to get that removed where he considereth the several Principles on which he alledgeth That the several sorts of Dissenters do proceed in their separating from the Church I am not obliged nor shall I endeavour to defend all these the owners of them not agreeing among themselves let every one stand up for his own Principle But there is one general Principle that I think Non-conformists agree in That the Church of England imposeth some unlawful Terms of Communion and because of not submitting to these she excludeth the Dissenters from her Communion and being thus excluded they think it their duty to worship God apart by themselves when they are not suffered to do it with the Church without Sin. If any do add to this other Principles I leave the defence of them to their Authors This is to be further opened in the Third Part where the Dr. examineth the several Pleas for Separation He is pleased to take a great deal of pains to refute some things as insufficient Grounds for Separation which some Dissenters have mentioned in their Books as additional motives there being other sufficient Reasons for Non-communion which never any of them owned as the sole ground of their practice or a sufficient Reason for not joining with the Church by it self This is to set up a man of Straw that he may get a Victory by bearing him down Instances enough of this kind will occurr in our progress I shall consider what is argumentative against the Principle already mentioned that I hold SECT I. Some Opinions about Separation from the Church of England Examined THE Dissenters with reference to the Principles of their withdrawing from the Church he divideth into two sorts 1. Such as hold partial and occasional Communion with the Church lawful but not total and constant Communion and that they may chuse Communion where there is greater purity and edification 2. Such as hold any Communion with the Church to be unlawful because they believe the Terms of its Communion to be unlawful such as the Liturgy Cross c. This distinction is unhappily stated for 1. Non exhaurit divisum There is a third sort who hold partial and occasional Communion lawful but not total and constant and yet believe the Churches terms of Communion unlawful and because of that Belief cannot communicate totally and constantly with Her. We can hear a Sermon join in Prayer without partaking in any of the unlawful Terms of Communion to wit Ceremonies and Liturgy but we cannot enjoy other Ordinances and often we are even excluded from these by their Excommunications and therefore must seek the Ordinances elsewhere 2. Partial and Occasional Communion are not the same thing nor total and constant as to the lawfulness of them One may have communion with you and that not only occasionally but constantly in God's Ordinances that are kept pure and yet refuse communion with you in your own devices and in those Ordinances of God that ye have so annexed those devices to that the one cannot be had without the other And there are some that practise accordingly they wait on your Sermons and Pulpit-prayers constantly but refuse the rest of your Worship 3. I think there are few if any Non-conformists that think the Terms of Communion with your Church lawful and can keep occasional communion with Her and yet separate for greater purity and edification If any such be they make a causeless Separation indeed Sect. 2. He will now proceed with all clearness which he hath not done in the fore-mentioned distinction and consider three things 1. What things are to be taken for granted by the several Parties 2. Wherein they differ among themselves about the nature and degrees of Separation 3. What the true state of the present Controversie about Separation is For the first he saith There are three things that we cannot deny And I say There is not one of the three but they are to be denied or at least distinguished and not admitted as he setteth them down The first of them is That there is no reason of Separation because of the Doctrine of our Church I do cordially agree with the learned Authors whom he citeth in the proof of this p. 95. That there is no cause of separating from the Church of England or refusing communion with all Her Congregations on account of that which is the Doctrine of the Church contained in the 39 Articles for we assent to them all as true except those about Bishops and Ceremonies and we would not separate from the Church because of Doctrinal mistakes in these things if the owning of them were not imposed as Terms of our communion with Her. But it is not so easie to perswade us that there is no just cause to withdraw from the Communion of some particular Parishes in England where Arminianism or Socinianism is commonly taught where the practice of Godliness is ridiculed and Principles striking at the root of it are instilled into the Hearers such as That all the aids of the spirit that men pretend to look after that are above that Exercise of their own Faculties that is in their own power is but fancy that the Person of Christ is not to be minded by Christians but only obedience to his Laws that Resting on Christ Rolling the soul on him are no fit expressions of Faith. What would the Dr. have serious Christians who are concerned about the Salvation of their Souls do when such a Minister is set over them Shall they hear him That were to sit down to a Table where Poison is strewed over all the Meat and it is hard if not impossible at the best dangerous to pick out a wholsome bit And it is contrary to Solomon's Advice Prov. 19. 27. Cease my son to hear the Instruction that causeth to erre from the words of knowledge They who would have such Doctrine heard but not received may as well advise to go to the Stews but not commit Fornication Should they complain to Superiors against the erroneous Preacher But what if they get no redress and the Heretick be countenanced and dignified notwithstanding that all this is known to the World by the Press as well as the Pulpit What if such a Case as this or little less evil be not rare Ought not people to seek their Souls Food in corners when they cannot have it in the publick Assembly being mean while ready again to join with the Assembly when the Lord shall remove this stumbling-block Sect. 3. The Second Concession of his Adversaries that the Dr. setteth down is That there is no other Reason of Separation because of the Terms of Communion that what was from the beginning of the Reformation A sufficient refutation of this may be seen Par. 1. Sect. 1 2 3 4. If he can tell of some Alterations that have been made to the better we can tell and have told of others made to the worse It may be Mr. Baxter thinketh Lay-communion easier than before
