Five Disputations of Church Government, Argument 4 – Argument 7
Argum. 4. THat Episcopacy which degradeth all the Presbyters in the Diocess, or causeth them to suspend the exercise of an Essential part of their Office, is not to be restored under any pretence of right order, or peace. But such was the late English Episcopacy: therefore.
I confess this is the second inconvenience which followeth it, which I think utterly intolerable, where there is any possibility of a remedy. The Major I suppose will be granted. For though an Office may be unexercised for a time on some special reason, yet if it be statedly suspended, and that suspension established by Law or Custom, during the life of the Minister, this is plainly a destroying or nulling of the Office it self, and not to be endured.
And that it is not to be endured appeareth thus; 1. Because the Office of the Presbyter is of Divine Institution, and therefore not to be nulled by man. I never yet read or heard of any more but one Divine of any reputation who denyed that Presbyters as now called are appointed in the Scriptures, and I think,Functiones in Ecclesiâ perpetuae sunt duae; Presbyterorum & Diaconorum: Presbyteros voco cum omni Ecclesia veteri, eos, qui Ecc…esiam pas…unt v…rbi praedicatione, Sacramentis & Clavibus; quae Iure Divino sunt individua: (he meaneth inseparable) so that its inseparable from a Presbyter to have the Power of the Keyes. Grot. de Imperio, pag. 267. c. 1…. that one hath destroyed his cause by it, of which more anon. 2. Because the Church cannot with any safety spare the Office of the Presbyters, because they are many, perhaps many hundred to one Prelate: and if so many of Christs Officers be laid by, it is easie to see what loss the vineyard and harvest may sustain.
The Minor I prove thus. That Episcopacy which taketh from the Presbyters the power of Church-Government, and alloweth them only the power of preaching and administring Sacraments, and those other parts of the work which they distinguish from Government, do thereby destroy the very Office of the Presbyters (and so degrade or suspend them) But the late English Episcopacy taketh from the Presbyters the power of Church-Governing; &c. therefore.
The Antecedent is well known by those that know their Canons, claim and constant practice in England, till the time of their exclusion. That the Consequence is currant appeareth thus. Church-Government is as real and as essential a part of the Presbyters work and office as any other whatsoever. Therefore they that take this from him, do destroy his Office.
The Antecedent is proved thus: if those Texts of Scripture which mention the Office of Presbyters, Acts 20. and 14.23. and many other places do speak of Presbyters as now understood, and not of Prelates, then Ruling is as much essential to their office as Preaching. This is proved▪ 1. From the express wo…ds of the several Texts, which make them Overseers of the flock, Acts 20.28. and to be over the people in the Lord, to whom they are to submit, 1 Thes. 5.12, 13. and Rulers of them, whom they must obey, as well as Preachers to them, Heb 13.7, 17▪ 24. 1 T…m. 3, 4▪ 5. 2. Its proved from common Consent. For, 1. Those that think these Texts speak of Presbyters as now understood, do most commonly confess this sense of the Text, v…z. that it makes them Rulers; only some of them add, that themselves must be Ruled by the Bishops. 2. He that denyeth these Texts to speak of such Presbyters, doth confess that those of whom it doth speak, are certainly Rulers of the Church.
And then I assume: But the general vote of almost all Expositors old and new,Pastorum ergo est Ordinare Pastores: ne que id officium eis competit qua hujus au… illius Ecclesiae Pastores sunt, sed qu… ministri Ecclesiae Catholicae. Grotius ibid. p. 273. Pastores tales (ubi n…ll… sunt Episcopi) etsi cum … Presbyteris id comm… habent quod aliis non praesunt; habe…t tamen illud Episcopale, quod n…mini Pastori subs…n… at … ad…o dubium est, Episcopisn… an meris Presbyteris …. Idem pag. 320. Episcopal and others from the Apostles daies till now, as far as we can know by their writings, did take these Texts, at least many of them, to speak of such Presbyters: and I think the new exposition of one man, is not to be taken against the Exposition of the whole stream of Expositors in all ages, without better reason to evince them to have erred, then any I have yet seen produced. At least, all the Episcopal Divines except that one man, and those that now follow his new Exposition, must yield to what I say, upon the authority of these Texts.
