§ 1. Of the Church and Ministry, as related to each other.

WHETHER the Church, or the Ministry be first in nature, is to be considered; that for the more orderly, handling of both, we may know which of them to begin with. For that seems to require the precedency of handling, that hath the priority of nature; or the being whereof, is presupposed to the being of the o­ther. Now some have thus resolved it: As the question whe­ther the Hen or the Egg be first, is resolved by the Creation, That God made the Hen first; so is the Question, Whether the Church or Ministry be first, by the consideration of the first Institution of Christ; And it appears that the Ministry was first Instituted, or at least that it was first in existence. In setting up the Christian Church, Christ set up the Ministry first, to con­vert men, or make them Christians. Moreover, the Ministry, as taken for the collective body of Ministers, is a constitutive part of the Church, considered not entitativè, but organicè, (as some Phrase the distinction); that is, not as a meer company of Be­lievers gathered to Christ, but as a Political Society, or Spiritual Commonwealth in this World. And the Constitutive parts should be distinctly treated of, before the Whole that is consti­tuted of them.

On the other hand, the Church is the end of the Ministry, Eph. 4.11. and in design or intention, before it; and conse­quently the Ministry hath a respect of subserviency to the Church, and is Adapted to the state thereof. Likewise the Mi­nistry is in the Church, as the lesser in the greater, as a part in the whole; as a thing residing, in the seat of its resi­dence; as Stewardship in a Family. This indeed holds princi­pally and perpetually of the Church Universal, 1 Cor. 12.28. Moreover, the Ministers power and vertue is theirs, as they are the Churches, which indeed hath the propriety of them, and their Ministerial gifts, as being all under God and Christ, finally for its behoof. Upon these considerations I shall discourse first of the Church, and then of the Ministry.

§ 2. Of the Church, its Name and Nature.

THE word Ecclesia, is noted to signifie, 1. An Assembly cal­led together by a Superior. 2. Any multitude gathered into one place. 3. According to the use of the holy Scripture, a certain multitude, that retain the Name, as well when they are a part, as when they are met together. An Assembly at large is called Ecclesia, but Appellativè; but they that are now so called by special appropriation of the word, are a Society standing in a special Relation to God, as his devoted People; and that both when they are assembled, and when they are apart; and whether they be the Universal Society of Gods People, or the particular Societies that are the integral parts of the Universal.

The word Church is the English of Ecclesia, in its appropria­ted signification; and it is taken divers ways, but all agreeing in the aforesaid Notion: 1. For the whole Company of Gods Elect, comprising the uncalled, and the Militant, and the Trium­phant, Eph. 5.25, 26. 2. For the whole Company of the faithful, both Militant and Triumphant, Col. 1.18. Heb. 12.23. 3. For all professors of the Faith of Christ, or visible Christians, Acts 5.11. Acts 8.3. Acts 12.1. 4. For the Catholick Visible Church as a political Society, 1 Cor. 12.28. 5. For the particular Churches, parts of the Catholick, as com­prising [Page 3]the Church Officers, and the people or Community of the faithful, as the Church at Corinth, 1 Cor. 1.2. The Churches of Galatia, Gal. 1.2. and in many other places. 6. For the members of the Church or Community of the faithful, as di­stinct from their spiritual Rulers, Acts 15.4, 22. 7. For the Governours of the Church, as distinct from the governed, Mat. 18.17, 18, 19. 8. For a Church-Assembly come to­gether for Divine Worship, 1 Cor. 14.19, 34. 9. For the faithful in some one family, Rom. 16.5. Philem. 2. if it do not signifie a Church meeting in those houses. These several ac­ceptions of the word agree in the said common Notion, of a number of People associated in a peculiar and Spiritual Relation to God; yet the said Notion is more noble and compleat in some of them, than in others.

Besides all these, there is the vulgar use of the Word, for the House set a part for the Church to meet in for Gods Publick Worship. And no doubt but the Word may be lawfully so used; it being a trope in ordinary use, to put the name of the persons contained, upon the place containing; as also, the name of the place containing, upon the persons contained: But that there is any such use of the word in Holy Scripture, to me is not evident. As for the Text, 1 Cor. 11.22. Have ye not houses to eat and drink in? or, despise ye the Church of God; it seems not to me, to be inferred from it: For the Church of God there said to be despised, may be understood rather of Gods People assem­bled.

§ 3. The Church is a Society distinct from the Commonwealth.

IT hath been well noted, That there can be no greater Evi­dence of real distinction, than actual separation. And the Church and Commonwealth are separate; wheresoever there is a Christian Church in a Commonwealth, that is not Christian, indeed in that Case the Christians taken personally, are members, not severed from the Commonwealth, but parts of it; but the Spiritual Society, which they make, is no part of it, but really severed from it.

When a Commonwealth becomes Christian, the Church is not to be looked upon as swallowed up in the Commonwealth, but they remain distinct Societies, notwithstanding the intimate conjunction that is between them; and they differ in their kind and formal state from each other. The foundation upon which the Commonwealth rests, and its constitutive parts formally taken, are of another nature than the foundation on which the Church rests, and its constitutive parts formally taken. The former is immediately founded in humane Laws, and Com­pacts, and Essentially made up of several orders and ranks of men diversly indued with temporal qualifications, powers and liberties, joyned by Civil Bands, and Subordinate one to a­nother; but the latter is immediately founded in Divine Laws, not only natural, but positive; and Essentially made up of several orders and ranks of men, spiritually distinguished, and indued with spiritual qualifications, Powers and Liberties, joyned by Spiritual Bands, and Subordinate one to another. Hereupon none become Members of the Church, merely as Members of the Commonwealth; and none become Cives or Members of the Commonwealth, merely as Members of the Church; and they that are deprived of the Rights of the Commonwealth, may still injoy the Priviledges of the Church; and they that are deprived of the Priviledges of the Church, may still injoy the Rights of the Commonwealth.

Indeed a Christian Commonwealth, ultimately intends those high and excellent ends, which the Church doth nextly and im­mediately, viz. The Glory of God, and the Eternal happiness of men; and procures the same in its own way, as the Church doth in its way. And the Magistrates and Officers of a Common­wealth must proceed by the Rules of Christianity in their Civil Administrations, as well as the Ministers of the Church in their Sacred Administrations; and they are the Servants of Christ the Mediator, not only as Christians, but as Magistrates. And Christianity doth influence its professors, considered as Members of the Commonwealth, as well as of the Church.

In these respects, such a Commonwealth hath attained a more excellent State, and exists in a more perfect mode, than other Commonwealths. Nevertheless the Church is another and higher thing than that higher mode of the Commonwealth as Christi­an, [Page 5]and hath an Essentially different Polity, being a Society of another foundation, and specifically different Constitu­tion.

It is questionable (to say the least), whether the Civil Power of the Commonwealth, and the Spiritual Power of the Christi­an Church, may lawfully reside in the same person. I do not now speak of that Power in the Church, which is objectively Ecclesiastical, but formally Civil, (such as is the Kings Supre­macy in all Causes and over all Persons Ecclesiastical, within his Dominions); but of Power formally Spiritual. And if both Spiritual and Civil Power, may lawfully reside in the same person; yet that person, tho naturally but one, would be po­litically two, and the People subordinate to him in those two capacities; tho they be the same persons, yet they would be two Societies distinguished in their Essential forms.

When the Commonwealth fails, the Church may still subsist; and when the Church fails, the Commonwealth may still subsist. The Commonwealth of the Jews, that was a Theocracy, suf­fered an Intercision during the Babylonish Captivity; yet their Church then remained, tho it were greatly wounded, it was not extinct. And afterwards when they were no Commonwealth of themselves, but a Province of the Roman Empire, their Ecclesiasti­cal Society and Polity stood intire, till it was to give place to the Christian Church.

§ 4. Of the Church, as Visible and Invisible.

THE notion of Visible and Invisible, must not here be taken strictly for that which is, or is not the object of seeing only, but of other sensitive perception, or of any humane in­tuition. All other Societies of men admit not this distinction, because they are constituted in their formal being, by things that do appear outwardly. But this of the Church is constituted in its formal being, primarily by things that in themselves do not appear outwardly; and but secondarily by things that ap­pear, as expressions of the things that in themselves appear not.

The Church is a Society of regenerate persons joyned to the Lord Christ as their Head, and to one another as fellow-mem­bers, by a mystical union, through the Holy Gost residing in them all; and through faith unfeigned towards God in Christ, and ho­ly love toward one another, justified, sanctified and adopted to the inheritance of Eternal Glory. Now the said Qualifications, Relations, and Priviledges being in themselves hid from mens knowledg and judgment, do primarily constitute the Church, which is thereupon in its primary consideration, a Society Mysti­cal and Invisible.

It is also a Society of persons professing Christianity or Regene­ration, and externally joyned to Christ, and to one another by the profession of unfeigned faith and love, and by the Symbols of that profession, and partakers of the external Priviledges be­longing to it: And according to this external Constitution, which is necessary, tho it be not primary, it is named Vi­sible.

So then the Church Invisible and Visible, are not two Societies; but the same Society distinguished by its divers formal conside­rations and constitutions; the one primary, the other seconda­ry; and the former is not for the latter, but the latter for the former.

These two distinct considerations, or modes or forms of the same Society, are not commensurate to each other; but the Church in its Visible form is of a larger extent than in its Invi­sible form. For many profess Christianity, or Dedication to God in Christ, that are not really, that is, heartily and intirely so dedicated.

This Society, as understood in the compleat notion thereof, cannot be extended any further then its primary, that is, its Invi­sible form doth reach. Whatsoever lies without that compass, is but the shadow without the substance, the image without the life thereof. And therefore all they that are joyned to it meer­ly according to its Visible form, are of it not adequately, univocally and simply, but inadequately, analogically, & se­cundum quid.

They that upon their credible profession are of this Society but analogically, as to the external form only, have just Right and Title to its external Priviledges, according to their capaci­ty and disposedness, before them that can discern and directly [Page 7]judg only of things that appear outwardly; so that if men de­bar them of those Priviledges, they do them wrong. For tho God allows them not, and th [...]y have no right in his judgment, which is always according to truth, and not bate appearance; yet he hath commanded men to admit them, and consequently given them right before men.

Credible profession, in whatsoever degree, higher or lower, can ground but a judgment of charity in a higher or lower degree, about ones part in this Society according to its Invisible form; yet it can ground a judgment of certainty about ones part in the same according to its Visible form. So that altho God only knows those whom he accepts; yet the Church may know certainly whom she ought to admit. And as God in the matter be­longing to his cognizance, to wit, the sincerity of profession, and the rights consequent thereunto; so the Church in the matter belonging to its cognizance, to wit, the credibility of pro­fession, and the rights consequent thereunto, proceeds upon cer­tain knowledg.

§ 5. Of the Catholick Church Invi­sible and Visible.

IT hath been well observed, That the term Catholick Church, hath been sometimes used of a particular Church holding the true Doctrine of the Apostles, and is the same with Aposto­lical; and in this sence, any Bishop of a true Apostolical Church, may be called a Catholick Bishop. But here the term Catholick signifies the same with Oecumenical, or the Church that is throughout the whole World, or the whole World of Christians. And in this sence, the Church is termed Ca­tholick, not as actually extending to the whole World; but potentially, no Nation or People being excluded, but all having Liberty to accept and injoy the Priviledges there­of.

In this notion there is one Catholick Church, both in the Invisible and Visible form. The Catholick Church Invisible, is the whole company of true Believers throughout the World, who make that part of Christs Mystical Body, which ia mili­tant [Page 8]here on Earth. The Catholick Church Visible, is the whole company of Visible believers, throughout the World, or believers according to humane judgment.

§ 6. The Ʋnity of the Catholick Church Visible.

THE Catholick Church is not only notionally, but really ex­istent, and hath Relation to particular Churches, as an intregal whole, to integral parts. The same relation it hath also to par­ticular Christians; yea, and to such as are not fixed members of a particular Church.

There being one peculiar Kingdom of Christ, throughout the World, distinct from the World in general, visibly constituted and administred, not by humane Laws, and Coercive Power, as Secular Kingdoms are; but by Divine Laws and Power directly and purely respecting the conscience, there must needs be one Cae­tholick Visible Church.

The Catholick Church in its Visible form, is one political So­ciety, or Spiritual Commonwealth, the City of God, the more special Kingdom of Christ upon Earth; for the World in general is his Kingdom at large.

The Unity of the Catholick Church being a political Society, ariseth not out of a local contiguity, but out of the moral and political Union of the parts.

And if the Invisible Church be one body, the Visible must be so likewise. For these terms, the Church Visible and Invisible, do not signifie two Societies (as hath been shew­ed); but the same Society distinguished by its diver considera­tions.

The Visible Catholick Church hath one Head and Supreme Lord, even Christ; one Charter and Systeme of Laws, Members that are free denizons of the whole Society, one form of ad­mission, or solemn initiation for all its Members; one Spiritual polity, or one Divine form of Government, and one kind of Ecclesiastical Power.

The members of one particular Church are intituled to the priviledges granted of God to visible Christians in any other Church wheresoever they come to be injoyed by them according to their capacity, and in a due order: And wheresoever any Chri­stian comes as a stranger, he is by his relation to the Universal Church, bound to have communion with the particular Church or Churches of that place in Gods ordinances, according to his capa­city and opportunity. And if it be said, he is looked upon as a transient member of that particular Church, where he comes as a stranger: I answer, that it ariseth from his being a member of the Catholick Church, which contains all particular Churches, as an integral whole, its several parts; for it is his right, and not a favour or a matter of mere charity.

Whosoever is justly and orderly cast out of one Church, is there­by vertually cast out of all Churches, and ought to be received by none. This cannot be meerly by compact among the Churches, or by the mutual relation of mere concordant or sister Churches, but by their being integral parts of one society, for the ejection out of all (de jure) follows naturally, necessarily, ipso facto, from the e­jection out of one.

The Apostles were general officers of the whole Catholick Church as of one visible society: And it is not to be imagined, that it lost its unity by their death. The ordinary Pastors and Teachers, tho actually and in exercise overseeing their own parts, are habitually and radically related to the whole Catholick Church, and thereby are inabled to exercise their ministerial authority in any other parts, wheresoever they come, without a new ordination, or receiving a new pastoral authority, so that they do it in a due order. This shews that the several Churches are parts of one politi­cal society, otherwise the officers could not act authoritatively out of their own particular congregation, no more than (as one well observes) a Mayor or Constable can exercise their offices in other Corporations.

§ 7. The Priority in nature of the Catholick Church to particular Churches.

FOrasmuch a [...] men are Christians in order of nature before they are members of a particular Church, and ministers in general before they are ministers of a particular Church, they are mem­bers and ministers first of the Catholick Church in order of nature, and then of particular Churches. And the Charter and Body of Laws and Ordinances by which the Church subsists, doth first be­long to the Catholick Church, and then to particular Churches as parts thereof.

To be a member of a particular congregation, gives only the op­portunity of injoying divine ordinances and Church priviledges; but immediate right thereunto is gained by being a visible believer, or a member of the Church Catholick.

One may be a member of the Church Catholick, and yet not a fixed member of any particular Church, and that in some ca­ses occessarily, and in that state he hath right to Gods ordinances.

The Ethiopian Eunuch was of no particular Church, and yet baptized by Philip.

The Promises, Threatning and Precents of Christ are dispensed by his Minister to the members of his Church primarily, not as members of a particular, but of the universal Church: And there­fore the Minister dispenseth the same with authority in Christs Name, even to strangers that come into his Congregation.

8. The Visibility of the Catholick Church.

AS a large Empire is visible to the eye of sence, not in the whole at one view, but in the several parts one after another; so is the Catholich Church.

As a large Empire is visible in the whole at one view by an act of the understanding, which is the eye of the mind; so is the Catholick Church.

As the unity of a large Empire is not judged invisible, because it cannot be seen without an act of the understanding; no more may the unity of the Catholick Church be for that reason judged invisi­ble.

I have already shewed that the adequate notion of visible and invisible in this subject, is to be not only the object of the bodily eye or other external sence, but also of any humane intuition or certain perception, or that which falls under humane cognizance and judgment.

§ 9. The Polity of the Catholick Church.

THE Catholick Church is not (as secular Kingdoms or Com­monwealths are) autonomical, that is, having within it self that Power of its own fundamental constitution, and of the laws and officers and administrations belonging to it, as a Church or spiritual polity; but it hath received all these from Christ, its Head, King and Law giver. Indeed as it includes Christ the Head, it is in reference to him autonomical; but here we consider it as a po­litical Body visible upon earth, and abstracted from its Head.

Nevertheless it hath according to the capacity of its acting, that is, in its several parts, a power of secondary Laws or Canons either to impress the Laws of Christ upon its members, or to regu­late circumstantials and accidentals in Religion, by determining things necessary in genere, and not determined of Christ in sp [...]c [...], but left to humane determination.

The spiritual authority seated in the Church, is not seated in the Church, as Catholick, so as to descend from it by way of derivation and communication to particular Churches; but it is immediately seated in the several particular Churches as similar parts of one political Body the Church Catholick.

The Church Catholick is as one universal or Oecumenical Kingdom, having one supream Lord, one Body of Law [...], one Form of Government, one way of Enrollment into it and subiects who have freedom throughout the whole extent thereof, radically and fundamentally always, and actually to be used according to their occasions and capacities, but [Page 21]having no Terrene Universal Administrator or Vicegerent personal or collective, but several administrators in the se­veral provinces or parts thereof, invested with the same kind of authority respecting the whole kingdom radically or fundamental­ly, but to be exercised ordinarily in their own stated limits, and occasionally any where else according to a due call and order.

Wherefore tho it be one political society, yet not so as to have one terrestrial vicarious Head, personal or collective, having legisla­tion and jurisdiction over the whole. And indeed no terrestrial Head is capable of the Government; and Christ the Supream Head and Lord being powerfully present throughout the whole by his spirit, causeth that such a vicarious Head is not wanted.

Indeed the Apostles as such were universal officers, having Apo­stolick authority not only radically or habitually, but actually also over the whole Catholick Church in regard they were divinely inspired, and immediately commissioned by Christ under him to e­rect his Church, and to establish his religion, even the Doctrine, Worship, Discipline and Government that was to be received by all Christians: But this office was but temporary in the nature and formal reason of it, and so expired with their persons, and was not of the essence, or a constitutive part of this society.

§ 10. The Headship of a General Council exa­mined.

BY Headship over the Church in this inquiry, is not meant a do­minion and Desporick power over it; for the Church hath no Lord but Christ, nor soveraign authority over it, which is the power of legislation and final decisive judgment, by which men stand or fall finally; for the Church hath no King but Christ. I exclude Headship in any such sence, as not fit to come under consi­deration.

But the Query is, Whether a general Council be supream in that kind of power which resides in the Church, and is only ministeri­al and dispensatory? that is, whether it hath a supream ministry or Geconomy over the Catholick Church, so that all Churches and ministers have their power conveyed to them from the same, not as from the Fountain (which is Christ alone) but as from the first re­ceptacle [Page 13]thereof, and are subject to its authoritative regulation and determinations, and finally accountable to it for their admini­strations.

Who can affirm that an Oecumenical council rightly so named, was ever in being? The councils that have born that name, were conventions of Bishops within the Roman Empire, except some ve­ry few that were without it, and those living near the confines of it. Whereupon let it be considered, whether the said councils were truly Oecumenical, or just representatives of the Catholick Church.

That which is wont to be said for the affirmative is, that no Bi­shops were excluded from the right of voting therein, but from all parts of the world they might come to them as rightful members of them, if they would.

But what if no greater number of Bishops meet upon a summons to a General council, than did at the council of Trent? May such a convention be called an Oecumenical council because all might come that would, when so small a number came as was comparatively no­thing to the number of bishops throughout the world? Or can the convention of a greater number, suppose as many as met in the first Nicene council, be justly called a representative of the Ca­tholick Church, or carry the sence of it, when it bears no more proportion to it? Surely it is not their freedom of access, but their actual convening at least, in a proportionable number, that can justly give the denomination.

And what if the bishops without the limits of the Roman Em­pire would not come to a General council called by the Mandate of the Roman Emperour, especially they that lived in the remoter parts, as Ethiopia and India, &c? Were they obliged to come to a general council (in case it had been summoned) in another, espe­cially a remoter Empire or Dominion [...]? Moreover, what if they could not come (which may well be supposed) by reason of the restraint of their several Princes, or the length of the journey, or insuperable difficulties, or utter incapacities?

Tho the most illustrious part of the Catholick Church was con­tained in the Roman Empire, yet an assembly of the bishops there­of could no more make a representative of the Catholick Church, than an assembly of the bishops of the other part of the world without them could have done, if there had been such an assembly.

Besides the ancient General councils were usually called in the Eastern parts of the Empire; and tho the bishops of those parts might convene in a considerable number, yet the number from the Western parts was inconsiderable, and as none, comparatively to a just proportion. Let it be hereupon considered, whether the said councils were a just representative, and did carry the sence of that part of the Catholick Church that was included in that Empire. And in this consideration it is not of little moment to observe what numbers of bishops were ordinarily congregated in the many provincial assemblies, and that within provinces of narrower circuits of ground.

And how doth it appear that an Oecumenical council, rightly so named, can be? For suppose it be not necessary to consist of all the bishops in the world, but of some as delegates in the name of all, yet it must consist of so many proportionably delegated from all in the several quarters, as may signifie the sence and consent of all.

Hereupon let it be considered, whether there be a possibility of such assemblies; much more whether there be a possibility of the continuation, or of the succession of them in such frequency as would be requisite in case such an assembly were Head of the Church.

Nor doth it stand with reason, that an Oecumenical council, in case it were existent, can possibly execute the authority that be­longs to the head of the Universal Church, in overseeing all, in receiving appeals from all, in making authoritative determinations for all, either immediately by it self, or mediately by subordinate councils, judicatories, and ministers, to be superintended, regulated and determined by it in their proceedings.

Nor is there any notice given of the said headship of a General council, more than of the Popes or any other bishops universal headship in the primitive and authentick records of the Charter that Christ hath given to his Church, to wit, the Holy Scriptures: Nor is any rule given therein for the constitution of a General coun­cil, whether it shall be made up only of the Clergy, or only of such bishops as are of a higher order th [...] Presbyters or of all such bishops of the Catholick Church or if of some in the name of all, what number there must be, either definite or indefinite, and proportionate to the number of those that are represented.

It is evident de facto, that the officers of the Catholick Church, as the particular bishops or pastors, and the associations and con­ventions of them, do not derive their spiritual authority from a General council: Nor doth it appear that de jure they should de­rive their power from it, any more than from the Pope.

§ 11. The infallibility of the Catholick Church examined.

THE Romanists assert an insallibility about matters of faith somewhere seated within the Catholick Church as the perpe­tual priviledg thereof; some of them place it in the Pope, and others in a General council. Hereupon this priviledg is to be consi­dered, whether it be, and what it is.

The meaning of the term, is a being not liable to be deceived, or to deceive, about those matters about which it is said to be.

That the catholick church is infallible in the essentials of the christian religion is a most indubitable truth; for every member of the catholick church so remaining, is infallible so far; it involves a a contradiction that any such should err therein, for it were as much as to be a christian and no christian.

The Query therefore is, whether it be liable to errour in the in­tegrals a [...]d accidentals of Religion? Now the church remaining such, is not necessarily or in its nature infallible so far, and there­fore if it be infallible, it must be so from the free grant of Christ; But it doth not appear in the Holy Scripture that any such grant is made to the church.

What was the Apostles doctrine, and consequently the doctrine of the Church in their days, obedient to their authority, we know; what the church universally held in any one age touching all the integral parts of religion, much more concerning accidentals, I con­ceive extreamly difficult, if not impossible to be known. But that the church hath de facto, if not universally, yet very generally erred in the same errour about some integrals of religion, appears by the ancient general practise of some things, now generally accounted erroneous; as for instance, the giving of the Lords Supper to infants.

Moreover it is evident, that the whole Church in its several parts hath erred, some in one point, some in another; and that no part thereof hath been found in which hath appeared no er­ror in some point of Religion or other. And if all the parts may variously err in several points, why may not they also harmoniously err all of them in one and the same point?

If the Catholick Church be not infallible in all doctrines of Faith, much less is any such Council infallible as was ever yet con­gregated, or is ever like to be congregated.

Hereupon it follows, that in all Controversies of doctrine we cannot stand finally to the decision of the Catholick Church, if it were possible to be had; or to the decision of any the largest Council that can possibly convene.

We cannot tell what the Catholick Church is, nor what particu­lar Churches or persons are sound parts thereof, but by the holy Scriptures. For what Criterion can be brought besides them? Mens bare testimony of themselves is not to be rested on. How can we know that the first Nicene Council was orthodox in its determination about the Sacred Trinity, and the second Nicene Council erroneous in its determination for Image-worship, but by finding that the former was consonant, and the latter dissonant to the Scripture in their aforesaid determinations?

If it be said, That of Councils called General, those that con­sist of greater numbers of bishops must carry it against those that consist of lesser numbers; let some proof either from Scripture or Reason be given for it. What ground is there from either to con­clude, that in the time of the Arrian Heresie the major part of bishops in the Roman Empire, or the major part of those that assembled in Council, and for instance in the first Council at Nice, might not possibly have been Arrians? Moreover if the major part were to carry it in the first six Centuries, why not also in the ten last?

That promise of Christ, Mat. 28. I am with you always to the end of the world, may imply, That there shall be a successive con­tinuation of Bishops or Pastors in the Catholick Church to the worlds end, that shall be Orthodox in the Essentials, yea and in the Integrals of Religion; yet it doth not imply that they shall be the greater number of those that are called and reputed bishops or pastors within Christendom, nor that the greater number of those being convened in Councils, shall not err in their Conciliar determinations about matters of Faith.

§ 12. Of the Indefectibility of the Catholick Church.

CHRIST hath promised the perpetuity of the Church in general, in saying that he would build it on a Rock, and the gates of Hell should not prevail against it; and I am with you al­ways to the end of the world; but how far, and in what respect this perpetuity and indefectibility is promised, ought to be enquired into, lest we expect or insist upon more than the promise hath en­sured.

That which Christ hath promised, cannot be less, than that there be always upon earth a number of true believers, or faithful Chri­stians, made visible by their external profession of Christianity, successively continued till the end of all things.

