maintain such principles as destroy the Justice and Equity of the Reformation I know not when we meet with them we shall consider them mean while we profess our selves ready to disown all Principles that can be made appear to be of that tendency Sect. 13. Bishop Sanderson's three ways how Non-conformists promote Popery eventually tho' not intentionally which he mentioneth p. 7. are such as to unbyassed men will seen unworthy of the learned Bishop to propose or the learned Dr. to applaud the first is By helping to pull down Episcopacy at which he saith Rome rejoiced But will any say that this Joy of Rome was because Episcopacy is such an Enemy to Popery when they have it as well as we and when it is not to be seen in any Protestant Church as in England yea I must say Except in England Is it not obvious that their Joy was for our Broils on that occasion and not for the Ruin of that which they love so well Will any deny that Rome rejoiced as much at the pulling down of Presbytery in Scotland and the hindrance of its Settlement in England for our Changes Anarchy and Confusions are their Advantage The Second is Their opposing the interest of Rome with more Violence than Reason The Third is Their frequent mistaking the Question especially through the necessity of some false Principles which they will maintain whatever come of the common Cause of the Reformation It is not easie to reply to these I shall only say there is no Truth in what is here said nor the Candour becoming a Disputant in saying of it without any pretence to proving it Let not the Dr. think that the Bishop's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 will convince us the Folly and Indiscretion that he is pleased next to grieve us with the Imputation of and to back again with the same learned Bishop's Authority p. 8. is another of his Arguments which we will not attempt to answer save with the words of Psal. 123. 3 4. Have mercy upon us O Lord have mercy upon us for we are exceedingly filled with contempt our Soul is exceedingly filled with the scorning of those that are at ease and with the contempt of the proud What he after mentioneth of the Popish Instruments being for the most violent courses doth not concern us who endure but use no Violence Let them look to it who with such Violence do press their Brethren in things acknowledged Indifferent which they think unlawful and ruine them for not yielding What Service this may do to the Papists who are such Lovers of Violent Courses let the World judge The Jews by indiscreet zeal brought the Romans on them which they designed to shun If he will prove our zeal against Popery to be also indiscreet we shall endure the parallel He cannot get that Notion out of his Head p. 9. that was met before That Non-conformists attempt to overthrow the Constitution of the Church because they are against the Ceremonies What Service this may do the Papists may be considered to make the Protestant Religion which I suppose doth constitute the Church of England have a Trifle such an Indifferent Ceremony must be for such a part of her Constitution as with it she is overturned they will be apt to inferr that we reckon our Religion a Trifle Let it be considered whether talking at this rate doth not look liker a Transport than what can be justly charged on the Non-conformists Sect. 14. Who doubteth but the Papists envy the Church of England and wish her torn in pieces and wish there were no Bishops in England and that they have endeavoured to destroy her Constitution and Government But what is all that to the purpose Doth it hence follow that they who dislike her Bishops and Ceremonies are doing the same Work The Tendency much less the Designs of Papists and Non-conformists can never be drawn into one Channel till he prove that it is the Ceremonies of the Church of England that Papists aim to destroy and not the Protestant Religion in it and that their spight at the English Bishops is not because they are Protestant Bishops but because they are Bishops It may with as much shew of Reason be said That a Physician promoteth the design of his Patient's Enemy who aimeth to kill him whereas the Physician 's Work is to remove his Disease both would have the Man what he is not but there is no Concurrence between them either in their intention or tendency of their Work. What followeth doth as little prove his point as I shall shew by brief Answers to his Questions Did not Cranmer Ridley c. suffer Martyrdom by their the Papists means Ans. Yes but not because Bishops but as Protestants Did not they own the same Episcopacy which is now among us and which men by Book upon Book seek to destroy p. 10. Ans. That maybe a Question but I now suppose they did these worthy Servants of God had Reformed much but left this Unreformed they did worthily in their Generation yet as men who are Imperfect we may rather wonder that in that time of Darkness which they had been born in and under the prejudices of their Education they discovered so much of Errour than that they in that Crowd of Corruptions that they had to purge out over-looked this Sect. 15. Some further Argumentative Questions he moveth Is all this writing against Bishops and Ceremonies done for the honour of the Reformation Is this the way to preserve the Protestant Religion among us to fill mens minds with such prejudices against the first Setâ—â—ment of it and to make the World believe that the Church-Government then Established was repugnant to the Institution of Christ and that our martyr-Martyr-Bishops exercised an unlawful Authority over Diocesan Churches But whâ—ther will Mens indiscreet Zeal carry them Here 's a Tragical Outcry as if Non-conformists went about to destroy Religion because they are not for Bishops and Ceremonies What a strange unaccountable fondness have these Men for their Diana who talk at this rate If this Discourse have any Nerves it will at once condemn all these as the worst Enemies that true Religion hath who have found any fault in a Reformed Church as if it were a thing impossible that a True Reformation should be an Imperfect Reformation But thus it is with Men who have left Scripture-Guidance and become fond of Humane Authority in Religious Matters We honour the Reformers but do not Idolize their Persons where they follow Scripture we follow them and the Apostle required no more of his Followers 1 Cor. 11. 1. but where they recede from the Rule we must needs Dissent Sect. 16. It may very much clear us silence such Clamours of our Adversaries if we consider that the English is not the only Imperfect Reformation that hath been in the World and that what our Author here alledgeth would equally justifie all their defects and condemn all Endeavours after further nearness
Communion tho' they make it not necessary to Salvation and where-ever we must sin or separate Separation is allowed by the Scripture which tieth us to live peaceably with all men if possible and so far as in us lieth It is not in our power to sin for Illud tantum possumus quod jure possumus 2. The Apostle speaketh of using Ceremonies that the Dr. calleth indifferent as so dangerous to the Soul that Separation is no doubt rather to be chosen than the use of them and yet he doth not take notice of their being lookt on as necessary to Salvation Therefore I conclude against the Dr's Conclusion of this Second Part of his Book that we are not obliged to prove against his Party either Idolatry or false Worship or making the Ceremonies necessary to Salvation It is enough if we prove that ye make them necessary to our communicating with you and that it is unlawful for us to use them for hence it plainly followeth that we must either live without the Ordinances which were our Sin or meet apart for worshipping God which is our Duty as your Impositions and Severities have stated us PART III. IN this Third Part of his Book the Learned Author undertaketh to refute several Pleas that the Dissenters use for their not communicating with the Church of England and for keeping Meetings separate from the Church The Dissenters as they are of different pâ—rswasions so they use different Pleas in defence of their ways I shall not take the defence of them all but before I come to examine this part of the Dr's Book I shall give my opinion of the several Pleas that he refuteth and fix upon what I shall own SECT I. The several Pleas used by Dissenters considered I Behold the Pleas used for the present separating from the publick Assemblies as divided into three sorts 1. Some that I do not think to be any just cause of complaint against the Church of England 2. Some that are Grievances to us that we dare not own nor approve but desire a Reformation of them yet I do not think that they by themselves make Communion with the publick Assemblies unlawful nor can justifie Separation 3. Some that not only are Grievances but do justifie yea make necessary some sort of separation and these I shall afterward further subdistinguish Of the first sort I reckon the Constitution of the Church in its Members at first want of governing Power in the People and the Constitution of a National Church as it is scrupled at by some Sect. 2. For the second sort they are not a few neither can I promise to name them all 1. We are griâ—ved with Prelatical Government and taking away of that pariâ—y of Power that Christ hath given to the ordinary Ministers of his Church This we cannot approve and therefore Ministers ought rather to suffer deprivation of the publick Exercise of their Ministry than own it And people also ought not to own that their lordly Authority that they exercise yet because this is not required to be acknowledged as a lawful Power in the Church by the people I see not that we should withdraw from the publick Assemblies meerly because there are Diocesan Bishops set over the Church except our owning them by submitting to their Jurisdiction is required as one of the Terms of Communion with the Church 2. Depriving people of their Right of chusing their own Church-Officers is also matter of complaint but we must bear it rather than separate for that from a Church 3. The gross Abuses that are in the Discipline of the Church or rather the want of any thing that looketh like Gospel Discipline we lament but it not being peoples work to mend it nor the Abuses their personal action it is no just ground of Separation 4. Godfathers and Godmothers in Baptism are an abuse but being extrinsick to the Ordinance we should not separate for that neither 5. The defects and faults that are in the Call of the Ministers and in their personal Conversation their Pluralities and Non-residences and several things of that nature we complain of and the insufficiency of many of them but do not separate for these while the Ordinances are not corrupted that we partake of 6. The Surplice and other superstitious Habits worshipping toward the East bowing to the Altar and such-like we dare not approve nor practise yet these not being imposed as Terms of our Communion with the Church we do not separate on account of them The lawfulness of these I do not now debate nor is it needful at all to do it in reference to the point of Separation that the Dr. chargeth us with yet they being things wherein we dissent from our Brethren I shall not shun to dispute such of them with the Dr. as his following Discourse shall give occasion for Sect. 3. There are a third sort of things that we dislike in the Episcopal Church of England which not only are matter of Grievance but do necessitate us and justifie us in it to depart from her Communion till these Letts be removed and they are of two sorts 1. The unlawful Terms of Communion with Her thaâ— She requireth of us without which she will not suffer us to partake with Her in the Ordinances of God as that we must worship God by the Liturgy that our Children when baptized must be signed with the Cross that we must Kneâ—l in the Act of receiving the Lord's Supper that we must observe the Holidays that She hath appointed out Christ never instituted These things we think unlawful to be done and the Church tho' She thinketh them indifferent and unnecessary in themselves yet have made them necessary by Her imposing them and excommunicateth and persecuteth us if we will not use them and therefore a parting from Her on these accounts doth necessarily follow not only because we ought not to live without God's Ordinances which we cannot have with our Brethren but because if we would do so they would still persecute us if we come not to the Liturgy if we have not our Children baptized if we do not receive the Lord's Supper thrice a Year and especially at Easter if we do not observe the Holidays A second thing that layeth a necessity on us to have Meetings apart from them is their restraining of a considerable part of the Ministers whom Christ had sent to his Church and fitted by his Gifts for Gospel-Administrations upward of Two Thousand of them being put out in one day We think it is the Duty of these men to preach the Gospel and administer the Ordinances of God and the Duty of the People to wait on their Administrations and to own their relation to them It is true this by it self considered need not hinder our Communion and that ordinarily with the publick Assemblies for things might be so managed as no clashing needed be but this putteth us under a necessity of meeting by our selves and the sinful Terms
of Communion imposed putteth us out of capacity to assemble with our Brethren in publick These I now but propose but intend to dispute them as they fall in in the Doctor 's Discourse SECT II. Of Parochial Churches IN the beginning of this third Part the Reverend Author reduceth the Pleas for Separation to Four Heads 1. Such as relate to the constitution of our Church 2. To the Terms of Communion with it 3. To the Consciences of Dissenters 4. To the parity of Reason as to our Separation from Rome Under the First he ranketh 1. That the Parish Churches are not of Christ's Institution 2. That Diocesan Churches are unlawful 3. That the National Church hath no Foundation 4. That the People are deprived of their Rights in the choice of their Pastors About these Four last mentioned he spendeth the far greatest part of this third part of his Book and a very small part of it upon the Second Head which is that which he knoweth his Antagonists do most generally insist on and lay most weight on but it is easiest going over the Hedge where it is lowest Sect. 2. He beginneth with Parochial Churches because it is Separation from those that is most Conspicuous He saith the Non-conformists at first kept Communion with them I have before disproved the Truth of this and also given reasons why the practice of them who did so is not binding to us He saith Since the Congregational way prevailed in England the present Dissenters are generally fallen into it at least so far as concerns Communion with our Parochial Churches Ans. There was a withdrawing from the Parochial Churches because of unlawful Terms of Communion before the present Congregational way was either known or prevailed and to say that Dissenters are generally fallen into the Congregational way I suppose that he meaneth by it is a mistake it is true indeed the restraint he will be angry if I say Persecution that they are under maketh Presbyterian Meetings de facto in many places Independant because they cannot associate for Discipline but we have not quitted our principles for that Sect. 3. I do not Interpose in his Contests with Dr. O. about the Parochial Churches in England being true Churches or about Dr. O's reasons for separating from them But I cannot pass our Reverend Authors Ingenuity in acknowledging p. 221. That Tyranny over Mens Consciences is a good Ground of Separation which is our great Plea for withdrawing from their Assemblies They impose on us Terms of Communion that they can pretend to no other warrant for but their own Fancy and Will and they exclude us because we cannot yield to them If this be not Tyranny over the Consciences of Men let any unbyassed Person judge and if it be so judged to be we have good Ground for Separation by the Dr's own confession Sect. 4. Our Author Sect. 2. maintaineth a long debate with Dr. O. about this Question whether one Church is that which ordinarily assembleth in one place or divers assemblies that meet ordinarily in divers places for worship be to be reckoâ—ed divers Churches This Question is stiffly debated on both sides between the Congregational and Episcopal Brethren the reason of their so much concern in it is the one ascribeth all Church Power to every Congregation that ordinarily meeteth for worship and so maketh that the highest ruling Church The other placeth ruling Church-power only in the Bishop and so maketh a Diocesan Church to be the lowest ruling Church The Presbyterians go a middle way they stand not on the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whether a Congregation should be called a Church or only the Combination of more Congregations for the Exercise of Discipline they find the word used both ways in Scripture and the Word it self 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth any Convention Civil or Religious as 1 Cor. 1. 