Cor. 12. 28. As Grotius and Hammond both of them also make him to be meant by Government and the same two Authors in the same verse by Teachers understand the same Officer They would be sure to find him somewhere but this very uncertainty where to fix him is a token that he is no where to be found Is it imaginable that the Apostle in a list of Church-Officers set down in so few words would use such repetition When so Learned Men are put to such shifts it is a sign the cause is so weak that it affordeth no better reason to defend it by That they are not meant by Teachers I have already shewed neither are they meant by Helps 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Grotius significat curam rei alicujus gerere This is said without Book be it spoken with due respect to that great Critick I find Authors cited for its signifying to take hold undertake uphold help correct but none for its signifying to take charge of a thing The place he referreth to Luk. 1. 54. can bear no signification of the word so well as that of helping and among all Criticks and other Interpreters he cannot produce one that so expoundeth the word either here or in that place but Men will say any thing to serve a turn Neither can the Diocesan be meant by Government not only because they are among the last and so the most inferior of Church-Officers but also because our Brethren will not say that the Bishop should only Rule and not Teach though it is too much their practice yet they will not averr this to be according to Institution as this Officer must do he being a distinct Officer from the Teacher I conclude If the Apostle had intended to set forth to us such an Eminent Officer of the Church we might have expected he should have if not clearly yet to the Satisfaction of an inquisitive mind set him down in some of these Catâ—logues which is not done Sect. 13. Argument fourth The power that we read of in the New Testament was never exercised by any ordinary Officers alone but by the Church-Guides in Common Ergo there was no Diocesan Bishop in the New Testament and if we have no warrant there our scrupling to own such a one is not unreasonable That Church-Power was so exercised I prove by Instances leaving to our Brethren if they can to bring Instances to the contrary First Ordination was performed by Presbyters in Common 1 Tim. 4. 14. It is a groundless Notion that some Men of great Name and Worth have on this place that Presbytery is meant of the Office for both it is a harsh phrase the hands of the Office and further the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is often used in the New Testament yet is never used for the Office but for the College of Presbyters the Office is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Camerarius others say That by the Presbytery here is meant the Company of the Apostles who are called Presbyters This cannot be for the Apostle ascribeth to himself a special concern above others in the Ordination of Timothy 2 Tim. 1. 6. Which he would not have done if the rest of the Apostles equal in Authority with himself had concurred but might well do it when he as chief and the ordinary Pastors as subâ—rdinate did join in this Action for it is the observation of Camerarius on this Text the Apostles did not use their extraordinary power often but when the Church was constitutâ—d acted in Conjunction with the ordinary Pastors and there was good reason for this to wit both that the Church-Guides might know that Apostolick power was not always to continue among them and that they might learn the way of Church-Administrations which they behoved to exercise by themselves when the Apostles were gone Sect. 14. Another Instance is in Excommunication which the Apostle injoineth the ordinary Eldâ—rs of the Church of Corinth to exercise against the incestuous Man he directeth his Injunctions not to a single Bishop but to a Company of Men 1 Cor. 5. That they being gathered together should deliver him to Satan vers 4 5. That they should purge out that old leaven vers 7. That it was their part not a single persons part to Judge the Members of the Church vers 12. That they should put away the wicked person vers 13. and spâ—aking of this Sentence 2 Cor. 2. 6. He expresly saith it was done by many and ascribeth the power of forgiving i. e. absolving from the sentence of Excommunication to them not to one Man. What ever different thoughts men may have about this delivering to Satan or about the Apostles Interest in this Action it is evident that here is Church-Power adjudging which implyeth Authority exercised by a Community A Third Instance of this is 2 Thes. 3. 14. Where a Community not a single person is commanded to Note them that were Disobedient to Paul's Admonition in his Epistle This is not to be understood as some take it of Noteing the Disobedient Person in an Epistle that they should write to Paul For First The emphatick particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 put before 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 denoteth that Epistle to wit that the Apostle now wrote not an Epistle that they should write Secondly The Greek word will not bear that signification 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here used is Note or set a mark on him to Signifie or give Notice is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which word had surely been used if the Apostle had intended that they should give Notice to him by an Epistle of the Disobedient Thirdly He telleth them what should follow on this Note set on the Man and how they should carry towards him when thus Noted to wit that they should have no company with him this would not follow on their Writing about him to the Apostle while no Sentence was as yet passed against him but might rationally follow upon their setting the ignominious mark of Excommunication upon him If then Church-Discipline in the Apostolick and best times of the Church and especially while the Apostles being yet alive might have exercised it by themselves or their Delegates the Evangelists was yet exercised usually in Common and not by a single Bishop we have cause to scruple the owning of such an Officer in the Church Sect. 15. Other Arguments from Scripture may be brought but I shall not now insist on them having maintained some of them against this learned Author in my Animadversions on his Irenicum Wherefore I shall only add a fifth Argument as a ground of our scruple from some Testimonies of the Judgment and Practice of the Primitive Church that succeeded to the Apostles This may the more heighten our scruple that our brethren lay the stress of their cause on the Ancient Church if we cannot find there sufficient ground for a Diocesan Bishop but much to the contrary they ought not to blame us if we cannot with
in both I think the Substance of our English Episcopacy is that one Man hath sole Power of Ordination and Jurisdiction over all the Church-Officers and Members in many Congregations if he will shew us that in the Primitive Times let him rejoice in his Argument from Antiquity 2. The Antiquity that the Dr. here pretendeth to is far short of that which himself and others do boast of with a great deal of Confidence some of them tell us of a clear Deduction that they can make of it down from the Apostles in all ages without Interruption some make it of more than 1500 years standing but the Dr. here is not pleased to pretend to that Cyprian lived in the Third Century Athanasius in the Fourth Augustine and Theodoret in the Fifth and it may easily be granted that there was a great degeneracy in Church-Discipline and Government by that time yet that Episcopacy was arrived at that heighth that is now in England even at that time we deny Sect. 2. To prove what he had undertaken he layeth down two Observations 1. That it was an inviolable rule among them that but one Bishop was to be in one Church I am little concerned in this though I see no rule for it except a Canon of Concil Cabilonens which was but Provincial and very late under Pope Eugenius about Ann. 654 yet I think it was generally and rationally practised for taking a Bishop for the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 among the Presbyters which I affirm to have been the Dialect of those times What needed more Bishops than one seeing all the Presbyters of one City might conveniently meet ordinarily for the Exercise of Discipline When Mr. B. proveth the contrary he taketh Bishop in the Apostles sence and then I affirm with him that there were more Bishops in one City that every Assembly for worship had one if not more The Dr's Argument that he seemeth to glory in p. 246. is of no value it is That if more Bishops than one could be in a City the Schism of the Donatists and Novatians might have been prevented this is either a great mistake or somewhat else for taking Bishops for Moderators of Presbytery the bare setting up of two Presbyteries and two Moderators