It is also ascertained, that there shall be at least the essentials of a Church-state, or Church organical (as some express it) consist­ing of a part governing, and a part governed, always continued somewhere upon earth. For Christs promise is to be with his Apo­stles in the executing of their Ministry, always, to the end of the world; and it must be understood of them not barely considered, as persons; but as his commissioned Officers, including their suc­cessors, not in the Apostolical and Temporary, but in the ordina­ry and perpetual Authority, which they had in common with Pastors, Bishops or Presbyters. And Eph. 4.11. shews, that the Ministry is to endure till the whole Mystical body of Christ be compleated.

But the promise doth not import, that any particular Church, or any particular combination of Churches in one frame of Eccle­siastical Polity, how ample or illustrious soever, shall be perpetua­ted by an uninterrupted succession of Pastors, and secured from a total defection and rejection either from a Church state, or from Christianity it self.

If any particular church, or any one larger part of the Catho­lick church, hath been preserved from the Apostles days till now, when others have been extinct, it is by the good pleasure of God, whose ways and counsels are wise and holy, yet unsearchable and past finding out.

Nor doth the promise import, that the true church shall be per­petually conspicuous, tho it be perpetually visible: for in some A­ges it may be more obscure, in others more apparent. It is granted by that party that much insists upon the conspicuousness of their church, as a city on a hill, That in the time of Antichrist the church shall scarcely be discerned. Now in such a state it may be said to be, tho not absolutely, yet comparatively invisible, that is, being compared with what it is when more conspicuously Vi­sible.

Nor doth it import that any particular church, or any most am­ple and illustrious part of the Catholick church, shall perpetually abide in the Apostolick purity of doctrine, worship, and govern­ment; but that it may depart from it, and fall into most enor­mous errors and practises in the said points, and yet may not lose the essentials of Christian doctrine, and church-state. The Scripture foretels of a great falling away, and a lasting defection in the Chri­stian church, and a long continued predominancy of an Antichri­stian state therein.

Nay, for ought can be cogently inferred from the aforesaid promise, the said defection might have been so universal, as to leave no part of the Catholick church divided from the Apostatical or Antichristian state and party, by a different external church-polity; but the sound and sincere part of the Church may truckle under it and be included in its external frame; and keep themselves from being destroyed by it, some of them discerning and shunning the bainful doctrine and practise; and others that are infected with it, holding the truth predominantly in their hearts and lives, and so tho not speculatively yet practically prevailing against the wicked errours.

If in all times there have been some societies of Christians that did not fall away in the great defection, nor incorporate with the antichristian state; but were by themselves in a severed church-state; yet Christ hath not promised that there shall be notice thereof throughout all Christendom in the times when the said societies were in being, nor that histories should be written thereof for the knowledg of after ages.

Howbeit we have sufficient notice by credible history, that there have been many ample christian churches throughout all ages that were not incorporated with the antichristian state, and that did dissent from their great enormities in Doctrine, Worship, and Go­vernment; [Page 19]also that many Worthies living in the midst of that great apostacy, did during the whole time thereof successively bear witness for the truth against it, and that for a great part of the time huge multitudes also living in the midst of the said aposta­cy, separated from it, and were embodied into churches of another constitution more conformable to the Primitive Christianity.

§ 13. The frame of the particular Churches mentioned in Scripture.

AS we find in Scripture one Catholick church related as one Kingdom, Family, Flock, Spouse and Body, to Christ as its only King, Master, Shepherd, Husband and Head; so we find par­ticular churches, as so many political societies distinct from each other, yet all compacted together as parts of that one ample So­ciety the Catholick church; as the church at Antioch, Acts 13.1. the church at Jerusalem, Acts 11.22. Acts 15.4. the church at Cesarea, Acts 18.22. the church at Cenchrea, Rom. 10.1. the church at Corinth, 1 Cor. 1.2 the churches of Galatia, Gal. 1.2. the church of the Thessalonians, 1 Thes. 1.1. the church at Baby­lon, 1 Pet. 5 13. and the seven churches in Asia, Apoc. 1. & 2. viz. of Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamos, Thyatyra, Sardis, Thiladel­phia, and Laodicea.

We likewise find that the Christians of a city, o [...] lesser precinct, made one church; as the church at Corinth, the church at Cen­chrea, &c. but the Christians of a Region or a larger circuit, made many churches, as the churches of Asia, the churches of Ga­latiae.

We find also, that each of these particular churches did consist of a part governing, and a part governed, and consequently were political Societies. Every church had their proper Elder or El­ders, Acts. 4.23. which Elders were the same with Bishops, Acts 20.28. Tit. 1.5, 7. 1 Pet. 5.1, 2. and they were constitutive parts of those churches, considered as Political Societies.

We find also that these Elders or Bishops did personally super­intend or oversee all the Flock, or every member of the church over which they did preside, Acts 20 28, 29. 1 Thes. 5.12. Heb. 13.17. This appears further by their particular work expresly [Page 20]mentioned in Scripture to be personally performed towards all, viz. to be the ordinary Teachers of all, Heb. 13 7. 1 Thes. 5.12, 13. to admonish all that were unruly, and to rebuke them open­ly, 1 Tim. 5.20. Tit. 1.10. to visit and pray with the sick, and all the sick were to send for them to that end, James 5.14. and no grant from Christ to discharge the same by Substitutes or De­legates can be found.

§ 14. The Form of a particular Church considered.

FROM the premises it is evident, That all particular chur­ches mentioned in the New Testament, were so constituted, as that all the members thereof were capable of personal com­munion in worshipping God, if not always at once together, yet by turns at least, and of living under the present personal super­intendency of their proper Elder or Elders, Bishop or Bi­shops.

Whether to be embodied or associated for personal commu­nion in worship, and for personal superintendency of the Pa­stors over all the members, be the true formal or essential consti­tution of particular churches by divine right, I leave to conside­ration. But this is evident, that all those churches that the Scrip­ture takes notice of, were so constituted, and that either by the immediate agency of the Apostles themselves, Acts 14.23 or of others by their appointment. Tit. 1.5. Yet I do not hereby mean that every Congregation or Assembly for worship or acts of go­vernment, was a whole political church. For some such congrega­tions might be only parts of a church meeting according to con­venience; but still the said personal communion was in the whole church simul or per vices, and there was a personal superinten­dency of the Bishop or Pastor over the whole in all the acts of his Pastoral office.

As for such a particular church as consists of many (it may be several hundred) stated congregations, having each of them their proper Presbyter or Presbyters, and is governed by one sole Bi­shop, the aforesaid Presbyters being said to be no Bishops, and whose members are not capable of personal communion among [Page 21]themselves either simul or per vices, nor of the personal superin­tendency of their Bishop in the necessary acts of his Pastoral Of­fice; if there be any Scripture-precedent or divine Rule for the same, I am ready to take notice of it.

§ 15. The due place of constituting a parti­cular Church.

ORdinarily the place of a particular church was a City, and from the City the church ordinarily took its denomination. Nevertheless, nothing is found in Scripture to make a City the only proper Mansion of a church, so that no Village could be a fit Receptacle of it; yea, the Scripture mentions a church which was not a City-church, viz that at Cenchrea, which was not a City, but the Haven of Corinth.

Cities being places of the confluence of people, had ordinarily the Gospel first preached, and first received in them, and conse­quently first afforded the materials of a church. And they were the fittest places for the erection of a church in order to the ma­king of more converts to be added to them, besides other conve­niences. And therefore right Reason, without a particular Divine command, would direct those Master-builders the Apostles to erect churches in cities.

Howbeit the City-churches were not confined to the respe­ctive cities, but commonly took in all the Christians of the adja­cent Villages. And in the Apostles times the Christians both of a city and its adjacent Villages, did ordinarily but make up one com­petent congregation, or in its numbers it did not exceed one of our parishes. Tho some very few churches quickly grew numerous, yet most rationally it may be conceived, that they did not ex­ceed many, nor equal some of our very populous Parishes.

Here it must be considered, that [...] or a city, was any Town corporate, and that every such that had Christians in any compe­tent number, had a stated church in it. And the Rule was not then, as now, that the church and its bishop did make that a city which otherwise would not be; but that every city or town corporate, or place of confluence of people, where there were christians, should have its church with its proper bishop.

§ 16. Each particular Church is a distinct Political Society.

AS Cities in a Kingdom, so are particular churches in the church universal. This similitude holds in the main, but not in all respects. As a whole Kingdom hath its fundamental Constitution by which it subsists, and its Magna Charta for privi­ledges belonging to the whole; so the church universal hath its fundamental constitution and charter by which it subsists in its proper state. And as every city is a distinct body-politick under the King, and hath from him its charter by which it subsists; so every particular church as a distinct political Society under Christ, hath its charter from him, by which it subsists in its proper state.

The erecting of particular churches as several political societies by the Apostles, who were Christs authorized Agents for erecting his special Kingdom the church, and guided therein by his infalli­ble spirit, and by others at their direction, and according to the same Rule, is a sufficient Charter for the constitution of such chur­ches wherever there are fit materials. Besides, the law of nature requires the parcelling the church universal into such distinct So­cieties under their proper Pastors, that church-communion and Pastoral superintendency might not be transient and uncertain, but permanent and certain.

The several cities in the same Kingdom may have their special Laws and Priviledges divers from each other, according to the diversity of their charters granted by the King. But particular churches have not municipal laws and priviledges divers from each other, but the same in common to them all, because they have all the same charter in specie. Here note, that they may be rightly called distinct Political Societies, that have each of them their own charter, tho it be not divers, but the same in kind among them all.

He that is a citizen or a Magistrate of one city, is not a citi­zen, Magistrate, or Officer in all cities of the same Kingdom. But a member or a Pastor of one particular church, hath an habitual or fundamental Right of being a member or Pastor in any parti­cular church throughout the world, which is not actually to be [Page 23]made use of but in a due order, as hath been above noted.

Particular churches, tho they consist of dissimilar parts, are all of them similar parts of the Church Catholick, partaking of its name and nature, whereas cities are dissimilar parts of a King­dom.

From these premises it follows, that the qualifications requisite to make men members or ministers of the universal church, do sufficiently qualifie them to be members or ministers of any par­ticular church wherewith they are naturally capable of Commu­nion.

§ 17. Of the local bounds of Churches.

ALL the Christians in the world are one holy society; and if it were possible they should have local presential communion one with another; but that being impossible by reason of the large extent of the society, they are necessarily parcelled into seve­ral congregations; for the capacity of such communion is the end of erecting particular churches; in all reason they should consist of persons, who by their cohabitation in a vicinity are made capa­ble of it, and there may not be a greater local distance of the persons from each other than can stand with it.

Moreover all Christians of the same local precinct, not more populous nor of larger extent than to allow personal communion, are most conveniently brought into one and the same stated church, that there might be the greatest union among them, and that the occasion of straggling and running into severed parties might be avoided. And so we find in Scripture that all the Christians within such a local precinct commonly made but one church.

Tho it be highly convenient that particular churches be so bounded, as to take in all the christians of the same precinct as a­foresaid, and therefore necessary, when some special reason doth not compel to vary; yet it is not absolut [...]ly necessary in reason, nor do we find any divine institution to make it invariable, tho the Apostles and their coadjutors were led to this way by the natu­ral convenience of it.

But if any where a greater inconvenience comes, or a greater benefit be lost by such a partition of Churches, than the conveni­ence of it can countervail, there the partition must be made as it may be, that is, as the state of things will admit.

It is supposed by some learned men, that in the Apostles time there were several Churches at Rome under their several bishops or pastors, as one of the circumcision, another of the uncircumci­sion within the same local precincts. And if there were not so de facto, I think few will deny but that the state of christians then and there might have been such as to have made such a partition of churches among them lawful and expedient.

§ 18. Of the power of a particular Church.

THE power of a Church is but the power of the ruling part thereof; and therefore the power of particular churches is according to the power of their particular bishops or pastors, the nature whereof shall be opened, when I come to speak of the na­ture of the pastoral office.

It appears by what hath been already shewed of the frame of particular churches mentioned in Scripture, that they all had the government within themselves. Every stated church had its pro­per pastor or pastors, having authority of teaching and ruling it in Christs name.

If a distinction of churches into such as have Pastoral govern­ment within them, and such as have it not, be asserted, it must be proved by the assertors from divine testimony: And if it be granted that every organical church hath in it its authoritative Teacher or Guide under Christ, and in his name, it must be gran­ted (as far as I can see) that it hath in it its Ruler also; for ruling is but by teaching and guiding.

The smallest Church hath the same power in its narrow Sphere that the greatest Church or any association of Churches have in their larger Spheres, that is, it hath the same power intensively, tho not extensively: Indeed, the authoritative acts of larger churches and associations in regard of their amplitude may be justly esteemed in degrees more Solemn, August and Venerable.

§ 19. The subordination of Churches of the same kind, considered.

TOuching this point of the subordination of Churches, there be three parts of the enquiry. 1. Whether there be a subordination of one or more particular Churches to another particular Church whose constitution and frame is the same in spe­cie with theirs? 2. Whether there be a subordination of parti­cular Churches to some other Church specifically different from them in the frame thereof, and being in a state of greater sublimi­ty and amplitude? 3. Whether there be a subordination of par­ticular Churches taken distributively, to an association or collective body of the same Churches, or an assembly thereof; and of that collective body to a larger association of more such collective bo­dies conjunct with it, or to an assembly thereof, and so forward till we come to the largest that can be reached unto?

1. Whether there be a subordination of one or more particu­lar Churches to another particular Church, whose constitution and frame is the same in specie with theirs, and whose officers are of the same holy order, such as the seven Churches of Asia were in relation one to another, and as congregational Churches are to each other, and as Diocesan Churches are to each other, if de ju­re there be such Churches? Now as touching subordination in this kind, what hath been or may be by humane right upon prudential considerations either statedly or pro tempore, is not here examined; but what is by divine right inferring an obligation upon one Church to be subject to another of the same specifick frame with it self.

Sometimes a Church hath been called a mother-Church in rela­tion to other churches, either because they have issued from it, as swarms from a hive, or because they have received the Christian faith from it, or because they have been erected by some sent forth from it, &c. Now that these latter Churches do owe a reveren­tial regard and observance to the first, which is called the Mo­ther-Church, is not to be doubted; and such regard or observance every small or obscure Church owes to those that are more Am­ple, Illustrious or Renowned.

But that the said Mother. Church can by divine right or war­rant claim a governing power over those Churches that have issu­ed from it; or that the more Ample and Illustrious Churches can claim the like over the smaller and obscurer, I do not find any proof; but I judg the contrary, because, notwithstanding the a­foresaid diversity or disparity of condition, they all rest upon the same Basi [...], Christs Charter, by which they are constituted, which is the same to all, and alike immediately given to all. So that in this respect they all stand upon the same level, and are equal. Now one equal hath not governing power over another in that where­in they are both equal.

§ 20. The subordination of Churches of different kinds, considered.

AS touching the subordination of Churches to some other Church specifically different from them, as of parochial or congregational Churches to a Diocesan, Provincial, National Church; be it first observed, that the Diocesan Church is not merely the incorporated society of a Cathedral, nor any one par­cular Church, besides the Parochial Churches; nor is it material­ly divers from them jointly taken; nor the provincial church from the Diocesan churches; nor the national church from the provin­cial churches jointly taken: But in their several ranks they differ formally, as being each of them one body politick constituted by the political compages of the churches included in each of them.

And let what was before observed be here reminded, that each congregational or parochial church, having its proper Presbyter or Elder invested with the power of the keys, is a political church, or such as hath its government within it self. And thereupon the divine warrant of such a Diocesan Church as is the lowest that hath government within it self, and consequently that swallows hundreds of political churches that are of Christs institution, was called in question, and still I desire the Asserters of it to give some proof of its divine right.

Indeed the Postscript of the Epistle to Titus mentions him as ordained the first bishop of the Cretians. Of what authority that Postscript is, I know not; but this is certain, that where there [Page 27]were Christians, there were to be churches in every city of Crete, and there were reckoned a hundred cities in that no very large Island, and those churches were political societies within themselves having their proper elders or bishops. And upon supposition that the whole Island made but one larger church constituted by the political union of the said particular churches in every city under Titus, it must be such as is now called a provincial church under one Archbishop.

Now if the Diocesan church be not looked upon as the Iowest political church, but as constituted by the political union of congre­gational or parochial churches, held also to be political, under an officer of another order, and the proper superior of those offi­cers, under which the parochial churches immediately are, then let it be observed, that a church of this frame is not properly an Episcopal but an Archiepiscopal Church. For the churches where­of it is compacted are properly Episcopal, being such as have each of them their own bishop, pastor or elder. But the divine right of such an Archiepiscopal church, I leave to further inquiry.

As for a National church, I come now to inquire in what sence it may or may not be granted. In a more general notion it is some part of the universal church distinguished and severed from the rest of that body, by the limits of a Nation, or of a civil state; or in other terms, a nation of Christian churches, or the Christian churches of a Nation.

But there are more express and special notions thereof respect­ing the frame of Ecclesiastical Polity, which are discrepant from each other: And about the being thereof in these special notions, mens judgments vary. Some own a national church in this sence only: viz. a nation of churches, or the churches of a nation a­greeing, at least in the essentials of christian Dectrine, divine Worship, and church-Government. Some own a national church in a stricter sense, namely, the said churches not only agreeing in the points aforesaid, but politically united by the same common band of Ecclesiastical Government under one head personal or col­lective. And this stricter sence hath a subdivision; for it may be understood of the churches united in a Civil Ecclesiastical polity, under a civil head or supream, or of the churches embodyed in the band of a polity purely Ecclesiastical under a spiritual head or supream.

I own the rightful being and divine warrant of a national church as united in one Civil Ecclesiastical polity under one civil head or supream, either personal as in a Monarchy, or collective as in a Republick. And in this sence I assent to the National Church of England: viz. All the churches in England politically united under one Supream Civil Church-Governour, the Kings Maje­sty.

Yet it is to be understood, that the partition of a church by the bounds of a nation or of a civil state, is but extrinsecal or acciden­tal to the church as such; also that the union of the churches of a nation in the band of civil church-polity under a civil head, is but an extrinsecal, and not an intrinsecal union.

But I question the divine warrant of a national church embodied in the band of one national polity purely Ecclesiastical under one spi­ritual head or supream, either Personal as a Primate or Patriarch, or collective as a consistory of bishops or elders intrinsecally be­longing to it, and being a constitutive part of it: For I find no Ca­non or Precedent for it in Scripture, which is the adequate rule of divine right in the frame of churches, and of what intrinsecally belongs thereuntò, and I do not know any such spiritual head of the Church of England: as for the Arch-bishops of Canterbury and York, they at the most can be heads but of their respective provinces, and are not subordinate but coordinate to each other in point of Archiepiscopal Government, however the case is between them in point of precedency.

Yet if the civil supream power shall constitute a person or per­sons Ecclesiastical to be head of a national church, or the churches of a nation politically imbodied, I here offer nothing against it, or for it; But if there be such a national constitution, being but humane, it is but extrinsecal and accidental to the church; and being derived from the civil supream, it is but a civil church-poli­ty.

§ 21. The subordination of particular Churches to an association or collective body of the same Churches, considered.

I Come to enquire whether there be a subordination of churches, taken distributively to an association o [...] collective body of the same Churches, or an assembly thereof; and again, whe­ther there be a subordination of that collective body to a lar­ger association of more collective bodies, or to an assembly there­of, and so forward till we come to the largest that can be reached unto.

The association of particular churches is of the law of nature, and therefore to be put in practise according to their capacity, tho there were no positive law for it; for they are all so many distinct members of one great body, or integral parts of the Catholick church; and they are all concerned in each others well being, both in reference to themselves as fellow members of one body, and to Christ their Head, whose honour and interest they must promote, each church not only within themselves, but through­out all the churches to the utmost extent of their agency: And they naturally stand in need of each others help in things that con­cern them severally and jointly.

Likewise that there be greater and lesser associations acting in their several spheres higher or lower, the one included in the o­ther, is of the law of nature, or of natural convenience for the more ample capacity and more orderly contributing of the mutu­al help aforesad; such as have been called classical, provincial and na­tional assemblies used in one form of church-government; yea, and beyond this the association of the churches of many nations as far towards an oecumenical council, as they are capable of con­vening, is of the same reason: But of an oecumenical association truly so called, that is, of all the churches in the world, the moral impossibility thereof hath been spoken of before.

It is also by the law of nature most convenienient that in the lesser associations all the ruling officers personally meet; and that in the larger they meet by their delegates or representatives chosen by all, and sent in the name of all, which meetings are called assem­blies or synods; and the convenience of meeting by delegates is, that the particular churches be not for a time left wholly destitute of their guides, and that there may be less trouble and difficulty and danger of disorder in the whole management. Note, That what is most naturally convenient, hath in it the reason of necessary, or is matter of duty, unless when something gainsay or hinder, and then indeed it ceaseth to be convenient.

And that there be some kind of subordination in the said associ­ations, and their respective Assemblies, is of the Law of nature, which requires order; but as to the kind or manner of subordination, men go several ways: Some place it in a proper Authority or Governing power that the collective bodies of Churches have over the several Churches included in them: others place it in the agreement of the several churches; and some of these make this further explanation, that the Canons made by Synods, as they are made for the people, who are subject to the Pastors, are a sort of Laws, and oblige by the Authority of the Pastors; but as they are made for the pre­sent or absent Pastors, who are separately of equal Office, Power, they are no Laws except in an equivocal sense, but only Agree­ments.

Now in judging between these two ways of the subordination enquired of, let it be considered, first, That every particular church hath power of government within it self, as hath been be­fore observed. 2. That a particular church doth not derive that power from any other particular church, or collective body of churches, but hath it immediately from Christ. 3. That yet the acts of government in every particular church, have an influence into all the churches, being but integral parts of one whole, the Catholick church; and consequently they are all of them nearly concerned in one another, as members of the same body. 4. There­upon that particular churches combine in such collective bodies and associations as have been before mentioned, is not arbitrary, but their duty. 5. That the greater collective bodies are, in degrees more august and venerable than the lesser included in them; and in that regard ought to have sway with the lesser, and not meerly in regard of agreement: For tho in the greater there be but the [Page 31]same power in specie with that in the lesser; yet it is more amply and illustriously exerted. 6. That in all Societies every part be­ing ordered for the good of the whole, and the more ample and comprehensive parts coming nearer to the nature and reason of the whole, than the lesser and comprehended; the more ample parts if they have not a proper governing power over the lesser, have at least a preeminence over them for the ends sake; and this preemi­nence hath the force of a proper superior power in bearing sway. 7. Hence it follows, that the acts of Synods, if they be not di­rectly acts of government over the particular Pastors, yet they have the efficacy of government, as being to be submitted to for the ends sake, The general good.

§ 22. What is, and what is not of Divine Right in Ecclesiastical Polity.

WE must distinguish between things that belong to the church as a church, or a Society divers in kind from all other Societies; and those things that belong to it extrinsecally, & upon a reason common to it with other regular societies. The for­mer wholly rest upon Divine Right; the latter are in genere requisite by the Law of Nature, which requires decency and order, and whatsoever is convenient in all societies; and so far they rest up­on Divine Right; but in specie they are left to human determina­tion, according to the general Rules given of God in Nature or Scripture. And it is to be noted, That such is the sulness of Scri­pture, that it contains all the general Rules of the Law of Na­ture.

What soever in matter of Church government doth go to the formal constitution of a church of Christ, is of Divine Right.

The frame of the Church catholick as one spiritual society un­der Christ the head (as before described) wholly rests upon Di­vine Right; and so the frame of particular churches as several spiritual Polities and integral parts of the Catholick church (as before described) is also of Divine Right, if such Right be suf­ficiently signified by the Precepts and Rules given by the Apostles for the framing of them, and by their practise therein. Moreo­ver the parcelling of that one great Society the Church-catholick [Page 32]into particular Political Societies under their proper spiritual Guides and Rulers, is so necessary in nature to the good of the whole, that the Law of Nature hath made it unalterable.

It is intrinsick to all particular stated Churches, and so of Di­vine Right, that there be publick Assemblies thereof for the so­lemn Worship of God; that there be Bishops, Elders, or spiritual Pastors therein, and that these as Christs Officers guide the said Assemblies in publick Worship, that therein they authoritatively preach the Word, and in Christs Name offer the mercies of the Gospel upon his terms, and denounce the threatnings of the Go­spel against those that despise the mercies thereof; that they di­spence the Sacraments to the meet partakers, and the spiritual cen­sures upon those that justly fall under them; that the members of these Societies explicitely or implicitely consent to their relation to their Pastors, and one towards another. It doth also intrinse­cally belong to particular churches as they are integral parts of one Catholick church (of which all the particular Christians contained in them are members) and consequently it appears to be of Divine Right, that they hold communion one with ano­ther, and that they be imbodied according to their capacities in such Associations as have been before described.

As for all circumstantial variation, and accidental modification of the things aforesaid, with respect to meer decency, order, and convenience, according to time and occasion, being extrinsick to the spiritual frame and Polity of the Church as such, and belong­ing in common to it with all orderly Societies, they are of Divine Right only in genere, but in specie they are left to those to whom the conduct and government of the church is committed, to be determined according to the general Rules of Gods word.

Much of the controversie of this Age about several forms of Church-government, is about things extrinsick to the church­state, and but accidental modes thereof, tho the several parties in the controversie make those Forms to which they adhere to be of Divine Right, and necessary to a Church-state, or (as some speak) a Church-organical. Now in the said controverted Forms of Go­vernment there may be a great difference: for some may be con­gruous to the divine and constitutive frame of the Church, and ad­vantageous to its ends; others may be incongruous to it, and de­structive to its ends.

§ 23. Of a True or False Church.

MANY notes of a true Church are contentiously brought in by those that would darken the truth by words without knowledg. But without more ado the true and real being of a Church stands in its conformity to that Law of Christ upon which his Church is founded. This Law is compleatly written in the Holy Scriptures.

The more of the aforesaid Conformity is sound in any Church, the more true and sound it is; and the less of it is found in any church, the more corrupt and false it is, and the more it declines from truth and soundness.

A Church may bear so much conformity to its Rule, as is suffici­ent to the real being, or essential state of a Christian church, and yet withall bear such disconformity to its Rule, as renders it very enormous.

A church holding all the essentials of Faith, Worship, Mini­stry and Government, together with the addition of such Do­ctrine, Worship, Ministry and Government, as is by consequence a denial of those essentials, and a subverting of the foundation, is a true church as to the essentials, tho very enormous and dangerous. And they that are of the communion of such a church, who hold the essentials of Religion more prevalently in their judgment and practice, in their hearts and lives, than the superadded errors and corruptions; and are ready to Renounce those errors and corrup­tions, if they saw their inconsistence with the essentials, are true Christians, otherwise they are not such.