2. all the Christians in Corinth with their Officers are called the Church and yet 1 Cor. 14. 34. it is supposed that there were several Meetings among them ordinarily that might bear each of them that name of Church When the Apostle forbiddeth that their Women should speak in the Churches 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he must mean the Churches in Corinth for it is not to be thought that he would particularly have mentioned their Women 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if he had not meant the Churches of Corinth where they were likest to usurp that Authority The Dr. saith p. 235. That it doth not once fail that where Churches are spoken of in the Plural Number they are the Churches of a Province Here it faileth Sect. 5. But leaving the Word let us understand the thing which I shall set down in a few Assertions 1. All visible Christians are Members of one Great Body whereof Christ is the head to wit his Vniversal Church which if it could so meet together as to be taught and ruled ordinarily by the same Officers there needed be no distinction of Churches in the World. And it is probable it was so in the beginning of the Gospel till the encrease of Believers made it needful to divide into several Companiâ—s that might be ordinarily taught and ruled by their several Officers 2. The several Companies of Believers with their several Officers each of which in Scripture-sence may be called a Church are to be such as may commonly meet together in one place for partaking of God's Ordinances We read of the Apostles ordaining Elders in every City 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sure then they had respect to the conveniences of Peoples living together that so they might usually meet together 3. These single Congregations being furnished with one or more Pastors and Elders have ruling Power within themselves for Christ hath given ruling power to all the Pastors and Elders and not placed it single in a Diocesan Bishop for at Philippi Phil. 2. 1. all Church-Officers are divided into Bishops and Deacons a plurality of which were in that Church tho' in one City where our Brethren acknowledge that more Diocesans than one could not be 4. The Church power in single Congregations is not Independant but is to be subordinate to the power of them associate together This may be gathered from the Churches in Corinth being there also called a Church If there were not divers religious Assemblies ordinarily they could not be called Churches if they were not Associate they could not be called a Church and wherein they could be Assâ—ciate except in the Exercise of Government is not easy to guess 5. The Association of Churches for Government may be divers as their Convenience of meeting together for that end giveth them opportunity Hence particular Assemblies lesser and greater Associations have their Congregational Classical Provincial and National Presbyteries or Assemblies for the Government of the Church the Lesser in Subordination to the Greater And if Oecumenical Synods could as conveniently and duly assemble all the rest should be subordinate to them seeing every one of them should
make a part of these Sect. 6. But because the diversity of Civil Powers and frequent clashings of them in divers Nations maketh this hardly practicable therefore the highest Church-power is usually in National Assemblies And tho' I am far from the opinion of them who think that Church Government should be modelled according to the civil government of the Nation the contrary of which I have asserted elsewhere against the Learned Author whom I now dispute with yet in this particular it not only may but must be suited to the extent of the Civil Government This being no essential part of Church-Government nor instituted but a Circumstance of it determinable by necessity and conveniency On the same Score where a Congregation could have no other to Associate with it might act Independently and be blameless 6. Tho' Christians should so divide themselves into particular Churches as they may attend the Ordinances together ordinarily yet is not this meeting together but their being under the particular Inspection of the same Officers that maketh one particular Church For 1. One Congregation may encrease to that number that one place cannot contain them and yet continue one Congregation till they be regularly divided Thus it was in some of the Ancient Churches 2. Where Parochial Bounds are so large as all the People cannot always travel to one place the Pastor or Pastors of the Church may well have places more convenient for some of them where he or they may Administer the Ordinances to them sometimes as in Chapels of Ease and yet they all continue one particular Church 3. It is a frequent case with Families that but a part of them at one time can leave the House to wait on publick Ordinances and the rest at another time yet are they one Congregation 4. In a time of Persecution where the Flock is but small and might easily be contained in one House the Danger of numerous Meetings may be such as it may be needful that but a part of them should come together at once and that by turns as we are necessitated at this time to do This doth not make divers Congregations All this considered we are little concerned whether in the Primitive Times there were but one Chuâ—ch in a City or more Whether those called Churches did meet in one place or not as long as the one Party cannot prove that each Meeting was ruled Independantly by it self nor the other that a Diocesan Bishop ruled over more Churches than one and over their Presbyters Sect. 7. Before I part with this dâ—scourse of the Dr's about the Unity of Churches I take notice of his confident Asserting p. 226. the impossibility of the change of Church-Government so suddenly from its first institution even though the Church fell into Heresies very soon yet this change could not be The same thing he had asserted before and I have answered it Praef. Sâ—ct 9. His further considerations to enforce what he had said are not weighty to wit That Government is so nice and tender a Point thâ—t they cut of whose Hands it was taken by those who usurped it would certainly have complained This he enlargeâ—h upon But I answer 1. It may be they did that they did not is not proved by the silenâ—e of History A Negative Argument here is not concludent especially considering the Lameâ—ess of the History of the first Centuries and what we have of it is by those who had a Hand in the Usurpation 2. He doth not consider that Men might Sleep while others were robbing them as Christ foretold Matth. 13. 25. 3. We may rationally think that Government in the Church which then was no Lordly Dominion but a painful Ministery or Serviâ—e and made unpleasant by the cross Humors of them that needed it most was not then so â—ice and tender a Point to honest and well-meaning Presbyters as it is now to our aspiring Church-men they were Men of another stamp they were willing to lie by if the work were done and they might think that others might do it better than they this is not to justifie them but to take off mens wonder at this and Men of higher parts and Spirits might easily by degrees wrest Power out of the Hands of as good men as themselves who were not so fore-seeing as they should have been nor so tinctured with Ambition as they though other ways good and eminent Men. And we need the less wonder at this when we consider that this thing was not done suddenly but by insensible steps in the space of three or four Hundred Years Cyprian whom the Dr. layeth most weight on in this matter lived in the third Century even then we deny that Diocesan Episcopacy was setled What the Dr. saith under this Head of the Plurality of Congregations in the several Cities that seemeth to prove Episcopal Power over Presbyters shall be answered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the next Section where it is more proper Also what he here saith against popular Election is to be considered in its place because I would not confound Subjects so divers SECT III. Whether Diocesan Episcopacy be lawful THE Second Plea for Separation that the Learned Dr. considereth is the Vnlawfulness of Diocesan Episcopacy which he taketh a great deal of pains to prove to be 1. Primitive 2. Not repugnant to any Institution of Christ 3. That its Discipline as exercised in England doth not overthrow the Being of Parochial Churches All this he manageth Sect. 8 c. I might shun this whole Debate having above disowned this as a Plea for Separation except in so far as we are required to own it But because we look on this Episcopacy as unlawful to be used or owned I shall examine what the Dr. saith in defence of it This is done already to much more advantage than can be expected from me by the learned Auther of No Evidence for Diocesan Churches or Bishops c. and the defence of that Piece under the Title of Diocesan Churches not yet discovered in the Primitive Times which might supersede all that I have to say and shall make me say the less referring the Reader to these two most Learned Books yet lest there should be an hiatus in this Disâ—ourse I shall not wholly decline this debate with the Doctoâ— Sâ—ct 2. Mr. b's Frame of Church-Government which the Dr. disproveth p. 242 243. being singular himself can best defend it wherefore I leave it and shall attend the Dr's proof of the three particulars above mentioned first asserting a few things that may clear our way 1. That it is not the Name of Bishop that we quarrel it being applied in Scripture to all the ordinary ruling Officers in the Church as distinguished from her Servants the Deacons Phil. 1. 1. and the Exercise of it called a good Work 1 Tim. 3. 1. and applied to all the Elders of Ephesus Act. 20. 28. 2. We meddle not with their Titles and Revenues those are the Magistrates
Gifts and do not cross Christ's Institution whatever inconvenience may be in them 3. Nor do we deny the Lawfulness of a Presidency among Presbyters in the Person of one of them Nature maketh it necessary that one should preside in a Meeting to shun Confusion and Christ hath not instituted the duration of one man's Presidency whether for one meeting for a Month or Year or during his life and therefore the Church may determine in that Yet we must add That the perpetuating of a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or making a moderator constant having been of old and late the means of bringing in a Lordly Prelacy and corruption of ambitious men being so apt to improve it that way so that the Papal Chair hath arisen from this low and blameless Foundation we think it highly inconvenient 4. Neither do we deny that among Ministers the wiser graver and men of more Holiness and Experience should by their reason prevail over those that are not so well qualified It is Superiority of Power that is in question between us and our Brethren yea we deny not but some of Opinion for parity of Power have overborn their Brethren through their loftiness of Spirit an Episcopal Temper may be in a Presbyterian it is not mens Corruptions but their Principles that our debate is about 5. We deny not but the Name Bishop that in the Apostles times was common to all Eldeâ—s of the Church began very early to be appropriated to the Moderator who also was called Primus Presbyter and that this priority for as small as it was was too much affected and taken notice of even in the Apostles times Diotrephes who is said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Jo. 3. 9. i. e. affected to be Primus Presbyter had a great mind to that dignity but this was when â—ew of the Apostles were now alive It is neither the Presidency nor the Precedency that we debate about but the Imparity of Church-Power or Authority 6. We deny not that prelatical Usurpation obtained in some places and was sâ—atched at in other places while yet the ancient Order of Parity among the Pastors of the Church was in most places retained 7. Though we deny that Diocesan Episcopacy prevailed in the Church for the first Three Hundred Years or that it was general in the fourth Century and are willing to enter the Lists with our Brethren in this debate about the first and purest Antiquity of Church-Government yet it is not mens Authority but divine Institution that we are determiend by and lay the stress of our Cause upon and will admit of no absolute Rule of judging in this Controversie but the Scripture Sect. 3. It might have been expected that the Dr. when he would charge us with so great blame as he doth in not submitting to the Authority of Prelates should have proved the Divine Institution or at least the lawfulness of that Office and answered the Arguments that our Writers bring against it This were the way to satisfie Mens Consciences but the Dr. is pleased to take an easier though not so perswasive a way to wit to refute Mr. B's Assertions about Episcopacy and to prove some things that are short of the main thing that is in question as I hope shall appear in our Progress And I have often observed that the confidence of our Brethrens Assertions in this Controversie is too big for the strength and concludency of their Arguments Sect. 4. It will contribute to our clear and sure procedure in this Controversie if we consider the difference and inconsistency that is among our Prelatical Brethren about the Episcopacy that they assert and the Foundation on which they build it as to the thing some of them do so restrain the Power of Bishops denying both sole Ordination and sole Jurisdiction to them that they make it little or no more but a Presidency So the learned and Pious Vsher who is followed by many of the more sober and learned of that party Grotius also goeth this way de Imper. sum potest circa sacra p. 337. others allow them Jurisdiction over other Pastors of the Church and exempt them from being liable to the Censures of their Brethren yet so as they ought not to rule by themselves but with the consent of the Pastors of the Church who are to be their Counsel Our Author Iren. p. 309. saith that both Jerom and Ignatius agree that the Counsel of Presbyters was of Divine Institution Others are for their Monarchial power in their several Diocesses neither being obliged to take the Counsel of the Presbyters nor being liable to their censures So the generality of our High Church-men Some make the Bishop the sole Pastor of the Diocess and all the Parochial Clergy to be but his Curates others think the Parochial Pastors to be substitute or delegate to none but Christ some think the Bishop's work is to preach the Gospel and administer Sacraments in his own Person and that this he should be constantly exercised in Others that his Work is to rule and that he need not trouble himself with other Work unless he please Some allow the Bishop a Power of delegating his Authority not of dispensing the Word and Sacraments only but of Government and Discipline to others yea to Lay-men that by them he may Excommunicate and judge Ministers and People Others think that he hath no power to do so so me think that it is inconsistent with the Office of a Bishop to be imployed in Civil Government others allow it Some think a Bishop should be chosen by the Church and that really and not seemingly only as when the Magistrate nominateth the Person to the Chapter who yet are not the Church of whom they must proceed to a Mock election others think those that come in this way to be none of Christs Bishops Some own Diocesan Bishops who yet see no warrant for the Hierarchy as it is stated among us in Metropolitans Primates Arch-bishops Deans Arch-deacons Chancellors c. Some hold the Office of Bishop to be distinct from that of Presbyter others deny this many School men are on both sides it was debated at the Council of Trent In all these things I observe very much Confusion and want of a distinct Idea of that Office that is debated about in the Writings of our Prelatical Brethren Sect. 5. There is as little agreement or distinctness among them about the Foundation on which the Office of a Diocesan Bishop standeth Some of them are for iâ—s divine Right as being instituted by Christ But this Plea they find so hard to be managed and to have so ill success and to be so little the way to preferment as derogating from the Supremacy of the Magistrate that most have laid it aside others that it is of Apostolick institution being not commanded by Christ but prudently setled by the Apostles Others that it is juris ecclesiastici brought in by the Primitive Church afâ—er the decease of all the