could not have prevented these Schisms and if the Church had found it convenient to divide them retaining the same Principles of Faith and about Church-Order and Discipline there had been no Schism It is most false that these Schisms were meerly about the plurality of Bishops in a City The Schism of the Donatists had its rise at Carthage from the Ambition of Donatus who opposed the election of Cecilianus the pretence was that he had been ordained by a Proditor and that he had admitted another Proditor to Ecclesiastical Office Cecilianus being Tried and Acquitted both by the Emperor and the Church in several Councils Donatus and his party set up another Church an Eldership and People in opposition to Cecilianus disclaiming the discipline of Cecilianus and his Party in admiting the lapsed upon repentance and admitting the wicked as they alledged to the Sacraments So that it is plain that the Schism lay in this That they set up another Church-way and Order and consequentially to that set up another Bishop and Presbytery not beside but in opposition to that which was before and that without sufficient reason upon the very like occasion did Novatus separate from Cornelius Bishop at Rome and set up a new Church on the foresaid grounds Cyprian indeed condemneth Novatus and nullifieth his Church-Power because post primum secundus esse non potest but this is still to be understood of setting up another Bishop or meeting of Presbyters under a President without the Authority of the Church or good cause for so doing It is evident then that these Schisms were built on another Foundation than what the Dr. supposeth and that they could not have been prevented if forty Bishops had been allowed in a City as long as Donatus and Novatus retained their Principles they would have separated from all Bishops and Churches that were not of their way all that followeth in this his first Observation is easily Answered in one Word to wit that all these Citations prove no more than this that where a Church was setled and sufficiently furnished whether you take it for a single Congregation or more Congregations associate for Discipline with a President it was not fit for any to disturb that Unity by setting up another Church whether of the one or the other sort mentioned Sect. 3. His second Observation is That in Cities and Diocesses which were under the care of one Bishop there were several Congregations and Altars and distant places I contend not about the word Diocess supposing that one President of an Assembly of Presbyters with these Presbyters might have ruling power over many particular Churches call that District by what name he will the matter is not great Our question is not about the Name but the Power by which that District was ruled whether it were in one Man or in the body of Presbyters But it is well known that Diocess which now signifieth a Church Division did in those days signifie a Civil Division of the Roman Empire made by Constantine the Great who divided the hundred Provinces of the Empire into 14 Diocesses where all Africk was but one see for this Heylin Cosmogr lib. 1 p. 54. And it is as well known that Diocess did often Signifie a Parish or people of a Parish neither do I contend about the word Altar supposing the Dr. meaneth places where the Lords Supper was Celebrated Both Origen and Arnobius affirm that 200 years after Christ the Christians were blamed by the Heathens because they had no Altars the name of Altar was not used in the Church till the Third Century and not then neither but figuratively But the Dr. loveth to speak of Ancient things in his Modern Dialect borrowed from the more corrupted times of the Church Sect. 4. For his Observation it self I shall not contend about it tho' I think he will hardly answer what is said against it No Evid for Diocess p. 15. For it maketh nothing against what I hold unless he prove that the Bishop had the sole Power or had jurisdiction over the Presbyters in that District which he calleth a Diocess What he saith that seemeth to be Argumentative to this purpose I shall mind and no more The multitude and distance of places that he instanceth tho' all were true the contrary of which the forecited Author maketh appear will not prove Superiority of power in one Man neither Augustine's care for Neighbouring Places that wanted Ministers either to provide Ministers for them or to Baptize them or do other Church Acts for them in their need This proveth neither Extension nor Solitude of Power far less doth Cyprian's nameing Provincia nostra in which were many Bishops prove him to have been a Metropolitan the Empire was
different Testimonies of Antiquity the Succession of Bishops from the Apostles time being hereby secured for which Irenaeus Tertullian and Cyprian stand and with this consisteth all that Jerom and Epiphemus say of the different settlement of Churches at first to all this I repone these few things 1. Is is most false that the Apostles managed Church Government by themselves while they lived the contrary I have proved as to Ordination and Excommunication in Corintâ— and Thâ—ssalâ—niâ—a that these were in the Hands of ordinary Officers tho superintended by the Apostles 2. That they setled Bishops any where either in their own time or left order for it to be done after their decease is also false The incontroullable evidence of it that the Dr. talketh of is asserted duro ore for he knoweth it is controulled beyond what he or any man can refute to wit that Tim. and Tit. were no Diocesan Bishops is proved by our Writers and all the Arguments that are brought for their being such fully answered This confidence without Argument is unbecoming so learned a Man he hinteth an Argument for his Assertion to wit that the care of Government was a distinct thing from the Office of an Evangelist This we deny the Office of an Evangelist was to Teach or Govern by a deputation from the Apostles he saith Thâ—ir removes do not invalidate this because while the Apostles lived there were no fixed Bishops or but few I wish he had instanced in one He confesseth by this Tim. and Tit. were not such and for unfixed Bishops we read of none such either in Scripture or Antiquity 3. Neither can this reconcile the Testimonies of Antiquity as he would have it for it doth not answer what Jerom Augustine Chrisostom and others say of the Divine institution of parity neither is it true that Irenaeus Tertulian and Cyprian are for Diocesan Bishops Sect. 14. The Dr. proceedeth now Sect. 14. to the third thing that he had undertaken to prove p. 244 to wit that the restraint of Discipline in our Parochial Churchs doth not overthrow their Constitution In this I shall not oppose him and therefore I shall only consider this matter as a grievance and consider what he saith in Justification of it and not as a ground of Separation and shall pass over what he saith that is of that tendency He saith Presbyters have power in admission to the Lords Supper because none are to be admitted but such as are confirmed or be ready and desirous to be confiâ—med and Presbyters are judges in that because they are to send a list of the Names of the persons to be Confirmed to the Bishop who is to confirm them and this he saith would if rightly observed keep as much purity in that Ordinance as is pretended to in the separate Congregations Ans. This is a poor fence for the Table of the Lord for if one be ready to be confirmed the Presbyter cannot keep him back tho' he was not listed by the Presbyter nor Confirmed by the Bistop and we know many of the worst of men are ready for it Again when one is Confirmed by the Presbyters consent if he prove never so profane or careless the Presbyter cannot debar him the Bishops Confirmation admiteth him let him do what he will. I hope Separate Meetings will not admit every one to the