The same church may be a true and a false church in different respects, or formal considerations: In respect of the essentials of Christian Faith, Worship and Ministry, it may be a true church; and in respect of some devised Church-form superadded, by which over and above the said Essentials it is constituted and denomina­ted, it may be in that distinct formal consideration a false church.

§ 1. The Nature of the holy Ministry in gene­ral.

THE Holy Ministry is a state of Authority and Obligation to perform some special Holy Works and Services in the Name of Christ for the edi­fying of the church: So that whosoever is in a holy order or office, is qua talis authorized and obliged to the work and service that is appropriated to it; and whosoever statedly and de jure doth the work and service appro­priated to a holy order, is really in or of that order, altho men may not give him the name thereof.

Whether the Magistratical and Ministerial Offices may reside together in the same person, is not here considered; but if it were granted that they may, they would essentially differ from each other: For the Magistrate as such hath received no authority formally ministerial; nor hath any minister as such the power of a civil magistrate.

Some thus distinguish between the magistratical and ministerial authority, that the one is directive, and the other imperative. I take not this to be a competent distinction; for that authority that infers an obligation on the subject to obey, is properly im­perative, and the ministerial authority doth so; as the Scripture speaks expresly, Heb. 13.17. Paul was no Magistrate, but as a Minister he speaks, 2 Cor. 10.6. Having in readiness to revenge all disobedience; and he expresly declares his ministerial authori­ty [Page 34]to be imperative, Phil. v. 8. The I might make hold in Christ to injoyn thee that which is convenient, &c. and v. 21. having confidence in thine obedience, I wrote unto thee. Now they had rightly distinguished, if instead of imperative they had put coercive, coactive or imperial; For all directive authority by special office is imperative. Whosoever doth by special office direct unto du­ty in the name of his King, and according to his will (as a Mini­ster doth in the name of Christ) doth therein command. But a coactive power is something more and belongs not to a Minister as such. The Magistrate rules by the Sword, and the Minister by the Word.

§ 2. Of the efficient cause of the Ministry and its Authority.

AS Christ alone hath the power of appointing the work or works of the holy ministry to be done in his name either to­wards believers, or the unbelieving; towards the church jointly, or toward particular persons severally; so he alone hath the power of appointing the holy orders or offices that contain an authority and obligation to perform the same: And seeing Christ hath al­ready appointed all the ministerial works, and appropriated the same to certain ministerial orders, no new order or office of the holy ministry can be instituted by men, for they cannot institute other ministerial work to be done in Christs Name, than what he hath appointed.

But the circumstances and accidental modes, and subservient of­fices about the work of the ministry are of that nature, as that they well may be appointed by men; and accordingly the officers for the management thereof may be so appointed: and such modes and circumstances being necessarily subject to great variation in re­gard of the great diversity of occasion, cannot well be pre-defi­ned.

The holy ministry and power belonging to it, is conferred nei­ther by Magistrate, nor by Prelate, nor by any spiritual officer or officers as the proper givers thereof, but by Christ alone: And tho Christ give it in some respect by the mediation of men, yet not by them as giving the office power, but as instruments either of [Page 36]designing the person to whom he gives it, or of the solemn investi­ture of that person therein; as the King is the immediate giver of the power of a Mayor in a Town corporate, when he gives it by the mediation of the Electors, not as giving the power, but de­signing the person to be invested with it, or by the mediation of some other officers as instruments of the solemn investiture.

Neither Magistrate nor Prelate, nor any spiritual officer or offi­cers can dsiannul or take away that spiritual office, whereof they are not the authors, nor in proper sence the givers. Nor can they inlarge or lessen it as to its essential state, or define it otherwise than Christ hath defined it: And if the ordainer in conveying the holy office or order should use any any words or actions that im­port the lessening thereof in its essential state, they are void and null; as if a Minister that joyns a Man and Woman in marriage ac­cording to the true intent of that ordinance, shall add some words that forbid the Husband the government of his Wife, that addition is a nullity.

§ 3. Of the Office of a Bishop, Elder, or Pastor.

THE Ministry of Gods appointment is either extraordinary and temporary, as that of the Apostles, and Prophets, and Evangelists also, if so be they were only the itinerary assistants of the Apostles; or ordinary and perpetual, as that of Pastors and Teachers.

The words Elder, Bishop, Pastor, are names of the same Sacred Office, as appears Acts 20.17, 28. where their Ministry to­wards the Church is set forth in Pauls words to the Elders which he sent for from Ephesus to Miletum; Take heed to your selves, and to all the flock over which the Holy Ghost hath made you over­seers, to feed the Church of God which he hath purchased with his own blood.

The Apostles besides their extraordinary Office of Apostleship, had also the ordinary Office of Bishops, pastors and Elders; or (to speak peradventure more properly) they had these ordinary offi­ces included in their Apostleship. Christ saith to Peter, Feed my sheep. And Peter calls himself an Elder, 1 Pet. 5.1. And John in [Page 37]his second and third Epistles so calls himself. And indeed if it were not so, they could have no successors or partakers. Howbeit the Scripture gives us no evidence of their being fixed Bishops or Pa­stors to particular Churches.

As for the meaning of these names, the word Bishop imports an Overseer; Elder is a name of Authority borrowed from age, and applied to a Ruling-officer. The word Pastor is metaphori­cal, signifying that this Officer is to the Congregation of God as a Shepherd to a Flock of sheep, to feed them.

This feeding consists in teaching and ruling; so that every Pa­stor is in the nature of his office a Teacher, and he feeds by do­ctrine. And indeed Pastoral Ruling is by teaching; so that eve­ry authoritative Church-teacher is a Pastor; for the Pastor rules only by the spiritual sword, which is the word of God; and the discipline which he exercises, is no more than than the personal ap­plication of Christs word in his name, to judg the impenitent, and absolve the penitent. And every authoritative Teacher in Christs name hath power to make such personal application of the word.

The Pastoral Office hath its work not only towards those that are within, but towards those also that are without, to bring them into the Fold. As Christ the Prince of Pastors, or chief Shepherd, doth by virtue of that office not only feed the sheep that are gathered to him, but goes out also into the wilderness to seek the lost sheep; even so the Ministerial pastors or bishops are by virtue of their office under Christ, to seek those that are as yet going astray, and to bring them to Christ the Shepherd and Bi­shop of their souls. Thus the name Pastor doth very congruously denote the Ministerial Authority towards the unbelieving and unconverted, as well as towards believers and converts.

Moreover the said Officers are stiled Preachers of the Gospel, 1 Cor. 9.14. Stewards of the Mysteries of God, 1 Cor. 4.1. Am­bassadors of Christ, that have the Ministry of Reconciliation committed to them, 2 Cor. 5.18, 20. And these Titles infer an Office and Ministry relating as well to those that are without, and to be brought into the Fold, as to those that are within, and to be kept there; and in reference to both sorts it is for the edifying or building of the Church.

In short, the Pastoral Office is a state of Authority and obliga­tion to dispence the Word and Sacraments, and disciplinary cen­sures [Page 37]of Christ the Mediator in his name.

The Ministerial dispensation of the Word, differs quoad for­male, from spiritual instruction, reproof, exhortation, given in a common way of Christian charity, or in a special way of Oecono­mical or civil Authority, being performed by Christs commissioned Officers and Stewards in holy things, and separated or devoted thereunto. And herein the Ministers as Ambassadors or Heralds, according to the tenor of the Gospel, do publish and offer the mercies of Christ upon his terms, and denounce the threatnings of Christ to those that refuse his Mercies.

The Sacraments being seals annexed by Christ to the word of his grace, and a visible word, are also to be dispenced by them to whom the dispensation of the word is committed.

The disciplinary censures of Authoritative Reproof, Suspension and Excommunication of persons convicted of ungodliness and impenitency, being a particular and personal application of the threatnings of the Gospel, and a declaring and judging of the per­sons unmeet for fellowship with Christ and his Church, are like­wise to be administred by the same Officers.

§ 4. The nature of the Spiritual Power residing in the Pastors.

THE Spiritual Power of Pastors, Bishops, or Elders, is ex­pressed by the Author and Giver of it, in these terms, viz. The keys of the kingdom of heaven, binding and loosing, remitting and retaining sins. To understand the true import of these terms, is to understand the Power enquired of. The keys of the kingdom of Heaven, signifie the Stewardship of Christs Gospel, to dispence to every one a due portion thereof, according to his command. Binding and loosing, is a Ministerial Authority of holding impe­nitent sinners under the curse, and absolving the penitent from it, only by the word of Christ generally or personally applied; and it may further signifie a Ministerial prohibiting of that which is unlawful, and allowing of that which is lawful, by the doctrine of Christ. And the power of remitting and retaining sins as granted to Ministers, is only that of meer Stewards or Dispensers of the Blessing or the Curse that hath proceeded out of the mouth of [Page 38]Christ their Lord; and there appears no grant from Christ to his Ministers of other power than what is here expressed, or what is implyed in it, or by necessary consequence follows from it.

In reference to the ministerial power, a great Scholar distingui­sheth between a Vicar and a mere Minister, and saith, a Vicar doth produce actions of the same kind with him whose Vicar he is (his words are actiones congeneres) tho less perfectly; but a mere minister doth not produce such actions; but only such as are ser­viceable to the action of the principal cause. Therefore the name of the same action is properly, yet analogically attributed to the Vicar as to the principal; as for example, to pass sentence: but to the minister only tropically, as remitting and retaining of sins.

Indeed the sentence of a vicarious Judg, whether just or unjust, is decisive or definitive, and valid as to matter of legal right, till it be reversed by the principal; but the action of a Minister for the remitting and retaining of sin, is of no force, no not for a moment, if it be unjust, or done (as the common expression is) errante cla­ve.

Hereupon it follows, that the ministerial power of remit­ting and retaining sins, and of binding and loosing (at least as to the conscience) is merely declarative, that is, it hath its force and vertue, as it is a true declaration of the mind of Christ in that particular, otherwise it is void and of no effect.

The power of Pastors in the acts aforesaid is but the power of Heralds, or Ambassadors, and therefore only declarative.

God and Christ doth by the law of grace absolve or justifie the penitent, constitutivè: Even before the Pastor pronounceth ab­solution, every penitent is by the covenant of grace justifyed or made righteous: Therefore the Pastor doth absolve or justifie him only declarativè: For when a man is justified by the law of grace, and consequently so esteemed and judged of God, what hath his officer or minister afterwards to do in his name, but to declare what is already done in law.

As for the saying of Dominus expectat servum, that is, before God justifies the penitent believer who is ready to submit to all his terms, he stays for the sentence of absolution to be pronounced by the Minister; I confess I understand not its consistence with the Covenant of Grace.

Wherefore the pastoral sentence of absolution doth confer no new right, nor doth it perfect the right already given by the law of Christ; but it doth authoritatively declare that right, and strengthen the assurance, and comfort the conscience of the peni­tent. The pastoral binding of the impenitent is not the adding of a further curse or obligation to divine vengeance, but merely a solemn declaration of the curse already past upon the sinner by the law of Christ.

But as the solemn declaration of the Kings pardon to repen­ting rebels, and the denunciation of vengeance to the obstinate by an authorized officer according to the law, doth strengthen the as­surance of the conditional mercy, and increase the guilt of conti­nuing in rebellion, and more forcibly press to obedience; so the like declarative acts of Christs Ministers have the same force to­wards his subjects.

That the power of a Pastor in binding and loosing as to the communion and external priviledges of the Church, is more than declarative of the mind of Christ therein, I yet discern not: For tho the sentence of an erring judg in a Civil judicatory is valid till it be reversed; yet the erring keys have no effect, and the Church and the Members thereof are not bound by the unjust sentence of a Pastor to reject a godly person, that hath not given just scandal, or to carry themselves towards him as towards one unfit for Christian Communion; but they are still to receive him as a bro­ther: Indeed the injured person may be bound to forbear the use of his right in some parts thereof, as coming to the Church-As­sembly in case a schism or disturbance would follow: But this ob­ligation doth not arise from any validity that is in the unjust sentence, but from the duty of preserving peace and order.

The distinction of the power of Order, and the power of ju­risdiction, is vain. For the spiritual Pastor or Elder hath no other power than the power of the Keys, and the full power of the Keys intrinsecally belongs to the order or office of a Pastor or Elder. But if any pretend that the full power of the Keys doth not intrinsecally belong to the office of a Pastor or Elder, but a part only, or that there be two kinds of power of the Keys, the one whereof belongs only to one superior kin [...] of spiritual offi­cers, and the other is common to all [...]piritual [...]astors, let him prove such distinction and distribution from the Word of God.

§ 5. Of the Delegation of Spiritual Power.

THE delegation of power is a derivation thereof from its ordinary subject, to another who is not the ordinary sub­ject thereof, and who hath right to exercise it merely as autho­rized by the ordinary subject thereof; as when a Bishop delegates his episcopal power to him, who is no Bishop, and who exercises the same merely by vertue of his delegation.

The office of a Bishop, Pastor or Elder, is a trust, and that of the greatest consequence in the world, and a trust may not be de­legated by the receiver to another person without the express consent of the giver. No subordinate officer can make a legal de­puty unless he be authorized thereunto by law, or in his commis­sion or Charter from the supream power: And Christ hath not exprest his consent to the transferring of this trust, nor given au­thority to his Ministers to make such Delegation.

That Princes and Soveraign Powers b [...]ing Gods Trustees, do transfer the work of their trust to Delegates and subordinate officers, is no ground for Christs Ministers to do the like: For first, Christs Ministers are only authorized Ambassadors, Heralds, and not Spiritual Soveraigns under him, as the supream Magi­strates are Civil Soveraigns under God. 2. It is in the nature of civil soveraignty to make delegates and subordinate officers of ci­vil power, and the due Government of the Civil State makes it necessary; but there is no such thing in the nature of the pastoral office, and no necessity for it in Ecclesiastical Government. 3. The specification of magistracy or civil power is left to men, but the spiritual power is specified by Christ, and by him appropriated to officers of his own institution. 4. Christ to provide for his flock hath taken another course than to authorize Bishops and Pastors to do their work by Delegates, namely, to command the ordaining of more Bishops or Elders as need requires.

The delegation of Episcopal Power is a repugnancy in it self. For it is the power of the keys, or of stewarship in Christs house, of binding and loosing, of remitting and retaining sins in Christs name, by special authority from him. And can any that is not Christs officer so authorized, exert such power?

Besides, if one part of the bishops proper work, viz. The exercise of Ecclesiastical Government, may be delegated to one that is no bishop, why may not any other part of his work be so delegated, as the ordaining of ministers? And if it be replied, ad ordinem pertinet ordinare, by as good reason it may be said, that it as incommunicably belongs to the order or office of Christs in­stitution to exercise Christs Discipline, as to ordain Ministers.

Indeed a Vicar being of the same sacred office or order, may so exert the said power in the place of another, as that his act is valid. But it may well be questioned, whether any bishop may make one or more vicarious bishops to execute his charge, for every bishop hath received a trust from Christ to be fulfilled in his own person, Col. 1.7. And I do not find that Christ hath granted a faculty to any bishop to fulfil his Ministry by a Vicar of his own order.

But I do not question, but a bishop may have an assistant or as­sistants of his own order, either occasionally in case of present disability or justifiable avocation; or statedly when the flock that is under his personal oversight requires more work than one man can do. And then the said assistants are not his Vicars, but collegues, performing each of them their own part in the work and service of their Lord Christ.

§ 6. The identity of a Bishop and Presbyter.

IT is granted by the assertors of prelacy, that the names Bishop and Presbyter are used promiscuously: Now they that assert two distinct offices under promiscuous names, had need bring clear proof for the distinction of those offices: Howbeit I do not mere­ly insist on the names as indifferently used; but wheresoever the sacred office of Presbyterate is set forth in Scripture, it is set forth as the office of a spiritual Pastor or Bishop, which is to feed the Flock of God by teaching and ruling it; And such a Presbyter as is a sacred officer of the Christian Church, but not a Bishop or Pa­stor, is not to be found in Scripture.

Tit. 1.5, 7. shews not only an identity of name, but of office. To give order for the admission of none to the office of an Elder but one so qualified, because a Bishop must be so qualified, is not ra­tional, [Page 43]if the bishop be of a distinct office from the Presbyter, and superior to him.

Act. 20 28 The Elders are called Bishops, and have the whole Episcopal Power to feed the flock by government as well as by doctrine.

1 Pet. 5.12. The elders are exhorted to feed the Flock of God which is among them, and to take the oversight thereof; and under the force of these two words [...] the bi­shops claim their whole power of government.

1 Tim. 3. The Apostle immediately passeth from the Bishop to the Deacon, and takes no notice of such an officer as a Presby­ter below a Bishop, and above a Deacon: And neither this nor a­ny other Scripture doth afford us the least notice of any qualifi­cation or ordination, or any sacred work and duty belonging to a Presbyter, who is no bishop. Not one place of Scripture doth set forth any Presbyter as less than a bishop.

Phil. 1, 1. Paul makes mention of Bishops and Deacons in the Church at Philippi in the inscription of his Epistle, but no menti­on of Presbyters that were not bishops. And it seems by that Text that in the Apostles times there were more bishops than one placed in one city; and 'tis to be noted, that Philippi was but a lit­tle City under the Metropolis of Thessalonica.

Thus bishop and elder in the places aforecited, are names of the same office, whatsoever it be; and the Hierarchical Divines grant as much, but are not agreed what office is there set forth by those names. One part of them think that those Texts speak of, or at least comprehend such Presbyters as are now so called: The other part of them think they speak of such bishops as are now distinct from presbyters: Now they that hold that the said Texts speak of or include such presbyters as are now so called, must needs hold that such presbyters are pastors and bishops in the Scripture sence of those names, and so an identity of the bishop and presbyter is confessed, and it rests upon them to prove the di­vine institution of bishops of a higher order over such presbyters; and they that hold that the said Texts speak of such bishops as are now distinct from presbyters, must needs grant, the qualification, ordination, and work of presbyters inferior to bishops is not set forth in Scripture.

If it be said that the order of inferior and subject presbyters is of divine institution, and yet not defined or expressed in Scripture, let a satisfactory proof be brought from some other authority of its divine institution, and what its nature is.

If it be said that at first the function of a bishop and presbyter was one, but afterwards it was divided into two, and that the divi­sion was made by divine warrant, the asserters are bound to prove it by sufficient authority.

To have the power of the keys, of binding and loosing, of re­mitting and retaining sins in Christs name, as his commissioned Of­ficer, is to have Episcopal power, and this power belongs to a Presbyter. The Asserters of Prelacy answer this, by distinguish­ing the power of the keys in foro interiore, or the Court of Con­science within; and foro exteriore, in the exterior Court, to wit, that of the Church; and say that the former belongs to the Bi­shop and Presbyter both, and the latter to the Bishop only. To which I reply, 1. The Scripture makes no such distinction; and where the Law distinguisheth not, we may not distinguish. 2. The distinction is vain: for all power that belongs to the Pastors of the Church purely, respects the conscience, by applying to it the commands, promises, and threatnings of God; and it respects the conscience, as having the conduct of the outward man, and that in reference to Church communion, as well as other matters. 3. If Presbyters may in the name of Christ bind the impenitent, and loose the penitent as to the conscience in the sight of God, which is the greater and primary binding and loosing; then by parity of reason, and that with advantage, they may bind and loose as to Church-communion, which is the lesser, secondary and subsequent binding and loosing.

That Officer is a Bishop that hath power of authoritative de­claring in Christs name, that this or that wicked person in particu­lar is unworthy of fellowship with Christ and his Church, and a power of charging the Congregation in Christs name not to keep company with him, as being no fit member of a Christian Society; and also a power of Authoritative declaring and judging in Christs name, that the same person repenting of his wickedness, and giving evidence thereof, is meet for fellowship with Christ and his church, and a power of requiring the Congregation in Christs name again to receive him into their Christian fellowship. For these are the powers of Excommunication, and Ecclesiastical Absolution; and a [Page 45]Presbyter hath apparently the said powers. As he can undoubtedly declare, and charge, and judg, as aforesaid, touching persons in general; so by parity of reason, touching this or that person in particular; all particulars being included in the general. He hath undoubtedly a power of applying the word in Christs name, as well personally as generally. That a Presbyter hath the said powers, is granted by the Church of England in the common usage of the Ecclesiastical Courts, wherein a Presbyter is appointed to denounce the sentence of Excommunication, tho the Chancellor doth decree it. And the Excommunication is not compleat, till a Presbyter hath denounced it in the congregation.

That the Apostles have no successors in the whole of their Of­fice, is confessed on all hands; but if they have successors in part of their Office, viz. in the Pastoral Authority, in this respect the Presbyters, if any, are their successors. Peter exhorting the Pres­byters, stiles himself their fellow-Presbyter, which is to be under­stood in respect of the power of Teaching and Ruling.

The Pastoral Authority of Presbyters is further cleared in ma­ny passages in the publick forms of the Church of England touch­ing that Order.

The form of Ordaining Presbyters in this Church, lately was, Receive the Holy Ghost; whose sins thou remittest, they are remit­ted; and whose sins thou retainest, they are retained; and be thou a faithful dispenser of the word of God, and of his holy Sacraments, in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. A­men. Now the former part hereof is intirely the words used by our Saviour, John 20.21, 22. towards the Apostles, expressing their Pastoral Authority. And the latter part is no derogation or diminution from the power granted in the former part. If Presby­ters are not partakers with the Apostles in the Pastoral Autho­rity, how could they have Right to that Form of Ordination?

Likewise this Church did in solemn form of words require the presbyters when they were ordained, to exercise the discipline of Christ as the Lord hath commanded, and this Realm hath received the same, according to the commandment of God. And that they might the better understand what the Lord hath commanded therein, this Church did appoint also, That at the ordering of Priests there be read for the Epistle that portion of Acts 20. which relates St. Paul's sending to Ephesus, and calling for the Elders of the Congregation, with his exhortation to them, To take heed to [Page 46]themselves, and to all the flock, whereof the Holy Ghost hath made them overseers, to rule the congregation of God. Or else 1 Tim. 3. which sets forth the Office and due Qualifications of a Bishop. These portions of Scripture this Church appointed to be read to the Presbyters, as belonging to their Office, and to instruct them in the nature of it. And afterwards the Bishop speaks to them that are to receive the Office of Priesthood, in this form of words: You have heard brethren, as well in your private examination, as in the exhortation and holy lessons taken out of the Gospel, and the writings of the Apostles, of what dignity, and how great importance this Office is whereto ye are called; that is to say, The Messengers, the Watchmen, the pastors and stewards of the Lord, to teach, to pre­monish, to feed, to provide for the Lords Family.

I acknowledg the passages here alledged are taken out of the old Book of Ordinanion that was established in this Church till the late alteration made Anno 1662. If those Alterations signifie ano­ther meaning about the several Holy Orders, than what was sig­nified in the Old Book, then the sense of the Church of England in these times, differs from the sense of the same Church in all times preceding the said Alterations. But if they signifie no other meaning than what was signified in the old Book, my Citations are of force to shew what is the sense of this Church, as well of the present as of the former times about this matter.

And let this be further considered, That the form of ordaining a Bishop according to the Church of England, imports not the conferring of a higher power, or an authorizing to any special work, more than to what the Presbyter is authorized. The old form was, Take the Holy Ghost; and remember that thou stir up the grace of God that is in thee, by imposition of hands: for God hath not given us the spirit of fea [...], but of power, and of love, and of so­berness. What is there in this form of words, that might not be used to a Presbyter at his ordination? Or what is there in it ex­pressive of more power than what belongs to a Presbyter? The new form since the late alteration, is, Receive the Holy Ghost for the work and office of a Bishop in the Church of God, now committed to thee by imposition of our hands, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, Amen And remember that thou stir up the grace of God that is given thee by this imposition of our hands; f r God hath not given us the spirit of fear, but of power, and of love, and of soberness. And what is there in this form that is ex­pressive [Page 47]of any office power that the Presbyter hath not, unless these words, for the work and office of a bishop? Now both the name, and work, and office of a bishop, belongs to the Scripture-presbyter, who is of divine institution; and the presbyter to whom it doth not belong, is but a humane creature, or an ordi­nance of man.

§ 7. Of the present Diocesan Bishop.

A Diocesan Bishop according to the hierarchical state, is a Bi­shop of the lowest degree, having under him Parish-Mini­sters that are Presbyters or Priests, but not accounted Bishops, and by divine right claiming to himself alone the Episcopal Authori­ty over all the Parish Churches and Ministers within his Diocess, which may contain a hundred, two hundred, five hundred, or a thousand parishes: For an Episcopacy of this kind I discern no Scripture-Warrant nor Divine Right.

Every particular Church should have its proper pastor or Bi­shop, and particular Churches with their proper pastors are so e­vidently of divine right, that some eminently learned men in the Church of England have declared their judgment that no form of Church-Government besides the mere pastoral office and Church-Assemblies, is prescribed in the Word of God, but may be various according to the various condition and occasion of several Chur­ches.

But if it be said that parochial Congregations are not Chur­ches but only parts of the Diocess, which is the lowest political Church, I desire proof from Scripture, that such Congregations as our parishes having their proper presbyter or presbyters invested with the power of the keys, are not Churches properly so called. The reason of demanding this proof is, because the Scripture is a perfect rule for the essential constitution of Churches, though the accidents thereto belonging may be regulated by humane pru­dence. And it is most evident in Scripture, that a particular con­gregation of Christians having their proper pastor or pastors, pres­byter or presbyters, are Churches properly so called, and a paro­chial Minister I conceive to be a pastor, presbyter, or elder, ac­cording to the Scripture.

Moreover if a Diocess containing many hundred, or perhaps a thousand parishes (as it doth in England) do constitute but one particular Church, and the parishes be not properly to be accoun­ted Churches, but only so many parts of that one diocesan Church, why may not ten thousand, yea, ten times ten thousand parishes be likewise accounted but one particular church, and brought un­der one man as the sole bishop or pastor thereof?

Nor do I discern how it is possible for one man to do the work of a bishop towards so many parishes, which is to oversee all the flock, to preach to them all, to baptize and confirm all that are to be baptized and confirmed, to administer the Lords Supper to all, to bless the congregation, publickly and privately to admonish all as their need requires, to excommunicate the impenitent, to ab­solve the penitent, and that upon knowledg of their particular estate: for all these are pastoral or episcopal acts. And let it here be noted, that I speak of the work of a bishop infimi gradus, or under whom there are no subordinate bishops.

