The True History of Councils, Part 3 · Chapter 9 – Chapter 10
CHAP. IX. Of his ſuppoſition that I am an Independent, and yet that I plead for the cauſe of the Preſbyterians.
§ 1. THis is alſo a ſuppoſition that is part of the Stamina of his Book; and how far he is to be believed herein judge by the evidence following.
1. He knew what I ſaid before for three ſorts of Biſhops, 1. Epiſcopi Gregis, Overſeers of ſingle loweſt Churches, as of Divine Inſtitution: 2. For Epiſcopi Epiſcoporum, or Preſidents-Biſhops ejuſdem Ordinis, non ejuſdem Gradus, in the ſame Churches, as of early Humane Inſtitution, which I reſiſt not. 3. Epiſcopi Epiſcoporum, Overſeers of many Churches, which I ſuſpect to be Succeſſors of the Apoſtles, and of ſuch as Timothy, Titus, &c. in the continued ordinary part of their work, (exerciſing no other Power than they did:) Inſomuch that Dr. Sherlock would be thought ſo much leſs Epiſcopal than I, as that he ſaith, It is Antichriſtian to aſſert Epiſcopos Epiſcoporum.
§ 2. And Dr. Parker hath newly written a Book for Epiſcopacy, which I hear many deſpiſe; but for my part I take to be the ſtrongeſt that I have ſeen written for it theſe twenty years; but to no purpoſe againſt me; for it is but for Epiſcopacy in general, which I oppoſe not. It excellent well improveth the Arguments of the K. and Biſhops at the Iſle of Wight; even that one Argument that a Superiority of ſome over others being ſettled by Chriſt and his Apoſtles, that Form muſt be ſuppoſed to continue, unleſs we have clear proof of the Repeal or Ceſſation. I have oſt ſaid the ſame; I could never anſwer that Argument: But this will not juſtifie the depoſing of thouſands of Biſhops and Churches, and of their Diſcipline, to turn them all into two or three Dioceſans.
§ 3. Alſo he knoweth that I have written theſe 35 years againſt Lay. Elders; believing that the Colledge of Elders which of old aſſiſted the Biſhops, were none of them Lay-men, nor unordained, but of the ſame Order, though not Degree, with the Biſhop himſelf.
§ 4. And I have alſo written that Synods of Biſhops or Preſbyters are but for Concord, and have not as ſuch by a major Vote a proper Government of the minor part or abſent: Much leſs that Claſſes, and other Aſſemblies, are the ſtated Church-Government which all muſt obey: And are the Presbyterians of any of the three forementioned Opinions?
§ 5. I ever held a neceſſity of manifold dependance of all Chriſtians and Churches. As all depend on Chriſt as their Head, ſo do all the People on the Paſtors, as their authorized Guides, whom they muſt not Rule, but be Ruled by, 1 Theſ. 5. 12, 13. Heb. 13. 17, 24. And all theſe Churches depend on each other for Communion and Mutual Help, as many Corporations in one Kingdom. And frequent Synods well uſed, are greatly helpful to theſe ends: And the Command of doing as much as we can in Love and Concord, doth bind all the particular perſons to concur with the Synods in all things that tend to the Peace and Edification of the Church, or are not againſt it. And more than ſo, if the general Viſitors or Biſhops that take care of many Churches, do by God's Word direct, inſtruct, reprove, admoniſh the particular Biſhops and Churches, they ought with reverence to hear them and obey them. And if Independents really are for all this, why do theſe Accuſers repreſent them odiouſly, as if it were no ſuch matter, but they were meerly for Church-Democracy? Either you are not to believed in what you ſay of them, or of me.
§ 6. I know we have men that ſay, that on pretence of acknowledging all this Epiſcopacy, I put down all, becauſe I take from them the power of the Sword, and leave all to deſpiſe them if they pleaſe. Anſ. This indeed is the power that under the name of Epiſcopacy now too many mean. Biſhop Bilſon knew no Power but Magiſtrates by the Sword, and Miniſters by the Word. But why name I one man? It is the common Opinion of Proteſtants, and moſt ſober Papiſts, that Biſhops as ſuch have no power of force on Body or Purſe. But we deny not the forcing Power of the Magiſtrate. 3. But we heartily wiſh that they would keep it in their own hands, and never uſe it to force unwilling men into the Church, or to Church-Communion; high Priviledges which no unwilling perſon hath any right to. This is my Independency.
CHAP. X. Of his Accuſation, That I make the Biſhops the Authors of all Hereſies and Schiſms, as diſtinct from Presbyters, Monks and People.
§ 1. THis alſo runs throughout his Book; and muſt ſuch Books be anſwered or believed? I never denyed the guilt and concurrence of others with them. I only ſay, That as Biſhops were the Chief, ſo they had the chief hand, as far as I can yet learn, in Hereſies and Schiſms, ſince they came to their height of Power, and ſpecially in thoſe grand Hereſies and Schiſms, which have broken, and keep the Churches in thoſe great Sects and Parties, which in Eaſt and Weſt it conſiſteth of to this day. I never doubted or denyed but that 1. The Hereſies that were raiſed before the Church had any Patriarchs, or the turgent ſort of Biſhops, were certainly raiſed without them. 2. And afterward ſometime a Presbyter began a Hereſie. 3. And the Biſhops were but as the Generals of the Army in all the Church Civil Wars. But I never denyed but the Prelatical Prieſts, Monks, and multitude were their obſequi…us Army.
§ 2. Mr. M. ſaith, That thoſe Biſhops that were Hereticks, were moſtly ſuch, or inclined to it before. Anſw. 1. Was there then a good Succeſſion of Ordination, when the World groaned to find it ſelf Arian? Were all theſe Arians before their Conſecration?
Anſw. 2. Were they not all Prelatical Presbyters that aſpired to be Biſhops, and ſo as they ſay had a Pope or Biſhop in their bellies. I never thought that Prelatical Prieſts that ſtudied Preſerment, and longed to be Biſhops, had no hand in Hereſies nor Schiſms, no more than that the Roman Clergy are innocent herein, and the fault is in the Pope alone. What a deal then of this man's Book is loſt and worſe, on ſuch ſuppoſitions?