Lords Table that is a Church Member when they fall into gross Sins 2. It is no good way of defending the Presbyters Power in manageing of Christs Ordinances to say that his Testimonie is to be taken about admitting persons to an Ordinance that Christ never instituted to wit Confirmation 3. This is no great evidence of Church Authority in the Presbyter that his Testimony is taken by the Bishop in order to Admission it is the Bishop not the Presbyter that Authoritatively admitteth 4. It is an odd way of Admission to Gods Ordinances not precedented in Scripture nor purer Antiquity that one man should judge of the fitness of a person to be admitted and another should admitt him the Bishop must act implicitly and the Presbyter is only his informer where this way of Discipline had its use we know the Dr. hath yet said nothing to vindicate the power that Christ gave to his Ministers or to justifie the Discipline of the Church of England Sect. 15. Next Sect. 15. He speaketh of the Presbytes power in rejecting these for scandal that have been Church Members and sheweth out of the Rubrick before the Communion that the Parochial Ministers may advertise a scandalous sinner not to come to the Lords Table till he repent and amend and if he continue obstinate â—e may repel him from the Communion yet so as within fourteen days he give account to the Ordinary Ans. This is far from amounting to the power that Christ gave to his Minsters for 1. By what Law of Christ is the Presbyter accountable to the Bishop more then the Bishop is accountable to him Christ made them equal 2. I see no reason why a Presbyter by himself should have power to debar any it should be done by Presbyters in Common the New Testament knoweth no such thing as Excommunication either greater or lesser by a single person except it were by an Apostle But our Bishops think they have such a plenitude of power that they may delegate as much of it as they please to any other person 3. I see the Dr. is at a stand what sort of censure this Act of the Parochial Ministers is it is not the greater Excommunication and he confesseth p. 277. that it is not the lesser Excommunication used in this Church I deny it not to be a Church censure but it is not such as argueth that Power of Discipline in the inflicter of it that Christ hath given to all his Ministers to be exercised by them in Common The Dr. infereth p. 278. from the power of the Presbyter that our Church doth not deprive them of all the necessary and Essential parts of Church Discipline But if it deprive them of any such part in which they may not medle it taketh away that power that Christ hath given them it is a fine Apology for Episcopal Vsurpation that they suffer a Presbyter as their delegate and as he will be accountable to them to do some Acts that they themselves cannot attend whereas Christ gave no more power to a Bishop than to any of the Presbyters Sect. 16. Mr. B. objecteth to the Dr. that it is Actionable by Law if a Parish Minister admonish a person by name not censured by the ordâ—nary to which the Dr. hath two sorry answers 1. What need publick Admonition by name Doth the nature of Church Discipline lie in that It is enough it be done privately and sheweth that Augustine bid people examine themselves and abstain if they saw cause and the same Augustine saith that Church Discipline may be forborn in some cases in a true Church To this I reply 1. How
the Church The Bishops shewed kindness unto them for their Zealous Preaching A few remarks on this will serve to clear our way 1. It seems the Episcopal Party had not such respect as was fit to the Consciences of their dissenting Brethren in that they were getting Laws made to force them to that which they could not perswade them to by the Gospel but this is the Old Spirit of that party which still createth trouble to the Church 2. That some of them accepted of Preferment and these he nameth Gilby Whittingham are among them whom Fuller placeth in the Ranck of fierce Non-conformists sheweth how loath they were to divide from their Brethren as long as they were suffered to keep their Consciences undefiled 3. He omitteth to tell us that these men would never subscribe to the Liturgy nor use the Ceremonies which Mr. Fuller Lib. 9. p. 76. informeth us of that not only these fiery men as he calleth them but even the moderate Non-conformists as Mr. Fox Mr. Lawrence Humfrey refused to subscribe 4. It was a commendable piece of Moderation in the then Bishops that they suffered these Men to Preach notwithstanding of their Non-conformity Indeed there was cause for it they were able and useful men and the Church had much need of their Labours Fuller saith p. 65. Tolerability was Eminency in that Age. A Rush Candle seemed a Torch where no brighter Light was seen before where he telleth us of a Sheriff's Preaching for want of other to do that work and how sorrily he performed it If the present Bishops would exercise the same moderation they needed not to be afraid of Separation Sect. 31. He proceedeth to tell us that these Non-conformist Preachers first let fall their dislike of Ceremonies and gaining Ground they called them the Livery of Antichrist and enflamed the People and this was the first Occasion of pressing Vniformity with Rigor Some were silenced as kindness had made them Presumptuous this made them Clamorous Mr. Fuller giveth another account of this matter p. 76. The English Bishops conceiving themselves Impowered by their Canons began to shew their Authority in urging the Clergy of their Diocess to subscribe to the Liturgy Ceremonies and Discipline of the Church and such as refused the same were Branded with the Odious Name of Puritans and p. 81. He sheweth how Ministers were contented before B. Grindal one of the most moderate but pressed to Rigor by the rest who asked them have we not a Godly Princess speak is she Evil A Question fitter for the Inquisitors in Spain than a Protestant Bishop That the Non-conformists preached against the Ceremonies is neither to be doubted nor wondered at so did our Lord and Master and his Apostle Paul It was their duty to teach people to observe all that Christ hath Commanded that being their Commission if they spake Falshood or Truth in an undue manner they were liable to Correction What our Author calleth inflaming the People others will call faithful warning of them against what might displease God and defile their Consciences Any who enflameth them to unsober or unpeaceable principles or practices let them bear their blame I see nothing in their Carriage under the Bishops forbearing of them that deserâ—eth the Name of presumption nor under their Sufferings that should be called Clamorousness as the Dr. calleth their informing their Friends at Geneva how they were used But it is the Spirit of that party to use cruel Severity against them that differ from them and reproach them if they say they feel it Patience and Stoical Apathy are not the same thing There is nothing yet said by the Dr. that can cast the Blame of Separation on the Non-conformists or free the Bishops of it Sect. 32. He saith further p. 19. at the end About this time the dissenting Party being exasperated by silencing some of their most Zealous Preachers began to have separate Meetings where they Preached and Prayed and had the Sacraments Here we have out of the Mouth of an Adversary the true Cause and Original of the Separation tho' somewhat unfavourably represented the cause of it was they could not have Gods Ordinances without Mans Inventions their Ministers being silenced who administred them purely and tho' but some of them at first were silenced yet the rest were under the same Condemnation by the Law and daily expected the Execution of the Law on them and all the People could neither have the ordinances by those that were as yet unsilenced