If such a Diocesan bishop saith, it sufficeth that he perform all this to the flock by others, namely, by the parish ministers as his Curates, and by other officers his substitutes: It is answered, 1. The pastoral Authority is a personal trust. 2. He is to shew his commission from Christ the prince of pastors, to do his work by others; for I am now enquiring what is of divine, and not of humane Right. 3. None but a bishop can do the proper work of a bishop; and consequently, the presbyters by whom the Dioce­san doth his work, either are bishops, or their act is an usurpation and a nullity.

It is matter of divine Right only that is here considered. As for the humane Rights of a Diocesan bishop, to wit, his dignity, and his jurisdiction under the King as Supreme, and to which he is intituled by the Law of the Land, I intermeddle not there­with.

§ 8. Of a Bishop or Bishops.

THE Divine Right of a bishop infimi gradus, Ruling over many churches as their sole hishop or pastor, hath been consi­dered; and now it is to be considered, Whether there be of di­vine [Page 49]institution, such a spiritual officer as hath the oversight of Bishops, or is a Bishop of Bishops. The Diocesan Bishop is re­ally of this kind, tho he will not own it; for he is a bishop of Presbyters, who are really bishops, if they be that kind of Pres­byters that the Scripture mentions. But if the Presbyters, which in the hierarchical state are subject to the Diocesan Bishop, be of another kind, they are not of Christs institution.

What hath been already said against the Episcopacy of a bi­shop infimi gradus over many Churches, makes not against the right of an overseer of other bishops, such as Titus must needs be, if he were indeed bishop of Crete, which contained a hundred Ci­ties, and where bishops or elders were ordained in every City: If either Scripture or Prudence guided by Scripture, be for such an office, I oppose it not.

Now a bishop of bishops may be taken in a twofold notion, either for one of a higher order; that is to say, of an office speci­fically different from the subordinate bishops, or for one of a higher degree only in the same order. I suppose our Archbishops of Provinces do not own the former notion of a bishop of bi­shops, but the latter only. But the bishop of a Diocess is de facto that which the Archbishop of a Province doth not own, namely, a bishop of bishops in a different order from the Presby­ters of his Diocess, who have been already proved from Scripture to be bishops.

Hereupon the present inquiry is, Whether the Word of God doth warrant the office of a bishop of bishops in either of the said notions. And in this inquiry I shall consider what kind of Government the Apostles had over the Pastors or Elders of par­ticular Churches 2. The Episcopacy of Timothy and Titus much alledged by the Hierarchical Divines. 3. The preeminence of the Angels of the seven Churches of Asia [...], Apoc. 1. and 2.

§ 9. The BISHOPS Plen of being the Apostles Successors in their Governing-Power, examined.

THO the Apostles in respect of that in them, which was common to other officers, call themselves Presbyters and Mi­nisters, but never bishops; yet it is asserted by the asserters of Prelacy, that bishops superior to Presbyters are the Apostles suc­cessors, and thereupon have a governing-power over Presbyters. Wherefore the Apostles governing-power, and the said bishops right of succession thereunto, is necessarily to be considered.

As touching this claimed succession in the governing power, the defenders of prelacy say, that Presbyters, qua Presbyters, succeed the Apostles in the office of governing. But the Scripture doth not warrant this dividing of the office of teaching and govern­ing. And if the division cannot be proved, in case there be a suc­cession, it must be into the whole, and not into a part; and so the Presbyters must succeed as well in ruling as in teaching: Be­sides it hath been already proved, that an authoritative Teacher of the Church is qua talis a Ruler.

The Apostles had no successors in their special office of Apostle­ship. For not only the unction or qualification of an Apostle, but also the intire Apostolick office as in its formal state or speci­fick difference, was extraordinary, and expired with their persons. It was an office by immediate Vocation from Christ without the intervention of man by election or ordination, for the authen­tick promulgation of the Christian Doctrine, and the erecting of the Christian Church throughout the World, which is built on the foundation of their Doctrine, and for the governing of all chur­ches wherever they came; and it eminently contained all the power of ordinary bishops and pastors The continuation of teaching and governing in the Church, doth no more prove that the office of teaching and governing in the Apostles was quoad formale, an ordinary office, than that the office of teach­ing and governing in Christ himself was so: But their teaching [Page 51]and governing was by immediate call, and authentick and uncon­trolable, and therefore extraordinary. And I do not know that the bishops say they are Apostles, tho they say they are the suc­cessors of the Apostles.

Moreover in proper speaking, the ordinary bishops or elders can­not be reckoned the successors of the Apostles, for they were not succedaneous to them, but contemporary with them from the first planting of churches, and did by divine right receive and ex­ercise their governing-power. And the bishops or elders of all succeeding ages are properly the successors of those first bishops or elders, and can rightfully claim no more power than they had.

Nevertheless let the Apostles governing power be inquired into, as also what interest the bishops of the Hierarchical state have therein. And in this query it is to be considered; That the Presbyters, whom the Apostles ordained and governed, were bi­shops both in name and thing, and consequently their example of ordaining and ruling such Presbyters, is not rightly alledged to prove that bishops as their successors have an appropriated power of ordaining and ruling Presbyters of an inferior order, which in Scripture times were not in being. Further it is to be conside­red; Whether the said governing-power were only a superemi­nent authority which they had as Apostles, and infallible, and to whom the last appeals in matters of religion were to be made; or an ordinary governing power over the Churches, and the bishops or elders thereof. I conceive it most rational to take it in the for­mer sense: For we find that the ordinary stated government of particular Churches was in the particular Bishops or Elders, and we find not that any of the Apostles did take away the same from them, or that it was superceded by their presence, or that they reserved to themselves a negative voice in the government of the Churches.

Now if their governing power were only the said supereminent A­postolick authority, they had no successors therein; and tho teaching and ruling be of standing necessity, and consequently of perpetual duration in the Church, yet there is no standing necessity of that teaching and ruling as taken formally in that extraordinary state and manner as before expressed.

But if they exercised an ordinary governing-power over the Churches and bishops to be continued by succession, such kind of Bishops, over whom that power was exercised, cannot claim a [Page 52]right of succession into the same; but they must be officers of an higher orb. Consequently if the Hierarchical Bishops claim the right of succession to the Apostles in their governing-power, they must needs be of a higher orb than the first Bishops of particu­lar Churches over whom that power was exercised: And if this Hypothesis of the Apostles having an ordinary governing-power over the Churches and Bishops, do sufficiently prove the right of the succession of Bishops of a higher orb in the same power, I shall not oppose it; But only I take notice, that these higher Bi­shops are not of the same kind with those first bishops that were under that governing power, and of which we read in Scripture.

That the Apostles should be Diocesan Bishops was not consistent with their Apostolick office, being a general charge extending to the Church universal. That any Apostle did appropriate a Dio­cess to himself, and challenge the sole Episcopal authority there­in, cannot be proved. The several Apostles for the better carrying on of the work of their office, did make choice of several regions, more especially to exercise their function in. There was an agree­ment that Peter should go to the Circumcision, and Paul to the Uncircumcision: But as it doth not hence follow that Peter was a fixed Bishop of the Jews, and Paul of the Gentiles, no more were any of the Apostles fixed Bishops in those places where they were more especially imployed, and we know that they made frequent removes.

§. 10. Of the Episcopacy of Timothy and Titus.

THE Name of Bishop is not given either to Timothy or Titus, except in the Postscripts of the Epistles. But those Postscripts are taken for no part of Canonical Scripture. For if they were free from the objected Errors about the places from which the E­pistles were written, they cannot in reason be supposed to be Pauls own words, and written by him when the Epistles were written.

Moreover the travels of Timothy and Titus do evidently shew, that they were not diocesan bishops, nor the setled Overseers of particular churches.

And those passages 1 Tim. 1.3. I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus; and Tit. 1.5. For this cause I left thee in Crete, shew an occasional and temporary employment. And whatsoever stress may be laid upon these texts to prove they were bishops of those places, yet they do not sound like the fixing of them each in their proper diocess.

The name of an Evangelist is expresly given to one of them, 2 Tim. 4.5. and the work enjoined both of them, and according­ly performed by them, being throughout of the same kind, there is all reason to believe that they had the same kind of office.

Now by several texts of Scripture compared together, we find the work of Evangelists to be partly such as belonged to the Apo­stles, whose Agents or Adjuncts they were; and partly such as was common to Pastors and Teachers, whose office was included in theirs. Their work in common with the Apostles, was the plant­ing and setling of churches, by travelling from place to place; and in this regard they have been well called Apostles of the Apostles. And in doing this Vice-apostolick service, they did also that which was common to pastors and teachers, in teaching and ruling, but with this difference, that the ordinary pastors did it statedly in those churches where they were fixed; but these transiently in several churches, which they were sent to erect or establish, or to set things in order therein, as the Apostles saw need.

Or if Timothy and Titus were not in an office essentially divers from the ordinary pastors and teachers; yet they were in extra­ordinary service, as being the Apostles Agents, and being in that capacity, might have their intrinsick spiritual power enlarged to a greater extent, and higher pitch of exercise than the ordinary Mi­nisters. Howbeit I rather judg that they had an office specifically different from that of the ordinary pastors, because in the enume­ration of the several sacred offices, Paul mentions the office of an Evangelist as a distinct kind from the rest.

But if it can be proved that the Superiority of Timothy and Ti­tus over bishops or elders of particular churches, was not as they were the Apostles assistants, or as extraordinary and temporary officers, but as ordinary superiors, it will indeed follow that Arch­bishops, or bishops of bishops, are of divine Right. Nevertheless the Episcopal authority of bishops or presbyters of particular churches (such as the Scripture-bishops were) remains un­shaken.

§ 11. Of the Angels of the Churches.

ANother allegation for the divine right of bishops of an high­er order than presbyters, is from the Angels of the seven Churches, Apoc. 1. and 2. To which many things are said by those of the other persuasion; As, that those Angels are not called Bi­shops, nor any where implied to be bishops in the present Vulgar sense of the word: That the denomination of Angels and Stars in the judgment of ancient and modern Writers, do belong to the Ministers of the Word in general: That in mysterious or pro­phetick Writings, and Visional Representations, a number of things or persons is usually expressed by singulars; and that it is very probable, that the term Angel is explained under that plura­lity you, distinguished from the rest, Apoc. 2.24. but to you and the rest in Thyatira, &c. and to be a collective name expressing all the Elders of that church.

Also some observe, that it might be expressed in the same man­ner as Gods providence in the administration of the World by Angels is expressed, wherein one being set as chief over such a countrey, the things which are done by many, are attributed to one Angel president.

It is further to be considered, that in the church of Ephesus, one of the seven, the Scripture makes mention of many bishops, who were no other than presbyters, Acts 20.28. Against this some say, That the Elders there mentioned, were not the presby­ters of the church of Ephesus, but the bishops of Asia then ga­thered together at Ephesus, and sent for by Paul to Miletum. But 1. This is affirmed altogether without proof. 2. The text saith, Paul sent from Miletum to Ephesus to call the elders of the church, which in rational interpretation must be the Elders of the church to which he sent. 3. If the bishops of all Asia had been meant, it would have been said the Elders of the churches. For in Scripture, tho we find the Christians of one city called a church, yet the Christians of a Region did ever make a plurality of churches, as the churches of Judea, the churches of Galatia, and the churches of Asia. 4. There is not the least hint given of the meeting of the bishops of Asia at Ephesus, when Paul sent for the elders of the Church. 5. The asserters of prelacy hold [Page 55]that Timothy was the first bishop of Ephesus; now Paul did not send for him, for he was already present with him, and accompa­nied him in his travels: Nor did he commit the charge of the church to him, but to the Elders that were sent for. 6. It could not be the sence of the church of England, that those Elders who are declared to be bishops, were bishops in the Vulgar meaning of the word, when she appointed that portion of Scripture to be read at the ordination of Presbyters, to instruct them in the na­ture and work of their Office.

Some say, That by the Angel of the church is meant the Mode­rator or President of the Presbytery, who might be either for a time, or always the same person; and the Epistle might be direct­ed to him in the same manner as when the King sends a Message to the Parliament, he directs it to the Speaker. Now such a Mode­rator or President makes nothing for bishops of a higher order than Presbyters.

§ 12. A further Consideration of the Office of an EVANGELIST, and of a general Minister.

COncerning the Office of Evangelists, such as Timothy and Ti­tus, the query is, Whether it was temporary or perpetual. An eminent Hierarchical Divine, saith, That Evangelists were Pres­byters of principal sufficiency, whom the Apostles sent abroad, and used as Agents in Ecclesiastical Affairs, wher [...]ver they saw need. Now this description doth not make them of a specifically different Order from the ordinary presbyters, and it seems to con­fine their Ministry to the Apostles times. Grotius saith, they were presbyters tyed to no place, and that many such Evangelists were ordained long after; and thereupon concludes, that not to ordain without a title to some particular place, is not of divine right.

Indeed if the office of an Evangelist be no other than that of a general Minister, or a presbyter tyed to no place, it seems not only to have been requisite in the Apostles times, but to be of standing conveniency, if not of necessity in the church And his not being limited to one church, is but the extending of the common office [Page 56]of a presbyter or bishop, and not the making of a new of­fice. For this more extensive power of a general Minister, is only the having of that in ordinary exercise, which, every Minister hath in actu primo, by vertue of his relation to the Catholick church (in which Teachers and Pastors are set, 1 Cor. 12.28.) and into which his ministerial acts of teaching and baptizing have influ­ence; yea, which he hath by vertue of his relation to Christ as a stew­ard to an housholder in his Family, and as a delegate to the chief pastor for the calling of the unconverted, as well as for the con­firming of Converts. Now the more or less extensive exercise of an Office, is a matter of humane prudence, and variable according to time and place.

But that a general Minister be of a higher order than fixed bi­shops or presbyters, is not of standing or perpetual necessity. Nor is it always necessary that he be in a state of superintendency over them. Nevertheless, if a superintendency be granted to him by the consent of the churches and pastors, for the common good, or by the Magistrate, as to his delegate in his authority in Ecclesiasti­cal affairs, I cannot condemn it, but rather judg that it may be sometimes not only expedient, but necessary. Yet it is not of di­vine right, but of prudential determination.

§ 13. A further Consideration of the Angels of the Churches, and of a President bishop.

AS touching the Angel of a Church, it being a mystical ex­pression in a mystical book, it may be rationally questioned, Whether it be meant of one person, or of a number of Colleagues; as may appear by what hath been already noted. But if it be meant of one person, it is not necessarily to be understood of one that is the sole pastor and bishop of a Church. Nay, by what hath been already noted, it may with as great, if not greater probability, be understood of a Prefident bishop, who is not of a superior order to the rest of the bishops, but the first or chief in degree of the same order, and like the Moderator of an Assembly, a Chair-man in a Committee, and Mayor in a Court of Aldermen.

And for such a presidency, there needs no divine institution, it being not a holy order or office of a different species from that of [Page 57]the rest of the Pastors, but a priority in the same office for orders sake: For it is orderly and convenient, that where there are ma­ny Presbyters or elders of a particular Church, that for concords sake they consent that one that is ablest among them should sta­tedly have a guiding power among them in the ordering of Church-affairs.

§ 14. Of the Office of Ruling Elders.

THESE have been commonly called Lay-Elders; but some have disliked that name, alledging that they are sacred of­ficers; but they own the name of Ruling Elders. Now it is to be noted, that the asserters of the divine right of this office, make it not an office of total dedication to sacred imployment, as the of­fice of a Minister, but allow such as bear it to have secular imploy­ments not only occasionally, but as their stated particular calling; also that they make it not an office of final dedication to sacred imployment as the office of a Minister is, but grant that such as bear it, may cease from it, and again become no Elders: Also they make not these Elders to have office power in all Churches as Ministers have, actu primo, but only in their own particular Chur­ches and in Classical and Synodical assemblies; nor do they ascribe unto these Elders the power of the keys of binding and loosing, of remitting and retaining sins, which belong to Ministers, nor do they solemnly ordain these Elders by prayer and imposition of hands, as Ministers are ordained.

Now the Query is, whether Christ hath instituted in his Church such a spiritual officer as this ruling Elder, who is not totally nor finally dedicated to sacred imployment, but statedly left to secu­lar callings, and hath no office power, no not in actu primo in the church at large, but only in his own church, or in such an assem­bly as that Church helps to make up; nor hath the power of the keys of binding and loosing, of remitting and retaining sins, nor is ordained by prayer and imposition of hands? I say, whether Christ hath instituted such an officer, and authorized him in his name as his steward to admit into or cast out of his Family the Church? I find nothing in Holy Scripture to warrant his divine right; nor can I see in reason how one destitute of the above na­named capacities can put forth acts of spiritual Discipline, or of binding and loosing in Christ, Name.

In the New Testament there be three significations of Presby­ter, the first belonging to age, the second to Magistracy in the greater or lesser Sanhedrim, the third to ministers of the Gospel.

The only place that hath a shew of mentioning the ruling Elder in the Church that is not a Minister of the Gospel, is 1 Tim. 5.17. The Elders that rule well, &c. But this hath nothing cogently to evince two different kinds of officers, but that of those in the same office some may be imployed more especially in one part of the work thereof, and others in another part, and that the being more abundantly imployed in the Word and Doctrine, hath the preeminence. The Emphasis lies in [...], signifying that some did more especially or abundantly labour therein, but not implying that others did not meddle therewith: And learned men observe, that [...] is maintenance; which is not used to be given to this kind of officer, we are now inquiring of: For they are such as have secular imployment to live by.

The Enumerations of divers gifts, Rom. 12.6. doth not in­fer the institution of divers offices: For as he that giveth, and he that sheweth Mercy, may be the same man; so he that teacheth, and he that exhorteth, and he that ruleth, may be the same: For they are all proper acts of the pastoral office: Likewise, in 1 Cor. 12.28. those two expressions, Helps and Governments, do necessa­rily infer the institution of two Functions, no more than Miracles and Gifts of healing there also mentioned, do infer the same.

§ 15. That a single Presbyter may put forth acts of Discipline in his own Church without the concurrence of Ruling Elders, that are not Ministers.

THERE is no necessity of adding the above-named Ruling Elder to the Ministers of the Gospel in the Government of the Church: For Christ hath committed to his Ministers the keys or stewardship of his house; and he hath committed the same to them not only as to a Presbytery constituted of many, but also to each of them as single Presbyters. And where there is but one Presbyter in a Church, his acts of Discipline are as lawful and valid [Page 59]in his own Church as those that are done by many in a Church where there are many Presbyters: And the contrary opinion is precarious, and not founded in Scripture.

As for that passage, 2 Cor. 2.6. Sufficient to such a man is this punishment that was inflicted by many: from thence to infer that a Church-censure may not be administred by one Minister, is to draw a general conclusion from one instance; or because a cen­sure was inflicted by many in the Church of Corinth, where there were many Ministers, therefore it ought to be so in all Churches, even where there is but one Minister.

Moreover, if the true nature of a Church-censure were consider­ed, there would be no reason to doubt of its being lawfully or validly administred by one person. For it is no more than autho­ritative declaring and judging in Christs Name, that such a one is unmeet for fellowship with Christ and his Church, and a char­ging of the Congregation in Christs Name to avoid him.

Indeed those words of our Saviour, Mat. 16. Tell the Church, are to be considered and cleared: For it is from hence argued, that the Church being a collective name, betokens a number, and therefore not one but many are to hear and censure matters of scandal. To which argument it may be first replyed, That a Pres­bytery or company of Presbyters is in Scripture no more called the Church, than one Minister: But the answer is, that by the rule of interpretation words and names must be limited with respect to the matter treated of; and so the word Church in the said text is to be understood of the Church as governing, and therefore respects not the governed, but the governing-part thereof, which is but one person in a Church that hath but one Bishop or Presby­ter. The Apostle wrote his first Epistle to the Corinthians to the whole Church, and saith chap. 5. v. 4, 5. When ye are gathered together to deliver such a one to Satan. v. 13. Put away from yourselves that wicked person. Now in these places he doth not explicitely di­rect his speech to the Elders; but in all reason it must be expoun­ded with respect to the governing-part of that Church, the compa­ny of Presbyter.

Tho there be no necessity of a Ruling Elder distinct from a Mi­nister of the Gospel, to the acts of Church-Discipline; yet in point of expedience and prudence, such as are no spiritual rulers, or have no power formally spiritual, may either by the appoint­ment of the Magistrate, or by the consent of Pastor and People, be [Page 60]joyned with the Pastor for counsel and assistance, and more satis­factory management of Church-affairs, Act. 15. The Church of Antioch sent some from among themselves with Paul and Barna­bas, to be present at the deliberation of the Apostles and Elders at Jerusalem; and the said Apostles and Elders joyned some of the brethren with them to consider of the mat­ter that was brought before them from the Church of Antioch. And Christian Emperors appointed some secular persons as Asses­sors with the Bishops in Councils. But nothing is to be attributed to these Lay-persons so adjoined, that belongs to the power of the keys committed by Christ to the Pastors only.

§ 16. Of the Office of a Deacon.

THE Scripture makes mention of two Holy Orders: 1. Pres­byters, who are also Bishops. 2. Deacons, as Phil. 1.1. To the bishops and deacons; and the third chapter of the first Epistle to Timothy, having set forth the Office of a bishop, passeth im­mediately to the deacon without taking notice of a presbyter of a middle order between a bishop and deacon. And the mention of a middle order is no where found in Scripture. Clemens Romanus in his Epistle, mentions but two orders, bishops and deacons. And Dr. Hammond grants, That it cannot be proved that in Scripture-times there were any subject-presbyters; and concludes, that the churches were then governed by bishops assisted with deacons, and without presbyters, vid. his Annot. on Acts 11.30. and his Disser­tation, p 208, &c.

They that are agreed, that there is such an office as a Deacon by divine right, are not agreed what it is; yet all are agreed, that it is an inferior order of ministry assistant to the bishop or elder in the affairs of the church; but in what kind of assistance, there is diversity of opinion.

Some hold that this office is to take care of the poor, in receiv­ing and distributing among them the churches Alms. Others hold, that a deacon may preach and baptize, and assist the bishop or el­der in administring the Sacrament, tho he may not consecrate the Sacramental bread and wine, nor lay on hands, or ordain.

In the 6. chap. of the Acts, if the institution of this office be there related, we find no other ministry there expresly mentioned but [...], v. 2, 3. and in Phil. 1. the name only is [Page 61]mentioned without any specification of the office. In 1 Tim. 3.8, &c. the due qualification of this officer is more set forth than the nature and work of the office; yet something thereof may be sig­nified v. 13. They that have used the office of a deacon well, purchase to themselves a good degree. Let it be considered, whether by de­gree is not meant a degree in the Sacred ministry, and a step to a higher order therein. Acts 8.5. we find that Philip, one of the seven, preached the Gospel in Samaria, and his acts there are rela­ted, as if he also baptized the converts, v. 38. he baptized the E­thiopian Eunuch; and v. 40. he passed through, and preached in all the cities, till he came to Cesarea. Now whether Philip did not these things, not meerly by the common duty of a Christian, but by determinate ordination thereunto, it may be considered.

Some make two sorts of Deacons, the deacon of tables, and the deacon of the word. But this distinction seems not to be allowed by the Church of England, because it appoints to be read at the ordaining of Deacons both that part of Acts 6. that relates the or­daining of the seven for ministring unto tables, and also that part of 1 Tim. 3. that speaks of the office of a Deacon as a degree in the Holy ministry immediately after the bishop.

Concerning this office I assent to Grotius, That the deacons did serve the Presbyters, as the Levites the Priests; but the most labo­rious part of the deacons office is the care of the poor; and as nothing was lawful to the Levites that was not lawful to the Priests; so nothing is lawful to Deacons that is not lawful to Presbyters in matter of Sacred Administration. And the Bishop or Elder had the chief dispensation of the Churches money; else how could he be enjoined to be given to Hospitality?

§ 17. Of a Call to the Ministry.

MInisters are Stewards, Overseers, Heralds, Ambassadors, which are names of special office: And the holy Scrip­ture declares the perpetuity of this sacred function, Eph. 4.14. in declaring the end thereof to be the perfecting of the Saints till Christs mystical body be compleat, which is not till the end of all things: And tho some offices, as that of the Apostles, were for the first times only, yet others as Pastors and Teachers are for all times; and the reason of the difference is manifest, the work of [Page 62]the one being extraordinary and temporary, and of the other ordinary and perpetual.

And that the work which is done by ministers be not left in common to all, but appropriated to a special office, or a state of authority and obligation to do that work, there is a perpetual ne­cessity in the Church of God; for it being a work of the great­est importance in the world, it is necessary that there be in some a state of special obligation thereunto, lest being left as every mans work, in the issue it prove to be no mans work.

The ministry being not a state common to all, but a special office, it is usurpation and intrusion for any one to take it up without a due call thereunto, that is a commission or warrant to instate him in it. As none can be a Herald, or Ambassador, or Steward by as­suming any of these offices to himself, but he must have commis­sion or warrant from the Prince or Housholder; so none can be authoritative preachers of Christs Gospel, or stewards of his my­steries, without a commission from him.

The Scripture declares, That a mission is necessary, Rom. 10.15. How shall they preach except they be sent? That is, without mission none preach with the authority of one of Christs Heralds. Accordingly, a rule is given for calling men to the mi­nistry, which rule is to be kept till the appearance of Christ, 1 Tim 6.14. compared with chap. 5.17, 21. What manner of preaching the Gospel is lawful for them that are no ministers, hath been before spoken of.

The essence of the call to the ministry lies in Christs command to any man to do the work of the ministry, and in his own consent accordingly to give up himself thereunto. The said command is the efficient cause of a mans being a minister; and the sufficient signification of that command, and a mans own consent, is each of them a causa sine qua non, or a necessary condition thereof: For it hath been already shewed, it is Christ only that gives the office and power intrinsick to it, and he doth it by his publick standing act in his law. And in proper speaking, it is no more given by man, than the power of a Mayor is given by the Citizens that elect him, or by the City-Officers that are appointed for his solemn investi­ture.

§ 18. Of the immediate and mediate Call to the Ministry.