Apostles Others that it is wholly indifferent and may be received or not as is thought most expedient in several times and places and some of these say this is to be determined by the Church Others by the Magistrate This Dr. Stillingfleet in his Irenicum asserteth but is very uncertain whether the Church or Magistrate is to determine in this matter One of the most Learned of our Adversaries Dr. Hammond holdeth the Divine Right of Episcopacy but goeth away different from all the rest in managing of that Opinion to wit that all the ordinary Pastors of the Church appointed by Christ or ordained by the Apostles were Diocesan Bishops and that Presbyters are a sort of Men unheard of in the New Testament and their Office but a device of Men or a constitution of the Church This fancy is solidly refuted by learned Mr. Durham on Rev. 3. p. 230. Where the Reader may see abundant ground of Satisfaction about the absurdity and inconsistency of this Notion from Scripture Reason and Antiquity Sect. 6. The question between us and our brethren being about the lawfulness of the prelacy now exercised in England the owning of which is required of us that we may judge aright of it we must have a true Idea of it and then consider whether such an Episcopacy was instituted by Christ practised in the primitive Church with general approbation or whether it hath any rational Foundation to stand upon The true Idea of our English Episcopacy is visible in these Lineaments of it First The Bishop is one of a Superior Order to and distinct Office from other Presbyters as appeareth not only from the power he hath and they have not and acts of Church-power reserved only to him but also because he is put into that Office by an ordination distinct from that by which he is made a Presbyter And yet further because the Presbyters are owned but as his Delegates or Curates and he is owned as the sole Pastor of all the Presbyters People and Flocks in the Diocess Secondly The Bishops have jurisdiction over other Presbyters Thirdly He hath the sole Power of Ordination of Presbyters Fourthly He may delegate this Power to whom he will whether Men Ordained to the Ministry or any of the people so that by this Delegation a Man that is no Church-Officer may exercise Church-Power over both Ministers and People Fifthly This power is exercised in the name of the Magistrate the Courts in which it is exercised being owned as the Kings Ecclesiastical Court. Sixthly They are not chosen to this Office by the Church but by the Magistrate and they are not Preaching but Ruling Bishops Now if our Brethren cannot shew us such a Bâ—shop as this in Scripture or Antiquity all that they say from either for an Episcopacy is short of the thing in question and our scruple cannot be taken away by their proofs for Episcopacy unless they prove this Episcopacy Sect. 7. Though our Writers have brought Arguments against the lawfulness of this Office in the Church that have never yet been answered and I think never shall and tho' I can promise no new nor better Arguments than have been already adduced by others yet that the Reader may see that our Scruples against Episcopacy are not without good ground I shall briefly set down some Arguments against it The first shall be ad hominem against our learned Author By this Author's Doctrine there is no ground to believe that such an Episcopacy as consisteth in a Superiority of Power above Presbyters was Instituted Allowed or Exercised in the Church Ergo according to him it hath no Foundation at all that can satisfie ones Conscience about the lawfulness of it The Antithesis I prove If such a ground there be it must lie in one of these three if any asserters of it can add a fourth we shall quit this Argument either Christs appointing it in Scripture or his allowing Men to appoint such an Office or the practice of the Church shewing us what was Christs allowance But none of these yield us a Warrant for Episcopacy all the three being denyed by this Author to be able to satisfie the Conscience in this matter For the first he denyeth such an Institution asserting expresly that Christ gave equal power to all the Ordinary Ministers of the Gospel this is the basis of his Irenicum The second he never had the confidence to assert neither is the least hint in all the Scripture that Christ hath allowed Men to take away that power from his Servants that He hath given them and to put it into the hand of others to whom He never gave such eminency of power For the third he proveth at length that the primitive form of Church-Government is uncertain from the Defectiveness Ambiguity Partiality and Repugnancy of the Records of the Ages that succeeded the Apostles times Iren. c. 6. p. 294. Let him tell us then what ground we have to belive that Episcopacy was Instituted by Christ practised by the Church in Her uncorrupted times or any way allowed Sect. 8. Our second Argument is There is no foot-step of any inequality of power among these Ordinary Pastors of the Church that are mentioned in the Bible neither in their Name nor Office nor Power nor Work nor Qualifications nor Respect or Obedience due to them nor any thing else from which any distinction can be rationally gathered whence I thus Argue If the Lord had allowed a distinction between Bishops and Presbyters in his Church he would have hinted some thing about this distinction but this he hath not done Ergo c. The first proposition I prove first Because this was needful for these distinct Officers that each might know his work And for the Church-Guides that they might know how to chuse and ordain qualified Men for so different Imployments And for the people that they might know how to carry toward these Officers respect according to the difference of their Stations that they might obey the Bishop rather than the Presbyter and submit to the Teaching of the Presbyter and ruling of the Bishop that they might not come to a Presbyter for Confirmation nor call Presbyters to ordain a Minister for them nor delegate a person that deserveth Excommunication to the Presbyters all these belonging to the Bishop 2. Our Lord hath made a clear distinction in Scripture among the other Ordinary Officers in the Church in their Names Qualifications Work and Office as between Elders or Bishops and Deacons Phil. 1. 1. 1 Tim. 3. 2 9. Also between Preaching Elders and those that are only Ruling Elders 1 Tim. 5. 17. If our Brethren can shew us as much for a distinction between Bishops and Presbyters let them do it I hope none of them will say that by Ruleing Elders is here meant the Bishop least it follow that the Preaching Presbyter should rather be honoured than he either by affording him more respect or maintenance I suppose our Bishops will rather
part with the Patrimony of this Text then with their Titles Grandeur and Revenues Sect. 9. The second Proposition is evident in the several Branches mentioned before for our Adversaries can produce no hint of any such distinction in Scripture and we can shew an identity in them And first for the name it is clear from Act. 20. 28. where the Apostle calleth all the Elders of Ephesus Bishops It is a groundless fancy of some that these Elders were the Diocesan Bishops of Asia for this is said without any shew of proof to serve a turn Besides that they are called the Elders of the Church not Churches as even in the prelatical Stile Diocesan districts should be called And it is called the Flock not Flocks and the Church of God not the Churches of God that they were to take heed to and the haste that the Apostle then was in considering the short time and long journey that he had before him was inconsistent with his expecting such an Assembly from so remote parts This identity of name is also clear from Phil. 1. 1. for no reason can be assigned why Deacons should be mentioned as concerned in what was written in that Epistle and not Presbyters Also it is most clear Tit. 1. 5. with 7. where shewing how Elders must be qualified a reason is given why they must have such Qualifications for a Bâ—shop must be Blameless if they were not one this reason should have neither force nor sence which were Blasphemy to averr it being the Holy Ghosts reasoning Sect. 10. In the next place Scripture maketh no distinction between the Office of Bishop and Presbyter many of our brethren deny a distinction of Office betwixt them how consistently with their other principles I enquire not and they that assert such a distinction cannot shew the least foot-step of it from Scripture Thirdly for their power if Bishops ordained so did Presbyters 1 Tim. 4. 14. If any alledge that the ordainers of Timothy were Diocesan Bishops they must prove it If Bishops had rule over the people were over them so were Presbyters 1 Thes. 5. 12. Heb. 13. 17. For none question but Presbyters are they who mainly labour among the people admonish them and watch for their Souls I am sure this is not the work that our Bishops are exercised in and the same persons in both places are the peoples Rulers and are over them Fourthly Their Work is the same as is clear both from the places last cited and Act. 20. 28. 1 Pet. 5. 1 2. Where taking heed to feeding and over-seeing in the Greek acting the part of Bishops 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are made the work of all the Pastors of the Church 5. The same qualifications are required in all the guides of the Church without any distinction 1 Tim. 3. 2. Tit. 1. 5. And the qualification of Deacons they being a distinct sort of Officers in the Church are set down by themselves 1 Tim. 3. 8. Sixthly for Obedience Reverence Maintenance or any thing else that concerneth a Bishop as distinct from a Presbyter there is not the least hint in Scripture from which any such thing can be gathered a Man must then put force upon his reason or be strangely swaâ—ed by prejudice who can perswade himself that there is an ordinary Officer mentioned or allowed in the New Testament that is above the Presbyters of the Church or hath jurisdiction over them Sect. 11. Argument third The Apostle doth thrice set down a list of the several Officers of the Gospel-Church without mentioning a Diocesan Bishop or any Officer to which this Office can be rationally reduced Ergo no such Officer ought to be allowed in the Church The consequence I prove first Because this should have been a defect not imputable to the Apostle infallibly guided by the Spirit to teach us designedly the several Church-Officers appointed by Christ and not tell us of them all Let our brethren if they can give us an instance of a defectiveness in any Scriptureinstruction of this moment that can be parallelled with this Secondly The consequence can yet less be questioned if we considâ—r that not only an Officer is left out and the Church left without a hint concerning him but the chief ordinary Officer in the Church that should make the greatest Figure in the Church to the end of the World and on whose management the weightiest affairs of the Church should depend He who can believe this his Judgment must be under the power of so strong a Byass that I know not what will be too hard for him to Swallow the Antithesis I prove out of 1 Cor. 12. 28. Eph. 4. 11. Rom. 12. 6 7 8. Not any of these Offices agreeth to the Diocesan Bishop some say they are reducible to Apostles With what face can wise men alledge this Was not the Office of an Apostle extraordinary and temporary appointed for the first dispersing the Gospel and planting Churches and besides every Apostle was an Universal Officer Diocesans have their limitted charges Some alledge they are reducible to Apostles not as being absolutely such but because they have power over inferior Ministers as the Apostles had But these men should prove that Christ instituted such an Office or that the Apostle meant not only extraordinary Apostlâ—s but these Semi-Apostles as ordinary Officers to continue in the Church Secondly They should prove that Christs instituting Apostles did warrant the Church to set up an Office made up of as much of the Apostles Office as should be afterward thought convenient What may not men devise in the Church that take on them thus to add to or diminish from Christs Institutions and thus to wrest Scripture to make it comply with their fancies and interests Sect. 12. Others make the Doctors or Teachers Eph. 4. 11. to be the Bishops and this with as little ground as the former though some learned Men have so dreamed as Estius and Doctor Hammon Grotius thinks Metropolitans also are here meant but the absurdity of this fancy will appear First If we consider that they are named after the Pastors or Presbyters which is an indecency unâ—uitable to the Apostles Exactness if my Lord Bishop weâ—e here meant I find many Interpreters argue that Prophets are the next in Dignity to Apostles and are extraordinary Officers because they are named alwaies next after the Apostles which Argument will as well hold here Secondly The work of the Bishop that we speak of which discriminateth him from the Presbyter is not to Teach but to Rule Therefore others as Calvin by Teacher understandeth him that educateth Ministers and instructeth them and others in the truth and defendeth it against Heresies such as are Divinity Professors in Universities others understand Catechists But it is evident that it cannot with any kind of Congruity be applied to the Diocesan Bishop who is least imployed in Teaching of any part of Church-Work some find the Diocesan Bishop under the name of Helps 1
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 them own such an Office in the Church The