nor could they live without them So that it was not Exasperation but desire to wait on God in his own Ordinances that made them take that course This account of it themselves give as the Dr. hath it p. 20. before the Bishop of London whose Discourse to them the Dr. relateth unbecoming the Moderation of B. Grindal charging them with lying pretences without any Ground mentioned and unbecoming the Learning of a Bishop charging them with Condemning the Reformation Sect. 33. The next thing he insisteth on is Beza's advice to the Ministers and people who tho' he sheweth his dislike of the Ceremonies and adviseth the Ministers not to subscribe yet presseth the silenced Ministers not to Exercise their Function against the will of the Queen and the Bishops And the People to wait on the Word and Sacraments notwithstanding of the Ceremonies that they might by these means obtain a through Reformation And to Ministers he saith that they should not leave their Functions for the Sake of the Ceremonies In which Advice the Dr. doth much insult How impartially Beza's opinion in this case is represented by the Dr. I know not not being able at present to get a sight of the Book but some other Citations already examined make me jealous especially seeing the Dr. maketh Beza contradict himself for p. 21. he maketh him advise the silenced Ministers to live privately and not exercise their Functions against the Will of the Q. and the Bishops But p. 22. he maketh Beza say to them that the Ceremonies are not of that moment that they should leave their Functions for the sake of them But whatever were Beza's opinion Non-conformists of old and late took the Word of God and not the Authority of Men for the Rule of their Faith and Practice They honour such as Beza and are ready to receive Instruction from them but must have leave to examine all by Scripture as the Beraeans did the Doctrine even of Paul. Again Beza is far from advising Ministers to forbear Preaching a together because restrain'd by the Magistrate That principle never obtained among Protestant Divines and is to be examined afterward but he disliked their publick appearance in that case which may be constructed a Defiance and Contempt of the Magistrate For they had hired a Hall in London as publick as any Church for their Meetings Christ's Apostles were private with the Doors shut when they might not be publick and so should we and yet not give over
Communion They separate because the Church is polluted with these We only because we dare not pollute our own Consciences with them If we may have leave but to forbear personal concurrence in these we think the fault of other men I mean in things of that nature no ground for us to withdraw from the Ordinances in and with the Church so that in effect they go away from the Church We are driven away by the Church Sect. 3. The first Argument that the Dr. bringeth against denying Communion to the Church is It weakâ—neth the Câ—use of the Reformation This he undertaketh to prove by the testimony of some French Divines and he beginneth with Calvin whose words too long here to be transcribed do prove indeed Separation from a Church to be unlawful because of lesser Impurities or great Faults while the Doctrine and Worship are not greatly corrupted But he speaketh not one word of the Case of them who are driven away from a Church because they cannot submit to sinful Terms of Communion with Her yea he speaketh more in favour of such a Case than against it for he maketh Corruption in Christ's Institutions even in the words cited by the Dr. p. 181 182. and being anathematized for not complying with these Corruptions a ground of Separation from the Church of Rome which is parallel to our case But saith the Dr. he doth not mean indifferent Rites Ans. Neither do we scruple indifferent Rites but sinful Ceremonies And tho' I am far from comparing the Church of Enâ—land with that of Rome as â—o causes of Separation yet here there is a likeness the one rejecteth some of her Members because they will not sin with her and will force her Impositions on their Consciences and so doth the other Another Author he citeth is Daillie giving most substantial Reasons for Separation from Rome and he doth not mention our Ceremonies among them And what need was there to mention them when there were such weighty Reasons beside to be insisted on But Monsieur Daillie saith expresly if the differences had been such as we might safely have yielded to then Separation had been rash and unjust So say we for we cannot yield to the lesser sinfulness of superstitious Worship as we cannot to that which is greater to wit idolatrous Worship Sect. 4. Next he citeth Amyraldus who saith If there had been no other faults in the Roman Church beside their unprofitable Ceremonies in Baptism and other things beyond the measure and genius of Christian Religion they had still continued in Her Communion Ans. Neither should we refuse Communion with the Church of England for these and such-like faults We refuse the use of these and because of that the Church casteth us out of Her Communion And if Amyrald us say That he would have used these rather than have fallen under Rome's anathema we leave him to his own Sentiments in that but are of another opinion It is no wonder these men think little or next to nothing of the Evil of our Ceremonies when they are compared with these Romish Abominations but when we consider them by themselves and compare them with Scripture we cannot think so of them The Dr. further urgeth us with the Answers given by Claude Paion and Turretine to the Book entituled Prejudes legitimes contre les Calvinustes That they do not defend the Reformation by the unlawfulness of the Ceremonies this is both false and inconcludent It is false for Monsieur Claude spendeth a good part of the Third Chapter of his First Part in defending the ground and right that the Reformers had to depart from the Communion of the Romish Church because of their Ceremonies One of the chief Objects saith he that presented it self to our Fathers was that of the great number of the Ceremonies which he setteth forth as defacing God's Worship making it look partly like Judaism and partly like Heathenism He saith It was without doubt a character very opposite to the Gospel of Jesus Christ and much more to that purpose What the other two Answerers of that Book say on this Head I know not for I have not seen them This Argument is also inconcludent because the Reformation is abundantly defended by weightier Objections against Popery Sect. 5. One passage he citeth p. 184. out of Mr. Turretine that no tolerable superstitious Rites that do not infect the Conscience are sufficient grounds of Separation And the Dr. addeth is parenthesi as they cannot be where they are not forced on it by fâ—lse Doctrine To Mr. Turretine's Assertion I assent for nothing that is tolerable can warrant Separation And I deny not that some Superstitious Rites may be tolerable to wit where men will use them and do not impose them on others They that are left to their liberty may well tolerate others in the use of them but I do not so well see that any Superstition imposed is tolerable to a tender Conscience for Superstition is Sin and no Sin is tolerable in that case To the Dr's Parenthesis I answer That it is absolutely false and I wonder that he should assert it so confidently without proof for that I may not deny as he asserteth without reason 1. A Superstitious Riâ—e is one of the Traditions of Men in the Worship of God and that the Scripture doth simply condemn without all noticing of any false Doctrine to enforce the Tradition I know not what false Doctrine the Pharisâ—ical Washings were enforced with but I am sure Christ condemneth them without mention of any such false Doctrine distinct from the asserting of their lawfulness Mat. 15. 