exterminate all ſubjects out of their Dominions (though it be all that are there) and muſt burn Holy-Chriſtians to aſhes, becauſe the Pope or Prelates bid them.
3. I need not make alſo a particular application of this caſe to the people: When they know nothing but wiſe and ſound and holy in the Doctrine or life of their Paſtors, and God bids them know ſuch as labour among them and are over them in the Lord, and highly eſteem them in Love for their work ſake; they will hardly be ſo debauched as to violate this command of God, as oft as a Dioceſan will but ſay [I know ſome Hereſie or Crime by your Teacher which you do not, and therefore he muſt Preach no more, and you muſt no more uſe his miniſtry.] Were I one of theſe people, I would be bold to ask the Dioceſan [Sir what is the Heresie or Crime that he is guilty of? If he refuſe to tell me I would ſlight him as a Tyrant: General Counſels told the people of the Hereſies for which they did deſpoſe their Paſtors. If he told me what it was, I would try it by Gods word: If I were unable, I would ſeek help. If the Dioceſan ſilenced my Teacher, and ten neighbour Biſhops wiſer than he, did tell me that it was for Truth and Duty, and that the Hereſie was the Biſhops, I would hear my Teacher, and believe the other Biſhops before him, (without taking them to be of a higher order.)
The objections againſt this, and what is before ſaid ſhall be anſwered in the next Chapter. You ſee when it is but opened, how the Dioceſans power vaniſheth into the air.