But if this Divine were in the right, and none of these Texts be spoken of Presbyters, yet I make good my Antecedent thus.
For 1. If Presbyters be of humane Institution, then neither Preaching or Ruling is any Essential part of their Office by Divine Institution; because they have none such: and therefore I may say one is as essential as the other: that is, neither is so. But yet of their humanly instituted Office, it is as essential a part still: for if it be true, that there were no Presbyters in the Church till about Ignatius his daies, yet its certain that when they were instituted (whether by God or man) they were as truly made Rulers as Preachers. And therefore we find their Ignatius still calling on the people to obey the Presbyters as well as the Bishops. And Hierom tells us, (Epist. ad Evagr.) how long the Presbyters governed the Churches Communi Consilio, by Common Counsel or Consent, and how themselves at Alexandria chose our one and made him their Bishop: and Cyprian tells us enough of the Presbyters ruling in Council or Consistory with the Bishop in his time: so that he would do nothing without the Presbyters. Much more proof may easily be brought of this, but that I find it now acknowledged, and so it is needless. I will not go far, but only note a few Canons, especially of the fourth Council of Carthage. Can. 23. is, Vt Episcopus nullius Causam audi…t absque praesentia Clericorum suorum; alioquin ir…ita erit sententia Episcopi, nisi Clericorum praesentia confirmetur.
Can. 22. Episcopus sine Consilio Clericorum suorum Clericos … ordinet; ita ut Civium assensum, & conniventiam, & testimonium quaerat.
Can. 29. Episcopus si Clerico vel laico crimen imposuerit, deducatur ad probationem in Synodum.
Can. 32. Irrita erit donatio Episcoporum, vel venditio, vel c…mmutati… r…i Ecclesiasticae, abs que conniventia & subscriptione clericorum.
Can. 34. Vt Episcopus in quelibet l…co sedens stare Presbyterum non patiatur.
Can. 35. Vt Episcopus in Ecclesia in consessu Prsebyterorum sublimior s…deat: Intra domum verò collegam se Presbyterorum esse cognoscat.
Can. 36. Presbyter qui per dioeceses Ecclesias regunt, non à quibuslibet, &c.
Can. 37. Diaconusita se Presbyteri ut Episcopi Ministrum esse cognoscat.
Here you see that Bishops may not Ordain, hear any cause, accuse a Clergy man or Lay-man, not give, sell, or Change any Church goods, without the Presbyters: and that he is their Collegue, and must not let them stand if he sit, and that they Rule the Churches through the Diocesses, and that the Deacons are Servants as well to them as to the Bishop. Aurelius and Augustine were in this Council.
If they that think it uncertain whether Presbyters be mentioned in the New Testament,Communi Presbyterorum Concilio gubernabantur, saith Hier. See Grotius ubi sup. p. 354, 355, 356, 357. proving that Prelacy is not of Divine precept, and that of old many Cites had many Churches and Bishops in each: and that Presbyters, except ordination (as Hier. and Chrysost.) may do all that a Bishop; and he addeth, Quid obstat quo minus id ita …nterp…temur ut Presbyteri neminem potu…rint ordinare contempto Episcopo? And pag. 359. He shews that where Bishops are not, Presbyters do rightly ordain. See the beginning of Bishop Ushers Reduction of Episcopal Government. and that think they began about Ignatius his time, do mean that yet they were of Divine Apostolical Institution, then they strike in with the Papists in making the Scriptures to be out part of Gods word, and insufficient to reveal all Divine institutions about his Church-Government, and Worship, and so we must look for the rest in uncertain Tradition. Nay I know not of any Papist to my best remembrance that ever reckoned up the Office of Presbyters under their meer unwritten Traditions.