6 9. but of this afterward 2. May not enforcing a Superstitious Riâ—e on the Conscience of one that scruples it by Command and Will make it to defile the Conscience as well as enforcing it by false Doctrine If this Doctrine were true men might impose what they will in the Worship of God they might impose all the Rites that ever Jews or Heathens used or Papists either if they keep but orthodox mind and give no reason that is heterodox for these Rites but only sic volo sic jâ—beo To what purpose he citeth le Blanch shewing the impossibility of re-union with the Papists I see not but that many Names of Authors make a shew and it argueâ—h great reading for he saith not one word of the â—eremonies and we all know that if we would swallow down not only the Ceremonies of England but those of Rome it self yet Re-union with them is impossible on other grounds Sect. 6. It was needful that the Dr. should bring all this Discourse and these long Citations home to his purpose which every Reader could hitherto hardly â—iscern how it should be done Wherefore p. 185. he telleâ—h us what Triumphs the Church of Rome would make over us if we had nothing else to justifie our Separation from them by but the things that we now scruple And he telleth us how we would be laughed at all
them own such an Office in the Church The first Testimony that I bring is that of Jerome who giveth his Judgment of this matter not Obiâ—er but of set purpose as that which was his setled Opinion and that oftner than â—nce In his Epistle to Euagrius where he sharply reproveth some as Impudent that preferred Deacons to Presbyters i. e. saith he to Bishâ—ps but sheweth at length that Bishops and Prebyters are the same for which he citeth Phil. 1. 1. Act. 20. 28. Tit. 1. 5 6 7. 1 Tim. 4. 14. 1 Pet. 5. 1 2. and if any should think little of these Testimonies he addeth clanget tuba Evangâ—lâ—j filius toniâ—ru c. and so citeth 2 Joh. ver 1. and 3. Joh. v. 1. and after he hath shewed the occasion of preferring one Presbyter to the rest he telleth that notwithstanding of their Riches or Poverty Greatness or Meanness the difference of Cities where they are sive Romae sive Eâ—gâ—bij sive Constantinopoli c. they are ejusdem meriti Sacerdotii and sheweth that the Apostle giving direction to Timothy and Titus about Ordination of Bishops and Deacons saith nothing of Presbyters because the Presbyter is contained in the Bishop that is they are the same What may seem to make against our cause in this Epistle is that he saith quod autem unus electus quem caeteris praeponeretur id in Schismatis remedium factum which he saith was ne unusquisque Ecclesiam ad se trahens Christi ecclesiam rumperet which was done saith he in Alexandria a Marci Temporibus This may well be undeâ—stood of a Moderator of their Meetings who had power of Convening the Presbyters least every one might call a Meeting of them at his pleasure and so breed confusion and it must be so understood not of a Bishop with sole jurisdiction unless we will make Jerom to contradict the whole strain and design of this Epistle Another passage is quid enim facit Episcopus praeâ—er Ordinationem quod non facit Presbyter Which cannot be understood of Ordination or sâ—le Ordination of Presbyters for that were to make a material difference between Bishop and Presbyter which is directly contrary to his whole Discourse but Ordination here must be ordering of their Meetings which is the part of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Moderatâ—r One might also alledge that in the Writings of this learned Father a passage Obiter set down is not to be taken notice of in prejudice of the Scope and Strain of hâ—s Discourse tho' they be â—nâ—â—nsistent and might ground this allegation on the account that he giveth of his own Writings and cited also by Dr. Stillingflâ—et Ireniouâ—â— p. 278. Itaqâ—e ut simpliciter fatear legi haec omnia in meâ—â—e mea plurima conservans accito notario vel mea vel aliena dictavi nec ordinis nec verborum interdum nec sensuum meinor Sect. 16. Another Testimony is also out of Jerom câ—mment in Tit. 1. where he insisteth at length on the same subject and asserteâ—h the same opinion as before Idem ergo saith he Presbyter qui Episcopus antequam diaboli instinctu studia in religione fierent diceretur in populis Ego sum Pauli ego Appollo ego Cephae alluding to the Schism mentioned 1 Cor. 3. not meaning it in particular as some fansy Communi Presbyterorum concilio ecclesia gubernabatur postquam vero unusquisque eos quos Baptizaverat suos putabat esse non Christi toto orbe decretum est Vt unus de Presbyteris electis superponeretur reliquis ad quem omnis ecclesiae cura pertineret ut Schismatum semina tolerentur and for proof of the Identity of Bishop and Presbyter he citeth many Scriptures as above and sheweth that Bishop denoteth the Office Presbyter the Age. He citeth also Heb. 13. 17. Ibi saith he equaliter inter plures ecclesiae cura dividitur And after he sheweth the difference between Bishop and Presbyter to be magis consuetudine quam dispositionis dominicae veritate And in conclusion of that discourse making a Transition to the qualities that the Text mentioneth saith videamus igitur qualis Presbyter sive Episcopus ordinandus sit What Jerom saith toto orbe decretum est is not to be understood of the Decree of an Oecumenick Council for no such Decree can be produced but that this Remedy of Schism in many places began then to be thought on and it was no wonder that this Corruption began then to creep in it being then about the end of the Fourth Century when Jerom wrote And this remedy Jerom declareth was not of God's but of Mans inventing and accordingly it succeeded for it proved worse than the Disease bringing in Tyranny and overturning Christ's Institution and at last setting up the Man of Sin. Satan gave the occasion to it as Jerom saith Man gave a Being to it and Satan improved it to carry on his designs The omnis eccleâ—iae cura that he mentioneth is inconsistent with the cura inter plures aequaliter divisa which he saith was the way of the Gospel and therefore either we must make Jerom say That the practice in his days was a direct overturning of Christ's Institution and contrary to Apostolick practice which will make the way of the Primitive Church and Writings of the Fathers to be no good Commentary upon the institution and way of the Apostles times and so destroy the Argument that our Brethren insist most upon for Episcopacy or we must expound this omnis cura of the extent of it to the whole Church not of the solitude of it in one Man excluding the rest of the Presbyters that he had a special inspection though he might not exercise Discipline by himself Sect. 17. A third Testimony out of Jerom is Ep. ad Heliodorum Fol. mihi 283. speaking of the Dignity of a Presbyter and shewing that they have power to consecrate the Eucharist they have claves Regni Coelorum quodammodo diem judicij indicant and then addeth Illi Presbytero si peccavero licet tradere me Satanae Sure then he is not for sole jurisdiction of a Bishop And this he speaketh of the principle and practice of his time which confirmeth what I said before of the meaning of Omnis cura ecclesiae There is yet another place in Jerom that is plain to this purpose Ep. ad Demet Sunt quos ecclesia reprehendit quos interdum abjicit in quos nonnunquam Episcoporum Clericorum censura desaevit which clearly putteth the Censures of the Church in his days into the Hands of Presbyters and not into the Hands of Bishops only whatever Priority they had above the other It is worth our Observation that several Popish Writers as zealous for Prelacy as ours are confess such light in the Writings of Jerom to this purpose that they find no way to Answer but to Condemn him of Error in this matter And Bellarm. de clericis lib. 1. c. 15.
