Christian Concord, Part 5
The next Objectors that I have to deal with, are our Brethren of the Episcopal Way; whose dissent I am readier to expect then others; not so much from the distance of Principles, as from other accidental disadvantages which I foresee.
The Objections which our vulgar hearers of that Judgement do make, are partly occasioned from custom, partly from the suggestions of Learned men of that Way, who also confirm them in the former. And therefore I must here speak first to the people, and then to those Learned men that prevail with them.
Very many of the people that stick most resolutely to that party and those waies (of my acquaintance,) are such as we cannot admit to Communion with us, till they shall openly profess their Repentance of their drunkenness, swearing, scorning at Godliness, &c. which they are notoriously guilty of: These I will not stand to dispute with about Ceremonies, they having greater matters first to dispatch. But I am not so uncharitable or censorious as to imagine, that none are tender conscienc't, Pious and Judicious, that may yet need satisfaction in the following points. To such therefore I shall first speak.
The Objections which I have great reason to foresee will be here raised, are these three. 1. That we do in our Agreement in the tenth Proposition take to our selves a Power which is proper to the Bishops, viz. to name offendors, and call them to Repentance, and require the Church to avoid them: When as in the first Proposition we profess to agree only on the Points that are agreed on by the differing parties. 2. That we are no true Churches, both because we are not Diocesan Churches, and because we have no Bishops, and because that many of us were Ordained without Bishops, and so are no true Ministers, and therefore it is unlawfull to acknowledge us as Pastors, or to joyn with our Churches as Members. 3. That they cannot in conscience joyn with us, unless they may before-hand be assured, that they may have the Sacrament kneeling, and the Liturgie used as formerly it hath been. I shall answer these three Objections in order.
To the first I answer: 1. They may as well say that Preaching and Pastoral oversight is proper to the Bishop (which some do not stick to do) for no Word of God or common reason restrains that Pastor from particular applications, who hath Authority for general ones. Is there greater Authority requisite for speaking to one man, then to a thousand? or for doing that which in some cases every private man may do (tell his Brother of his sin, and tell the Church of him if he reform not) then for the rest of the Ministerial work? If a private man may before others reprove him as a private man, may not I before others reprove him Authoritatively as a Minister? I would know whether it be all personal, open Applications that you forbid a Pastor? or only this one? If all, then you shew us indeed what the fruit of your kinde of Episcopacy would be: how it would overthrow the very Office and Work of the Ministry, and not allow a Minister to reprove or exhort a man, as his case requireth. If a man fall a swearing in the Church when I am Preaching, I may not as a Minister rebuke him? I have read of times when Bishops did arrogate Preaching as their sole prerogative (except sometimes when they saw good to permit a Presbyter to Preach extraordinarily:) but I never read of any that forbad them all open personall Applications. I suppose therefore that you will not affirm this. And if I may apply other truths to the consciences of my people, then why not this? Is it because of the nature of the thing? or from any limitation of my Power in Gods Word? Prove either if you can. May I not by way of exhortation say to a Drunkard [I intreat you in the Name of Christ to be sober, and forsake your sin?] Why may not I then say [Christ hath threatned damnation to you, except you repent] and [The Church ought not to have Communion with you as a Brother till you do Repent] and [You ought not to usurp the Priviledge that belongs not to you] and [With such as you we ought not to eat] and so to require in Christs Name obedience to his Laws? Hath Christ bid me Preach one Text of Scripture, and not another? May I require them to obey that command, Heb. 10. 25. Forsake not the assembling of your selves together] and reprove those that disobey it (personally) in not coming to the Assemblies, or seldom? And may I not on the same Authority require them to obey that command, 1 Cor. 5. 11. But now I have written to you not to keep company, If any man that is called a Brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an Idolater, or a Railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner, with such a one no not to eat.] Or that in 2 Joh. 10, 11. If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him, God speed. For he that biddeth him, God speed, is partaker of his evil deeds.] And that 2 Thes. 3. 6, 14, 15. Now we command you Brethren in the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw your selves from every Brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the Tradition which he received of us. And if any man obey not our Word by this Epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed. Yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a Brother.] May not Ministers require their people in particular cases to obey these precepts?
2. Nay, may not, nay must not our people obey these precepts whether we require them or not? yea though we forbid them? Else God shall be no God, without the Bishops license. You cannot say therefore that we may not apply these precepts to particular persons and cases, for our people must apply them, or else they cannot obey them. Peruse them and judge so, Rom. 16. 17. with many the like.
3. Is it not the doctrine of the Bishops themselves that Presbyters may Rule, Guide, and Oversee the people; but that Bishops must Rule, and Oversee the Presbyters? So that this is the main difference that they make of the Offices in degrees, in point of Jurisdiction, that both are Overseers, but one of the people, the other of Pastors: Why then may not we be allowed the Guidance, Rule and Oversight of our people?
4. They that distinguish between the Key of order and the Key of Jurisdiction, do without question allow the former to the Presbyters. Now the Key of order (as rightly understood, as Spalatensis hath largely opened it) comprehendeth all that power whereby we do immediatly work on the conscience, and so is exercised in foro interno, and not directly in externo. Now that which we have agreed on is only so much as belongs to order, or to a Presbyter as the Ambassador of Christ, and his Watchman over the souls of those people; and it is to be no further effectual then they conscienciously submit to it, voluntarily, without external force. It is but our Preaching and applying Gods Word to the consciences of the hearers.
5. It seems they that make this Objection, would have Gods work undone, if there be not Bishops to do it. Men must not be told openly of their sin and danger and duty, nor the Church be told of their duty in avoiding the scandalous, except Bishops do it. Wo then to all those Nations and Churches that have no Bishops, and wo to those Churches where the Bishop will not do it; and specially where he will rather countenance the sinner, and silence or banish the Preacher that would reform them. More shall be said anon to this Objection.