A Treatise of Episcopacy, Part 2 · Chapter 10 – Chapter 11
CHAP. X. Whether any form of Church Government be inſtituted by God as neceſſary? or all left to humane prudence?
Obj. BUt Doctor Stillingfleet hath invincibly proved that God hath made no one form of Church Government neceſſary, but left the choice to humane prudence.
Anſw. I. If ſo, Why ſhould we all ſwear to this one form, that we will never endeavour to alter it? or (as the & caetera Oath) never conſent to the alteration of it, when we know not but the King may alter it, or command us to endeavour it? Muſt there be ſuch ſwearing to the perpetuating an alterable unneceſſary thing?
II. The word [Form] ſignifieth either the eſſentials of Church policy, or the Integrals, or accidents which Chriſt himſelf hath ſetled: Or elſe it ſignifieth only ſome mutable accidents or modes, which God hath left to humane prudence. Of the firſt we deny mans power to change them. Of the later we grant it.Act. 2. 1. 42, 44, 46. Heb. 10. 22, &c & 13. 7, 17, 24. Act. 14. 23. & Act. 20. 1 Theſ. 5. 12, 13. 1 Cor. 5. & 14. per tot.
1. It is undeniably of Divine inſtitution that there be ordinary publick Aſſemblies for Gods ſolemn worſhip, and the peoples edification. 2. And that Miniſters of that office which Chriſt hath inſtituted, be the officiating Guides in theſe Aſſemblies. 3. And that Cohabiting Chriſtians be the ordinary ſtated bodies of theſe aſſemblies, and not live looſely to go every day as they pleaſe from Church to Church, but ordinarily when they can, be ſetled members of ſome one Church (To which cohabitation or vicinity, is one diſpoſitio materiae) 4. And that each of theſe Churches have their proper fixed Paſtors, and ſhould not take up with unfixed various paſſing Miniſters, unleſs in caſes of neceſſary unſetledneſs. 5. And that theſe ſetled Paſtors ſhould live among the People,1 Pet. 5. 1, 2, 3. 1 Tim. 3. & Tit. 1. 5, &c. 1 Cor. 16. 1, 2. 1 Cor. 11. Mat. 28. 19, 20. Mat. 18. 15 Tit. 3. 10. and watch over them perſonally, and know them, and be known of them in doctrine and enſample, as to the main body of the flock. 6. That theſe Relations and Communion be by mutual conſent of the Paſtors and the body of the flock. 7. That theſe mutual Relations of Gods appointment and their own conſent do conſtitute them a ſpiritual ſociety of Divine inſtitution. 8. That this Communion muſt be (as our Creed calleth it) a Communion of Saints: that is, of men profeſſing Chriſtianity and Holineſs, and ſeeming ſuch: And muſt extend to a free Communication to each other, for the ſupply of corporal neceſſities; And to a mutual aſſiſtance of each other in holy living. 9 That therefore there muſt be ſome to diſcern and judge whether the perſons that would enter this Society and Communion, be Profeſſed ſeeming Chriſtians and Saints or not? And whether they revolt by Hereſie or wicked lives from their profeſſion? And whether they be impenitent in theſe revoltings? And therefore having opportunity by preſence or nearneſs to know them and the witneſſes, muſt judge of the credibility or reports or accuſations? And muſt admoniſh the offenders, and ſeek by all poſſible conviction and exhortation, with patience to draw them to Repentance: And if no perſwaſion will prevail, to refuſe to admit them to the Communion of the Church, and to deliver them the Sacrament of Communion, and to tell them openly of their ſin and danger, and pronounce them lyable to Gods wrath till they do repent, and to charge the Church to avoid Communion with them. 10. It is the particular Paſtors of thoſe Churches, to whoſe office all this belongeth. 11. If that Church have more Paſtors than one, they muſt do all this work in concord, and not divide nor thwart each other. So that as many Phyſicians undertake one Patient, as each one ſingly of the ſame office, and yet muſt do all by agreement, unleſs ſome one ſee that the reſt would kill the patient; ſo it is in this caſe. 12. All theſe particular Churches muſt in their vicinities and capacities▪ live in Concord, and hold ſuch a correſpondency, and Communion of Churches for mutual ſtrength and edification, as tendeth to the common good of all: The means of which are Meſſengers, Letters, and Synods as there is occaſion. All theſe twelve particulars I doubt not but ſo judicious and worthy a man as Dr. Stillingfleet will eaſily concede. And indeed the ſumme of them is granted in his book. And then whether you will call this a Form of Government or not, how little care I for the meer name? 13. I may add this much more, that All theſe Congregations are under the extrinſick Government of the Magiſtrate, as Phyſicians are: And he only can rule them by the ſword and force.