divided into Provinces If a Minister in England should say there are many Ministers in our Country it will not prove that they were under his Charge Vuler mentioneth Cresceus who had 120 Bishops under him the Dr. should have proved that he had sole jurisdiction over them and all their Churches or that he could act any thing in Church matters without them and so that he was more than president in their meeting when they came together about the Affairs of the Church These are the Goodly Arguments from Antiquity by which Men think to wreath on our Necks the Yoak of Domination Sect. 5. He bringeth another proof for his Diocesan Bishop Sect. 20. from Athanasius his having charge over the Church of Alexandira and these of Maraeotis And 1. Epiphamus saith that Athanasius did often visit Neighbour Churches especially those of Maraeotis Ans. So have many Presbyterian Ministers done to Neighbouring Parishes that were destitute and yet never pretended to Episcopal Power over them That this was an Act of Charity not of Episcopal Authority appeareth because Epiphamus calleth them Neighbour Churches not a part of Athanasiu's Church and that he mentioneth other Neighbour Churches besides these of Maraeotis which Athanasius saith were subject to him Next Athanasius saith Maraeotis is a region belonging to Alexandria which never had neither Bishop nor Suffragan in it but all the Churches there are immediately subject to the Bishop of Alexandria but every Presbyter is fixed in his particular Village Ans. Maraeotis or Mâ—ria as Ptolomy calleth it is a Lake not far from Alexandria now called Lago 〈◊〉 I suppose Athanasius means the Country about that Lake which it seems had then few Churches and Christians and therefore it was very fit they should Associate for Discipline with these of Alexandria being very near to it their Subjection to the Bishop of Alexandria doth not prove his sole jurisdiction over them but only that they were so by the Association of Presbyters of which the Bishop of Alexandria was Moderator Subjâ—cton to a Bishop in our days signifieth to be under his Jurisdiction by himself because men have set up such Bishops but it cannot be made to signifie the same in the Dialect of these times unless it were Aliunde proved that they were such Bishops which is not done by such an Argument as this wherefore I deny the Drs third Consequence that he draweth from this passage p. 254. to wit That these were under the mediate inspection of the Bishop of Alexandria so that the whole Government belongeth to him There is not the lest shadow of reason for such an inference his disputation that followeth about the Christians of Alexandria meetâ—ng in Diverse Assemblies I meddle not with it is nothing against us whether it weâ—e so or otherwise Sect. 6. The last proof that he bringeth is out of Theodoret which he saith is plain enough of it self to shew the great extent of Diocesan Poweâ— he saith he had the pâ—storal charge of 800. he should have said 80 Churches and that so many Parishes were in his Diocess The Dr. insulteth much on this Testimony but without cause for 1. Theodoret lived in the fifth century and we deny not but by that time Episcopal Ambition had in some places encroached on the Government instituted by Christ and which had been kept more intire in former Ages 2. It is much suspected by learned Men that Theodorets Epistles are not genuine and the Dr. doth not deny that Hereticks had feigned Epistles in Theodorets name as Leontius saith which doth darogate much from the credit of these that cannot be well proved to be true 3. Theodoret doth not say that he had the Pastoral charge of these Churches but that he had been Pastor in them the former Expression looketh like a sole power in him and therefore the Dr. thought fit so to vary the phrase the other hinteth no more power then is consistant with a party every Minister being a Pastor in the Churches to whose Association he belongeth 4. But whatever be in that this sheweth the extent of Theodorets Power as to place or bounds but doth not prove that he alone exercised that power and therefore is no proof of a Diocesan Bishop Sect. 7. Before I proceed I shall return to examine the Doctor 's Allegations for Diocesan Power p. 230. which I above referred to this place He asserteth That the Presbyters and whole Church were under the particular Care and Government of Cyprian This Assertion is too big for the Proofs that he bringeth for it to wit That Cyprian reproveth some of the Presbyters for receiving Penitents without consulting him and complaineth of the Affront done to his Place as Bishop and dischargeth the like to be done for the future Lucian saith that the Martyrs had agreed that the Lapsed should be received on Repentance but their Cause was to be heard before the Bishop and several Passages to this purpose To all which I. A. by denying the Consequence Cyprian as I cited above did not take on him to receive the Lapsed without the Presbyters Will it thence follow that he had no Power at all But it was solely in them even so that the Presbyters especially that some of them as the Dr. himself states the Case might not do it without Cyprian doth not prove that the Presbyters and whole Church were under his Government It amounteth to no more but this that in a Presbytery regularly constituted especially where they have devolved the Power of calling and presiding in their Meetings on a fixed and constant Moderator it is very irregular that a part should meet about Discipline without the rest and particularly without Consulting him whom they have so chosen Beside I will not deny but Cyprian sheweth too much Zeal in this Cause and might possibly attempt to stretch his Power a little too far as afterward many did He was a holy and meek Man but such may be a little too high To this same purpose are his other Citations of Moses and Maximus commending Cyprian for not being wanting to his Office. Cyprian's Epistle to the Clergy of Carthage that the Dr. citeth sheweth there were Disorders committed in the Matter of receiving the Lapsed in that not only some Presbyters took it on them without a regular Meeting of the whole but even Deacons medled with it which was out of their way His Citation of the Roman Clergy commending the Martyrs for not taking on them the Discipline of the Church is wholly out of the way for none ever supposed that every Martyr had Church-Power That they delayed some parts of Discipline till they had a new Bishop proveth as little as the rest for it is fit one should moderate in their Meetings and Custom had obtained that he should be fixed in that Office which was not from the beginning Cyprians appointing some to visit when he could not do it by reason of Persecution neither is a precedent for our Bishops doing their
