Five Disputations of Church Government, Section 5 – Title page 1
Consequents of that which is already Proved.
TO save the debating of many great Controversies that break the peace and destroy or diminish the Charity of many, I may abbreviate the work, by giving you some of the true sequels of what hath been sufficiently proved.
Cons. I. The taking down of the English Episcopacy was (as to the thing) so far from being evil,Cons. 1. and deserving the Accusations that some lay upon it, that it was a matter of Necessity to the Reformation and well being of the Churches of Christ in these Nations. It was no worse a work in it self considered, then the curing of a grievous disease is to the sick, and the supply of the necessities of the poor in their indigence. What guilt lieth upon that man, that would have all the sick to perish, for fear of injuring one Physitian, that had undertaken the sole care of all the County? or that would have all the County to have but one Schoolmaster: Or an hundred Ships to have but one Pilot, and consequently to perish: How much greater is their guilt, that would have had the forementioned Episcopacy continued, to the hazzard of many thousand souls, and the abasement and ejection of holy Discipline, the pollution of the Churches, and the hardening of the wicked, and the dishonour of God? I mention not this to provoke any to dishonour them, but to provoke the persons themselves to Repentance. And I intreat them to consider, how sad a thing it is, that without any great inducement, they should draw such a mountain of guilt upon their souls. The Bishops had the temptation of Honour and Riches: but what honour or gain have you to seduce you, to choose a share with other men in their sin and punishment?
I meddle not here with the Manner of demolishing Episcopacy, but with the Matter: because I would not mix other Controversies with this. But I am confident those men that usually own the late Episcopacy, and revile them that demolisht it, shall one way or other feel ere long, that they have owned a very unprofitable cause, and such as they shall wish, they had let alone, and that it made not for their honour to be so much enemies to the welfare of the Church, as the enemies of the abolition of that Prelacy will appear to be.
Cons. 2.Cons. II. The matter of that clause in the National Covenant, which concerneth the abolition of this Prelacy before mentioned, was so far from deserving the Reproaches and Accusations that are bestowed on it by some, that it was just and necessary to the well being of the Church.
In this also I purposely mean the Civil controversie about the authority of imposing, taking, or prosecuting the Covenant, and speak only of the Matter of it: (to avoid the losing of the truth by digressions, and new controversies) They that by reproaching this clause in the Covenant, do own the Prelacy which the Covenant disowneth, might shew more love to the Church and their own souls, by pleading for sickness, and nakedness, and famine, and by passionate reproaches of all that are against these, then by such owning and pleading for a far greater evil.
Cons. 3.Cons. III. Those of the English Ministry, that are against the old Episcopacy, and are glad that the Church is rid of it, are not therefore guilty of Schism, nor of sinfull disobedience to their spiritual superiours.
If any of them did swear obedience to the Prelates (a tyrannicall imposition that God never required, nor the Primitive Church never used) thats nothing to our present case, which is not about the keeping of oaths, but the obeying or rejecting the Prelacy in it self considered. It is not schismatical to depart from an …rpation that God disowneth, and the Church is endangered and so much wronged by, and to seek to pull up the Roots of Schism, which have bred and fed it in the Churches so long.
Cons. IV. Those that still justifie the ejected Prelacy,Cons. 4. and desire the restauration of it, as they needlesly choose the guilt of the Churches desolations, so are they not to be taken for men that go about to heal our breaches, but rather for such as would widen and continue them, by restoring the main cause.
Cons. 5.Cons. V. If we had had such an Episcopacy as Bishop Hall and Bishop Vsher did propound as satisfactory, (and such men to manage it,) Episcopacy and Peace might have dwelt together in England to this day: It is not the the Name of a Bishop that hath been the matter of our trouble, but the exorbitant Species introducing unavoidably the many mischiefs which we have seen and felt.
Cons. VI. Ordination by the ejected Prelacy, in specie, is not of necessity to the being or well-being of a Presbyter or Deacon.Cons. 6. If the Species of Prelacy it self be proved contrary to the word of God, and the welfare of the Church, then the Ordination that is by this Species of Prelacy, cannot be necessary or as such desirable.
Cons. VII. A Parochial or Congregational Pastor,Cons. 7. having assistant Presbyters and Deacons, either existent or in expectance, was the Bishop that was in the dayes of Ignatius, Iustin, Tertullian, and that Dr. Hammond describeth as meant in many Scriptures, and existent in those dayes. I speak not now to the question about Archbishops.
Cons. VIII. The Ordination that is now performed by these Parochial Bishops (especially in an assembly,Cons. 8. guided by their Moderator) is, beyond all just exception, Valid, as being by such Bishops as the Apostles planted in the Churches, and neerer the way of the Primitive Church, then the Ordination by the ejected Species of Prelates is.
Cons. IX. As the Presbyters of the Church of Alexandria did themselves make one their Bishop,Cons. 9. whom they chose from among themselves, and set him in a higher degree (as if Deacons make an Archdeacon, or Souldiers choose one and make him their Commander, saith Hierom ad Evagr.) so may the Presbyters of a Parochial Church now. And as the later Canons require that a Bishop be ordained or consecrated by three Bishops, so may three of these (Primitive) Parochial Bishops, ordain or consecrate now another of their degree. And according to the Canons themselves, no man can justly say that this is invalid, for want of the Consecration by Archbishops, or of such as we here oppose.
Cons. X. Those that perswade the People that the Ordinanation of those in England and other Churches is null that is not by such as the English Prelates were,Cons. 10 and that perswade the people to take them for no Presbyters or Pastors, that are not ordained by such Prelates, and do make an actual separation from our Churches and Ministers, and perswade others to the like, upon this ground, and because the Ministers have disowned the English Prelacy, and withal confess that Church of Rome to be a true Church, and their ordination and Priesthood to be just or true, are uncharitable, and dangerously Schismatical (though under pretence of decrying Schism,) and many wayes injurious to the Church and to the souls of men and to themselves. This will not please; but that I not only speak it but further manifest it, is become Necessary to the right Information of others.
FINIS
The Second DISPUTATION: VINDICATING The Protestant Churches and MINISTERS that have not Prelatical Ordination, from the Reproaches of those Dividers that would nullifie them. WRITTEN Upon the sad complaints of many Godly Ministers in several parts of the Nation, whose Hearers are turning Separatists. By Rich. Baxter.
LONDON, Printed by Robert White, for Nevil Simmons Bookseller in Kederminster. 1658.