If they say that they are of Ecclesiastical Episcopal Institution, not by inspired Apostles, but by Ordinary Bishops, then 1. They make all Presbyters to be jure Episcopali, and Bishops only and their Superiours to be jure Divino, as the Italians in the Council of Trent would have had all Bishops to depend upon the Pope: But in this they go far beyond them; for the Italian Papists themselves thought Presbyterie jure Divino. 2. Either they may be changed by Bishops who set them up, or not: If they may be taken down again by man, then the Church may be ruined by man; and so the Bishops will imitate the Pope▪ Either they will Reign, or Christ shall not Reign, if they can hinder it: Either they will lead the Church in their way, or Christ shall have no Church: If man cannot take them down, then 1. It seems man did not Institute them; for why may they not alter their own institutions? 2. And then it seems the Church hath universal standing, unchangeable Institutions, Offices and binding Laws of the Bishops making: And if so, are not the Bishops equal to the Apostles in Law making, and Church Ordering? and are not their Laws to us as the word of God, and that word insufficient? and every Bishop would be to his Diocess, and all to the whole Church, what the Pope would be to the whole.
3. Moreover, how do they prove that ever the Apostles gave power to the Bishops to institute the order of Presbyterie? I know of no text of Scripture by which they can prove it And for Tradition, we will not take every mans word that saith he hath tradition for his conceits, but we require the proof. The Papists that are the pretended keepers of Tradition, do bring forth none as meerly unwritten, but for their ordines inferiores, and many of them, for Bishops as distinct from the Presbyters; but not for Presbyters themselves. And Scripture they can plead none; For if they mention such texts where Paul bids Titus ordain Elders in every City, &c. they deny this to be meant of Elders as now, but of Prelates whom Titus as the Primate or Metropolitane was to ordain: And if it be meant of Elders, then they are found in Scripture, and of Divine Apostolical Institution.
4. If they were Instituted by Bishops after the Scripture was written, was it by one Bishop, or by many? If by one, then how came that one to have Authority to impose a new Institution on the universal Church? If by many, either out of Council, or in; if out of Council, it was by an accidental falling into one mind and way, and then they are but as single men to the Church: and therefore still we ask, how do they bind us? If by many in Council, 1. Then let them tell us what Council it was that Instituted Presbyterie, when and where gathered, and where we may find their Canons, that we may know our order, and what Au…hors mention that Council. 2. And what authority had that Council to bind all the Christian world, to all ages? If they say it bound but their own Churches, and that age; then it seems the Bishops of England might for all that have nulled the Order of Presbyters there. But O miserable England and miserable world, if Presbyters had done no more for it, then Prelates have done!
I conclude therefore that the English Prelacy either degraded the Presbyters, or else suspended to ally an essential part of their office: for themselves called them Rectors, and in ordaining them said, [Receive the Holy Gh…st: Whose sins thou dost remit they are remitted, whose sins thou dost retain they are retained] And therefore they delivered to them the Power of the Keyes of opening and shutting the Kingdom of Heaven; which themselves make to be the opening and shutting of the Church, and the Governing of the Church by Excommunication and Absolution: And therefore they are not fit men to ask the Presbyters; By what authority they Rule the Church, by binding and loosing, when themselves did expresly as much as in them lay, confer the Power on them: And we do no more then what they bid us do in our Ordination; Yea they thereby make it the very work of our office: For the same mouth, at the same time that bid us [t…ke authority to preach the word of God] did also tell us that whose sins we remit or retain they are remitted or retained: and therefore if one be an Essential, or true integral part at least of our office, the other is so too. From all which it is evident, that if there were nothing against the English Prelacy, but only this that they thus suspend or degrade all the Presbyters in England, as to one half of their off…ce, it is enough to prove that they should not be restored under any pretence whatsoever of Order or Unity.
Argum. 5. THat Episcopacy which giveth the Government of the Chu…ch, and management of the Keys of Excommunication and Absolution into the hands of a few Lay…men▪ while they take them from the Presbyters, is n…t to be restored under any pretence of Vnity or Peace: I have, it and can p…oduce it under the Kings own hand and seal, wherein he forbids that any Church man or Priest in holy orders should be a C…ncellor: And this was the occasion of all the corruptions, &c. They must for their own advantage and profit have instruments accordingly▪ So the R…gisters, Proctors, Apparato…s, were p…ssi…um genus hominum: G. Goodman, Bishop of Glo…. in the Preface to his Two Mysteries, &c.But such was the English Prelacy: therefore, &c.