THE immediate Call to the ministry is extraordinary, and it is either that which is altogether without the intervention of man, as the Call of John Baptist, of the twelve Apostles, and of Paul, Gal. 1.1. or that wherein, though God use some ministry of man, yet he makes an immediate designation of the person in an extraordinary way, as the calling of Aaron and his sons to the Priesthood, and of Matthias to the Apostleship.

They that receive an immediate call, are able to give proof of it either by the gift of miracles, or some other extraordinary testi­mony of God.

The extraordinary and immediate call did belong to the extra­ordinary offices; but an ordinary and mediate call to the ordina­ry standing offices.

It is to be noted, that at certain times in an ordinary office such eminent qualifications and successes may be given to some, as exceed the common measure; yet their call is not extraordinary for the kind thereof. Luther in that high and eminent service which was done by him, did not pretend an extraordinary and immediate call. And none of our first Reformers renounced that ordinary call which they had under the corrupt state of the church.

The mediate call is by the intervention of man in the ordina­ry way of election and ordination; which is so to be understood, that neither the Electors nor Ordainers do properly make a mini­ster, nor give the ministerial authority; nor doth the minister act by authority derived from the one or the other, nor in their name, as their officer commissioned by them; but by authority derived from Christ, and in his name as his officer. It is Christ therefore that gives the office by the standing act of his Law immediately, that is, without any mediate efficient cause, yet by the mediati­on of men, as designing and inaugurating the person that receives it, as the King is the immediate giver of the power of a Mayor, tho the Corporation design the person that receives it; and God is the immediate giver of the Husbands power, but the application of it to such a person is by the womans consent.

Now in the mediate call, mans part is necessary as well as Gods part, and therefore in no wise to be neglected. For what is done by man, is necessary to give a sufficient signification of the will of Christ, to put this or that person into the Ministry.

§ 19. Of Election belonging to the Ministe­rial Call.

THAT Election which belongs to the setting up of Govern­ment, is not always an act of government, but sometimes of meer liberty, as when a people elect a Ruler over them.

Meer Election to the Ministry made by men, doth not confer the office, nor apply it to the person; but the most that it doth, is to apply the person invested with the office to a certain compa­ny in the relation of their proper Minister.

Much controversie hath been about the right of Election, to whom it belongs. The peoples electing of their own Minister is just by the law of nature, if it be not otherwise ordained by po­sitive law; as naturally all men choose Physitians for themselves, and School-masters for their Children, yet in some places and ca­ses it is otherwise ordained, and guardians are appointed by the Supreme Power, and Physitians and School-masters in like man­ner, yet so as none be constrained to use them.

It doth not appear that the divine law hath prescribed any certain way of election to the ministry as unfixed, besides the mutual consent of the ordainer and ordained. No proof of any, as to the general ministry, being chosen by the people appears in the New Testament. The Apostles and the Seventy had a divine election; Timothy was elected by Prophesie; and it doth not ap­pear, Act. 1. That the multitude, but the Eleven Apostles set forth two, whereof one was chosen by lot to the Apostleship; and the word [...] doth not there signifie a numbring by common suffrages, for God made choice of Matthias.

Indeed the election of those seven Deacons, Act. 6. is expresly declared to have been by the people: But to this it is said, that it was for the avoiding of offence, and the better to quiet the murmuring among the people. It is also said, that the peoples electing of them to that office was a matter of special equity, be­cause [Page 65]the work thereof, as far as is there expressed, was the di­stribution of maintenance as there was need in that extraordina­ry time; for which end there was a trusting of the common stock in the hands of them that were chosen.

But in whatsoever hand the election of a minister lies, the peo­ples consent is of great importance: For he cannot perform the work of a Pastor to any people without their own consent; it is plain that he cannot guide and rule them in a pastoral way against their wills.

Yet I know not, but that (sometimes) they may be obliged to consent that he be Pastor, when he is by sufficient warrant, and upon good grounds chosen by men for them, tho their refusal may render themselves uncapable of receiving benefit by him, and him uncapable of doing the work of his office towards them.

But forasmuch as the peoples consent gives the minister the op­portunity of discharging the duties of the relation, which otherwise cannot be done; it is much to be regarded in the call of a mini­ster to any people, and the freer the consent, the better it is in respect of the ends of the pastoral relation, and consequently their consent before his admission is most desirable; yet where there is not a consent before, an after consent may suffice.

The people in electing their Pastors, (if they have the liberty thereof) or in consenting to the election made by others, ought ordinarily to be directed by the judgment of other Pastors.

N. B. That we may carry the Question from the meer name Pastor to the matter, all these things must be distinctly considered. 1. What Qualifications make a man capable of the sacred office, sine quibus non? 2. What maketh a man (so capable) a mini­ster as related to the uncalled world, and the universal Church, ob­liged indefinitely to do his best for them: and this is Christs mis­sion. 1. By his Word. 2. And his Spirit giving him a true willing­ness and consent. 3. And by authorized ordainers investing and sen­ding him. 3. What maketh a minister to be such a one, as the congregation is bound to consent shall be their proper pastor? And this is, 1. His special fitness. 2. His special opportunity. 3. And these so judged by the Magistrate, and Bishops, or other Pastors who are meet discerners: and if they be peremptory in their imposition, he hath the greater advantage: In all these aforesaid, the peoples election or consent is no necessary cause. 4. What maketh the man and the Church (or any person) in [Page 66]esse relative, formally related as their Pastor, and his flock? and that is mutual consent; if he consent not, no Magistrates or Bishops command maketh him their Pastor, tho it may oblige him to con­sent; nor yet if they consent not: As a Father may make it a Childs duty to marry such an one, but its no marriage without consent. 5. What is necessary to the exercise of the office; and that also is mutual consent, as to every proper part, which is a priviledg; which an unwilling person can neither have right to, nor possess, nor use.

§ 20. Of Ordination, and the moment thereof in the office of the Ministry.

ORdination is an outward solemn setting apart of persons to the holy ministry by prayer and fasting, and the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery.

As touching the importance thereof, some say that it is the con­stituting or making of a minister; others say it is the solemnizing of his entrance into the office, or his inauguration thereinto, or his investiture therein, and is of the same moment to the ministry with the solemnizing of marriage to the conjugal relation, the de­livery of a twig and turf to the possession of land These diffe­rent ways of expression being considered, may be found to come to the same issue; and the latter may sufficiently set forth the ma­king of a minister as far as mans act can make him.

The words by which that which we call ordination, is set forth in Scripture, are, 1. [...], Act. 14 24. which doth not ne­cessarily evince an ordaining by suffrages, but in the New Testa­ment it is used to signifie an ordaining to the office whether by God or man (as hath been before noted): But if the Text were thus to be read, They ordained them Elders by the suffrages of the people; yet it is plain, that not the people, but Paul and Barna­bas ordained them. 2. [...] Tit. 1.5. Which signifies to constitute. 3. [...] Act. 13.2. Which signifies to separate or set apart.

Now the latter way of expressing the force of ordination, viz. The solemn inauguration or investiture in the office, is a se­parating of one unto it, or a constituting of one in it in that sence that mans act of ordainining can bear: For it cannot be the act [Page 67]of an efficient cause making and giving the office and power thereof: For that (as hath been already shewed) is not the act of man, but of Christ alone: But it is a necessary ordinary ante­cedent, and that the most important, as being the last and most compleat designation made by men of the person on whom Christ confers the office, and the solemn investing of him in it.

Hence it follows, that tho ordination be ordinarily necessary to the ministry, yet it is not of that absolute necessity in all cases, as that there can be no lawful or valid ministry without it; for where it cannot be had, there may be otherwise a full signification of the will of Christ, that some persons should do the work of the ministry. Moreover the work of the ministry is a necessary means of saving souls, of upholding and perpetuating a Church unto Christ upon earth, of maintaining soberness, righteousness and godliness of life among professed Christians; and that some take this work upon them, is an obligation of the Law of Nature, and indispensable; But regular ordination is but a point of order, and for the interruption or cessation of this latter, the former is not to be broken off or cease: And if there be in any an obliga­tion statedly to do this work, he is in the office of the ministry.

If any alledg that Christ by his law hath made an uninterrupted regular ordination indispensably necessary to the ministry, he is bound to prove it. If any pretend an uninterrupted regular ordi­nation of all his predecessors, he is bound to make it clear. Christ indeed hath instituted a ministry for the compleating of his church unto the consummation of all things; he hath also promised his Apostles, and his ministers successively in them, that he will be with them alway to the end of the world: But I find no promise of an uninterrupted succession of regularly ordained ministers.

That which is delivered by ordination, is the sacred ministeri­al office at large as respecting the universal Church, to be exer­cised here or there according to particular calls and opportuni­ties.

§ 21. Of Prayer and Fasting, and Imposition of Hands in Ordination.

PRAYER is such a duty, as is requisite to the sanctifying of all other duties, as the preaching of the Word, administrati­on of Baptism, and the Lords Supper; and therefore is necessary to this sacred action of ordaining ministers. Fasting is a service expressive of solemn humiliation, and a necessary adjunct of ex­tra ordinary prayer for the obtaining of more special mercy, and therefore a necessary preparative and concomitant in this so­lemnity: And we have Scripture Examples for prayer and fasting in the mission of persons to the work of the ministry, Luke 6.12, 13. Act. 13.2. Act. 14 23.

What imposition of hands imports, and the moment of it, is to be considered from the use of it both in the Old and New Testa­ment. In the Old Testament 'twas used, 1. In solemn benediction, the person blessing laid his hand on the person blessed, Gen. 48.14. 2. In offering Sacrifice, as a sign of devoting it to the Lord by him that offered it, Lev. 1.4. 3. In ordaining to an office as a sign of setting apart therunto, Numb. 27.18, 20. In the New Testament it is used, 1. in blessing, Mark 10.16. 2. In curing bodily diseases, Mark 16.18. Luke 13.13. Acts 19.11. 3. In conveying the miraculous gifts of the Holy Ghost, Acts 8.17. Acts 19.6. 4. In ordaining ministers, Acts 6.6. 1 Tim 4.14.

The meaning of imposition of hands spoken of Heb. 6.2. is di­versly taken; some take it as used for the remitting of sins (as they also do 1 Tim. 5.22.) and say that Baptism refers to the making of proselytes, and laying on of hands to the absolving of penitents. Others take it for confirmation. Others conceive that the whole ministry is by a synecdoche therein comprehended.

From the various uses of this Rite, we collect, that it was a sign of conveying a benefit, or of designing to an office, or of devoting one to the Lord; and particularly, of authoritative benediction and designation to the office of the ministry, and of devoting to the Lord in that kind.

There is no sufficient reason to make it but a temporary Rite, and to limit the use of it in ordination only to the times of mira­eles; there being no circumstance in any Text to shew that it was [Page 69]done only for the present occasion. And we read not that miracu­lous gifts were given by imposition of hands in ordination.

§ 22. The power of Ordaining belongs to the Pastors of the Church.

SOme give this reason why the power of Ordination is not in the people, but in the Pastors, because the act of ordaining is a potestative or authoritative mission, which power of mission is first seated in Christ, and from him committed to the Apostles, and from them to the Bishops or Elders. But this Reason must be ta­ken with a grain of salt, or in a sound sense, because Bishops or El­ders have spiritual power formalier, but not efficienter; and they do not properly make or give the ministerial power, but are only instruments of designation, or application of that power to the person to whom Christ immediately gives it by the standing-act of his Law.

That the power of ordaining belongs not to the people, but to the Church officers, first appears by Scripture-authority, for that in all the New Testament there is no example of ordination by any of the Laity, but contrariwise it is therein expresly committed to spiritual officers. 2. By Reason, for that the Pastors of the Churches are better qualified for the designation of a person to the Holy ministry, and for performing the action of solemn inve­stiture; as also, for that ordination includes an authoritative be­nediction, and that is to come from a Superior, as the Scripture saith, The less is blessed of the greater, and not the greater of the less, as it would be if the Pastor were to be ordained by the peo­ple that are governed by him.

Some argue for a popular ordination, because election, which is the greater, belongs to the people. But 1. Election is not greater than Ordination in the ministerial Call. For in ordination, inve­stiture in the Function it self is given; but in the peoples election, no more is given than the stated exercise of the ministry in that Congregation.

2. In case Election were greater than Ordination, yet the con­sequence holds not. Several parties may have each their own part divided to them; and he that may do the greater, may not al­ways do the lesser, unless the lesser be essentially included in the greater, which is not in this case.

It is likewise urged for popular ordination, That in the conse­cration of the Levites, the children of Israel laid their hands upon them, Numb 8.11. To this it is answered, That the Levites were taken by God instead of the first born of all the children of Is­rael, which the Lord claimed as his own upon the destroying of the first-born of the Egyptians; and so the imposition of hands by the first-born upon the Levites, was not strictly an ordaining of them to their office, but an offering of them as a sacrifice in their own stead to make an atonement for them, as he that brought a sacri­fice, laid his hand on the head of it.

Tho in Timothy's ordination, the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery be mentioned, and where many Presbyters were, they joined in this action; yet I see not any thing in Scripture or Rea­son to gainsay the validity of ordination by a single Bishop or Presbyter. Nevertheless, ordination by the imposition of many hands, is more unquestionable, and the use thereof most laudabl [...], and in no case to be omitted where it may be had, according to the custom of the Church in all ages.

§ 23. The Validity of Presbyterian Ordination.

IF a Bishop and Presbyter of divine institution be the same (as hath been before proved) the controversie about ordination by Presbyters is at an end. And if the Bishop that now is, be ano­ther kind of officer than the Scripture Presbyter, there is no proof of his divine institution.

That the Presbyter that now is, hath the Pastoral or Episcopal office, hath been already proved by the form of their ordination, and by the nature of that power of the keys that is granted to reside in them. If the Prelates have invested them with an office that is truly Episcopal, it matters not whether in express terms they gave them the power of ordaining or no, or whether they expresly excluded the power of ordaining: for not they, but Christ makes the office, and not they but Christ gives the power that belongs to the office, from which they cannot detract.

The ordination of Timothy is said to be by the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery, 1 Tim. 4.14. If it be said that by the Pres­bytery is meant a company of Bishops; it it granted that Presby­ters and Bishops were all one. If it be said, they were a company [Page 71]of none but Diocesan Bishops, that had subject-presbyters of an inferior order under them, let it be proved from Scripture.

It is said by some, That only the Diocesan Bishops ordain au­thoritatively, and the Presbyters concomitantly, founding the di­stinction on those two Texts, 2 Tim. 1.6. and 1 Tim 4.14. it be­ing said in the one, That Timothy received the gift by the put­ting on of Paul's hands; and in the other, by the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery. To this it is answered, 1. That the im­position of hands mentioned 2 Tim. 1.6. might be in confirmati­on; for the first receiving of the Holy Ghost after Baptism, and the following effects of the spirit of love, power, and of a sound mind, argue so much. 2. If any of a higher state than Pres­byters laid hands on Timothy in his ordination, yet the phrase of Presbytery argues that they did it as presbyters. 3. If it was Paul that ordained Timothy authoritatively, and the presbytery but concomitantly, our bishops cannot thence claim the sole autho­ritative ordination, for Paul was of an order above them, and was no otherwise a bishop than as having Episcopal power emi­nently contained in his Apostolick office. 4. If the presbytery there mentioned be a company of bishops of an order superior to presbyters, it will follow by this distinction, that such a bishop ordains not authoritatively but concomitantly. 5. The said Texts afford no ground for the distinction of authoritative and conco­mitant ordination.

According to the hierarchical principle, the bishop is enabled to give orders, not by his power of jurisdiction, but by his power of order. Now a presbyter hath as much of the Character and Sa­crament of order, as a bishop; and the consecration of a bishop is not held a distinct Sacrament of order from the ordination of a presbyter; and the truth is, the form of consecrating a bishop according to the English Ordinal, is expressive of no more power of order than is given to the presbyter in the form of his ordina­tion in the said Ordinal.

The conjunction of Presbyters with the Bishop in the present form of ordination, shews that the order is conveyed by them as well as by the bishop. Their imposition of hands is an authori­tative benediction, and dedication of the party ordained. Let a­ny instance be produced of the imposition of hands by any such as had no power of conveying that which was signified by that cere­mony, I mean of conveying it so far as mans act can reach unto. [Page 72]To say it is only a sign of their giving consent, is a poor evasion, for the people give consent also.

If presbyters are at any time allowed to ordain by commission from a Bishop, they cannot do it rightly, if they have not an in­trinsick power of doing it. For the Bishops commission or li­cense cannot give a new spiritual power to a Presbyter, which was not in him before, at least radically or habitually.

§ 24. Of a valid Ministry.

AS Christ allows the Church to receive such to Baptism and the Lords Supper, as he doth not receive; so he allows the Church to call some to the Ministry, whom he doth not call. For it is his prerogative to be the Searcher of the Hearts, and men can judg but by appearance.

Such as Christ doth not allow the Church to call to the Mini­stry, may by his permission, through the Churches mal-admini­stration, be called thereunto; and being so called, they abide there­in by his permission, till they be cast out by due reformation, and so long their calling is valid as to external order.

And such are Ministers to others, tho not to their own good; and Chrsts ordinances by them administred are valid and effectual to those intents for which he appointed them. The whole current of Scripture shews that Gods ordinances are not made void by the close hypocrisie or gross impiety of the dispensers thereof; and the contrary opinion tends to unchurch Churches, and to deny the Christendom of the Christian World for the most part.

As we must distinguish between miscarriages in admission, and the nullity of the office, so between defects or corruptions in the office it self, and the nullity thereof. The Priesthood and Wor­ship in the Temple at Jerusalem was often much corrupted, yet it was true for the substance thereof; but the Priesthood appoin­ted for the Calves at Dan and Bethel was false for the substance, and a nullity.

Tho the sacrificing Priesthood at Dan and Bethel were a nullity, yet the Ten Tribes had the substance of the true religion, and some external acts of worship true and valid, as circumcision, and so re­tained something of a Church. So now among the Papists there is the substance of the Christian Religion, and some thing of a [Page 73]Church, and Ministry, and ordinances. The Ministry of the Po­pish Priests with reference to the Sacrifice of the Mass, is a nullity: but as ordained to preach the Gospel and Baptize, and to any other parts of the proper work of the Ministry, it is not a nullity, but their administration in those things is valid.

§ 25. Of the Magistrates Power in Ecclesi­astical Affairs.

MAgistratical and Ecclesiastical power are in their nature wholly divers; and they are not subordinate but collate­ral powers; yet Ministers are subject to Magistrates, and Magi­strates to Ministers in divers respects, according to the nature of the power that is seated in either of them.

The Magistratical power is Imperial, the Ecclesiastical is mini­sterial; and so the pastor is under the magistrate as his Ruler by the sword, not only in civil, but in sacred things; and the magi­strate is under the pastor as his Ruler by the word, or his autho­ritative teacher.

The pastors power over the magistrate is no dimunution to his right, for it takes away none of his authoritty, nor doth it hinder the exercise and efficacy of it, but it is his benefit, because it is an authoritative administring to him the mercies of the Gospel in Christs Name; and if he be not under that authoritative administration, he is not under the blessing of the Gospel. How­beit the pastoral discipline may not be so exercised towards the supream magistrate, as by dishonouring him to make him less ca­pable of improving his office to the common good, which the excommunicating of him would do; but if magistrates, whether of higher or lower rank, be excommunicated, nevertheless they must be obeyed.

The magistrates power over the pastor is no diminution to his spiritual authority, for it is not given to hinder but to further the efficacy and exercise thereof: So that both powers are mutu­ally preservative and accumulative, not destructive or diminu­tive.

The Church is Christs family, and the magistrate is not the Lord, but a member of it, and cannot govern it at his pleasure, but only as the Lord himself hath allowed, and the state thereof [Page 74]requires. In short, the magistrate as well as the minister hath received his authority for edisication, not for destruction.

The magistrate cannot make any new essential or integral part of religion either Doctrine of Faith or Divine Worship: but he is as much bound up to the religion that is of Gods making, as the meanest of his Subjects; for he and they are Gods Subjects both alike: But by his civil sanctions▪ he may strengthen the true religion, and enforce the observance of the Divine Laws, so far as it is meet they should be inforced by Humane Laws; and this is the most noble part of his work in matters of Religion.

The Magistrate may and must take care that sacred things be duly administred by sacred or spiritual officers, and he may and must punish them for mal-administration. He may and must re­strain persons of impious principles from venting their wicked er­rors, and from any open impious practice, by a power formally ci­vil, tho objectively ecclesiastical. He may convocate synods or councils of ecclesiastical persons to advise and conclude according to the Word of God, how the Church being corrupt, is to be re­formed, and how to be guided and governed when reformed: And he ought to use his own judgment of discretion concerning the decrees and judgments of ecclesiastical persons in reference to his own act of political ratifying the same.

The Magistrate cannot ma [...]e any new kind of sacred or spiritu­al office, bec [...]use he cannot institute any new sacred work, and the work that Christ hath instituted [...]ath an officer of his own insti­tution, already appointed for it; also because a spiritual office is to be administred not in the Magistrates, but in Christs Name; yet he may make new offices for civil service about sacred things.

He cannot appoint any thing in religion, that is forbidden by the divine laws, nor forbid any thing appointed by the divine laws. All his authority being from God, cannot be against him: And therefore such injunctions and prohibitions can lay no obligations of obedience upon the subject. Hereupon he cannot forbid the preaching of the Gospel, or the administring of Sacraments; for then it were at his pleasure, whether Christ should have a Church or Kingdom upon earth. He cannot take one part of the Pastors office from him, while he continues him the exercise of the other, for that were to maim and marr the office. He cannot deprive a Pastor of his Pastoral office, or discharge him from fulfilling his Ministry, because it is held from Christ, and not from him. He [Page 75]may not compel aminister to give the Sacraments to whom he pleases, nor may he compel any to profess either in word or deed wha they believe not, or to take that which God hath made the specia priviledg of Believers.

The accidental parts, modes, and circumstances of Religion which are necessary in general, and left undetermined of God in particular, the Magistrate hath power to determine according to the general rules of Gods Word.

Forasmuch as the Divine Law doth constitute more particulars, and leaves less to humane liberty, and God is more jealous and conscience more scrupulous in sacred than in common things, it behoves the Magistrate to be wary, humble, and sober in his deter­minations about these matters. He may regulate the preaching of the Gospel, provided that regulation be for the furtherance, not the hinderance thereof: And that can be no part of due or­dering, that causeth the destruction, or dangerous detriment of the thing ordered.

The Magistrate may not appoint that which is not simply for­bidden of God, if it be scandalous, or mischievous in the conse­quents; nor may he forbid that which God hath not appointed, but left indifferent, if the omission of it be scandalous, or mischie­vous in the consequents; because in such cases, God hath forbidden the former and required the latter by his general command; and because the Magistrate hath his authority (as was said) for edifi­cation, not for destruction.

§ 1. Of Certainty in general.

I Begin the enquiry, by taking notice of the common distin­ction of objective and subjective Certainty. Objective Certainty, or Certainty in the object, is the immutable verity of the thing it self. For that a thing is what it is, is unchangeably true. Subjective Certainty is the firm­ness of assent to a thing apprehended as it is. It is this la­ter which I enquire into, and it presupposeth the former.

It must be supposed that our faculties are true; that is, that in their sound state, and set in due circumstances, they are adapted to discern things as they are indeed. Otherwise the question of the nature of Certainty is out of dores, there being no such thing in the world.

Certainty of Assent includes three things: 1. That it be firm, without staggering. 2. That it be true, and not erroneous. 3. That it rest upon firm and sure grounds. The first is evidently necessary, because it is the very notation of the word Certainty; the notion we mean thereby, is not to doubt or stagger in our ap­prehension of a thing. The second is as evidently necessary; for Certainty is an affection of knowledg; but an erroneous appre­hension is not knowledg, but ignorance; a confident mistake can­not be certainty. The third also is clear; for if the grounds be ei­ther false or weak, the knowledg built thereon cannot be sure, Tho the assent be true in respect of the object, yet it is not certain in this case, because not judicious nor solid; yea, tho the apprehension be according to the thing, yet as far as it rests upon a false or weak ground, it is not knowledg properly so called, but a casual confi­dence [Page 78]or presumption; and when the insufficiency of the grounds shall appear, the apprehension fails, and vanisheth away.

Meer probability is not Certainty strictly so called; it is in­deed an affection or mode both of knowledg, and of error, which is a kind of ignorance: for that which is only probable, may ei­ther be, or not be what it is apprehended to be; and so the ap­prehension thereof may be either true or false, either knowledg or error. Yet the apprehending of a probable thing only as proba­ble, is always a right apprehension; for whether the thing be or not be, it is certainly true that it is probable.

The reason of probability lies in a sufficient evidence that a thing not only may be, but is so indeed, rather than not so, as it is apprehended to be. The reason of Certainty lies in a suffici­ent evidence, that a thing must needs be as it is apprehended: For if there be not such evidence, then if we indeed consider the mat­ter, we presently apprehend, that in regard the thing may be o­therwise, it is so for ought we know, and that our apprehension or opinion about the thing is false for ought we know. That there is necessarily some kind of needs must be, in the object of a certain, that is, a firm assent, seems to me to have self-evidence, and to need no proof.

An Object or Matter of Certainty being that which is in some respect necessary, or that cannot but be so, is to be understood not only of absolutely, but hypothetically necessary; and of a thing necessary not only in regard of essence or abstracted nature, but by necessity of existence in this sense, viz. Whatsoever is, whilest it is, necessarily is; and that which hath been, necessarily hath been; and that which shall be, necessarily shall be, because it is a contradiction to be and not to be.

The surer the grounds are, and the greater the evidence is in the kind of probability, the nearer it approacheth to certainty; and the weaker the grounds are, and the lesser the evidence is, the farther it is from it: Therefore very high degrees of proba­bility commonly borrow the name of certainties, and the minds of men do ordinarily rest therein. The business of men as to this world generally proceeds upon no better assurance, than high degrees of probability.