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
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
Work by Delegates when they are at ease nor doth it prove that these did any thing without the Presbyters that Cyprian citeth tu es Petrus and whatsoever you shall bind c. was to very good purpose when some Martyrs invaded the Discipline of the Church and i proveth that as Christ gave the power of the Keys to Peter and the rest of the Apostles not to the People so he had given it to Cyprian and the rest of the Presbyters not to the Martyrs It had been well if tu es Petrus had never been more abused He saith indeed that the Church hath ever been governed by Bishops but the Dr. must prove that he meaneth by Bishops alone as they are distinct and separate from the other Presbyters The rest that followeth that the Bishop is to govern and give Account to God that he is in the place of Christ that a Church is a People united to a Bishop do all agree very well either with a Congregational Bishop or Minister or a Presbyterian Moderator acting in parity with other Presbyters and yet these are the Herculean Arguments from Antiquity that men make such a noise with Sect. 8. I now proceed with the Dr. to the third Thing that he had undertaken to wit to prove That such an Episcopacy as is practised here and was so in the Primitive Church this Last he supposeth that he hath proved is no devisiâ—g a new species of Churches nor repugnant to any Institution of Christ. To prove which Sect. 11. he bringeth some of Mr. B's Concessions which I neither yield nor will vindicate He bringeth also some Arguments of Mr. B's to prove that the ordinary governing part of the Apostolick Office was setled in all Ages Wherefore I must for a little leave the Dr. and Answer these Arguments of Mr. B's But first I take notice that it is a Mistake in the Dr. and Mr. B. too to call the governing part of the Apostle's Office ordinary For 1. That is to suppose the Thing in question to wit that it was continued in the Church that they governed and preached is true but that Officers that after were imployed in governing or preaching can claim that power as succeeding to the Apostles in any part of their Office and without other warrant we deny The Apostles governed and preached by another Commission from Christ than men now do and that both as to the manner of it the one being immediate the other mediate and as to the matter of it their Commission warranted them to do many Acts in governing and preaching that others have no power to do as giving Authoritative rules to all Churches where they came ordaining and censureing every where going up and down to Preach every where without a call from any Church without being fixed any where this power no Man can now pretend to Wherefore I say that Minâ—sters Teâ—ch and Rule the Church not by vertue of Apostolick Office or any part of it committed to them but by vertue of anoâ—her Office distinct from that of the Apostles which they receive by their Ordination 2. It is evident that the Apostles governing Power was not ordinary because there was an ordinary governing Power in the Church even in the Apostles times distinct from that of the Apostles and exercised by other Men tho' in subordination to the Apostles governing Power The Presbytery did then Ordain they did also Excommunicate as was above shewed and the Apostles directed them so to do and sometimes concurred with them and sometimes they acted without them Sect. 9. Let us now hear Mr. B s. Arguments 1. We read saiâ—h he Christ direct pt 3. Question 56. p. 831. Of the sâ—â—lâ—ng of that form viz. general Officers as well as particular but we never read of any Absolution Discharge or Cessation of the Institution Ans. 1. If this Argument have any force it will prâ—ve the continuance of all the extraordinary Offices that ever were in the Church Prophets Evangelists Workers of Miracles c. For we read not that ever they were discharged Ans. 2. It is enough to Abolish and Discharge that Institution that this Office was setled in the persons of some Men immediately by Jesus Christ himself and after their decease He neither put others in their room immediately by himself nor gave the Church any hint that such a thing should be done but instead of that he hath given sufficient direction for propogating other Officers in the Church in all Ages Argument 2. If we affirm a Cessation without proof we seem to accuse God of Mutabillity as setling one form of Government for one Age only and no longer Ans. I hope Mr. B. will not say that a change in Gods Works yea or Institutions doth argue mutability in God are not all the Old Testament Institutions now changed Were not Prophets Evangelists Men gifted with divers tongues c. His Institutions and yet now ceased and no other proof can be given for their Cessation then what we give for the ceasing of Apostles Neither do we say they are ceased without proof that they were by immediate Commission from God that that now cannot be pretended to and that the Lord hath hinted no other way of continuing such an Office in his House nor that it should be continued is abundant proof of this Cessation Argument 3. We leave room for audacious Wits accordingly to question other Gospel Institutions as Pastors Sacraments c. and to say that they were but for an Age. Ans. There is not the least shew of reason for this for their Gospel Institutions have more abiding Warrant then Immediate Commission given by Christ to some to Administer them Argument 4. It was General Officers that Christ promised to be with to the end of the World Maâ—h 28. 20. Ans. 1. If this Argument prove any thing it proveth too much to wit that only General Officers have that promise which I hope Mr. B. will not say Ans. 2. It was spoken to General Officers but the promise is not made to them alone but to all that should be Imployed in the work of Teaching and Baptizing And these being particularly here mentioned will prove that there shall be Teachers and Baptizers to the end of the World but not that there shall be General Officers as the Metropolitans c. that Mr. B. dreameth of to the end of the World. Sect. 10. The Dr. to improve these Arguments of Mr. Bâ— to his purpose joineth with him the consent of the Ages succeeding the Apostles that the Apostles did leave successors in the care of Government of the Churches Aus Who doubteth of that but the question is to whom did the Apostles commit this care we say to the Pastors in Common he saith to Diocesan Bishops this we deny that it can be proved either from any Writing or Deed of the Apostles or from the consent of the Ages next after them that the Bishops were looked on as succeeding to the Appostles in the Government of Churches we
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
fitness for the Communion he saith 1. The greatest offenders abstain of themselves and they that come are usually the most devouâ— 2. If Debauched Persons come it is upon some awakening of Conscience Then both which nothing can be said more contrary to common experience 3. He saith This doth not defile right Communicants That is true and therefore it is no cause of Separation but it is the Churches fault and should be amended 5. and 6. Some Presbyterian Churches and the Church of Constantinople were for a Time without Discipline This is no imitable Example SECT V. The National Constitution of the Church of England debated HAving now examined what the Dr. saith for Diocesan Episcopacy I proceed to consider the next ground for Separation pleaded by some to wit the National Constitution of the Church of England I have above declared that I look on this as no ground for Separation yea nor cause of complaint if it be taken sano sensu Though I think every organized Congregation hath a governing power in it self yet this power is not Independent but Subordinate to the Association of such Churches These Associations may be greater or smaller one contained in another and so subordinate to it as the Conveniency of meeting for Discipline doth allow and because the Association of Churches in a whole Nation containeth all the Churches in it and may all meet in their representatives for the governing them all in common This we own as a National Church wherefore on this Head I have no debate with the Dr. except in so far as he is for National and Provincial Officers in this National Church Archâ—bishops and Bishops put but Provincial and National Synods in the place of these and I shall contend no further I shall not then medle with the substance of this his Discourse but only note a few things Sect. 2. The First thing that I take notice of is p. 289. Where the Dr. maketh the institution of the Apostolick Function in the Hands of twelve Men to be an Argument against Churches Power of governing themselves This proveth nothing for the ordinary Government of the Church must be regulated by what the Apostles appointed which is an abiding thing not by their own governing the Church which ceased with them Next p. 290. he saith the Succession of Bishops from the Apostles is Matter of Faâ—t attested by the most early knowing honest and impartial Witnesses which I deny and have disproved The next remark shall be upon p. 291. where he pleadeth for Bishops joining together and becoming one National Church he shuneth mentioning a Primate under and in whom they unite and this he seemeth to vindicate from making way for Papal Vsurpation and and Universal Head of the Christian Church by its being intended for the good of the whole so united and no ways repugnant to the design of the Institution and not usurping the rights of others nor assuming more than can be managed This he saith an Vniversal Pastor must do and he therefore mentioneth this that any one may see that the force of this reasoning will never justifie the Papal Vsurpation I cannot for all this see that it is more justifiable or consistent with Christ's Institution to unite a National Church under a Primate than to unite the Universal Church under a Pope Save that the one is a further remove from Parity that Christ instituted and so a greater Evil than the other but magis minus non variant speciem To clear this I shall run over these Four qualities that he mentioneth in their uniting under a Primate and consider whether they do agree better to him than to a Pope The First is it is intended for the good of the Whole so Vnited If we judge by Intentions no doubt this intention will be pretended to by the Papists also and is de facto as much pleaded by them and with as specious pretences And if we consider the reallity of the thing sad experience sheweth that neither the one nor the other doth conduce to the good of the whole but is improved to Tyrannizing over mens Consciences and Rending and Harassing the Church for the sake of superstitious Concepts of corrupt Men. Sect. 3. The Second This Vnion is no way repugnant to Institution This he should have proved we deny it Let him shew us more Institution or warrant for a Metropolitan than for a Pope If we should own Bishops as Successors to the Apostles yet an Arch-bishop a Metropolitan a Patriarch a Pope must still be beside Institution except the Dr. will own an Imparity among the Apostles and so be for Peters Supremacy The Third is That in this Vnion there is no usurping the Rights of others I say there is as really as there is in the Papacy for it is the Right of every one of Christ's Ministers to govern the Church in equallity of power with the rest this is taken from them and put into the hand of a Bishop and that right that the Bishop hath usurped from the Presbyters the Primate usurpeth from him and the Pope doth no more but usurp the same from all the Metropolitans and Patriarchs that they had usurped from these under them The 4th is not assuming more than can be managed Nothing but prejudice could hinder a man of the Doctors understanding to see that the Bishop assumeth more power than he can manage as really as the Primate or the Patriarch yea or the Pope doth For as the Pope cannot administer the Word and Sacraments and Discipline of the Church to all Christians in his own person no more can a Primate to a whole Nation nor a Bishop to a Diocess consisting of many thousands of People and hundreds of Congregations And as the Bishop can do all this by the Parochial Clergy for Word and Sacraments and by his Chancellors Archdeacons c. for his Discipline such as it is And as the Primate can rule a whole National Church by his and the Bishops Courts So can the Pope rule all Christian people ut cunque by Cardinals Patriarchs Metropolitans Bishops by his Legate or other Officers of his appointment I challenge the Doctor or any man to shew such a difference between a National Officer and an Oecumenick Officer in the Church as maketh one lawful and the other unlawful The Pope's usurping a Plenitude of Civil Power and more grosly abusing his pretended Church Power will not make this difference For we speak of a Pope and Primate as such abstracted from all Accidents of such an Officer in the Church Sect. 4. Pag. 292. He seems to expose the framing of Church-Government too much to the reason or rather fansie of Men when he saith That Vnion being the best way to preserve the Church the preservation of which Christ designeth by his Institution we may reasonably infer that whatever tendeth to promote this union and to prevent notable inconveniences is within the design of the first Institution tho' it be not