The Major is plain: because it is not Lay-men that are to be Church Governours, as to Ecclesiastical Government: This is beyond Question with all save the Congregational, and they would not have two or three Lay men chosen, but the whole Congregation to manage this business.
The Minor is known by common experience, that it was the Chancelor in h…s Court, with his assi…ants and the Register, and such other meer Lay-men, that managed this work. If it be said, that they did it as the Bishops Agents and Substitutes, and therefore it was he that did it by them▪ I answer, 1. The Law put it in the Chancellors, and the Bishop… could not hinder it. 2. If the Bishops may delegate others to do their work, then it seems Preaching and Ruling, Excommunica…ing and Ab…olving may as well be done by Lay-men as Clergy men: Then they may commission them also to administer the Sacraments: And so the Ministry is not necessary for any of these works▪ but only a Bishop to depute Lay-men to do them; which is false and confusive.
Argum. 6. THat Episcopacy wh…ch necessarily overwhelmeth the souls of the Bishops with the most hainous guilt, of neglecting the many thousand souls whose charge they undertake, is not to be restored for Order or Peace (For men are not to be ove…whelmed with such hainous sin on such pretences) But such is the English Prelacy: and that not accidentally, through the badness of the men only, but unavoidably through the greatness of their charge, and the Natural Impossibility of their undertaken work. How grievous a thing it is to have the blood of so many thousands charged on …hem, may soon appear▪ And that man that undertakes himself the Government of two or three, or five hundred thousand souls that he never seeth or knoweth, nor can possibly so Govern, but must needs leave it undone (except the shadow of a Government which is committed to a Lay Chancellor,) doth willfully draw this fearful Guilt upon himself.
Argum. 7. THat Episcopacy which is the product of Proud Ambi…ion and Arrogancy, contrary to the express command of Christ, is not to be restored for Order or Peace. But such is the late English Prelacy: therefore, &c.
The Major is undoubted. The Minor is proved thus. Were it not for p…oud Ambition men would not strive to have the doing of more work then an hundred times as many are able to do, and the answering before God for as many souls: But the English Prelates did strive to have the work and account of many hundreds: therefore, &c.
The Minor is proved and known by experience. And the Major is proved thus. 1. From the common aversness that all men have to labour, excessive oppressing labour, and that spiritual too. 2. From the self-love that is naturally in all: No man can naturally and rationally desire that which would tire him, oppress him, and finally damn him, without great repentance, and the speciall mercy of God, unless by the power of some lust that draweth him to it. 3. And common prudence wi…l teach men not to thrust themselves into impossible undertakings. If we see a man desirous to have the Rule of a whole County under the Prince, and that there should be no Justice of Peace, or other Magistrate to Rule there but he, though he know that he must answer it upon his life, if the County be no… well Ruled, as to the punishing of all the known drunkards, swear…rs, adulterers &c. in the County; may not any man see that Ambition makes this man in a manner besides himself, o… e…se he would never set so light by his own life, as certainly and willfully to cast it away, by undertaking a work which he knoweth many men are unable to perform: And Ambition it must needs be▪ because Honour and Preheminency is the bait and thing contended for, and there is no…hing else to do it. And how expresly do… Christ forbid this to his Apostles, telling them, [With you it sh…ll not be so: but he that will be the greatest shall be the servant of all] Luke 22.26. As the old Rimer hath it [Christus dixit quodam lo…o; Vos non sic, nec dixit j…co: dixit sui… ergo isti Cujus sunt? non certè Christi] Speaking of the Prelates. I own not the Censure, but … own Christs prohibition. Certainly the Honour is but the appendix for the work sake, and the work is the first thing and the main of the office. And I would know whether they would strive thus for the work and the terrible account, without the honour and worldly gain. Nay do they not destroy the work, wh…le they quarrel for the doing of it, for the honor sake? If it were the Churches good and the work that they so much minded, they would contend that so many should have the doing of it as are necessary thereto▪ and not that none should do it but they. He that would turn all the labourers out of the Harvest saving himself, in all this County, that he may maintain his own priviledge, I should think doth not much mind the good of the owner, or the well doing of the work, or his own safety, if he were to answer for all upon his life.