But then we will agree with Dr. Stillingfleet or any man, that God hath left all theſe things following without a particular determination to be determined according to his General Laws. 1. Whether this Parochial or Congregational Church ſhall always meet in one and the ſame place; or in caſe of perſecution or want of room, or by reaſon of the Age, Weakneſs, and diſtance of ſome Members, may have ſeveral houſes or Chappels of eaſe, where ſome parcels may ſometimes meet, who yet (at leaſt per vices) may have perſonal preſent Communion with the reſt. 2. Whether a Church ſhall be great or ſmall, that is, of what number it ſhall conſiſt, ſuppoſing that it be not ſo great or ſo ſmall as to be inconſiſtent with the end. 3. How many Paſtors each Church ſhall have. 4. Whether among many One ſhall be a Chief, and upon ſuppoſition of his preeminence in Parts, Grace, Age, and Experience, ſhall voluntarily be ſo far ſubmitted to by the reſt, as may give him a Negative voice. 5. Whether ſuch officers of many Churches, ſhall conſociate ſo as to joyn in Claſſes or Synods ſtated for number, time and place. And whether their meetings ſhall be conſtant, or occaſional pro re nata. 6. Whether One in theſe meetings ſhall be a ſtated Moderator, or only pro tempore, and ſhall have a Negative voice or not, in the circumſtantials of their Synodical work. 7. Whether certain Agreements called Canons, ſhall be made voluntarily to bind up the ſeveral Members of the Synods to one and the ſame way in undetermined circumſtances of their callings; or as an agreement and ſecondary obligation to their certain duties. 8. Whether theſe Aſſociations or Synods ſhall by their Delegates conſtitute other provincial or larger aſſociations for the ſame Ends: Who thoſe Delegates ſhall be. Whether one in thoſe larger Synods alſo ſhall have ſuch a Negative as aforeſaid. All theſe and ſuch like we grant to be undetermined: And if they will call only ſuch Humane modes and circumſtances by the name of Forms of Government, we quarrel not de nomine, but de re do grant that ſuch kind of Forms or Formalities are not particularly determined of in Gods word.
9. And beſides all theſe, whether ſucceſſors of the Apoſtles in the ordinary part of their work, as A. Biſhops or General Miniſters having the care of many inferiour Biſhops and Churches, be not Lawful, yea, of Divine right, or whether they be unlawful is a queſtion which all Nonconformiſts are not agreed on among themſelves, ſo great is the difficulty of it. But for my own part, being unſatisfied in it, I never preſumed to meddle in any Ordinations, leſt it ſhould belong to Apoſtolical A. Biſhops only; and I reſolved to ſubmit herein to the order of the Church wherever I ſhould live.
III. But if you hold that Dr. Stillingfleet, Biſhop Reynolds, and all thoſe Conformiſts who ſay that no Church Form is jure divino neceſſario, do extend this (as expreſly they do) to the Dioceſane Form, Let it be obſerved, 1. That we plead for no more than we have proved, (and they will confeſs I think) to be jure divino. 2. And that we plead againſt ſwearing and ſubſcribing to nothing but what they themſelves ſay is not of Gods inſtitution. 3. That the proper Prelatiſts affirm it to be of Divine Inſtitution, or elſe they will renounce it. 4. That the preface of the book of Ordination to which we muſt ſubſcribe or declare Aſſent and Conſent, doth make this Epiſcopacy to be a diſtinct Order from Presbyters, as a thing certain by Gods word. This therefore I wonder how they can ſubſcribe to, who ſay no Form is jure divino: I am ſure they perſwade us not to ſubſcribe it, while they diſprove it.
And I would have leave to debate the Caſe of the Church of England a little with theſe Humaniſts, and to ask them, If no Church Form be of Gods making, 1. Why may not the King and Parliament put it down as aforeſaid? 2. But ſpecially who made the Form of the Church of England which we muſt ſwear to—If another Church, then that other was not of the ſame Form; otherwiſe that Form was made before, which is a contradiction. If it was of another Form, I ask, what it was? and who made the Form of that other Church which made this Church Form? and ſo to the Original? If Biſhops or Synods made it, ſtill they were parts of a Church, or of no Church. If of no Church, what Biſhops were thoſe, and by what power did they make new Church Forms that were of none themſelves? If an Emperor or King firſt made them, either he was himſelf a member of a Church, or of no Church. If of a Church, what form had that Church? And why ſhould not that firſt form ſtand? And who made that form? and ſo ad originem. If he was of no Church, how came he by power to make Church forms, that was of none himſelf? Nemo dat quod non habet. It's no honour to Prelacy to be ſo made. And were they Chriſtians or no Chriſtians that made the Dioceſane Form? If Chriſtians, were they orderly Chriſtians, or rebellious? If orderly, how happened it that they were of no Church themſelves, when the Apoſtles ſetled ſo much of Church Form and Order, as I have before named? If rebellious, they were a diſhonourable original of Dioceſanes.
And if the Church Form be not of Divine inſtitution, then the Church it ſelf is not. For forma dat nomen & eſſe. And ſo the cauſe is given up to the Browniſts by theſe Learned moderate men, ſo far as that there is no Church in England of Divine inſtitution. Were it not that when in general they have ſaid that no Church Form of Government is ſo Divine, they again ſo far unſay it, as to confeſs the Parith Churches or Congregations with their Paſtors to be of Divine inſtitution and of continued neceſſity.