neither possession â—or Acts of Parliament can take that right that Christ hath given to hâ—s people and bâ—stow it on another His Allegation that the peoples consent is swallowed up in the Parliaments Act is answered above That this right hath been owned in the King from the first planting of Christianity in England is said with more confidence than any semblance of Truth or shadow of Reason That Edward 3d asserted it in an Ep. to Clement will not prove it men use big words sometimes instead of strong Arguments and I believe that his Assâ—rtion was so far true that from the beginning of Christianity heâ—e the Pope had not that power which he had claimed and which the King was debating with him Sect. 23. He saith p. 326. That the right of inferior Patronage is justly thought to bear equal daâ—e with the first settlement of Christianity in peace and quietness A bold Assertion It must then have begun in the days of Constantine the Great His proof of this is Presbyters were setled in Country Cures what then In the First Council of Orange express mention is made of Patronage and it is reserved to the first Founders of the Churches If a Bishop saith the Dr. built a Church on his own Land in another Bishop's Diocess yet the right of presenting the Clerk was reserved When first I read this I could think of no other Answer but that this was far from what was to be proved Christianity was setled in peace long befâ—re this time for I doubted not of the Truth of a Citation made by a Man of so much Learning Reading and Integrity but I now find it is fit we should see with our own Eyes for in that Canoâ— it is the 9th the Dr calleth it the 10th there is no mention expresly nor implicite of Patronage nor presenting of a Clerk only this Favour is reserved to the Builder of the Church ut quos desiderat in re sua videre ipsos ordinetis in cujus civitatis terri orio est vel si ordinati jam sint ipsos habere acquiescat It is evident that no contest between the People and the Bishop is here determined who should chuse the Clerk but between the Bishop that builded the Church and him in whose Diâ—cess it is built The Builder of the Church is to have his desire as to the Officers of the Church and not the Bishop in whose Diocess it is but it may be rationally thought that the Bishop's desire was not to cross Christ's Institution nor tâ—e ancient Canons in depriving the people of the Election Such a desire this Councâ—l could not grant him nor is it rational to suppose that they granted it But it might be supposed that tâ—e Builder of the Church might more influence the People they being his own Vassals or Tenaâ—ts as we now speak then the other Bishop in whose Diocess the Church was and therefore the one is here decreed to have his desire rather than the other He saith this was confirmed by Concil Arelat 2. c. 36. it is mihi Can. 35. Now let any judge whether this Canon doth affirm any such thâ—ng or rather doth not speak plainly for popuâ—ar Election The words of it are placuit in ordâ—natione Episcopi hunc ordinem custodiri ut primo loco venâ—litate vel ambitione suâ—inata ad Episcopis nec nominentur de quibus Clerici vel Laiâ—i Cives erga unum eligendi haebeâ—nt potestate The Relative de quibus is not Diacritick as if some might be named by the Bishops which is the only ground on which this Canon could be drawn into the Dr's design for here Bishops not a Bishop are mâ—nâ—ioned and the choice is of a Bishâ—p not a Presbyter of whom a Bishop might be a Paâ—ron the Relative is then to be understood Vniversâ—litâ—r that the Clergy and Lâ—ity have the power of chuâ—ing their Bishop and therefâ—re the rest of the Bishops must not name him Sect. 26. He bringeth next the Constitutions of the Emperours Zeno and Jusiinian I have above answered to this they were out of their Line when they medled in these matters The Citatiâ—ns tâ—emselves I cannot examine not having the Books but if they be like what goeth before it is little matter He saiâ—h this was setlâ—d also in the Westâ—rn Church as appeareth by the 9th Council of â—oledo Ans. 1. This Council was held An. 650. saith the Dr. 656. saith Alstedius this was in a time when Corruptions in the Church were come to a great height 2. In this Provincial Council were buâ—â—â—xteen Bishops With what face then can it be said that what they did was brought into the Western Church This it is to speak big words instead of using strong Arguments 3. The 1st â—anon impowereâ—h the Heirs of Founders of Churches to prevent Dilapidations in those Churches The Second impowereth the Founder himself quum diu in hâ—c vita supeâ—stes extiterit during Life to have a care of these places and to offer fit Rectors to â—erve in them Where it is to be noted 1. That the Founder might be pâ—esumed to be a good Man by his liberality and theremore trust might be reposed in him as to this matter but his Heirs who mâ—ght be profane Hereticks or Atheists are not intrusted with a conâ—ern of that nature as it is with us Where Papists must chuse a Minister for Protestants or an Atheist or Drunkard c. 2. It is not said that the people shall not chuse nor must consent but he was to offer a Pastor which might well consist with the Peoples Election All that followeth is nothing but a raking into the Dunghil of the latter Corruptions of the Church to confirm this right of patronage I therefore wave it Sect. 27. He is now arrived at his last consideration p. 328. Things being thus setled by general consent and established by Laws there is no ground for the people to resum the liberty of Elections I hope the weight of this is already taken of in the judgment of the unbyassed Reader that there never was such general consent nor Laws till the Church was quite corrupted and that these if they had been could not take away the peoples right of Election and therefore they are to own iâ— still He giveth three reasons for this Assertion 1. It was not unalterable That is deny'd 2. No inconvenience can be alledged against the setled way of disposing of Livings but may be remedied by Lâ—w easier than those which will follow on popular Elâ—ctions in a divided Nation Ans. 1. It is not only inconveniences that we object but crossing of Christ's Institution 2. The Doctor hath nothing in his eye but Liviâ—gs it is the Pastoral Relation that we mind and the conâ—ern of Souls in it we desire to know who put the power of disposing of these into the handâ— of Paâ—rons 3. We deny his Asserâ—ion for though the Law will restrain a Popish Patron from presenting a Popish
Sect. 10. Yea the Apostle 2 Thess. 2. foretelling the Antichristian Apostacy v. 3. telleth us That that Mystery of iniquity did then work v. 7. This Allegation the learned Dr. putteth off with a Scoff p. 17. but we must not therefore part with it It is evident that there was then a tendency among some of the Members of the Christian Church to several of these Evils which being grown up to Maturity of Wickedness Antichristianism was afterwards made up not to speak of the gross Heresies that then were and others that were foretold Act. 20. 29 30. The Ambition of Diotrephes was a fermenting toward Lordly Prelacy 3 Joh. ver 9. So was the Idolizing of some Ministers among the Corinthians 1 Cor. 3. 4. So the turning aside to the Jewish Ceremonies a carnal gawdy sort of Religion not contented with the simplicity of Gospel-Worship for which the Galatians are reproved Gal. 4. 9. The worshipping of Angels voluntary Humility subjection to Ordinances touch not taste not handle not Will-Worship Col. 2. 18. Forbidding of Meats and Marriage 1 Tim. 4. 3. and in a word the turning the Spiritual Religion of GOD into a Carnal outward Shew All these I say was a working toward the vile Superstitions that afterward grew up under the Antichristian Apostasy of which our Ceremonies are some Remains Now if there was such a secret working of such Evils in that time is it any wonder that some unallowable practices should be in the Church soon after the Apostles and be little taken notice of Sect. 11. And this is yet less to be wondred at if we consider the defects and uncertainty of the History of the Church in Times next after the Apostles as it was in the first Times of the Church before the Law which the Jews call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Dies inanitatis because of the want of the Light of History It was little better with the Christian Church at first We have very little distinct account of her Order and what we have is but in some things not so full as to enable us to pass a Judgment with Confidence of all their Practices in Church-Administrations It is no good Argument there is no mention of Dissent from or Non-conformity to the Church-practices of the First Times â—rgo there was none especially considering that the Writers of those Times who were glorious Lights yet Men and subject to mistakes and passions would not readily give account of what might make against their own practices And it can be made appear that the best of the Church Guides after the Apostles were in mistakes greater than what we now scruple at But the early Degeneracy of the Christian Church which our Author thinks it so absurd to imagine is witnessed by the most ancient History and nearest to these Times Eusebius lib. 3. c. 29. relating out of Egesippus the Martyrdom of Simon Son of Cleopas second Bishop of Jerusalem who had seen the Lord and was his Cousin Germain he addeth that After that the Sacred Company of the Apostles were worn out the Church having before been a pure Viâ—gin the Conspiracy of detestable Errors through Deceit of such as delivered strange Doctrine took rooting c. If Heresie so soon got head what Absurdity is it to think that lesser Evils might early prevail This may be also proved in reference to the Rites used in the Church how early there was a degeneracy in these out of Irenaeus who lived in the second Century Epist. ad Victor Episc. Rom. Quae varietas observantiae pascatis jejuniorum non 〈◊〉 primum neque nostris temporibus caepit sed multo aute nos ut opinor qui non simpliciter quod ab initio traditum est tenentes in alium morem vel per negligentiam vel per imperitiam postmodum decidere Where it is evident that Irenaeus imputeth such negligence and unskilfulness even to the First Age and nearest to the Apostles if not in the days of some of them as made them fall from Christs Institution in some things The consideration of all which maketh me wonder at the Confidence of the learned Author who saith that So sudden and insensible a Change of the Church is so incredible that they that think it could be may on the same Grounds believe that other parts of Popery did as soon prevail That this Change did soon prevail we believe not but that it might we see no Absurdity in it and for other parts of Popery we can tell when most of them begun and therefore are not obliged from the Antiquity of one part of it to acknowledge the same of another neither is there any Inconveniency in asserting that these Mistakes crept in insensibly Seeing the Apostle speaketh of them as a Mystery that was long working before it came above-board What he saith of humane Policies keeping long to their first Institution maketh little to his purpose both because the contrary is most frequently observed they often degenerate and that unobserved by the Vulgar through the Cunning of Statesmen and because corrupt Nature is not so apt to deviate from Humane Constitutions as from those that are Divine Few Politick Frames have been so often and quickly and easily changed as the Religious Worship of the Jews was in the time of the Judges and Kings I hope by this time it will appear that the Principles of the Church's Enemies so he falsly calleth the Non-conformists who are no Enemies to the Church but to her humane Ceremonies bringeth no such mighty prejudice on the Cause of the Reformation as he with confidence inferreth from what he had discoursed for we neither own such Antiquity in the Ceremonies nor if we did would that inferr the Antiquity of Popery in its grosser parts Sect. 12. He again chargeth his Adversaries that They must forgo the Testimony of Antiquity and that by so doing they run into insuperable Difficulties in dealing with the Papists which his Principles do lead through for they can justly charge Popery as Innovation And to that purpose citeth Bishop Sanderson p. 6. In answer to him and the Bishop too We say 1. That we do not forgo the Testimony of Antiquity though we do not Idolize it as some do we will not be concludâ—d by it against Scripture and not often without Scripture but take its help to search into the Mind of God revealed in His Word It s greatest Admirers must needs forgo it sometimes both Papists and Prelatists and the ancient Authors themselves do not seldom disown all Authority in them or any men to determine in the Controversies of Religion But I shall not digress into this Debate What Weight is to be laid on Antiquity it is enough at present that we deny and our Adversaries have not proved nor shall they ever be able to prove that Bishops and Ceremonies are so ancient as they affirm them to be what Instances he intendeth or can give from his present Adversaries the Non-conformists that they
to Primitive Institution To give some Instances How many Reformations do we read of in the Jewish Church which no doubt were approved of God and rejoiced in by Good Men in so far as they were a casting off of false Gods and a worshipping of Jehovâ—h and yet had this nigrum Theta set on them by the Spirit of God that the high plâ—ces still remained and the People still Sacrificed in them yet only to Jehovah This is noted even of Sâ—lomâ—n 1 Kin. 3. 2 3. and it 's like it was one of his first Steps of Degeneracy tho' the want of a Temple might seem to have excused it yet it is noted as a Fault as Pisâ—aâ—â—r observeth and the Particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 attamen only importeth no less It is also noted of Manesseth in his last and best daies 2 Chron. 33. 17. and of Azariah 2 King. 15. 5. and of Jotham 2 King. 15. 35. and of many others which need not be mentioned Now is it imaginable that none of the Godly in Judah were dissatisfied with this Depraâ—atiâ—n of God's VVorship nor scrupled to leave the Temple and to go to the high places to worship and if there were any such Might not all this be applied to them Was it for the Honour of the Reformation Was that the way to preserve the Worship of Jehovah Mast Reformers be charged with a wrong Way of Worship If this had been an insigâ—ificant Declamation against them so is it now against us To come nearer home Do not all the soundest Protestants rejoice in the Lutheran Reformation as to the main and yet blame it in some things Were not all English Protestants glad of what King Hen. 8. did against the Pope and in some other points of Religion and yet they thought not fit so to applaud that Setlement as to look after no further Reformation Why then should it be thought in us a disgracing of the Reformation that we desire some things to be still mended Sect. 17. We thank him for his Charity that he will not say that we are set on by the Jesuites but misregard his Saying That we do their Work a groundless and unproved Assertion I wish there were no Ground for Recrimination which I shall forbear If his Forty Years Meditation have enabled him to prove the present Episcopacy agreeable to the Institution of Christ and to the best Churches we must yield the Cause but we intend to hear his Proofs first It is a needless Question that he asketh Wherein doth our Church differ from its first Setlen â—ut Seeing he knoweth that we blame the first Setlement eatenus tho' we applaud it in the main and what he cited out of Dr. Taylor the Martyr p. 11. saith no more but that some Holy Men discovered the Evil of Popery and laid down their Lives in opposition to it but had not yet come to see the Evil of some of the Appurtenances of Popery Dr. Taylor and others rejoiced to see God worshipped in English which had been in Latin as by Parrots but did not see the Evil of such a Frame of Worship having known no other So the same Dr. Tayâ—or when Bp. Bonâ—er was about degrading him Swore by St. Peter Acts and Monuments p. 174. as Joseph by the Life of Pharaoh but that doth not justifie such a practice Sect. 18. He now undertaketh p. 11 c. to make it appear that the Jesuitical Party had a great hand in the beginning of the Separation as he calleth it How doth this consist with what he had said That he will not say that we are set on by the Jesuits That Papists did not Separate at first in Queen Elizabeth's Daies we can give no Account knowing that Policy not Conscience often governeth their Actions That Non-conformists did go along with the Church in all her practices he largely insisteth on afterward and there it is to be considered whether it was so or not and if o what is our Concern in it He telleth a long Story of Jesuits imployed under the Disguise of more zealous Trotestants to oppose the Liturgy c. and to set up a Separation the truth of which I shall not dispute for it hath alwaies been the way of that active party to endeavour the Dividing of them that are not of their Communion But I know not what Blame that can reflect upon the Non-conformists or their practices I do not doubt the same party had a hand in the Divisions of Calvinists from Lutherans and are willing to take all occasions to divide that they may ruin but if the Lord turn it to Good and to their Disappointment and if his Servants keep his Way while they part from the way of other Men let the Jesuits do their worst and let us do our Duty there is neither harm nor blame in it Were it not very easie for us 〈◊〉 we had any confidence in such Arguments to shew what a hand Jesâ—its haâ—e in setting on our Adversaries in such peremptory cleaving to their Indifferent Ceremonies that they will rather see the Church torn in a thousand pieces than part with one of them and in prosecuting Men tho' never so found in the Articles of the Church's Doctrine and Innocent and Holy in their Conversation because they cannot yield over the Belly of Scripture-Light and of their Consciences to the Use of these Trifles Doth not this look more like a Design of Jesuits to embroil the Church that they may ruine her while such measures are unaccountable and the Admiration of all the Reformed Churches that behold our Differences Sect. 19. Whether the Papers he speaketh of and the Confession of Heath the Jesuit and the Letter mentioned have any thing of Truth or be a Sham as many such things have been in our daies it were such a wild-Goose chase to follow forth the Enquiry as I do not hope to come to the end of it and it were not Operae pretium to find the Truth of it That Coleman Hallingham and Benson are named in the Letter and also recorded by Mr. Fuller and others as forward Non-conformists proveth no more but that the cunning Jesuits knew how to insinuate into the most Unwary as these with Button are represented to be by their forwardness beyond others as appeareth Fuller's Ch. Hist. Book 9. Pag. 81. Pag. 108. Where he saith they cut-did all of their own Opinion And was there ever a Party among whom some might not be found fit Tools by their Indiscretion to be imployed by cunning Artificers for raising Troubles without casting a Reflection of Blame on the whole Party But our Author should have at the same time taken notice out of the same Historian p. 76. that the Bishops in 5 Eliz. 1563. being impowered by their Canons began to urge Subscriptions to the Liturgy Ceremonies and Discipline of the Church and by so doing gave Rise to these Mens and others appearing as they did and branded the Refusers with the odious Name
