Christian Concord, Part 7 – Part 8
But some will Object, That all this doth only prove, that in case of Necessity Presbyters may Ordain, and their Ordination is not Null: But those cannot plead such Necessity that have disobediently put down Bishops themselves.
To this I Answer: 1. Most Ministers of any long standing were Ordained by Bishops, and therefore will have no need of any of this Defence that I have used.
2. The Churches have never the less Necessity of Pastors and Ordinances, notwithstanding the faults of their Pastors.
3. I know of few or none of our Association that can be charged with taking down Bishops: I know none so liable to such a charge as my self, who yet am ready to give an account to any Brother that is offended; and I beleeve that they ought to rebuke me personally and hear my answer, before they withdraw from me, or censure me; much more so many others for my sake.
4. I do not know of any that can be charged higher (as against Episcopacy) then for taking it down so far as the Covenant takes it down. But the Covenant doth not take down all Episcopacy; but only the concatenation of Archbishops, Bishops, Chancellours, &c. which were then in England. To prove this 1. The words suffice, which can be no further extended then to the kinde of Episcopacy. 2. See Mr Colemans Explication of it to the Lords house, upon which they took it, as in that sense.
Besides, we have not in this County (any where that I know of) once offered the Covenant to any of our people (except those that were in the Garrisons or Armies:) See further Mr Prins Speech in Parliament for an Agreement on the late Kings last terms.
5. The late Bishops, even in the judgement of all moderate men of their own party that ever I spoke with, did very many of them deserve to be put down, and more. Reade the Articles against Wren, Pierce, Goodman, Laud, &c.
6. We do in the very first Article of our Agreement, disclaim a present engaging our selves for any party, as such: or against any: and therefore we cannot in any Justice be disclaimed as a party that are confederate against Episcopacy: When we only desire a unanimous agreement in practice, so far as we are already agreed in Judgment, that our discord or strangeness may neither hinder our further edification, nor yet deprive the Church of Gods Ordinances, or of the beauty, strength, and other benefits of Union.
But perhaps it will be said, that We have no such Necessity, either of Ordination without Bishops, or of private agreements to Govern our Churches without them: For either we have Bishops, or may have when we will.
To which I Answer: 1. Whether we have Bishops or no, we must Govern the Churches committed to our charge, so far as belongs to Presbyters: and we have agreed on no more.
2. I know not of any Bishop we have in this County (nor in many near us:) and therefore how can any seek to them whom they know not, either for Ordination or Government? If any man will come among us, and prove himself to be our Bishop rightly called; he shall finde that we will be ready (I hope) to yield him as much obedience as Gods Word commands us.
3. We know but very few Diocesan Bishops living in the Land; whereof one is a Bishop of another Land, two or three at a very great distance, none of them Bishops of this Diocess: some (I think) in the Tower, where we cannot come at them, and by their impeachments, suppose them uncapable of Ordaining: Therefore we are uncapable of making use of these.
4. We are all Ordained already, and we cannot be new-Ordained again, without 1. Incurring the sentence of deprivation, according to the Can. Apost. 67. which requires that he be Deposed who seeketh another Ordination, being already Ordained. 2. Or without unChurching all or most of Christs Churches, and Degrading his Ministers, by taking our Ordination for Null, as hath been shewed. And we do not go about our selves by this Agreement to meddle with Ordination.
5. This Objection supposeth, either that we are convinced that Diocesan Episcopacy, is the only lawfull Government of the Church, or else that we may be convinced of it when we will; or else that Diocesan Episcopacy is such a Fundamentall, that he that beleeveth it not to be Gods only way of Church-Government, (though he be never so willing and diligent to know the truth, yet) must be avoided, and separated from. But the two former suppositions we know to be false, and the third no Protestant takes for a Truth. For 1. Protestants have taken the Creed, Lords Prayer and ten Commandments, for a sufficient test of Christian Doctrine, so far as to discern who are Christians and to be communicated with; at least taking them with that Explication which an ordinary Believer may easily and certainly finde out, in the rest of the Scriptures. They take those to be no Fundamentals, which so many hundreds of men, yea the most Learned and Godly on earth, cannot yet agree in, or finde out the sense of. 2. Protestants do not believe that all the Protestant Churches except England and Ireland (no nor any one for want of Episcopacy) are to be excommunicated, or separated from. The Objectors must therefore remember, that we are not all of a minde about Episcopacy, and therefore cannot yet set it up, because we must not do that which we judge to be against Gods Word. But must we therefore separate or leave all undone? and give up our Flocks to rapine and ruine?
If they say that men of such erroneous principles, if they cannot be rectified, are bound to give up the Ministry to others of better judgements.
I Answer: 1. Shew me but where those men are, in so full a number as may supply the Churches necessities, but so farre, as that I and such as I may conscionably surcease, without the Churches loss, and I here promise that I will joyfully give up my Office, when ever any such fitter man shall be called to my place. And I think the rest of my Brethren will do the like. But we live in the open world, where we have opportunity to know men, as well as others: and we cannot see any such plentifull choice of Able, Pious men to supply all our Places if we should give them up. And either the late Bishops knew of none such; or else they took the drunken Readers (that could scarce yet have a Legit to save their necks, if they needed it) to be fitter men then we to edifie the Flocks.
2. It seems these Objectors are of the same minde as the late Prelates, and would deprive and silence us all that are not convinced of the Rightfulness of Episcopacy, if it were in their power. For if they think that we may not be Associated or Communicated with as Ministers, unless we will set up Episcopacy; it seems they would authoritatively remove us, if they could, though we yet do nothing against them.
3. Methinks, modest humble men, conscious of the frailty and fallibility of their own understandings, should not be so confident in a Point so difficult; or at least should not be so unmercifully censorious to their Brethren, as to cast off all that cannot see into a case so difficult so far as they, (suppose they see themselves.) If they think it is of no great difficulty then they are yet more unchristianly censorious, to think that so many Learned, Judicious, Godly Divines as since the Reformation have been against Episcopacy in France, Holland, Helvetia, Germany, Scotland, yea in England, should all be so wicked, as to shut their eyes against so easie a Truth, this is a hard judgement for humble men to pass. We must intreat them to suppose that as we have read many of their Writings for Episcopacy, so we have read many against it: And among such Probabilities brought on both sides by such Learned men, we take it not for such an easie matter to be certain of the right, as some confident men affirm it to be. I know that many heap up arguments and bring us long rols of Authorities for Episcopacy. And I know that Gersom, Bucerus, Beza, Altare Damascenum, Parker, Baines, Salmasius, Blondellus, Prin (in his Catalogue of Writers against Bishops, and in his History of Bishops, Part 2. Ch. 3. and unbishoping of Timothy and Titus.) Dr Reignolds, and others, do give us as long a train of Arguments and Authorities on the other side. For our parts, we are some of one minde (it's likely) in this, and some of another; and it is utterly against my purpose to speak on either side; but, methinks all those men that have without prejudice read the Authors that I have mentioned (especially Bucerus, Parker, and Blondellus, and Salmasius,) yea though they have read all that ever was writ on the other side, should be so apprehensive of a difficulty in the business, as to be moderate and modest in the censure of their Brethren, and not to degrade or excommunicate all that differ from them.