All that is to be ſaid by and for them is this, That the Apoſtles were the makers of the Engliſh or Dioceſane Form, but not of that only, but of the Presbyterian (and Independent) alſo; and ſo made no one neceſſary but left all indifferent: Or that they made one of theſe Forms as mutable, allowing men to change it.
Anſw. But 1. I have proved what they made; Let them prove that they made any other, of a different ſort, not ſubordinate or ſupraordinate, if they can. 2. And let them prove the mutability of that which they made, and their power to change it, which they aſſert. Till one of theſe is proved, we are or ſhould be in poſſeſſion of that which was certainly firſt made.
I am bold to conclude this argument with the ſpeech of a bold but a wiſe and holy man, Joh. Chryſoſtome de Sacerdotio lib. 3. pag. (mihi) 48. cap. 15. [And when ſome (Biſhops) have obtained that prefecture of a Province not belonging to them, and others of one FAR GREATER THAN THEIR OWN proper STRENGTH CAN BEAR, THEY CERTAINLY BRING TO PASS, THAT THE CHURCH OF GOD SEEMETH NOTHING TO DIFFER FROM AN EURIPUS (or a confuſed turbulent changeling thing)——& pag. 49. AND DO NOT THESE THINGS DESERVE GODS THUNDERBOLT A THOUSAND TIMES? ARE THEY NOT WORTHY TO BE PUNISHED WITH THE FIRE OF HELL? NOT THAT hell WHICH THE HOLY SCRIPTURES THREATEN TO US; BUT EVEN OF ONE THAT IS FAR MORE GRIEVOUS.] Forgive the words, my Lords; They are not mine but Chryſoſtome's: or if you will not forgive the citing of them, I will bear it as he did the like. Only I will abate you in my prognoſtication, or ſentence, that far ſorer hell fire than the Scripture threameth, ſuppoſing this will be ſharp enough, even for the moſt diſperſing, ſilencing perſecuting Prelate; and imputing thoſe words to honeſt Chryſoſtome's vehement Oratory. And I'le tell you what went next before theſe words, [And they do not only take in the unworthy (into the Prieſthood) but they caſt out the worthy: For as if they had agreed both ways to ſpoil the Church of God, and the firſt cauſe were not enough to kindle the wrath of God, they add the ſecond, or worſe, to the former. For I judge it equally peſtilent to drive out the Profitable, and to take in the unprofitable: which certainly they do, that the flock of Chriſt may from no part either find conſolation, or be able to take breath] O what would this man have ſaid had he lived now in England!
CHAP. XI. Argument 3. From the deſtruction of the order of Presbyters of Divine Inſtitution, and the Invention of a new order of Sub-half-Presbyters in their ſtead.
ARGUMENT III.
THe office of Presbyters inſtituted by the Holy Ghoſt containeth an Obligation and Authority to Guide by Doctrine, Worſhip, and Diſcipline the flocks committed to their care: But the office of a Dioceſane, being one only Biſhop over many ſcore or hundred Congregations, is deſtructive of that office of Presbyters, which containeth an obligation and authority to Guide by Doctrine, Worſhip, and Diſcipline, (or the exerciſe of the Church keys) the flocks committed to their care. Therefore the office of ſuch a Dioceſane is deſtructive of the office of Presbyters inſtituted by the Holy Ghoſt.
The Major is thus proved by the Enumeration of the Acts which contain the general office, and by the proof of the General power extending to thoſe Acts: viz.
1. They that had the Authority and Obligation to exerciſe the Church keys in the Scripture ſence, had the authority and obligation to Guide their flocks by Doctrine, Worſhip, and Diſcipline. But the Presbyters of the Holy Ghoſts inſtitution had the authority and obligation to exerciſe the Church keys, in the Scripture ſence: Ergo they had authority and obligation to Guide their flocks by Doctrine, Worſhip, and Diſcipline.
2. Again: The office which contained an Authority and Obligation to Teach, Exhort, Rebuke, publickly and privately, to judge of perſons baptizable and to baptize them, to Pray, Praiſe God, and adminiſter the Lords Supper to the Church, and to judge of them that are to receive it, to watch over them privately, and publickly to Excommunicate the obſtinately impenitent, and abſolve the penitent, doth contain authority and obligation to Guide that flock by Doctrine, Worſhip, and Diſcipline. But ſuch is the Office of Presbyters as inſtituted by the Holy Ghoſt.—Ergo—&c.
Here note 1. That I am not now medling with the Queſtions, Whether ſuch Presbyters hold this power in ſubordination to any ſuperiour Biſhops; nor whether there lie any appeal from them to a higher power in the Church? 2. Nor am I now queſtioning, Whether in Scripture ſence Biſhops and Presbyters are all one in Name or thing.
3. But that which I maintain is, 1. That there is no proof in Scripture that God ever inſtituted any order of Presbyters which had not the forementioned power of the keys. 2. And that God did inſtitute ſuch an Order of Presbyters as had that power, de nomine & de re. And 3. That the Dioceſane Office deſtroyeth ſuch, and ſetteth up others in their ſtead. What God inſtituted I will prove 1. Out of the Scripture records, 2. Out of the Hiſtory of the Church which long retained them, in ſome degree.