be evil and to have had its Rise in the decay of the Church let us bear the blame He saith the rejecting of the Ceremonies gave a great check to the Reformation in France and citeth for it Thuanus and Balduinus both Papists without pointing to their words or places where they may be found wherefore I look on what he saith as gratis dictum And if it were true it saith no more but that there were two in France that were fond of humane Ceremonies as there are many in England VVe have cause to bless the Lord that the Reformation in France was not checked but made very glorious Progress was owned by many great and small was sealed with the Blood of many Martyrs And that it was not universally received we may rationally impute to the supreme Power being against it which useth to have the Command of the Consciences of the greatest and carnal part of the world But what the Dr. saith in prosecuting this reason I wish he would reconcile with his Third Reason That England retained the Ceremonies to shew their consent with other Protestant Churches Sect. 27. His Second Reason is to manifest the Justice of the Reformation by letting Enemies see that we did not break Communion with them for meer indifferent things Ans. 1. Papists might have seen that if they would have opened their Eyes without our retaining any of their Ceremonies to wit That we brake with them on weighty points of Heresie and Idolatry and not for Ceremonies alone Ans. 2. When we had separated from their Church on such weighty Accounts we were not to retain any thing that they had corrupted the Worship of God by to please them neither could we retain those to shun breaking with them having already broken with them on other accounts Ans. 3. The Dr. taketh it for granted which is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Question between him and us to wit That the Ceremonies are meer indifferent things If he prove this he must carry the day What Advantage the Popish Bishops for all their Subtilty and Learning that he talketh of could have made of rejecting of these as well as the rest of humane Ceremonies I know not they had a large Field to expatiate in with the People by holding forth to them How many Usages of the ancient Church the Reformers had rejected that were in the Dr's sence meer indifferent things as Holy Water Cream Salt Spittle c. How little addition could the rejecting the Cross Surplice c. with the rest have made to their strength What he citeth out of P. Martyr is abundantly answered Sect. 10. for he speaketh not of Vestments used in but out of Worship about which he would not have such Contentions made at such a time but have them removed afterward The Dr. citeth his words Indefinitely Other Reformed Churches but the Author's words are Per multas Ecclesias nâ—n ab evangelio alienas I suppose he meaneth the Lutheran or rathe Greek Churches for P. Martyr well knew That in the rest of the Reformed Churches no such Vestments were used Sect. 28. Let us now hear his Third Reason to shew their consent with other Protestant Churches and he instanceth in the Lutheran Church Ans. 1. This Reason could not be used by the English Reformers because they would surely rather have imitated the Calvinist Churches with whom they agreed in Doctrine than the Lutheran Churches from whom they differ'd in considerable points of Doctrine if they had designed to symbolize with other Churches and had been influenced in their determination of this matter by that design sure they would have symbolized with the soundest Churches Ans. 2. Neither could this Reason have had any weight if they had used it seeing there were mâ—re Protestant Churches of a contrary Practice and therefore the Protestant Churches would have carried the rejection of the Ceremonies whether the notes had been ponderanda or numeranda Ans. 3. If our Reformers had design'd a Consent in Ceremonies with the Lutheran Churches why did they retain these and not the rest used among them which are most of them as little liable to Exception as those retained and are not by their multitude such a burden as those of the Papists I hope the Dr. when he considereth better will retract this Argument for there is no Reformed Church on earth that the Church of England sheweth any Consent with in her Ceremonies Ans. 4. I have elsewhere shewed from good Authority That the Lutheran Churches at first had no humane Ceremonies but what they now have crept into those Churches afterward as other Evils did which Luther did not authorise Sect. 29. He will not only have Lutherans but the chief among the Calvinists to be of his Opinion He citeth Calv. Ep. ad Sadol That he was for restoring the Ancient Face of the Church His words which I found not easily in that long Ep. are Vt instauretur vetusta illa ecclesiae facies quae primo ab hominibus indoctis non optimis deformata foedata postea a pontifice Romano ejus factione flagitio se lacerata prope deleta est It is evident that he is not speaking of Ceremonies only but mainly of the Doctrine of the Church that was in Controversie between him and the Cardinal Also that it is the Apostolick Church that he speaketh of whose Face he acknowledgeth to have been deformed before Antichrist came to an height He citeth also Calvin de vera Eccles. Reformatione ch 16. which Book I find not in the Catalogue of Calvin's Works only among his Tractatus Theolog. I find a Supplex exhortatio to the Emperour and Diet at Spire De necessitate reformandae Ecclesiae which I have diligently lookt into and find no such Passage in it but much contending against Humane Ceremonies And he apologizeth for their casting them out by shewing Quod nihil vel primo digito attigimus nisiquod christus pro nihilo ducit cum frustra coli Deum humanis traditionibus pronunciat Wherefore if Calvin owne Symbolical Ceremonies as the Dr. alledgeth we must understand him of those of Divine Institution or charge him with Inconsistency with himself Oecolampadius saith he lookt on the Gesture in the Sacrament as indifferent so do we therefore we think Kneeling ought not to be imposed And when it is so imposed it loseth its Indifferency having a shew of Adoration of the Bread. I have not Bucer's Book and therefore say nothing to the citation out of him but that his Authority will not prove the Opinion of the Calvinist Churches that we debate about Sect. 31. Our Author after this Digression returneth to the Historical part of his discourse Sect. 6. He telleth us that in the beginning of Queâ—n Eliz. Reign the Exiles returned from abroad with secret dislike of the Ceremonies but the Act of Conformity being passed and the Vse of the Liturgy strictly enjoined there was no Separation some of them accepted of Preferment in
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
Preaching and Hearing when Men forbid us We should do it peaceably and inoffensively but do it notwithstanding For his Advice to the People I cannot approve it yet doth it not reach our Case for he adviseth to Conformity for the present with express mention of their Hope of a further Reformation which we are out of all hope that ever our Clergy will yield to In Beza's Resolution of a Case mentioned by the Dr. p. 23. I desiderate one cause of Separation from a Church to wit Imposing unlawful Terms of Communion unless either this be comprehended under the right use of the Sacraments that he mentioneth or such withdrawing be not properly a Separation but a being driven away Sect. 34. He saith this Advice of Beza's put an effectual stop to the Separation I find no such thing in History but rather the contrary The same opinion he citeth of Gaulter ep dedicat in homil ad 1. Ep. ad Corinth Zanchie ep lib. 2. p. 391. where Gualter complains of the Lyes and Prejudices against the Church of England I wish it have not been Lyes written by that party that made him write so and Zanchie is even for Ministerial Conformity It is an easie thing to gather Scraps and Sentences out of mens Writings that represent them as speaking what they never thought and nothing is more ordinary with this Author than to perswade himself at least to endeavour to perswade his Reader that all the World are of his opinion It is enough to us in this matter that the Reformed Divines beyond Seas did not use the Ceremonies but have condemned them and that on such Grounds as make them unlawful to be used to wit that they are Vain Worship Additions to the Word of God the Symbols of Popish Idolatry c. and if notwithstanding of all this any of them would perswade us to use them their Doctrine doth hinder us to obey their advice which we look on as an overlash of Charity to the then good Bishops of England who were Labouring to Reform the Church from Popery Sect. 35. He telleth us next Sect. 7. of a New Generation of fiercer Non-conformists the peaceable ones being worn out It is not unusual for Adversaries to represent true Zeal as fierceness but if there was undue forwardness among them we defend not the Faults of Men but the Truth of God which they owned There was a sinful fierceness among some of Christ's Disciples when they called for Fire from Heaven Luke 9. 54 55. but this was no Argument against their cause We with sad Hearts behold the scandalous Fierceness that is among some Antiprelaâ—ists at this day but must not change our Principles for that And was there then and is there now no fierceness on the otherside If we may judge of former days by the present we may rationally ascribe the fierceness of some of the Suffering Party to that of the persecuting Party as the Exciting cause for oppression maketh a Wise Man mad Eccles. 7. 7. for the Complaint that Mr. Fox maketh of them which he Citeth out of Fuller Ch. Hist. lib. 9. p. 106. If the Circumstances be considered it will be found not to prove what the Dr. bringeth it for We must know then out of the same Author that the Complaint in this Letter was against some particular men in Magdalen College who were no Representatives of the Non-conformists that it was not occasioned by any of their Principles or Religious Practices but by a particular injury done by these men to Mr. Fox as he thought And Mr. Fox was as likely to be byassed in the matter in Controversie between him and these men he complained of as they were The Matter was his Son Samuel had left the College and gone beyond Sea without leave either of his Father or the College and at his return was suspected of Popery and for this he was by that party that Mr. Fox is so angry with expelled the College Beside all this any who readeth that Letter of Mr. Fox's may see a Strain and meet with Expressions very unbecoming Old Reverend and Good Mr. Fox who had always professed himself a Non-conformist tho he had more Latitude about the use of the Ceremonies than some others had Factiosa ista puritanuorm capita isti ter puri puritani and some other foul Reflections with the odious name that Enemies gave to that Party are very unsavory from such a Pen But Age and supposed Injury must bear the blame of the peevish strain that is too manifest throughout that whole Letter It were a hard case if the faults either real or supposed of some were always to be charged on all the Party The Dr's own Party would be black enough if they were thus dealt with and even the Historian no Friend to the Non-conformists calls this Letter such a Strain of Rhetorick as once Tully used pro Domo sua and imputeth the too much passion in it to the unjust Affront offered to him Sect. 36. Next the Dr. doth highly resent the Admonitions First and Second presented in the Name of the Non-conformists to the Parliament by Mr. Thomas Cartwright But I see not by what he citeth out of these Admonitions wherein the bitter Zeal of that Party appeared Neither that they despised the old Trifling Controversy about Garments and Ceremonies for these were still the Grounds of their Non-conformity tho they complained also of other Grievances Neither do I find that they said all was out of Course in the Church they owned the Protestant Religion but desired that the Reformation might be more through by laying aside some of the Remainders of Popish Superstitions formerly overlookt I wonder why the Dr. should startle so much at their complaining of the Liturgy Bishops and Arch-bishops the Way of câ—lling their Clergy the Ceremonies annexed to the Sacraments which are the Grievances by these Admonitions laid before the Parliament with an humble Petition for redressing of them Seeing he knoweth that these are the very things that our Controversie is Conversant about and tho' all these be not the Grounds of our withdrawing from their Worship yet all of them are such things as we are grieved with and desire a Reformation of That he calleth them bold and groundless Assertions is a more bold and groundless Assertion than any of them for he knoweth Grounds have been given which it were better to refute than rail at It is also strange that he saith That these Admonitions gave the true occasion to the following Practice of Separation when himself assigneth another Cause of it before this p. 18 19. and yet another that he dateth it from long after to wit the Indulgence Praef. p. 23. Sometimes he layeth it on the Jesuits Praef. p. 11. and indeed he knoweth not wheâ—e to lay it missing the true Cause which is Episcopal Rigour in their unscriptural Impositions on the one hand and Consciencious Obedience to the Word of God on the other That this Cause