Learned men speak of a conjectural certainty or opinion that excludes doubting. I contend not about the name, provided the ambiguity be taken away: If by doubting they mean a fluctuati­on, [Page 79]or not fixing of assent; and by certainty, a fixed assent, I grant that in this sence there is a conjectural certainty, when the mind saith undoubtedly the thing is so, and reason will not suffer me to judg otherwise: But I judg, that certainty properly so called, is an assent excluding not only fluctuation, or non fixation or suspence, but also an apprehension that the thing may be otherwise; and it rests upon no evidence inferior to that which is called demonstra­tive; an assent whereby the mind saith not only, I believe that I am not herein deceived; but also I believe that I cannot herein be de­ceived: For if I believe only that I am not deceived, but not that I cannot be d [...]ceived herein, I am not sure that I am not deceived herein; for it may be otherwise than I apprehend; and for ought I assuredly know, it is so; and here is no certainty properly so called. Note, that when I say I can be deceived, I do not mean in every thing, but only quoad hoc: For speaking indefinitely, we may truly say such a person may or can bedeceived; yet it may be true that in this or that determinate case, he cannot be deceived. The Apostles in their Apostolick Embassy could not be deceived, yet in common matters they might be deceived like other men.

§ 2. Of Moral Certainty.

LEarned men have distinguished Certainty into Moral, Natu­ral, and Supernatural. Moral Certainty is by some set forth to be an undoubted assent upon such grounds as are fit fully to satis­fy a prudent man Natural Certainty is an assent upon such grounds as shew, that in nature the thing cannot be otherwise than it is ap­prehended. Supernatural Certainty is an assent upon indubitable supernatural evidence.

As to the aforesaid description of Moral Certainty by an un­doubted assent upon such grounds as are fit fully to satisfie a pru­dent man I conceive it to be not clear enough. For if the grounds upon which the undoubted assent is built, be in their own nature and reason firm and sure, then that assent is natural Certainty. In­deed I find Moral Certainty set forth by others, as that which ex­cludes not only hesitation and anxiety, but all apprehension that the thing may be otherwise, which they call formidinem oppositi; and this is given as an instance of it, that Augustus Cesar some­time reigned at Rome. Now this I take to be all one with Natural Cer [...]ainty; for that the nature or reason of the thing shews it must needs have been, or the grounds of the assent thereunto air [Page 80]in their own nature and reason firm and sure, as afterwards shall be further shewed: But if the grounds of an assent be not in their own nature and reason firm and sure, excluding an apprehen­sion that the thing may be otherwise, that assent is no proper certainty at all; as is already shewed.

I grant that a prudent man may and ought to proceed in hu­mane affairs respecting this world, upon grounds not properly or strictly certain; because for the most part, as well in the greatest as the smallest of them, there is contingency: And such matters as have strong probability in them, especially such as are known seldome or never to happen otherwise, may justly beget in men of understanding such assent or perswasion, as they may call, if they please, a moral certainty, and that which may justly remove all disturbing doubts concerning them; so that it would be folly to be interrupted in the course of action upon a conceit that they may fall out otherwise: Nevertheless it is no folly, but a right understanding, to conceive that those very matters may fall out o­therwise. No prudent man disturbingly doubts whether any of the persons this day alive in London, will be alive to morrow; yet it is not in the nature of the thing certain, that they will, and therefore no man can rightly judg it to be certain: For the contrary is possible to come to pass, at least in a supernatural way; and we have examples of such events, as in the overthrow of Sodom and Gomorrah in one day by fire from Heaven, and in the slaughter of 185000 in the Army of Senacherib by an Angel in one night.

Wherefore that moral certainty (if it may be so called) which proceeds upon such grounds as do not exclude formidinem contra­rii, or an apprehension that the thing may be otherwise, I take to be no certainty properly so called: But if any will so call a knowledg or assent of that nature, I contend not about it. But the term may be taken in another sense, viz. for a certain knowledg or assent in things of a moral nature, or from moral arguments, in which I judg that certainty strictly so taken may be founded: And being so taken, it is of the same common reason with the following kinds of certainty: For it is founded in the nature and reason of things moral, as natural certainty in the nature and reason of things natural, and supernatural certainty in the nature and reason of things supernatural.

§ 3. Of Natural Certainty.

NAtural Certainty is that which is founded in the nature of things natural, and rests upon evidence that is sure in na­ture, and fails not. This is twofold; first, That which is founded in the ordinary course of particular nature. The second, That which is founded in the universal and unchangeable reason of things.

1. There is Certainty founded in the ordinary course of Na­ture, or that which rests upon the nature of things, keeping the natural course and state wherein they are set by the God of Na­ture. So it is naturally certain that the Sun, that is set, will rise again in our Horizon after such a space of time; it is naturally certain, that there will be a vicissitude of Summer and Winter in our Climate; for that it should be otherwise according to particu­lar nature, or in a natural way, it is impossible. These are in Scripture called the Ordinances of Heaven, by the sureness where­of God sets forth the stability of his Covenant of Grace.

But that Certainty is greater that is founded in the Universal and Unchangeable Reason of things, or in the Eternal Law, which is founded in the unchangeable nature and perfections of God; for this can never fail. There is not only an impossibility in the ordi­nary course of nature, but an absolute and utter impossibility that an apprehension or assent founded herein, should be false [...] [...]ho in the course of partirular nature it be impossible but that the Sun should go down at the stated time; yet it is not utterly impossible that it should not, but it may stand still, or go back in the firmament, as in holy Scripture we read it hath done, and consequently we can­not have an absolute certainty thereof. But we are absolutely cer­tain of whatsoever truth rests upon the unchangeable Reason of things; for the contrary thereof is a contradiction.

§ 4. Of Supernatural Certainty.

SUpernatural Certainty is an assent upon indubitable Superna­natural evidence, viz. Divine Revelation supernatural. A Divine Evidence is the highest kind of proof, and causeth Certain­ty, if any thing can cause it. For there is nothing more sure in the nature of things, than Gods Veracity. And nothing more is [Page 82]requisite to the certainty of that which brings a divine supernatu­ral evidence or discovery, than to know that it is divine, or of God.

Wherefore supernatural Certainty presupposeth two things: 1. The natural Certainty of this Principle, That God is immuta­bly true. 2. A natural Certainty that the supernatural discovery or revelation that is to be the ground of our assent, is from God. Here by Natural certainty I mean that which ariseth from the very nature of the thing, in which there is a full objective evi­dence. Nevertheless, the Certainty that is natural in the said re­spect, may in another respect be supernatural, namely, in respect of the supernatural assistance of the mind unto that certainty or firm­ness of assent; it is natural in respect of the objective evidence of the thing, and supernatural in respect of the assistance of the facul­ty to apprehend it.

§ 5. The distinction of Certainty into evident and ob­scure, considered.

CERTAINTY hath been distinguished into evident and obscure. Evident Certainty is said to be of those things that are some way clearly perceived, namely, either the first prin­ciples, or conclusions evidently drawn from them, or objects of sence. O [...]cure Certainty is only of those things which we hold by belief, or opinion, namely, things believed upon divine autho­rity, or humane authority, or inferred from signs and conje­ctures.

But I conceive that to distinguish Certainty into evident and obscure, is all one as to distinguish it into Certain and Uncertain. For evidence is the ground of Certainty; and so far as we have certain knowledg of any thing, so far we have evidence thereof; and no farther than we have evidence, can we have any Certainty. And it rises or falls in the degrees of it, according as the degrees of evidence are more or less. I take Certainty and Obscurity to be opposite in nature. All Certainty connotes knowledg; Obscu­rity belongs not to knowledg as such, but to ignorance; and ob­scure knowledg is but knowledg mixed with ignorance.

Especially I judg it much amiss to place the certainty of divine faith under the head of obscure certainty; for that I judg we have [Page 83]as good and sure evidence for the truth of matters of divine faith as for any conclusion of Science, as shall be shewn.

Howbeit I grant, that things which are most firmly and rightly assented unto, may be in themselves obscure and unseen; as the matters of the Christian Faith, and the Mysteries of the Gospel, that are known only by supernatural revelation: Yet in the cer­tainty or firm assent of the mind about these things, there is not obscurity but evidence, for it rests upon such grounds as are of clear and evident truth, as is abundantly proved by divers Au­thors, who have asserted the Divine Authority of the Holy Scrip­tures.

§ 6. Whether Certainty admits of degrees.

CErtainty strictly so called, doth admit of degrees. A firm as­sent without wavering or doubting, may be more firm. My assent to this truth, That there is a God, is firm without waver­ing; and yet I may have a greater degree of assurance there­of. And doubtless the Angels that behold the face of God, have a greater Certainty or firmness of assent to the aforesaid truth, than mortals upon earth.

The degree of firmness of knowledg or right assent, rises accor­ding to the degree of evidence: I say not this of the firmness of all assent, but of right assent, which is knowledg, and in which is true certainty. There may be firmness of assent, which hath no foundation in the thing it self, and the highest confidence in the greatest mistake, but no certainty, which always supposes the true perception of its object.

That that which is now evident or clearly perceived, may be­come more evident, is a truth which I suppose cannot be denied: And I think common experience confirms it to every observing man, that things sufficiently or indubitably evident, are common­ly made more and more evident. By sufficient evidence, I mean that which gives us assurance that the thing cannot be otherwise than we apprehend: There are many divine truths that are now evident, which no true Christian doubts shall be made more e­vident in the life to come. What we know here, we know but in part, and not perfectly.

The Apostle saith, that that which was made glorious, had no glory in this respect, by reason of the glory that excels; that is, [Page 84]that which positively is glorious, comparatively is inglorious: So we may say, that which positively is evident, comparatively is ob­scure. All our present evidence of divine truths is but obscurity in respect of the glorious clearness that shall be hereafter. In like manner the firm assent of divine faith may be called weak as­sent in comparison of the assent of intuitive knowledg in the state of glory. The lower degrees of true knowledg, are ignorance in respect of the higher; and the lower degrees of strength and firmness sufficient in its own place, is but weakness in respect of the higher, especially those transcendent degrees in heaven. And where there is not a privative, there may be a negative imperfecti­on.

§ 7. Of the Certainty of Sense.

CErtainty may be either of Sense, or of Reason, or of Be­lief.

There is a Certainty of sense or sensitive knowledg: And this cannot be denied without denial of all Certainty. 1. Because al­most all knowledg comes in first by the senses: 2. All knowledg, which in a natural way, is had of matters of fact, that are contin­gent, comes either by our own sense, or by the credit of others that have known the same by sense. 3. The Certainty of reason and of belief, may as well be denyed, as the certainty of sense: For if there be no certainty of sense, our faculties are not true; and if the sensitive faculty be false, and not to be trusted, the rational faculty may as well be supposed false and not to be tru­sted; and if sense and reason cannot be trusted, the credit of men in their reports made to others, cannot be trusted.

But that there be this Certainty, the sense must be duly cir­cumstantiated, which is, when there is a sound Organ, and a fit Medium, and a due Distance of the Object, &c.

Some supernatural deception of the senses of some particular men, by divine permission, being granted, makes nothing against the natural and ordinary Certainty thereof placed in due Circum­stances.

§ 8. Of the Certainty of Reason.

CERTAINTY of reason, or rational knowledg, is twofold, or of two degrees. The first, the certain knowledg of the first principles or common notions, which are known by themselves, and appear as they are to all persons, that are compo­tes mentis. The second degree is the knowledg of conclusions so evidently drawn from the first principles, as all that understand what they are, must assent unto, unless they offer violence to their faculties.

§ 9. Of the Certainty of Belief upon Divine Testimony.

CERTAINTY of Belief rests upon the credible testimony of others.

The Credibility of all testimony rests upon the veracity of the person testifying, and the evidence of that veracity.

The highest degree of Credibility, and consequently of Cer­tainty from testimony, is that which rests upon an immutable ve­racity, which belongs to God alone. A surer evidence of the truth of any matter cannot be, than a divine testimony thereunto: For there is not a surer and clearer truth, than this, That God is unchangeably true. And this is the ground of that Certainty, which men call the certainty of divine faith, the object whereof can never be false.

Tho Gods veracity be a principle by it self evident; yet that this or that testimony is of God, may need proof.

A divine testimony may so carry its own evidence to the person to whom it is immediately made known, as to need no proof thereof; as in voices, and visions, and inspirations, tho the way of such self-evidence may be unaccountable by us; nevertheless in the case of such immediate revelations, sometimes holy men have without being blamed, asked a sign for confirmation, and some­times God hath without their asking, given a sign.

Every testimony, that is by another reported to us to be of God, ought to be rationally proved to be such, or else it cannot rationally be credited, nor be a due object of divine faith, which is a rational assent. To sound faith reason is always presupposed.

There are certain rational proofs of a Divine Testimony, that are evident to humane reason, even such as naturally evince the same: And to deny those proofs, were to offer violence to the fa­culty of reasoning.

§ 10. Of Certainty upon Humane Testimony.

HUmane Testimony, as such, is not a ground of Certainty strictly so called, but at the most only of the above mention­ed conjectural Certainty, that excludes anxiety and fluctuation of mind, but not all apprehension that the thing may be otherwise. Even the testimony of the best and wisest of mortal men, can rise no higher, because there is no mortal man but may deceive, or be deceived.

Upon the same reason that any one man, or number of men, may deceive, every man, and all men may deceive. Wherefore as the bare testimony of one man, or a small number of men by it self considered, is not the ground of strict Certainty; so neither the testimony of any multitudes, or all men by it self considered, or meerly as a testimony by way of its proper authority.

Nevertheless with the testimony of men there may go along such rational evidence, as may ascertain the truth of it in the mat­ter testified, and make it unquestionable. And then it is a ground of strict Certainty; not formally and abstractly, as a testimony; but as accompanied with the said Rational evidence.

This Rational evidence accompanying humane testimony, and making it the ground of strict Certainty, is, when there is an im­possibility evident in Reason, that the Witnesses or Reporters should deceive, or be deceived. He that never saw Rome, or Con­stantinople, or Asia, Africa, or America, hath strict Certainty, that those Cities, and those parts of the world have been in being, from the Reports of those that have seen them; for it is impossible in reason that all the Reporters should deceive or be deceived.

Tho it be possible that all the Reporters, considered merely as so many particular persons, may lye (for if any one may, all may in that consideration) yet it is impossible that they being such mul­titudes of several nations, of several ages, of several conditions, and so of several interests and inclinations, should lye or deceive without detection; for there is no possible sufficient cause of such undetected lye; and we know there can be no effect without a sufficient cause.

If it be said, It is mo [...] [...]n we know what sufficient cause there may be: it is answered, That any such cause is, is beyond humane imagination to assign; and surely this is enough to satisfie that there is none. If there be any sufficient cause of such an undetected lye, it must be either a universal combination of all the Reporters to deceive, and that combination must be held constantly; but this is impossible: or else a concurrent inclination and impulse in all the Reporters to lye, which is unimaginable, and can have no sufficient cause.

Likewise if it be supposed possible that any one person through the deception of the senses may be deceived in a matter of fact of palpable evidence; yet it is impossible (supposing our faculties to be true) that all the Reporters should be deceived in matters so palpa­ble, as that there is day and night; that there is a Countrey cal­led France, Italy, Greece, &c. for they could not all be mad or sensless. Or if this were possible in respect of the humane created nature; yet it cannot be conceived without blasphemy, that God should govern the World by such an universal and perpetual de­ception of the senses.

Now whether this be said to be naturally or morally impossible, it comes to one pass, and gives equal certainty of the testimony from the impossibility of the contrary part. Besides, our Arguing shews it impossible in the reason or nature of the thing.

§ 11. Of the nature of Infallibility.

THE nature, and grounds, and subject of Certainty being con­sidered, I come to consider of Infallibility, which one sort of men lay claim unto without warrant, and some others without rea­son explode, as a thing transcending all created understandings, tho they grant a kind of Certainty: as the one by usurped autho­rity impose upon mens belief in the matter of Religion, which is mans highest concernment; so the other take away or lessen that security of the mind, which is reasonably required in so great a matter, and give too great advantage to the pretenders on the o­ther extream.

The term infallible may be taken first in a passive signification, and then it is that which cannot be deceived: And so it may be applied either to the propounder, or to the believer of a truth. It may also be taken in an active signification, for that which [Page 84] [...] [Page 85] [...] [Page 86] [...] [Page 87] [...] [Page 88]cannot deceive; and so it may be applied to the propounder, as also to the truth it self proposed, and [...]o the evidence thereof, as in our English Translation, Act. 1.3. by many infallible proofs, that is evidence that could not deceive.

Infallibility as ascribed to the propounder or believer of a truth, is subjective infallibility; as ascribed to the truth propoun­ded, or the evidence thereof, it is objective infallibility, which signifies no more than that the thing cannot be false, and cannot objectively deceive. Now if there may be objective, there may be also subjective infallibility. If there be truth and an evidence of truth that cannot be false, then an understanding apprehending that truth as it is, cannot be deceived therein, nor can deceive in propounding the same to others: Besides, objective infallibility is an insignificant thing in reference to an understanding uncapa­ble of infallibility. An object is denominated infallible with respect to the understanding to which it is or may be propounded, as not to be deceived in it.

§ 12. Of Infallibility which is hypothetical and limited, and that which is absolute and unlimited.

INFALLIBILITY therefore denoting an impossibility of being deceived, and of deceiving, inquire we into the subject to whom it doth belong. Some say an impossibility of being de­ceived belongs only to an infinitely perfect understanding. We must distinguish between an impossibility of being deceived, that is absolute and unlimited, and that which is hypothetical and limi­ted. I grant that an absolute impossibility of being deceived be­longs not to a finite understanding. And no asserter of infallibi­lity in the creature, intended the former, but the latter kind.

Hypothetical and limited impossibility of being deceived, may belong to a finite, and in particular, to a humane understanding, and it is that which supposeth a full revelation natural or super­natural to the subject in whom it is, and is limited to the truth so revealed; and this hypothetical infallibility doth not rest barely upon the perfection of the humane nature, but upon this principle, That God is true in his revelations both natural and supernatu­ral, and that he doth not govern the world by falshoods. Now this is proper infallibility: For upon this principle I am not only sure that I am not deceived; but also that I cannot be deceived [Page 89]as to the particular truths so evident to me; or to speak it plainer, it cannot be that I am therein deceived, for it were a contradi­ction.

Moreover, that which is certain, is so upon necessary grounds, and therefore cannot be false. And he that knows it to be certain, knows it upon those necessary grounds, and consequently that it cannot be false; and this is to know it infallibly. If we know no­thing infallibly, we know nothing either as necessary, or as impos­sible, whether absolutely, or hypothetically.

§ 13. Of stated or permanent Infallibility, and that which is but pro tempore.

IT hath been shewed, that an understanding that is not absolutely or by the perfection of its nature infallible, may be secured from possibility of mistake; and an understanding that is not universally infallible, may be secured from possibility of mistakes, and so be infallible in certain cases, and to certain intents.

Now it is further to be noted, That there may be a stated or permanent Infallibility, and that which is but temporary. The for­mer did belong to the established Prophets of the Lord in their declarations to his people, and to the Apostles of Christ in mat­ters pertaining to their Apostolical Commission for establishing the Religion and Churches of Christ. Also upon supposition of the Saints perseverance, it belongs to all true Christians as to the Essentials of Christianity.

The temporary Infallibility belongs to such persons as receive the Visions of God, or are divinely inspired, not statedly, but oc­casionally, at some particular time or times; as among holy men, Zacharias, John Baptists Father, Gideon, the Parents of Sampson; among the unholy, Balaam in his Prophesies before Balaac; and Saul, who sometime was found prophecying.

§ 14. The Infallibility of a finite Ʋnderstanding, further cleared.

IT is granted by the deniers of Infallibility, That that which is true, is not possible to be false. And thence I infer, If I know it to be true, I know it is not possible to be false, and so I infal­libly know it. And my assent to a truth (as for instance to [Page 90]the Christian Faith) cannot possibly be false.

Some that say, an impossibility of being deceived, belongs only to an infinitely perfect understanding, do grant that an understand­ing liable to be deceived, may not be deceived, and be sure that he is not. And I infer thereupon, that he cannot be deceived in that particular assent: I mean not that he cannot simply, but in that state and circumstances, wherein he is put, he cannot be de­ceived therein; and that he knows he cannot, because he knows it implies a contradiction that he should be deceived in that wherein he is sure that he is not deceived: For if I may be deceived in such an apprehension or assent, not only simply, but all circumstances being put, I cannot be sure that I am not deceived therein.

Likewise those that say an impossibility of being deceived be­longs only to an infinitely perfect understanding, do grant, that a man cannot be deceived in that thing, with the belief whereof God inspires him, and gives him such evidence thereof as cannot be false. Now this is a concession of hypothetical and limited insal­libility to humane understanding: For it is here acknowledged, that there may be such evidence of divine inspiration, as cannot be false: And indeed I take it for a repugnancy in nature, that God should inspire the belief of a falshood. Nevertheless a man di­vinely inspired is not simply infallible in his apprehension of di­vine inspiration; for he may sometime be deceived in thinking he is so inspired, when he is not.

Thus it being evident, that an understanding, that is not sim­ply infallible in a matter, may in the state and circumstances wherein he is put, be therein infallible; I think it better to ex­plain and limit the term and notion of infallibility in the humane understanding, than wholly to reject it. But howsoever, they that reject or dislike it, do grant and contend for a sufficiently cer­trin evidence of truth; and I will not quarrel if that will serve for infallibility.

And they will also grant, that they who are not immediately inspired of God, have sufficiently certain evidence in reason to the discerning and chusing of infallible guides that are immedi­ately inspired.

§ 15. Whether Infallibility admit of degrees, and in what respect.

EVery truth is equally impossible to be false; for all things that imply a contradiction, are equally, because utterly im­possible.

All are alike infallible in that, wherein they are infallible; and therein they cannot be more infallible, because therein it is utterly impossible that they should be deceived, and so it cannot be more impossible than it is already.

Nevertheless there are different degrees of evidence for being infallible in such or such a matter. Likewise there are different degrees of clear apprehension of being infallible; and so the sure knowledg of being infallible admits of degrees That know­ledg that is sufficiently certain, may be advanced to be abundant­ly certain; and that which is abundant, may be advanced to yet more abundant.

Whereupon I conclude, that though infallibility in its formal reason admits of no degrees, yet there are different degrees of the evidence, and the clear apprehension thereof.

Moreover infallibility is in a more noble and perfect state in one subject, than in another. And so the infallibility of a supe­rior intellect, as that of Angels, is in a more perfect and excel­lent, than the hypothetical, and the unlimited than the limited.

In the same subject infallibility may be in a more perfect state at one time than another, according to the rising or falling of the evidence thereof.

§ 16. Of the Infallibility of Sense.

THAT which is agreeable to sense rightly circumstantiated, is impossible to be false; and that which is repugnant to sence rightly circumstantiated, is impossible to be true. For that the one should be false, and that the other should be true, implies a contradiction, supposing the sensitive faculty to be true. And if the sensitive faculties be not true, it infers that impious and absurd opinion, that God cannot or will not govern the material world but by falshood.

The Popish opinion of Transubstantiation, is no deception of the sense, but of the understanding; for they that have persuaded themselves to believe it, do not say they see, or tast, or feel Christs body and blood, but acknowledg what they see, feel, and tast, to be the accidents of the bread and wine, which they say remains af­ter Transubstantion. Wherefore the imposing is not upon the sen­ses, but upon the understanding, which ought to judg by sense of matters, that are the proper objects of sense.

§ 17. Of Infallibility of Reason.

IF Sense may be the subject of Infallibility, why may not the Understanding be so, which is a more excellent Faculty in the kind of perception or knowledg?

If the Understanding be the subject of Certainty, why not also of infallibility in that limited sense, as hath been before explain­ed? The proper object of Certainty is not that which may or may not be, but that which must be, or which is known to be such.

An indubitable Certainty is acknowledged; and from an indu­bitable Certainty properly so called, I think a good inference is made unto an infallible Certainty. To be indubitable in a matter, is to be sure that I am not therein deceived. And I cannot ration­ally be sure that I am not deceived, unless I am sure that it cannot be, that the thing be otherwise than I apprehend. And if I am sure that it cannot be otherwise than I apprehend, I am as to that particular infallible.

Because men in their most confident persuasions are commonly deceived by prejudice, from passion, interest, education, and the like; it follows not, that none can be secure from deception; that is, to know that it cannot be that they should be deceived in such or such a matter. Certainly an impartial and unbiassed judgment may be found.

§ 18. Logical, Physical, Moral, and Theological Conclusi­sions, as well as Mathematical, admit of demonstrative Evidence.

UPON the foregoing enquiries, I judg it very disadvanta­geous to the cause of Religion, to speak, as some do, of a [Page 93]lower evidence for it than demonstration, and such as the matter is capable of; whereas I suppose there is not surer and clearer E­vidence for any thing, than for true Religion.

Not only Mathematical, but Logical, Physical, Moral and Theo­logical Conclusions, admit of demonstrative evidence.

Whereas some say, the existence of God is not Mathematically demonstrable, because only Mathematical matter admits such kind of evidence; if it be meant of that special evidence that is in the Mathematicks, it is nothing to the purpose; but if it be meant of evidence in general, as demonstrative as Mathematical evidence, it is false: for this Truth admits the clearest and strictest demonstra­tion.

This Proposition, That God is, is demonstrative in the strict­est sense by a demonstration a posteriori, viz of the necessary cause from the effect; it being evident, that the existence of God is ab­solutely necessary to the existence of the World, for that we can­not attribute the being of the Phanomena or visible things in the world, to any other cause than such a Being as we conceive God to be, but we must offer violence to our own faculties.

This Proposition, That every word of God shall be fulfilled ac­cording to the true and full intent of it, is demonstrative in the strictest sense a priori, from the veracity of God; it being as evi­dent that God is true, as that he is.

As the Existence, so the Attributes of God have demonstrative Evidence, unless you had rather call them indemonstrable princi­ples, as having the greatest self-evidence.

From the Essence and Attributes of God, and mans dependance on him, and relation to him, Moral and Theological Truths of de­monstrative evidence are inferred, as touching Gods moral law, the good of conformity, and the evil of inconformity thereunto, and a just retribution to men, according to that difference.

§ 19. Of the infallible knowledg of the truth of the Chri­stian Religion, and Divine Authority of the Scripture.

UPON the grounds here laid, as the Existence and Attributes of God, and mans dependance on him, and relation to him, and his obligations thence arising, may be demonstrated; so also that the Christian Religion and the Holy Scriptures are of God as [Page 94]the Author, and that the contrary would involve a contradiction: And I take this to have been demonstrated by learned men, and need not here be largely insisted on: Only I shall set down a little of that much that hath been written by Mr. Baxter.

We may infallibly know the Christian Doctrine to be of God by his unimitable image or impression which is upon it, supposing the truth of the historical part. Likewise the truth of the hi­storical part, namely, that this doctrine was delivered by Christ and his Apostles, and that those things were done by him and them, which the Scriptures mention, we may know infalli­bly.