plead against himself For he saith p. 316. That he requireth no more but their Testimony that it be done sub populi Assistentis conscientia that by their presence either their Faults might be published or their good Acts commended that so it might appear to be a just and lawful Ordination which hath been examined by the Suffrages of all And after Cyprian saith It came down from Divine Tradition and Apostolick practice that a Bishop should be chosen plebe presente not by the Votes of the people says the Doctor One would think all this time the Doctor is secretly undermining his own cause and yet will out-face plain light to defend it Doth not Cyprian mention the Suffrages of all and yet the Doctor maketh him deny them Votes if their presence their Testimony commending or publishing the faults of the Candidate their knowledge and assistance can consist with Patronage and obtruding of Ministers on the people as a Master of a Flock setteth a Sheepherd over his Sheep it is one of Bellarmin's Arguments for the Doctor 's Conclusion If these do not import the peoples consent to be required and so amount to Election let any indifferent Reader judge It is plain that Cyprian not only alloweth the people this power but maketh it a Divine Right and maketh Ordination without it to be unjust and unlawful Wherefore if we should adhere to Cyprian's judgment there would be few Ministers in the Church of England and so more cause for separation than he is aware of but I do not improve his Testimony to that end The Doctor p. 317. bringeth Cyprians Testimony That it belongeth chiefly to the people to refuse the bad and chuse the good and yet hath the Brow to say That this is no more then their Testimony but if Testimony be chusing we require no more but Testimony It is nothing to the purpose that Lampridius says Severus proposed the Names of Governors of Provinces to the people to see what they had to say against them and that this will not infer popular Election of these Governors For 1. This was never declared to be necessary and appointing Governours unjust or unlawful without it as it is in our case 2. We have proved that the people have power of Suffrage and of chusing which was not granted by Severus That Origen saith a Bishop must be Ordained Astante populo is such an Argument against us as sheweth a very weak cause especially when so Learned a Man thought better to use it then say nothing For it is Election we speak of not Ordination in which we confess the people have no hand neither doth Origen say That this Ordination could proceed without the peoples being more concerned about the person than standing by while he was Ordained and yet even this favour is not granted to the people in England the Bishop will not be at the pains to come to the several Parishes to ordain the Ministers before the people Sect. 12. The 2. thing that the Dr. insisteth on is p. 318. That the people upon this Assuming the power of Elections caused great Disturbance and disorders in the Church To this I answer in general 1. I desire to know on what the people assumed the power of Election whether on Christ's Institution or any subsequent ground if the latter let him shew it if the former it is improper to say they assumed what was ever their due The Doctor seemeth to speak of it as an act of the people after that priviledge had been out of their hand for some time 2. There is no Institution of Christ but inconveniences may follow on it as long as sinful men have the managing of it Hath none followed on Church Power in the hands of Bishops and Presbyters Yea of civil power in the hands of Magistrates yea of power of Election in the hands of Patrons It were easie to fill a Volume with Histories to this purpose Will the Doctor thence conclude that all these should be abolished 3. As few inconveniences can be instanced as following on the peoples Election of their Pastors as of most other things The Doctor instanceth but four in the space of 1000 years that this power of the people lasted unviolated and that through all the Christian Churches I do not deny but more there might be but when so few occurr as observable to a man of so great reading it saith more against the Doctors design than all these Instances say for it 4. Most of these disturbances fell out by the Ambition of Bishops influencing the people and leading them into Factions and were occasioned by the worldly advantage of Episcopacy in the degenerate State of the Church and were not to be seen where Bishops kept within due bounds and were in a mean condition so that indeed this Consideration is more against Episcopal grandeur and imparity than against popular Elections As is evident from Ammian Marcellin whom the Doctor citeth as the Author of that Story of a Bloody Election at Rome when the Contest was about Damasus where he sheweth That they aspired to that Bishoprick with all their might considering how the Bishop was enriched Oblationibus Matronarum rode in Chariots were Gorgeously attired fared sumptuously and saith They might have shuned these inconveniences had they despised this grandeur and imitated the Bishops in the Provinces whose humble carriage poor fare and mean habit commended them to God and good men 5. It is worth our Observation that not one of these Disorders fell out for 300 years after Christ when the Church was in her Integrity and had not degenerated as she did afterward 6. There is a better means of preventing these disturbances to wit the Magistrate ought to suppress them and the Rulers of the Church ought to regulate Elections and take away the exercise of that power from the unruly as they take the Sacraments though peoples priviledge from them that walk unworthy of them When inconveniences fall in we must take God's way not our own to set things right again Sect. 13. This might suffice for Answer to all the Doctors Alledgeances on this head but further there is not so fair a representation made of matters of fact as need were For the â—st Instance the Disorder at Antioch it was not as he representeth it about the chusing of a new Bishop to a vacant place but about putting an Arian Bishop at least supposed to be so into the place of Eustathius who had long been peaceably in that place and regularly chosen but was injuriously deposed by the Arians Neither was Eustathius chosen at last as the Doctor saith but rid out the Storm and kept his place against the violent attempts of these Hereticks And therefore this Instance is wide from the purpose The next Instance is at Caesarea The person that carried the Election was Basil the Magistrates and the worst of the people opposing him Of this Nazianzen justly complaineth and it cannot be justified but cannot infer