was maintained with greater Heat than Learning is the Dr's Dialect not seldom occurring That they courted the Vulgar most is like some others of his Representations if they did they acted not wisely But if the Vulgar embraced Truth while it was rejected by the great ones it is no new thing such Ratiocinations did better become the Pharisâ—es Jo. 7. 48 49. than this Reverend Author That they pleaded the Peoples Right of Election of their Pastors we own our selves their Successors in that Speaking railing we approve not against the Greatness and Pomp of the Clergy is no popular Theme but hath been insisted on by sober and learned men of all Perswasions But that doth not much move us we are content that they enjoy their Pomp and Greatness if they will let us enjoy the Worship of God in purity and peace That this will inferr a Principle of Levelling in Mens Temporal Estates is an insinuation unworthy of this Reverned Author Sect. 37. He still exposeth the People p. 26. as pleased to think what a share they should have in the new Seigniory to wit Presbytery in every Parish If any had such Designs in being for that way we blame their Intent not their Work or Opinion But might not we if we were so disposed harangue of the pleasure the Clergy taketh in their way in contemplation of the fat Rectories Prebendaries Deaneries and Bishopricks that they daily have in view but such ways of Reasoning I reckon fitter for the vulgar whom he so much despiseth than for Scholars He telleth of a mighty Interest they got among the people and compareth this prevalency with that of the Anabaptists in Germany What if we should compare the prevalescency of Episcopacy among the Clergy and others with that of Popery in Rome and elsewhere Arguments one as strong as another That others would refine on us as we refine on the Church is a Plea against us that would well suit and hath been often used by Papists against our deserting them If others do that which is wrong because we do what is right we are not accountable for that If he can make it appear that our Principles lead to other mens evil practices we shall disown such Principles I know not what Name to give his Assertion that the consequence to wit the Brownist Separation seemed so unnatural from their own the Presbyterian's Principles for nothing can be more rashly or falsly spoken It behoved the Dr. to attempt the proof of this not barely to assert what is so injurious to his Brethren and that he might well know that they would be far from owning All that we have from him as a Colour of Proof is a most unfair representation of what the Non-conformists had said That the Church had neither right Ministry nor right Government nor right Sacraments nor right Discipline One would think that they had asserted the Nullity of all these whereas they had never dâ—sowned the Ministry nor Sacraments but found some faults adhering to them as the Office of Bishops and way of calling all the Clergy and as to the Ceremonies that were annexed to the Sacraments which faults do not inferr a necessity of Separation further than the owning of them is made the Terms of Communion with the Church And it is known that Separatists went on other Principles even such as will divide any Church the most moderate and indulgent that is not of their way Of which after SECT II. Of the First Separations that were in the Church of England after the Reformation HAving followed the Reverend and Learned Dr. through his Historical Labyrinth about the Non-entity of Separation from the Church by the first Non-conformists and found how little Truth or Candour there is in his Account of these Matters and how little that little Truth that is in his Histories doth make against our Cause I shall now attend him in his Historical Collections to prove That when Separation began it was vehemently opposed by the Non-conformists who were dissatisfied with many Corruptions in the Church By the Non-conformists who opposed the Separation he cannot mean all the Non-conformists the Separatists themselves being also such but that among the Non-conformists some were for Separation from the Church and others opposed it And so it is at this day some are dissatisfied with humane Inventions in the Worship of God and yet have more Freedom than some others of their Brethren have to use them Sect. 2. But before I come to a particular examination of his Discourse I shall premise some things that partly might excuse my whole Labour in this matter and partly may render it more easie and expedite The first thing that I premise is That if I should grant all that the Dr. discourseth from p. 27. to 29. the end of his First Part it would conclude nothing against our Cause for it amounteth only to this That some good men were not of our Opinion nor practised as we do but used the Ceremonies tho' they were dissatisfied with them If Arguments from the Authority of Men could satisfie our Consciences we should not be Non-conformists for the Hinge of the Debate between us and our conforming Brethren is Whether God ought to be worshipped according to the Prescript of His own Word and that in all the parts of His Worship greater and lesser or may in some of them be worshipped by the Traditions of Men. We expect Divine Authority for every thing whereby we worship God and cannot rest on that of Men. And therefore if the Dr. could prove That all men that ever were who were not infallibly guided did worship God by Humane Traditions this cannot warrant us to do so And yet this doth not inferr Self-will or pretending to be wiser or more consciencious than all men yea or any men an Objection frequent in our Brethrens Mouths and more frequent with Papists against Protestants for it is not Will but Conscience guided by Scripture-light that we are determined by And we are alwaies ready to receive Light from the Word if our Antagonists can hold it forth to us tho' it were to the changing both of our Opinion and Practice And we judge no Man's Light nor Practice they stand and fall to their own Master let every one be fully perswaded in his own Mind But we dare not be so far the servants of Men as to subject our Light and Conscience to them If we may retort without offence It seemeth to us a less fault if it be any to seem wiser than those that have gone before us if differing from them import so much than it is in our Brethren to seem wiser than Christ and his Apostles from them they do manifestly and confessedly differ in the things we now controvert about Sect. 3. Another general Consideration that I premise is That there are such considerable Differences between the old Church of England in which these Non-conformists lived and this new Edition of it who now require
reckoned among them Let the Dr. impute this to our Obstinacy at his pleasure we can bear it In this we are Murus Aheneus in the Poets Seâ—se Sect. 13. He telleth us p. 53. of the present Separatists going beyond Mr. Robinson the Foâ—nder as he maketh him of the Independent way who was for Communicating with the Church in the Word and Prayer He should have told us who these are It is true they thrust us out from Word and Prayer too by denying us all Church Privileges for not submitting to the Impositions and force us to seek all Gods Ordinances where we can have them in his way but we are far from withdrawing from the Word and Prayer in the Church of our own choice This Discourse against the Independent Separation I meddle not with and therefore pass over all that he saith from p. 53. to 59. only touching Two or Three Passages What Mr. Câ—n saith p. 54 of the principles of the Puritans inserting Separation is so far True that their holding the unwarrantableness of Bishops and Ceremonies doth inferr on them who act conscientiously that they should rather refrain from joining with any Church than own the one or use the other And if these be made the necessary Terms of Communion with a Church we must suffer our selves to be separated from such Imposers p. 59. Some complaining of the Mischief of Impositions a Word the Dr. is very angry with because unordained men were not suffered to Preach when and where they listed is no fit Parallel to the complaint that others make of the Mischief of Impositions when they are Excluded the Church for not using Humane Ceremonies In the one case there is restraint of what is contrary to Scripture no imposing in the other That is imposed to be done which is without warrant yea condemned in Scripture Such mean â—rtifices the Dr. reacheth at that he may ridicule our unwillingness to be Imposed on by Man's VVill in the VVorship of God. p. 58 he saith Presbyterians would not have all left to Conscience Who ever said otherwise or can say otherwise unless they would first burn their Bibles We never made Conscience the Rule it must be guided and ruled by Scripture What he saith of Popular Government let them answer it who are concerned He saith Humorous and Factious People will always be complaining of the Mischief of Impositions This Title of Mr. A's Book is a great Eye-sore to him but he should consider that on the other hand an Imperious Superstitious Clergy that will be Lords over Gods Inheritance in dispite of the Apostles Words will always be Imposing and take it ill that any should think their Impositions a Burden as wise and sober Men may do without being either Humorous or Factious He saith the Principles of Liberty of Conscience will unavoidably lead men into Confusion Many think that such indistinct and rash Assertions are more like to lead Divines into Confusion in managing their polemick Discourses Must Conscience then be bound Hand and Foot and carried whither the Prelate pleaseth Will even Dr. Stillingfleet own Mr. Parker's Notion of the Publick Conscience Hath Conscience no use but to discern what is my Lord Bishop's Will or what the Act of Parliament saith We are as far from owning an unbounded Liberty of Conscience as the Dr. is but the absolute denying of all Liberty of Conscience is liker to lead Men into Atheism than giving them some Liberty to lead them into Confusion Let Conscience then have Liberty where it hath Scripture warrant for what it holdeth which is the Liberty we plead for to our selves and let it not be rigorously dealt with in things that are of lesser Moment in Religion where they that profess Conscience are otherwise sober and peaceable and there is no hazard of confusion from Conscience It is a more innocent thing where it is rightly dealt with than the Dr. taketh it to be and we think it is more to be regarded than the Rules of Order and Government in a Church which the Dr. seemeth to bring in Competition with it I mean such Rules as are but of mans devising It is false that the Presbyterians cannot Answer Independants as to the pretence of Conscience nor they the Anabaptists For the one can refute the other wherein they mistake and tell them that Conscience cannot make their Error to be a Truth And yet they can bear with Godly and Peaceable Men in these mistakes because of their Conscience Sect. 14. He telleth us Sect. 14. That the Presbyterians charged the Dissenting Brethren with being the occasion of an inundation of Error by their going upon the principle of Liberty of Conscience I am far from justifying that Toleration which the Independants pleaded for and which by their means some say was used in our late times of Distraction Then there was no King in our Israel All Error should be opposed Gross Error punished and restrained by force But will it hence follow that we must not have leave to Dissent even from those things that the Church imposeth without Warrant from the Lord All the Citations that the Dr. bringeth p. 59 60 61. are evidently against a vast Toleration The Vniformity in Religion that the Scotch-Commissioners speak of is not to be understood of Words in Prayers and Humane Ceremonies for would they not then have first setled that way at home but of Doctrine and Discipline and Worship so far as commanded by Christ. Sect. 15. The Dr. is pleased to give himself the Trouble from p. 61. to 73. to transcribe the Substance of the many and large debates that were between the Assembly of Divines and the Dissenting Brethren But he will find it hard to apply the condemning of their Separation to our Case For they refused Communion with the Presbyterians whom they could not charge with requiring them to use any mode of Worship but what was commanded They left the Church for supposed Corruptions which were none of their personal fault nor were they put under a necessity of approving them VVe are willing to have Communion with the Church if we may be suffered but to forbear these personal Accusations that were our Sin if we should do them But let us hear what conclusions the Dr. draweth from these Debates p. 73 74. The 1st is That the Old Non-conformists thought themselves bound in Conscience to Communicate with the Church of England and did look on Separation from it as Sin notwithstanding its Corruptions This he thinketh he hath so proved that the shining of the Sun may as easily be denied Whether it hath been disproved in what is above discoursed and with what measure of clearness let others judge also how inconcludent mens Authority is in Gods matters hath been shewed The 2d Conclusion is That all Men were bound in Conscience toward preserving the Vnity of the Church to go so far as they were able So that the lawfulness of Separation where Communion is lawful is
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
not Heretical That they be not opposers of serious Godliness That they be not so vicious in their Lives as to do more hurt than good If these qualities were to be considered by a People about to Elect a Minister it is not difficult to determine what Obligation lieth on people to shun the man that wanteth them But it is another case when the Qualities of a Minister under whom we are come to be considered in order to warrant casting off his ministery A general Determination of this I have already given to wit that no other qualities of the Minister doth warrant withdrawing but such as so vitiate the Ordinances as my personal Concurrence with them is Sin. Sect. 8. But to consider these Four Ministerial Qualities in reference to this Case Two things I shall say of them in general 1. It is either supposed that all the Ministers of a Nation are so ill qualified or that some one or a few or most of them In the first case there is more need of separate Meetings In the last some less need in the Third yet less and in the Fourth least of all because peoples wants are more easily supplied by Neighbour Ministers in the one case than in the other tho the need to the Soul under that one bad Minister to shun him is as great as that of others to shun many 2. These bad ministerial qualities may no doubt arrive at that height and have those Aggravations and Circumstances that they may warrant withdrawing from such Ministers and when people cannot otherwise have God's Ordinances may warrant separate Meetings The reason of this a priori is bâ—cause they may so pervert the Ordinances of God as to make them unlawful to be used This may without difficulty be supposed to be possible Ignorance may be such as neither Word nor Sacraments are so much as right for the Substance It is so clear in Heresie that none can doubt it as in Papists Socinians c. opposing serious Religion may be the all of some mens Preaching And even personal wickedness of Ministers which seemeth to be more remote from this Hazard than the rest may affect the Ordinances as is exemplified in Eli's Son the Priest of the Lord their intemperance and covetousness made Non-conformists in Israel that were not chargeable for their withdrawing For their taking the Flesh by violence from the People before the Fat was burnt was contrary to the Institution of that Ordinance in which first the Blood was to be sprinkled then after the slaying and opening the Fat was to be burnt And after that the Priest was to have his part as may be seen Levit. 7. 2 3 4 5 6. And before the burning of the Fat to the Lord the Flesh was not Holy and so not the Priests Portion saith J. Martyr in locum This was so observed among the very Heathens who imitated in many things the Jewish Sacrafices That haud immolata sacra devorare was proverbial to express a Belly-god such as Eli's Sons were This was their Sin whereby they did pervert Divine Ordinances from the Institution 1 Sam. 2. 