The Apostles and other first witnesses knew it infallibly them­selves by their present sense and reason, with the concomitance of supernatural help in remembring and attesting it.

The first Churches received the Testimony from the first wit­nesses upon naturally certain and infallible evidence, it being im­possible that those witnesses could by combination deceive the world in such matters of fact in the very age and place, when and where the things are pretended to be done and said: And these Churches had the concomitance of supernatural attestation in themselves by the supernatural gifts of the Holy Ghost, and by miracles wrought by them.

The Christians or Churches of the next age received the testi­mony from those of the first with a greater evidence of natural infallible Certainty; for that the Doctrine was delivered to them in the records of sacred Scripture, and both the miracles and re­porters were more numerous, and they were dispersed over much of the world: and with these also was the supernatural evidence of miracles.

We of the present age receive it insallibly from the Churches of all precedent ages successively to this day by the same way, with greater advantages in some respects, and with lesser in others; not upon the Churches bare authority, but the natural Cerainty of the infallible tradition of the Holy Scriptures or records of this religion, and of the perpetual exercise thereof according to those records in all essential points, wherein it was naturally im­possible for the precedent ages to impose falshoods upon the sub­sequent: And this rational evidence of the Churches tradition was in conjunction with the histories of heathens, and the con­cessions of the Churches enemies, infidels and hereticks, all which [Page 95]did acknowledg the verity of the matters of fact.

There is natural evidence of the impossibility, that all the witnesses and reporters, being so many, of such condition, and in such circumstances, should agree to deceive, and never be detected; for there is no possible sufficient cause that so many thousand belie­vers and reporters in so many several countries throughout the world should be deceived, or be herein mad or sensless; and that those many thousands should be able in these matters unanimously to agree to deceive more than themselves into a belief of the same untruth in the very time and place where the things were said to be done: And no sufficient cause can be given, but that some among so many malicious enemies should have detected the deceit, especially considering the numbers of Apostates, and the contentions of Heriticks.

Besides all this, there is a succession of the same spirit of Wis­dom and Goodness, which was in the Apostles and their hearers, continued to this day, and is wrought by their Doctrine.

§ 20. Of the infallible Knowledg of the Sense of Scrip­ture.

AS we may be infallibly certain of the Divine Authority of the Holy Scripture, so likewise of the sence of the Scrip­ture at least in points fundamental or essential to the Christian Religion, and that without an infallible Teacher.

We may certainly know, that an interpretation of Scripture repugnant to the common reason of mankind, and to sense right­ly circumstantiated, is impossible to be true; if we can certainly know any thing is impossible to be true; and consequently we may infallibly know it.

The sence of Scripture in many things, and those most mate­rial to Christian faith and life, is so evident from the plain, open and ample expression thereof, that he that runs may read it, if his understanding be notoriously prejudiced: And if we cannot know the said sense to be necessarily true, we can know nothing to be so, and so we are at uncertainty for every thing.

It will surely be granted by all, that we may as certainly know the sense of Scripture in things plainy and amply expressed, as the sense of any other writings, as for instance of the Writings of Eu­clide in the definitions and axioms in which men are universally agreed.

If any say the words in which the said definitions and axiomes are expressed, may possibly bear another sense, it is answered, That they may, absolutely considered; because words which have their sense ad placitum, and from common use, being absolutely consi­dered, may have a divers sense from what they have by common use; but those words being respectively considered as setled by use, cannot possibly bear another sense, unless we imagine the grea­test absurdity imaginable in the Writer. Besides, they that pretend the possibility of another sense, I suppose do mean sense, and not nonsense. And how a divers sense of all those words in Euclide, that is not pure nonsense, should arise out of the same words, and so conjoined, is by me incomprehensible.

But if the possibility of the thing be comprehensible, or so great an absurdity be imaginable in a Writer led only by a humane spi­rit, it is not imaginable in Writers divinely inspired. That the Holy Ghost should write unintelligibly, and wholly diversly from the common use of words in things absolutely necessary to salvati­on, is impossible.

If an infallible Teacher be necessary to give the sense of Scrip­ture in all things, and no other sense than what is so given, can be safely rested in, then either the right sense of that infallible Teach­ers words, if he be at a distance, cannot be known but by some o­ther present infallible Teacher, or else that pretended infallible Tea­cher is more able or more willing to ascertain us of his meaning, than the Holy Spirit of God in Scripture.

To speak of seeking the meaning of Scripture from the sense that the Catholick Church hath thereof, is but vain talk. For first, the Catholick church never yet hath, and never is like to come toge­ther till the day of judgment, to declare their sense of the things in question; nor have they written it in any book or number of books. 2. Never did any true Representative of the Catholick Church, or any thing like it, as yet come together, or any way declare what is their sense of the Scripture, and the things in question; nor is ever like to do▪ 3. Tho it be granted that the Catholick Church cannot err in the essentials of Christian Religion, as indeed no true member thereof can (for it would involve a contradiction); yet there is no assurance from Scripture or Reason, but that a great, if not the greater part of the Catholick Church may err in the in­tegrals, much more in the accidentals of Religion; yea, there is no assurance from Scripture or Reason, but that the whole Catho­lick [Page 97]Church may err at least per vices in the several parts thereof, some in one thing, some in another; And all this is testified by experience in the great diversities of opinions about these things, in the several parts of the Catholick Church; yea, and by the difference of judgment and practise of the larger parts thereof, even from those among us who hold this principle of the necessi­ty of standing to their judgment.

Wherefore shall we think that God puts men upon such dissi­culties, yea, impossibilities of finding out the true meaning of the Holy Scriptures, at least in the main points of Christianity? Surely God requires of us no more than he hath given, and that is to make use of the faculties wherewith he hath indued us. How can we apprehend any doctrine, or the sense of any written word, but by our faculty of understanding? And how can we make judgment thereof, I mean a judgment of discretion, but by ma­king use of our own reason?

This is not to subject matters of Religion to a private Spirit, but to refer them to the Divine Authority of Scripture, to be ap­prehended in the right and due use of reason, which is a publick and evident thing, and lies open to the trial and judgment of all men.

§ 21. What Certainty is necessary to the being of saving Faith.

THUS upon the grounds before laid we may have a natural infallible Certainty of the verity of the Christian Religi­on, and the divine authority of the Scripture, and of the sense of Scripture. It remains to be considered, Whether the having of this Certainty both of the Christian Religion, and of the Scripture, be necessary to the being of saving Faith.

Here let it be noted, That a person may have some doubting of a matter, whereof he sees no just cause of doubting: And howsoever men may possibly argue against this assertion, yet ex­perience makes it good▪ And there is sufficient reason for it in the infirmity of our minds contracted by the fall, whereby oft­times we are confident of the things, which we see we have just cause to doubt of, or disbelieve; and whereby we doubt of the things, that we see we have just cause most firmly to believe. I take this to be evident in that saying, I believe, Lord help my un­belief: [Page 98]And against this it cannot be said, here is an effect with­out a sufficient cause; for tho there be no sufficient ground or reason of the doubt; yet, for it being a defect, there is a sufficient cause, namely, the infirmity of the mind.

He that said to our Saviour, I believe, Lord help mine unbelief, had saying faith: And his faith that he professed, and his unbe­lief that he complained of, appears by the context not to relate to his interest in Christ, but to Christ himself, as able to help him; And so from this instance it is evident, that the not having of an infallible certainty of the object, denies not the being of saving faith, at least, where a man is so far clear, as to see no just cause of doubt, tho he do somewhat doubt.

A man that sees not a sufficient evidence to be infallibly assured touching the firmness of the grounds for the receiving of the Christian Doctrine, and yet sees no sufficient evidence for the re­jecting of that doctrine, may from the consideration of the im­portance of the things therein treated of, and the probability of the truth of those things, be induced intirely and heartily to imbrace that doctrine, with purpose to live accordingly, and to perform that purpose.

That this may be, is evident; for humane prudence doth strongly oblige a man in that case to make such a choice for him­self; and if he doth not make such choice, he doth not act with the understanding of a man. But if it be said, that the cor­ruption of humane nature would be too hard for humane pru­dence in the case: I answer, That God can give that assistance of his Grace, whereby a mans will shall be inabled to make its choice according to prudence, against its naturally corrupt inclination: And God can give this assistance very congruously, or agreea­bly to his holy Wisdom.

Whosoever in the case aforesaid doth make such a choice, and live accordingly, hath saving faith: For his so doing doth imply an unfeigned love to, and preferring of God, and Christ and Holi­ness, above all that is in the world, and so must needs suppose faith unfeigned; and God proceeding according to his Grace in Christ, will not impute unto condemnation such a ones culpable de­fect of Certainty in the matters of Faith, which doth not hinder his sincere trust in God through Christ, and his intire and hearty love to him.

§ 22. Of our Certainty of being in the State of Grace.

IT may lastly be inquired, What Certainty one may have of his being in the state of grace? As for the Certainty of Sal­vation, that is a different inquiry, and depends on another questi­on, touching the Certainty of perseverance in a justified state, which is not here to be medled with; and we inquire not whe­ther one may be certain of his being in the state of Grace by special revelation, but in an ordinary way.

That any one ordinarily should have certain knowledg of his being in the state of Grace, supposeth his certain knowledg of these two things. 1. That God hath declared in his word that they which have such and such qualifications, are in the state of Grace. 2. That he himself is so qualified; For it is the conclu­sion of these two premises, the one whereof is the object of di­vine faith, and the other of a clear and right self-knowledg. The Certainty of the former, viz. That God hath declared persons so qualified to be in the state of Grace, none deny, that acknow­ledg the Certainty of Christs Gospel. The Certainty of the lat­ter is the matter of debate, whether it be possible, and whether it ought to be had.

It is not inquired, Whether the Certainty of the latter, viz. Whether the person himself be so qualified, be a Certainty of di­vine faith: For the object of such Certainty is only what God hath revealed, that this or that man hath faith and repentance, but this is only a point of self-knowledg.

Here interpose we something of the doctrine of Protestants and Papists about the Certainty of this matter.

The Protestants in asserting, that the Certainty of being in the state of Grace, is a Certainty of divine faith, do mean no more, but that one of the propositions, viz. Whosoever unfeignedly believes, is justified, rests solely on the Word of God; and the o­ther, viz. I unfeignedly believe, is known by internal sence, and experience. But whether the conclusion, Therefore I am justifi­ed, or in the state of Grace, be rightly called a conclusion of di­vine faith, I leave to others to judg, not caring to strive about words, when the thing it self is agreed upon: And doubtless no sober Protestant will assert that the Certainty which we have of this conclusion, is a Certainty of the same reason, with that which we have of an article of faith, either so firmness or ne­cessity.

The Papists in denying the Certainty of Justification to be a Certainty of Divine Faith, do not deny all Certainty thereof; but mean that it is not of the same reason with the Certainty which we have of an Article of Faith: Because, tho one of the premises on which it is founded, be an Article of Faith, yet the other is known but by internal sence, and the testimony of con­science.

As to the later of the premises, which is known but by internal sence and experience, consider we whether a man may and ought to have a Certainty therein, and of what sort it is. On the one hand, doubtless it is not such a Certainty as expels all fear of care­fulness: On the other hand, it is doubtless such a Certainty at least, as expels anxiety, and is sufficient to settle the peace of con­science: And I think in this both Papists and Protestants do a­gree.

There is a Certainty that expels all apprehension that the con­trary may be true, whereof this is an instance, That there were such persons as Alexander the Great, and Julius Cesar: and this hath gained the name of moral Certainty, tho I think it may be called natural, as grounded on naturally certain evidence: And that a man may have such a Certainty of his unfeigned faith, is held by Protestants in general, and some Papists.

Nevertheless the Papists in general grant not this kind, but on­ly a lower kind of Certainty hereof, which they call conjectu­ral: yet they tell us, that it is certainty truly so called, that it ex­pels fluctuation and suspence, and brings peace, and joy, and secu­rity; and withal they say, that the Just believe indeed, that they are not herein deceived, but not that they cannot be deceived: But how this lower kind can be certainty properly so called, I see not; For an apprehension that the thing is otherwise than I think, excludes all Certainty properly or strictly so called.

The above said moral Certainty of justification, or being in the state of Grace, is not attained by all justified persons; and where it is attained, it is not ordinarily continued without interruption, nor ordinarily in the same degree, because justified persons, even the best of them, do not continue without interruption in the same degree of faith and holiness, on the internal sense whereof this Certainty depends.

§ 1: What was anciently a Bishops Church.

THE Name Church is the first and only Scripture-name properly belonging to a Bishops charge. In the beginning of Christianity, Bishops or Pa­stors had their Churches in Cities or Towns: And commonly the Converts of the Adjacent Villages were by reason of their paucity taken in as parts of the City Congregation, and all made but one particular Church, the members whereof had local Communion with each other: Ac­cordingly, the name of city applied to a Bishops charge, could be but extrinsecal, it being not the name of the thing it self, but on­ly of the place where it was congregate. The name of Parish came next in use for the said charge; And this name is still in use for a particular Church or Congregation, which hath its proper and immediate Bishop or Pastor. The word Diocess, as relating to a Bishop, was unknown for several ages of Christianity; but afterwards it was borrowed from civil use, and applied to the Church. A Diocess was one of the larger divisions of the Roman Empire, and comprehended several Provinces. Accordingly when [Page 102]it was first applied to the Church, it was used for the same cir­cuit; and as a Province was the charge of a Metropolitan, who had many Bishops under him; so a Diocess was the charge of a Patriarch, who had many Metropolitans under him: And ac­cording to this sence there was a Canon made to forbid the run­ning for ordination, without the Diocess, that is, without or beyond the foresaid patriarchal circuit. But the use of the word for the charge of such a Bishop, as had no Bishops but only Pres­byters under him, came up in latter times.

From the first and only Scripture-name properly belonging to a Bishops charge, it is inferred, that a Bishop and a particular Church are correlates. A particular Church as such, hath its own proper Bishop; and a Bishop as such, hath his particular Church, as his proper and immediate charge.

The bishops Church was anciently but one society Ecclesiasti­cal, which might and did personally meet together at once, or by turns, for Worship and Discipline under the same immediate Pa­stors; which appears by the proofs here following.

1. All the members thereof, even men servants and maid-ser­vants, as well as others, might and should be known by name to the bishop. Ignat. Ep. to Policarp. Id. ad Trall. In the Pa­negyrick of Paulinus Bishop of Tyre, Euseb. lib. 10. cap. 4. It is said, 'Tis the work of a bishop to be intimately acquainted with the minds and states of every one of the flock, when by experi­ence and time he hath made inquiry into every one of them.

2. One Church had but one Altar, and consequently but one stated assembly for full Communion. Ignat. Ep. ad Philadelph. To the Presbyters and Deacons my fellow servants. If one bishop must here be taken numerically, so must one altar. The Apostles Canons, c. 5.32. make it appear there was but one altar and one bishop, with the Presbyters and Deacons, in a church. Also Coun­cil Antiochen. c. 5. Hereupon Mr. Mede saith, that before dioces­ses were divided into parishes, they had not only one altar in one church or dominicum, but one altar to a church, taking church for the company or corporation of the faithful united under one bishop or pastor, and that was in the city or place where the bishop had his Sea or Residence. Add hereunto, that to set up another altar, was accounted a note of schism.

3. Each single church had its proper and immediate bishop. Ig­nat. ad Philad. as before; to every church one altar, one bishop. [Page 103]He shews also, that without a bishop, the state of a church exists not, Ep. ad Smyrn. Wheresoever the bishop appears, there is the church; as wheresoever Jesus Christ appears, there is the Catho­lick church. A particular church was then no larger than that where the bishop appeared. Id. ad Trall. The bishop is a type of the highest father; and the Presbyters are as the [...] of God, and the bond of Apostolical concord, Ib. Be subject to the bishop, likewise to the presbyters and deacons. This shews that the bi­shop and presbyters were together in one and the same particular church, and jointly took the immediate charge of the flock.

4. Some of the Ancients testifie, that the Apostles placed only bishops without presbyters, in some churches. Epiphan. Heres. 65.

5. Concerning the largeness of a bishops church, let that in­stance of Gregory Thaumaturgus be considered. He was made bi­shop of Neocaesarea, when he had but seventeen Christians; after­wards when many were converted at Comana, a small town that was near, he did not make it a part of his own diocess, but ordain­ed Alexander the Collier, a right worthy person, to be their bi­shop. And they were of no greater number than what met to chuse him, and hear him preach.

6. The ordinary work of a bishop, shews that it was but one single church that he had charge of. Justin Martyr setting forth the manner of the church assemblies, tells us, that the President himself preached, gave thanks, administred the Eucharist, and ex­ercised discipline. Tertullian de corona Militis, c. 3. saith, We take the Sacrament of the Eucharist from the hand of no other than of the President. It is to be noted, that in those times they received the Sacrament at least every Lords day. And it is confessed by E­piscopal Divines, that this President was the bishop. But if any say that he was a meer presbyter, they must grant that a presbyter had the name of President, and a governing power.

7. It is much asserted among the Hierarchical Divines, that an­ciently bishops only were allowed to preach. And if this was so, it was and could be but one single church that a bishop had as his immediate charge; for we cannot imagine that there were chur­ches which ordinarily had no preaching, or in which preaching was not ordinarily allowed; yea, the presbyters might not bap­tize without the bishops command or consent. This shews that each particular church had its proper bishop.

8. That church in which divine worship was performed, had also discipline exercised in it, Tertul. Apol. c. 39.

9. The bishops church was no greater than that all the people could meet together and chuse their bishop. In Cyprian's time, at the ordaining of a bishop, the next bishops came to the people, for whom the bishop was to be ordained, and every one was acquaint­ed with his conversation, Cypr. lib. 1. Ep. 4. Erasmus Edit. to Fe­lix a presbyter. Nor let the people flatter themselves as free from the contagion of the sin, when they communicate with a priest that is a sin­ner—They ought to separate themselves from him, seeing they chiefly have the power either of chusing worthy, or refusing unworthy priests. Sacerdotal Ordinations ought not to be made, but under the conscience of the assisting people.—The custom is with us, and almost through­out all provinces, That to the celebrating of Ordinations, all the next b [...]shops of the same province assemble with the people to whom the Prae­positus is ordained. To the same purpose we find much in very many of his Epistles. This was the ordinary course of the first A­ges, for all the people to chuse their bishops, and to be present thereat; for which a multitude of testimonies may easily be pro­duced.

10. Apost. Can. c. 5. shew, that the bishop with his presby­ters and deacons lived on the gifts of the same altar. 'Twas the cu­stom of bishops and their presbyters to dwell together, and be in common.

11. The numerousness of the ancient bishops and their churches, shew, that those churches were of no large extent. In the first council of Carthage it was decreed, c. 11. That for examining eve­ry ordinary cause of an accused presbyter, six bishops out of the neighbouring-places were to hear and determine; and for every cause of a deacon, three bishops.

It is reported that Patrick planted in Ireland three hundred sixty five churches, and as many bishops. In the Vandalick persecuti­on six hundred and sixty bishops fled out of one part of Africa, besides all that were murthered, imprisoned, and tolerated. Many proofs hereof might be alledged; but in general it sufficeth to note, That a great number of bishops could on a sudden meet to­gether in a Provincial Assembly, as in the sixth council of Carthage two hundred and seventeen bishops were met. And in the times of persecution under the heathen Emperors, there were numerous Assemblies of bishops when they went in fear of their lives.

12. The paucity of Presbyters in a Bishops Church shews that it was not very large. In greater Churches they had a greater number of presbyters, but in smaller they had often two, sometimes one, sometimes none.

The matter here considered, touching the ancient form and state of a bishops Church, will be further cleared in the follow­ing Sections.

§ 2. Of the place where a Bishops Church anciently was and might be constituted.

THAT every City, which had a competent number of Christians, had a bishop with his Church, is granted on all sides: And that it was not a bishops seat which made that a Ci­ty, which otherwise would not have been so, but that every Town or Burrough was a City receptive or capable of a bi­shop, cannot reasonably be denied. The Scripture useth the word City for any Town or Burrough, Mat. 12.25. Mat. 23.34. Luk. 2.3. Luk. 7.11. Act. 15 21. Crete, which was called [...], could not have a Hundred cities in it, unless such as our Burroughs; and in every such city the Rule was to ordain elders or bishops, Tit. 1.5.

What argument from Scripture, or reason, can be brought, why Worcester, Glocester, Chichester, &c. should be made Cities and seats of Bishops, rather than Shrewsbury, Ipswich, Blimouth, &c? In the first ages of the Christian Church all Towns were Cities to this intent without any difference; Yea any places of greater confluence of people were in the same capacity of having Churches.

Theophilus Alexandrius Epist. Pascal. in Bibliotheca Patrum 3 Tom. mentions Bishops in very small Cities. Zozomen saith, that Spiridion was bishop of the Town Trimethus, and said to be Keeper of sheep in that Town after he was bishop.

There is also sufficient proof that bishops were ordained in Vil­lages, or in places that were no Cities. Majuma was the port of Gaza, and because it had many Christians, it was honoured by Constantine with the name of a City, and a bishop of its own: And when Julian in malice took from it the honour of being a City, it still kept its own bishop; tho it had the same Magistrates [Page 106]and Military Governours with Gaza: And when the bishop of Gaza sought to subject the Clergy of Majuma to himself, saying, 'twas unmeet that one City should have two bishops, a Councel in Palestine called for that purpose, confirmed the pri­viledges of Majuma, Sozomen. l. 5. cap. 3.

Cenchrea was but a Port of Corinth, as Pyraeus of Athens, yet we find a Church constituted there, Rom. 16.1. They who say it was a parish subordinate to the Church of Corinth, having only a presbyter assigned to it, are bound to prove it. Clemens Apostolical constitutions, lib. 7. c. 84. saith, that Cenchrea near Corinth, had Lucius a bishop.

Sozomen l. 7. c 19. saith, when throughout Scythia there are many Cities which have all one bishop, there are other Nati­ons, where bishops are ordained in villages, as among the Arabi­ans, and Cyprians, and Phrygian Montanists.

In the Counccil of Sardica, Can. 6. it was decreed, that bi­shops may not be ordained in villages or in small cities, where one presbyter will suffice, lest the name and authority of a bishop should become vile: But this was done in the middle of the fourth Century, and the decree implies, that till then bishops had been allowed in villages and small Cities.

The Chorepiscopi were placed in country villages, when Chri­stians grew so numerous as to have Churches in them: and this proves that the Churches then kept in a narrow compass. The Canons made to express this sort of Ministers, and to turn them into the [...] (as the 57th Canon of the Laodicean Coun­cel) do shew that bishops with their Churches had been consti­tuted in villages, tho in some dependance on the City-bishop. Mr. Beverege in his Annotations on Council Anchyram c. 13. shews, that the the Chorepiscopi were truly bishops, tho the exer­cise of some Episcopal functions were denied them by the Ca­nons, and by the Canon last mentioned they were not absolutely forbidden to ordain presbyters and deacons, but that they should not do it without the permission of the City-bishop, under whom they were.

§ 3. Of divers Cities having two Bishops at once.

THERE are many instances in the antiquity of two bishops allowed at once in the same City: Narcissus and Alexan­der were bishops of Jerusalem at the same time, Euseb. Hist. l. 6. c. 9, 10. Ignatius and Euodius were both bishops of Antioch at the same time. Clemens const. l. 7.46. At Rome, Linus and Cl [...]tus were fellow bishops in Peters days, Platina in the life of St. Peter. Epiphanius, heresy 68, concerning Meletius, saith, Alexandria had not anciently two Bishops as other Cities had. Austin was made Bishop of Hippo in the days of Valerius, and joined with him as his colleague in the Episcopal function. Aug. Epist. 34. to Paulinus: And some learned men of the hierarchical way con­ceive that Peter and Paul were bishops of Rome at the same time, the one of the Circumcision, and the other of the Uncircumci­sion.

The Nicene Council was the first that decreed, that universally there should be but one bishop in a City, Can. 8. If any that come from the Novations to the Catholick Church be a bishop, let him have the dignity of Priesthood, unless it please the Ca­tholick bishop to give him also the honour of the Episcopal Name: If it doth not please him, let him find a place for him, that he may be a Chorepiscopus in the parish, or a presbyter in the Clergy, that there may not seem to be two bishops in one City.

As concerning the Catalogues of the ancient bishops in great Cities, wherein the succession is by one single person after another. It may be considered, That Historians being of later ages, had respect to the custom of their own times, wherein the Episcopa­cy resided in one: And when anciently there were two or more equal in the name and authority of a Bishop, the survivor was reckoned the successor, whenas he was indeed but the surviving colleague: Some do thus labour to remove the contradictions of Historians touching the order of the succession of the first bi­shops of Rome, Linus, Cletus, Anacletus, &c. by supposing that these or some of them were presbyters or bishops at the same time, ruling that Church in common, and that the following wri­ters fancying to themselves such bishops as were set up in the Church in their times, fell into those diversities of tradition.

§ 4. Of the more late Erection of many Parishes under one bishop.

IT is acknowedged by all parties, that Christians in great Ci­ties were not divided into divers fixed Congregations or Pa­rishes till long after the Apostles days: And tho, when they were multiplied, they had divers meeting-places, yet those pla­ces were promiscuously frequented, and the people were taught and governed by all the Presbyters in common, and were called but one Church. It is observed by Epiphanius, Heres. 68. n. 6. That it was the Custom only at Alexandria to have one presi­dent in the whole City, and to distribute the presbyters to teach severally, vid. Grot. Annot. on 1 Tim. 5.17. Seldens Comment on Eutych. Origin. Alexand. p. 85.

And most agree, that it was two hundred and sixty years after Christ, before parishes were distinguished: And there must be a distinction of parishes, before there could be a union of them into Diocesses.

§ 5. That Bishops and Presbyters are of the same order. The Testimony of later times concerning it.

THat this is not the opinion only of those who are now called Presbyterians, let the testimonies both of ancient and later times touching this point be considered. I begin with those of later times.

The French and Belgick Confessions assert the parity of order of all Ministers of the Gospel.

Reynold Peacock bishop of Chichester wrote a book de Ministro­rum aqualitate, which the Papists caused to be burnt.

Vid. Erasmus his Annotations on 1 Tim. 4.

Cassanders consult. Article 14. saith, It is agreed among all, that of old in the Apostles days, there was no difference between bishops and presbyters; but for orders sake, and avoiding of schism, a bishop was put before a presbyter. This his opinion he delivered to the Emperor of Germany, being sent for by him to inform his conscience about such questions.

In the time of King Henry the Eighth, there was published a book by Cranmer and others called the bishops book, wherein is affirmed, that the difference of bishops was a device of the an­cient fathers, not mentioned in Scripture. An. 1537. In the book cal­led the Institution of a Christian man, made by the Clergy in a provincial synod, and set forth by the Kings Authority, and ap­proved by the Parliament, it is asserted, That the Fathers of the succeeding Church, after the Apostles, instituted certain inferior degrees of Ministry; yet in the New Testament no mention is made of any degrees or distinctions in orders, but only of Dea­cons or Ministers, and of presbyters or bishops. The Parlia­ment Divines at the Treaty in the Isle of Wight in their Answer to the King, say, This doctrine of the sameness of the order of a bishop and presbyter, was published by King Henry the Eighth, An. 1543. to be received by all the subjects, and was seen and ap­proved by the Lords, both spiritual and temporal, and by the lower house of Parliament: The words of the book are, The Scripture mentions these two orders only, to wit, Presbyters and Deacons, and the Apostles confirming them by prayer and imposi­tion of hands.

Mr. Mede discourse 5. on 1 Cor. 4 1. saith, there are proper­ly but two orders Ecclesiastical, Presbyters and Deacons, the rest are but divers degrees of these two.

Dr. Hammonds opinion concerning bishops and presbyters, is thus declared in his Annotations on Acts 11. Altho the Title of Elders hath extended to a second order in the Church, and now is in use only for them; yet in the Scripture-times it belonged principally, if not alone, to the bishops, there being no evidence that any of that second order were then instituted in the Chur­ches. Now if in Scripture-times presbyters of an inferior or­der to bishops were not instituted (as this learned man suppo­seth) it is evident, that all those Church-officers called presby­ters, mentioned in Scripture, were bishops; and if this inferior order of presbyters be not to be found in Scripture, I desire to know, what proof can be made of its divine institution.

Many, if not most, Papists acknowledg, that presbytery is the highest order in the ministry, and that Episcopacy is but a diffe­rent degree of the same order: And it is no resolved point of faith among them, whether bishops differ from presbyters only in degree, or in order and office.

Catalogus Testium veritatis, Tom. 2 reports, that Wicklief held but two orders of ministers, Walsing. Hist. in Rich. 2 p. 205. saith, That it was one of Wickliefs errors, that every priest rightly or­dained had power to administer all Sacraments.

Dr. Reynolds in his Epistle to Sir Francis Knolls shews, That they who had laboured for Reformation of the Church for five hundred years past, held that all pastors, be they intituled bi­shops or priests, have equal authority by the Word of God.

Ockham a great Schoolman, faith, that by Christs institution all priests of whatsoever degree, are of equal authority, power and jurisdiction, Catal. Test. Verit. Richardus de Media Villa in 4 Sent. distinct. 24 q. 2. saith, That Episcopacy is to be called not an order, which is a Sacrament; but rather a certain dignity of an order. Council Colon. Enchirid. Christ. Religion Paris edit. An. 1558. p. 169. of holy orders, saith, bishops and presbyters were the same order in the primitive church, as all the Epistles of Pe­ter and Paul, and Jerom also, and almost all the Fathers witness. Richardus Armachanus l. 9. c. 5. ad quest. Armen. saith, There is not found in the Evangelical or Apostolical Scripture any diffe­rence between bishops and simple priests, called presbyters. It. lib. 11. q. Arm. c. 5. Johan. Semeca in his gloss, dist. 95. c. Olim, saith, In the first primitive church the name and offices be­gan to be distinguished, and the prelation was for the remedy of Schism. Gratian distinct. 60 c. null. ex. urb. pap. saith, The pri­mitive church had only those two holy orders, presbyterate and diaconate; And Dr. Reynolds saith, That this was once en­rolled in the Canon-Law for sound doctrine. Peter Lombard the father of the Schoolmen, Lib. 4. distinct. 24. tit. 1. saith the same, and that of these two Orders only we have the Apostles precept. Sixtus Senensis heaps up the testimonies of others upon his own, to the same thing.

§ 6. The Testimony of Antiquity for the identity of Bishops and Presbyters.

HERE I first observe by way of preface, That Michael Medina de Sacr. Orig. accusing Jerome of holding the sameness of bishops and presbyters, saith, that Ambrose, Austin, Sedulius, Primasius, Chrysostome, Theodoret, Oecumenius; Theophy­lact, [Page 111]were in the same Heresie, as Bellarmine reports him, lib. 4. de Eccles. Milit. c. 9. The same Medina gives this reason why Je­rome, Austin, and others of the Fathers fell into this Heresie (as he calls it, because this point was not then clearly determined of, Hist. of the Council of Trent. lib. 7. p. 570. And Bellarmin. de clero, l. 1 c. 15. saith, that this Medina assures us, That St. Je­rome was of Aerius his opinion in this point. Touching Aerius, Whitaker Controv. 2. q. 5. saith, that he was not accounted an Heretick by all, but by Eustathius who opposed him. Dr. Reynolds in his Epist. to Sir Francis Knolls, shews out of bishop Jewel, that Chrysostome, Jerome, Ambrose, Austin, Theodoret, Primasius, Sedu­lius, Theophylact, and most of the ancient Fathers, held that bishops and presbyters are one in Scripture, with whom Oecumenius and Anselm of Canterbury, and another Anselm, and Gregory, and Gratian, agree.

§ 7. Testimonies to prove, That the Episcopal Authority is really in the Presbyters.

1. THAT Presbyters have the power of the keys, and that the Apostles received it as Presbyters, is commonly agreed on all sides. Mr. Thorndike in his form of primitive Government and Right of Churches, p. 128. saith, That the power of the keys, that is, the power of the Church, whereof that power is the root and source, is common to bishops and presbyters. Bishop Morton in his Apology, Dr. Field, and many others, say much more.

2. Presbyters have the power of jurisdiction and discipline, particularly of excommunication and absolution. Spalatensis proves, that the power of excommunication and absolution is not different from the power of the keys, which is exercised in foro poenitentiali, and is acknowledged to belong to presbyters, L. 5, c. 9. n. 2. l. 5. c. 2. n. 48, &c. Jerome in his Epistle to Heliodor, saith, If I sin, a presbyter may deliver me to Satan. In the Church of England a presbyter is set to pass the sentence of excommuni­cation in the Chancellors Court, tho he doth but speak the words when the Court bids him. Tertullian in his Apology c. 59. saith, that probati quique seniores, all the approved Elders did exercise discipline in the Church.

Clemens Alexandrinus Strom. l. 7. saith, that in the Church the presbyters keep that discipline which makes men better. Irenaeus l. 4. c. 44. With the order of presbytery they keep the doctrine of the Apostles sound, and their conversation without offence, un­to the information and correction of the rest. This place shews, that discipline for correction as well as doctrine for information, did belong to the presbyters. Epiphanius haeres. 42. reports, that Marcion was expell'd by the Roman presbyters, the Sea being va­cant. Id Heres. 47. That Noetus was convicted, judged, and expelled by a session of presbyters. Many Diocesses have been long without bishops upon several occasions, and governed all that time by presbyters. Vid. Blondels Apol. sect. 3. p. 183, 184. The Church of England allows presbyters in the Convocation to make Canons. Also it allows presbyters to keep persons from the Communion of the Church for some offences, and to receive them [Page 118]again if they repent. To say that the presbyters cannot exercise this power without the bishops consent, doth not derogate from the truth of their power herein; for in some ancient times it was so ordered, that presbyters could perform [...]o sacred ministrations without their bishop. They might not baptize (as hath been ob­served) without the bishops command; but that limitation re­spected only the exercise of the power, but not the power in it self.

3. Presbyters have power of ordaining, Acts 13.1, 2, 3. The Church of Antioch had not many Prelates at that time, if any; but the prophets and teachers there are mentioned as Ordainers. Whereas some say they were bishops of many Churches in Syria; they speak without proof, and against the text, which saith, there were in the church that was at Antioch, certain prophets and teach­ers, &c. which clearly expresseth, that they all belonged to that Church: this right of presbyters is confirmed by the passages before cited, concerning the ordaining and making the bishops of Alexandria by the presbyters of that Church. Firmilian in Cyprian, Ep. 75. saith of them that Rule in the Church, that they have the power of baptizing, of laying on of hands, and ordaining; and who they be, he expressed a little before, viz. Seniors and Praepositi, by which the presbyters as well as the bi­shops are understood. Foelicissimus was ordained a deacon by Novatus, one of Cyprians presbyters, schismatically; yet his or­dination was not nulled by Cyprian, but he was deposed for mal­administration. The first Council of Nice in their Epistle to the Church of Alexandria, and all the Churches of Egypt, Libia, and Pentapolis, thus determine concerning the presbyters ordained by Meletius [Socrat. l. 1. c. 6.] Let those that by the grace of God, and helped by our prayers, are found to have turned aside to no schism, but have contained themselves within the bounds of the Ca­tholick and Apostolick Church, free from spot of error, have autho­rity of ordaining Ministers, and also of nominating those that are worthy of the Clergy, &c. Now tho they had not this power granted them to be exercised apart without their bishop; yet it is to be noted, that they had the power, tho the Bishop as president guided in all those acts. The Author of the Comment on the Ephesians, that goes under the name of Ambrose, saith, That in Egypt the presbyters ordain (consignant) if the bishop be not pre­sent. Also Austin faith, that in Alexandria and all Egypt, if the [Page 119]bishop be wanting, the presbyters consecrate. Presbyters sent bi­shops into England, and ordained bishops for England. Bedes Hist. l. 3. c. 4, 5. The Abbot and other presbyters of the Island Hye, sent Aydan, &c. at King Oswalds Request; and this was the or­dinary custom; tho in respect of the custom of the Empire, it is said to be unusual. That presbyters may ordain, see Anselm on 1 Tim. 4.14. also Bucer Script. Anglic. p. 254, 255, 259, 291. The Lollards and Wickliefists in England, held and practised ordi­nation by meer presbyters, Walsingham Hist. Ang. An. 1389. so did the Lutheran protestants. Bugenhagius Pomeranus, a presby­ter of Wittenberg, ordained the Protestant bishops of Denmark in the presence of the King and Senate, in the chief Church at Hafnia. See Melchior Adam in the Life of Bugenhagius, and Chy­traeus Saxon Chronicle, l. 14, 15, 16, 17. Forbes in his Irenicum l. 2. c. 11. saith, that presbyters have a share with bishops in the imposition of hands, not only as consenting to the ordination, but as ordainers with the bishop by a power received from the Lord, and as praying for grace to be confer'd on the persons ordained by them and the bishop. That the Ancients did argue from the power of baptizing, to the power of ordaining, is evident out of the Master, lib. 4. distinct. 25.

4. Presbyters with Bishops laid on hands for Restoring the excommunicate, and blessing the people, Cyprian. Epist. 12. Nor can any return to communion, unless hands be laid upon him by the Bishop and Clergy. Vid. also Ep. 9. & 46. Id. l. 3. Ep. 14. Erasm. Edit. To the presbyters and deacons, against some pres­byters who had given the peace of the Church rashly to some of the lapsed, with the knowledg of the Bishop. In lesser offences, sinners after a just time of penance and confession, receive Right of Communication by the imposition of hands of the Bishop and Clergy. Clemens Alexandrin. paedag. p. 248. speaking against women wearing other hair than their own, saith, On whom doth the presbyter lay hands? whom doth he bless? Not on the woman adorn'd, but on anothers Hair, and thereby on anothers Head.

§ 8. Testimonies in reference to the Bishops Plea of being the Apostles Successors.

FOR the diversity of order between a bishop and a presbyter, it is alledged, That bishops are the Apostles successors, which presbyters are not. To this it is answered.

1. The ancient Fathers make presbyters as well as bishops, the successors of the Apostles. Irenaeus lib. 4. c. 43, 44. ‘We must obey the presbyters that are in the Church, even those that have succession from the Apostles, who have received the certain gift of truth according to the pleasure of the Father, with the suc­cession of Episcopacy.’ Here presbyters are said to have suc­cession from the Apostles, and to have succession of Episcopacy. This cannot be evaded by saying, he intended it only of presby­ters of a superior order, which are bishops: for this is to beg the question; and in this Father there is no footstep of any order of presbyters but what are bishops. Cyprian. l. 3. Ep. 9. ‘The Dea­cons must remember, that the Lord chose Apostles, that is, bi­shops and Praepositi; but after the ascension of the Lord, the Apostles made deacons to themselves, as Ministers of their Epi­scopacy and the Church.’ Now in the names of Bishops and Praepositi, the presbyters are included (as I have before made ma­nifest). And it is plain that in this place, all in the sacred Ministry above Deacons, are included in those names, and called Apostles. Jerome in his Epistle to Heliodor, speaks in general, that Clericks are said to sucreed the Apostolical degree. The late form of Ordi­nation in the Church of England, viz. ‘Receive the Holy Ghost; whose sins thou dost forgive, they are forgiven; and whose sins thou dost retain, they are retained; and be thou a faithful di­spenser, &c.’ is for the former part, the very form of words used by our Saviour to his Apostles, to express their Pastoral Autho­rity; and fully proves, that the office of a presbyter is Pastoral, and of the same nature with that which was ordinary in the Apo­stles, and in which they had successors.

2. Some conceive there is no proper succession to the Apostles, whose office, as to its formal state, and specifick difference, was extraordinary, and expired with their persons. And in proper speaking, the ordinary Bishops or Elders cannot be reckoned the [Page 121]successors of the Apostles, for they were contemporary with them in the first planting of the Churches, and did by divine right re­ceive and exercise their governing-power, which the Apostles did not supercede by their presence, tho it were under the regulation of their supereminent authority; and the Bishops or Elders of all succeeding ages, are properly the successors of those first bi­shops. Bellarmine l. 4. de Pontif. c. 25. saith, That bishops do not properly succeed the Apostles, because the Apostles being not ordinary, but extraordinary Pastors, have no successors; and that the Pope of Rome properly succeeds Peter, not as an Apostle, but as an ordinary pastor of the whole church.

3. Whereas some say, That the Order of bishops began in the Apostles, and the order of presbyters in the seventy disciples: it is answered, 1. As concerning the bishops order, when the Fa­thers speak of Apostles or Evangelists long residing in one church, they did by way of similitude call them bishops thereof. Rey­nolds against Hart, saith, That the Fathers when they term an Apostle the bishop of this or that City, mean in a general way, that he did attend that Church for the time, and supply that room in preaching which the bishop afterwards did. And not only the Apostles, but itinerant Ministers or Evangelists, were in such a general sence bishops of the places where they came. Paul staid at or about Ephesus three years, Acts 20.31. yet he was not bishop there in the strict and proper sense of the word. James was either no bishop of Jerusalem, or no Apostle, but as many think, another James. 2. As concerning the order of inferior pres­byters, said to be instituted in the seventy disciples, it is spoken without proof, and against Reason. Spalatensis saith, those se­venty had but a temporary commission, and therefore that he cannot affirm that Presbyterial Order was directly and imme­diately instituted in them, de Rep. Eccles. l. 2. c. 3. n. 4. Sara­via acknowledgeth, that the seventy disciples were Evangelists, de Minist. Evang. grad. c. 4.

§ 9. Testimonies concerning the Episcopacy of Timothy and Titus.

1. TImothy was not a fixed bishop. His travels we find upon sa­cred Record. When Paul went from Beraea to Athens, he [Page 122]left Silas and Timothy behind him, Acts 17.14. Afterwards they coming to Paul at Athens, Paul sent Timothy thence to Thessa­lonica, to confirm the Christians there, 1 Thes. 3.6. An. C. 47. Thence he returned to Athens again, and Paul sent him and Si­las thence into Macedonia, Acts 18.5. and thence they returned to Paul at Corinth, An. 48. Afterwards they travel to Ephesus, whence Paul sent Timothy and Erastus into Macedonia, Acts 19.22 whither Paul went after them, An. 51. from Macedonia they with divers brethren journied into Asia, Acts 20.4. and come to Miletum, where Paul sent to Ephesus to call the elders of the Church, An. 53. Then Paul did not leave Timothy as Bishop of Ephesus, but took him with him in his journey to Jerusalem, and so to Rome: for those Epistles which Paul wrote while he was prisoner at Rome, bear either in their inscription, or some other passage, the name of Timothy, as Pauls companion, viz. the Epi­stles to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, to the Colossians, to the Hebrews and to Philemon. Pauls beseeching of Timothy, to abide still at Ephesus, when he went into Macedonia, 2 Tim. 1.3. had been needless, if he were then a setled bishop there. Besides, it is granted, that Timothy was not bishop of Ephesus, when he was with Paul at Miletum; yet that Church had then elders, which the Holy Ghost had made Bishops. Therefore it cannot be, that Timothy was the first Bishop that ever Ephesus had, which ne­vertheless is affirmed in the Postscript of the second epistle to Timothy. Spalatensis, lib. 2 c. 3. n. 60. saith, That without doubt Timothy was a General bishop, that is, an Apostle tyed to no seat.

2. Titus was no fixed Bishop. His travels we likewise find up­on sacred record. Paul made him his companion in his journey to Jerusalem, Gal. 2.1. An. 43, 45. Paul returning to Antioch, passed through Syria and Cilicia, confirming the Churches, Acts 15.41. from Cilicia he passed to Creet, where having preached the Go­spel, and planted a Church, he left Titus for a while to set in or­der the things that were left undone, Tit. 1.5. An. 46. Paul in­joins Titus to come to him to Nicopolis, where he intend­ed to Winter, Tit. 3.12. an. 51. but changing his purpose, he sent for him to Ephesus, where his Winter-station was, 2 Cor. 1.8. thence he sent him to Corinth, to enquire of the state of that Church. His return from thence, Paul expected at Troas; and because there he sound not his expectation answered, he was grie­ved [Page 123]in spirit, 2 Cor. 2.12. Thence Paul passed into Macedonia, where Titus met him, and brought him the glad tidings of the gracions effect which his first Epistle had wrought among the Co­rinthians, 2 Cor. 7.5, &c. an. 52. Paul having collected the libe­rality of the Saints, sends Titus, an. 53. again to the Corinthians, to prepare them for that contribution, 2 Cor. 8.6. And we do not find, that after his first removal from Creet, he did ever re­turn thither. After this we read, that Titus was with Paul at Rome, and went thence not to Creet, but to Dalmatia, 2 Tim. 4.10. It is to be noted, that after the time of Titus his being in Creet, was the greatest part of his travels. And if Titus did abide some years in Creet, that doth not declare him to be a fixed bishop there; for unfixed Ministers were not so obliged to perpetual motion, but that they resided long in one place, according to the work to be done there, as Paul abode three years at Ephesus.

3. Of Timothy and Titus jointly, these following things may be observed: In the New Testament there is no instance of a set­led Overseer or Pastor, whose motion was so planetary as theirs; and there is no evidence that afterwards they return'd to reside at Ephesus or Creet: it is granted by the assertors of their sup­posed Episcopacy, that they were not bishops till after Pauls first being at Rome. Now the first Epistle to Timothy, and the Epistle to Titus, were written by Paul before his first going to Rome; and his second Epistle to Timothy was written at his first being at Rome, Vid. Ludov. Capellus Histor. Eccles. p. 66, 74. All that aver Timothy and Titus to be bishops, borrow their testimony from Eusebius; and all that he saith, is only that it is so written; and he had this story from the fabulous Clemont, and from Egesippus, who is not extant. It is observed that Eus [...]bius, Irenaeus, and o­thers, delivered what they received, too securely.

4. Touching the Postscripts of the Epistles, in which they are stiled bishops, whether they be canonical or authentick proof, let it be considered. It cannot be imagined that Paul or his Pen-man would underwrite these wards, viz. The first Epistle to Timothy was written, &c. and the second Epistle to Timotheus, ordained the first bishop, &c. Did he know or mind that there would be a se­cond epistle, or bishop? Or did he then intend that the first should be distinguished from the second, by these words of distinction? The first Epistle to Timothy, Beza proves was not written from Laodicea, but from Macedonia; to which opinion Baronius and [Page 124] Serrarius subscribe. And the name of Phrygia Pacatilana was not in use in Paul's time, nor till the more declining time of the Ro­man Empire. In the postscript of the second Epistle to Timothy, these words, ordained first bishop, &c. is not in many ancient Co­pies, saith Beza, nor in the Vulgar edition, nor in the Syriack In­terpreter. The Epistle to Titus was not written from Nicopolis, as the postscript saith; for had Paul been there, he would have said, I have determined here, not there to winter. And whereas it faith the first bishop, did Paul or his Penman mind the notifying of a succeeding bishop, and the distinguishing of Titus from him in this Epistle? Moreover bishop of the Church of the Cretians, is not the stile of a bishop of a Diocess, who hath some City, and not a whole Region for his Sea. Creet is said to have had a hundred Cities in it, and Titus was directed by Paul to ordain elders or bishops in all those Cities that had Christians. And the Scripture way of expression would be, not the Church, but the Churches of the cretians; (Church) being used of a City with its adja­cent Villages; and (Churches) of a Region or Countrey of such a circuit as Creet was. Thus there is good ground to think, that the postscripts are of much later date than the Epistles them­selves.

5. The precepts given by Paul to Timothy and Titus, are either such as concern all presbyters, or such as are above the bishop of a particular church. 1. Some precepts given them, concern all presbyters. To be instant in season and out of season, belongs to all preachers of the Gospel. As a bishop must be able to con­vince gainsayers, so ought all presbyters. The stopping of the mouths of subverters, is by conviction, and extends as well to doctrine, as to definitive sentencing, Mat. 22.34. and even de­finitive silencing was anciently by presbyters, either alone, or in conjunction with their bishops. The authority given to Timothy, That those who sin, be rebuked before all, belongs to presbyters, and it is that which may be done by equals. To lay hands sudden­ly on no man, concerns presbyters, to whom belongs the power of laying on of hands. Nor doth this precept infer, That a bi­shop hath power to ordain alone; and it is granted that one bi­shop alone may not ordain a bishop. Presbyters as well as bishops were concern'd in that precept, of not receiving an accusation suddenly against any. And in ancient times, if a bishop or pres­byter were accused, the matter was referred to a Synod consisting [Page 125]of bishops and presbyters. Other precepts given them, were above the proper work of a bishop of a particular Church. To erect and govern Churches in a hundred Cities, and to govern such presbyters, who, according to Dr. Hammond, were bishops, belonged not to an ordinary bishop of a particular Church. Wherefore this latter sort of duties belonged to Timothy and Ti­tus as Evangelists, or General Ministers, who had a kind of Vice-Apostolick office; of which sort were Barnabas, Silas, Apollos, Titus, Timothy, and Epaphroditus, and others.

Ambrose on Eph. 4. saith, they are stiled Evangelists who did Evangelizare sine Cathedra.

It often happened, that those unfixed Officers resided for a longer time in some places, and then they managed the affairs of those Churches in chief, during the time of their residence.

§ 10. Concerning the Angels of the Seven Churches in ASIA.

IT is much insisted on, that these Angels were bishops of a su­perior Order to that of presbyters. Whereupon let it be con­sidered, 1. That the title of Stars and Angels, are not proper, but figurative and mystical names, made use of in a mystical book; and that the said names are common to all ministers, Gregory the Great, l. 34. Mor. on Jo [...] c. 4. saith, that these Angels are the preachers of the Churches. 2. That the name Angel may be taken collectively, not individually. Austins Homily on the A­poc. on these words, I will remove thy Candlestick, saith, that John calls the Church the Angel. As the Civil state of the Pagano-Christian Empire is called the Beast, and the Ecclesiastical state, the Whore; so Angel may signifie the whole Presbytery, but put in the singular number, to hold proportion to the seven stars, which signifie the same thing, and the seven Candlesticks. In these Epistles to the Churches, there are indications, that not a single person, but a company is represented under this name, Rev. 2.10, 16, 24, 25. 3. Beza saith, that this Angel was only praeses. In­deed he to whom the title of bishop was appropriated by the an­cient Fathers, was the President of the presbytery. Ambrose on 1 Tim. c. 3. saith, He is the bishop who is first among the pres­byters. This priority or presidency is in History observed to have [Page 126]begun first at Alexandria, the people whereof above other men were given to schism and sedition, as Socrates saith of them, l: 7. c. 13. If this presidency began at Alexandria upon the death of Mark, it must needs be long before the death of John the Apostle. Howbeit, Clement in his Epistle to the Corinthians, takes no no­tice of such a priority or presidency of one above the rest in that Church. And Jerome having mentioned John as the last of the Apostles, saith that afterwards one was set over the rest. Now whereas Jerome called the imparity of bishops and presbyters, an Apostolical tradition, it is to be noted that with him an Aposto­lical tradition, and Ecclesiastical custome, are the same.

But the main thing still remains unproved, for ought that is to be gathered from this title of Angel, or from any thing contain­ed in these Epistles to the Asian Churches, namely, that these An­gels (whatsoever they might be) were bishops of a superior or­der than that of presbyters, or that they had a superiority of ju­risdiction over the presbyters, or that they were bishops set over divers setled Churches, or fixed Congregations, with their Pa­stors, or that they had the sole power of jurisdiction and ordi­nation. The main point in controversie is not, Whether bishops, but whether such as the present Diocesan bishops, have continued from the Apostles times to this Age.

The ancient bishop was the Officer of a particular Church, not a general Officer of many Churches He was not a bishop of bishops; that is, he did not assume a power of ruling bishops who have their proper stated Churches. Cypr. in Conc. Carth. saith, None of us calls himself, or makes himself to be a bishop of bishops, or by tyrannical terror drives his Colleagues to a necessity of obeying. The ancient bishop did not govern alone, but in conjunction with the presbyters of his Church; He did not, and might not or­dain without the Counsel of his Clergy. Ignatius in his Epistle to the Trall. saith, What is the presbytery, but the sacred Assem­bly of the Councellors and Confessors of the bishops? Cyprian in his epistle to Cornelius, wisheth him to read his Letters to the flourishing Clergy at Rome, that did preside with him. Id. l. 3. Ep. 14. Erasm. Edit. From the beginning of my Episcopacy I re­solved to do nothing without your counsel, and without the consent of my people. 4. Conc. Carthag. 23. The sentence of a bishop shall be void without the presence of his Clericks. Con­cil. Ca [...]thag c. 22. Let not a bishop ordain Clericks without a Council of his Clericks.