14 15 16 and it is said ver 17. That Men abhorred the Offerring of the Lord. Some Translate it Retrahâ—bant homines a Sacrificiis Domini they shunned offerring Sacrifices saith Vatablus beholding the Avarice of the Priests and when they saw that the wonted rites of Sacrificing were not observed saith Menochius And it yet further appeareth from ver 24. that this their Fact did affect the Ordinances and made people withdraw from them You make the People of the Lord Transgress saith Eli. There is no reason to restrict this to their uncleanness mentioned ver 22. For Eli heard beside that of all that they did to Israel and no doubt his Reproof had respect to all Some Translate ver 24. Abigitis populum Domini i. e. efficitis ne huc veniat populus ad Sacrificandum So vatablus All this considered we must not think it absurd to say that people may see such things in their Ministers as may warrant deserting of them Sect. 9. If this should be denied the Clergy should be Lords over God's Heritage to all ends and purposes and might teach what they would and do what they would and bring into the Church what they would instead of Christ's Ordinances and the People be still oblig'd to hear them and join with them in all these abominations they might lead the People in the way to Hell who were still obliged to follow them 3. The People have a Right of discerning and judging in reference to their own practice whether their Ministers be so qualified as that they may safely live under their Ministry This doth neither import that they may determine in this what they will nor that they are not to blame if they judge amiss nor that they have Authority to pass a Sentence on their Ministers that belongeth to the Pastors nor that all of them are so qualified for this Judging as were to be wished yet that they have such a Right cannot be denied without obliging them to blind obedience and regardlesness of their own Souls and Scripture alloweth it when it alloweth People to admonish Ministeâ—s in reference to their work Col. 4. 17. This Command the Colossians could not obey if they had no power of discretive judging whether Archippus fulfilled his Ministry or not Without this people were obliged to cast themselves into Temptation and hazard of Soul-ruine by a Deceiver or Soul-murderer This was both the Principle of the Primitive Church Cyprian Ep. 68. Plebs obsequens praeceptis Domini a peccatore praeposito separare se debet And it was their common practice tho' I confesâ— sometimes on no sufficient grounds they separated every where from the Arian Bishops and Pastors The Magdeburgenses Cent. 4. 1 10. p. 746. tell us out of Ruffinus Theodoret Sozomen that when Foelix B. of Rome had communicated with the Arians the People of Rome separated themselves from him and that when he taught none of them came to Church Also ibid. p. 772. That Moses refused to be ordained by Lucius B. of Alexandria because he was an Arian and a Persecutor but went to the Exiled Orthodox Bishops to receive Ordination I may here put the Dr. in mind using it only as Argumentum ad hominem that an eminent light of their own Church Bishop Jewel giving reasons why the English Bishops went not to the Council of Trent a formal Separation was because of Pope Pius's Simony in getting the Chair and manageing it with Murders and Cruelty Full. Ch. Hist. lib. 9. p. 70. Sect. 10. 4. Breaking the Peace and Unity of the Church is a matter of so much weight and consequence And the Sin of it on whatever side it lieth of so deep a Die and so great Aggravation that the greatest caution is to be used that we do not separate for imagined but real for small but very great for uncertain but very Evident
over the Christian world and how the Papists are hardened seeing no end of Schism To all this I answer 1. I know Rome and some others too will triumph when there is no cause for their so doing but as long as we can shew Scripture-warrant for what we hold and do we are unconcerned in their censures 2. That there is no cause for their triumphing appeareth because the Dr. and his Party who have the same cause of Triumph that the Papists could have on this occasion have as yet had no such victory in their Debates with us as to make them triumph 3. If by the Christian World he mean the Protestant part of Christianity for the rest we are less mâ—ved by their Judgments I hope they will not laugh at us who scruple nothing but what most of them have condemned as Additions to the Word of God and Corruptions of His Worship for so all the Calvinist-Churches and Divines have done 4. If the Papists be hardened as seeing no end of Schism they are to be blamed for we can shew them and others a good end of it to wit ordering the worship of God by his Institution or at least imposing nothing uninstituted as Terms of Communion with the Church Sect. 7. His Second Argument is Sect. 24. That this Separation maketh Vnion among the Protestant Churches impossible supposing them to remain as they are This he proveth because the Lutheran Churches have these and more Ceremonies yet these Churches are thought true and fit to be united with by a Synod of the Reformed at Charenton 1631. The Helvetian Churches declare against separating for different Rites and Ceremonies So doth the Confession of Poland and that of Ausburg and Strasburg also Crecius and the Transilvanian Divines Nothing of all this cometh up the point as above stated We allow no Separation for these Rites and none of the Divines or Confessions mentioned disalloweth forbearing of them in our own persons nor injoineth using of them We do not separate because the Church useth them but She driveth us away because we cannot use them What he citeth out of Amyraldus p. 189. that the nature of Ceremonies is to be taken from the Doctrine that goeth along with them I have said somewhat to above I deny not but a bad Doctrine may infect an indifferent Ceremoâ—y that is built on it but I cannot assent That the best Doctrine can justifie an uninstituted Ceremony in God's Worship He citeth Davenant giving three Reasons that may hinder Union and the first is Tyranny over Mens Faith and Conscience let but this be removed and our Separation is at an end for I think the Dr. will hardly clear imposing of needless Ceremonies on them that are convinced of and can prove their sinfulness of this blame That Protestant Churches abroad have harder Terms of Communion than we he supposeth p. 198. but doth not prove the Calvinist Churches have not and if the Lutheran Churches have that is impose them with such rigour we cannot but eatenus condemn them Yet we shut not out the Lutheran Churches from all possibility of Union with them as he insinuates we can have Union with them as Sister Churches but we cannot partake in their instituted parts of Worship Sect. 8. His third Argument is that this will justifie the ancient Schisms that have alwaies been condemned in the Christian Church and he instanceth in the Schism of the Novatians and others But the Dr. hath done us Presbyterians the favour to free us of the trouble of this Debate with him by setting aside from their Pleas for Separation Ceremonies Liturgy and Holidays which are the things we insist upon I say no more on this Argument but take notice of the Dr's wonderful but most groundless confidence in a Parenthesis asserting That these are common to our Church with all other Christian Churches for many hundred years before the great degeneracy of the Roman Church and are continued by an universal consent in all parts of the Christian World. The first part of his Assertion is absolutely false for all the cunning used in inserting the Epithete great degeneracy of the Roman Church I know not where he will fix this great degeneracy whether in Boniface's usurping the Title of Vniversal Bishop or may be in the Council of Trent But he shall never prove that these were used in the Church before a notable degeneracy of the Church nor that they were used by all Christians even before the greatest degâ—neracy For the Second Part of his Assertion it is beyond comprehension what he can mean by it for he cannot be ignorant that these are not continued in all nor most of the Reformed Churches but disowned in their Confessions and by their Practice But some mens confidence or pretence to it runs highest when Truth and Reason is with them at the lowest ebb Sect. 9. I come now to his Fourth Argument Sect. 26. That these grounds will make separation endless He prosecuteth this Argument in 12 pages by shewing the evil of Schism p. 197. reprovâ—ng Mr. A. for making too light of it p. 198. and exposing him in a mimick loâ—g Oration in the excuse of it p. 199 200 201 202 203. and citing Mr. B. setting forth the evil of Schism p. 204 205 206. and reproving Mr. A. for not setting Bounds to Separation All which I shall pass by as not against the cause that I maintain and only briefly answer his Argument if either his Party or any pretended to be on our side will not keep within that Boundary let them answer it That Separation will soon be at an end if the Church impose nothing but what is warranted by Scripture and if People refuse nothing so as to separate for it but what they can shew Scripture-ground that it were their Sin to own it or do it Sect. 10. His Fifth Argument is taken from the Obligation that lieth on all Christians to preserve the Peace and Vnity of the Church To enforce this Argument the Dr. doth well prove several sound truths but such as none of them nor all of them conclude against withdrawing from the Church when sinful Terms of Communion are imposed as 1. That the Study of Unity is a Duty 2. That this Unity doth not lie in bare Communion in Faith and Love. 3. Nothing can discharge us from this Obligation to study Unity but what is allowed by Christ or his Apostles as a sufficient reason for it What is all this to make up an Obligation to sin against God rather than separate from the Church But a fourth thing he insisteth on may be will help him better He telleth us of three cases wherein Scripture alloweth of Separation to wit Idolatrous Worship False Doctrine mens making indifferent things necessary to Salvation That this is not a sufficient enumeration I prove 1. Because there may be sinful Terms of Communion imposed where none of these are May not men make owning Traditions of Men necessary to their
confesseth that Sedulius Anselmus ad verbum retulerunt Hieronymi sententiam In Comment in Tit. 1. If any reject the Testimony of Jerom because he was a Presbyter and no Bishop I hope they will allow us the like liberty to reject the Testimonies that they bring of them who themselves were Bishops and then let them reckon their Gain when the Suffrages of the Ancients are brought to the Poll. Sect. 18. Other Testimonies I shall mention more briefly Tertul. Apolog. c. 34. speaking of Excommunications and other Censures saith they are done in the Assemblies and that praesident probati quique seniores Clem. Alexandr Stromat lib. 7. poenes Presbyteros est disciplinae quae homines facit meliores Both these wrote in the beginning of the Third Century Wherefore Discipline in that Age was exercised in common and every Assembly had its president with power of Discipline Ambrosius who wrote in the end of the Fourth Century when no little Deviation had been made from the right way yet sheweth the Church could not then bear sole jurisdiction for a Sentence pass'd by Syagrius was disliked quia sine alicujus fratris consilio But Ambrose passing Sentence in the same cause was approved quia cum fratribus consacerdotibus participatum processit Ambros Ep. ad Syagrium And even Cyprian as great an Asserter of Episcopal Primacy as that age could bear Ep. 12. 46. joineth the Clergy with the Bishop in receiving the Lapsed on their Repentance I next adduce the learned and excellent Augustine as a Witness of this Truth Ep. 19. ad Hieron Quamquam enim honorum vocabula quae jam ecclesiae usu obtinuit Episcopus Presbytero major sit He maketh the Bishop Major not Lord over the Presbyter and even that Majority was but by the Custom of the Church not divine Ordinance and a custom that had now obtained was not always Also lib. quaest com he proveth from 1 Tim. 3. Bâ—shop and Presbyter to be one and saith quâ—d est enim Episcopus nisi Presbyter and this Oâ—eness he further sheweth because Bishops such as then were to wit in the beginning of the Fifth Century when the Order of the Church was much changed called the Presbyters Compresbyteri but never called the Deacons Condiaconi Presbyter and Bishop being the same Office but Deacons being distinct from them both The last Testimony shall be that of Chrysostom in 1 Tim. 3. homil 11. Inter Episco um atque Presbyterum interest fere nihil quippe Presbyteris ecclesiae cura permissa est quae de Episcopis dicuntur eae etiam Presbyteris congruunt sola quippe ordinatione superiores illâ— sunt Bellarm. saith that Primasius Theophilactus and Oecumenius on that Text teach the same things and almost in the same words And the Second of these lived in the end of the Ninth Century the last in the Tenth or Eleventh The Answer that Bellarm. giveth to this is not worth taking notice of to wit Chrysost. meaneth that Presbyters have jurisdiction as Bishops have but only by Commission from the Bishop This is directly contrary to the Scope of his Discourse which is to shew an Identity of them as they are in themselves What he alledgeth out of this Citation that a Bishop may ordain not a Presbyter the learned Father's expression will not bear for Ordination must signifie either the Ordination the Bishop and Presbyter have whereby they are put in their Office to be different which he doth not alledge or that the difference between them was only in order or precedency not in Power or any Authority or that it was by the Ordination or appointment of the Church not Christ's Institution but it can never signifie the power of ordaining for then Christ who was sufficiently a Master of words would have said potestate ordinandi not Ordinatione Sect. 19. I conclude this one ground of scruple at the present Episcopacy with 3 Considerations which tho they be not â—oncludent in themselves being but humane Testimonies yet may abate a little of our brethrens confidence in asserting their Opinion about Bishops to have always been the sentiments of the Catholick Church The 1 is That Lombard and most of the School-Men deny the distinction of Bishops and Presbyters lib. 4. dist 24. liter I. He telleth us that the Canons do only mention the orders of Presbyters and Deacons because the primitive Church had only these and of these only we have the Apostles Commandment the rest were after appointed by the Church And ibid. litera M. he sheweth that the orders of Bishop Arch-Bishop c. the Church borrowed from the distinction of the Heathen Flamins Horum autem disoretio saith he a gentilibus introducta videtur Both Cajetan on Tit. 1. and Estius on the place of Lombard now cited deny the Divine Right of Episcopacy The 2 Consideration is That the Waldenses Albigenses Wickliff and his Followers and all they that under the darkness of Popery maintained the same Doctrinâ—s that the Protestants now profess were of a Parity among Presbyters and disallowed of Diocesan Bishops This is confessed by Medina and is not denyed by Bellarm and any that read what is written of their Opinions will acknowledge this it is among Wickliff's Errors imputed to him by Tho. Waldensis that in the Apostles times there were only 2 Orders Priests and Deacons and that a Bishop doth not differ from a Priest Fuller Ch. Hist. lib. 4. cent 14. p. 132. Let not any impute this to their persecuted State for we know Papists have always had their Titular Bishops where their Religion was suppressed The third thing that I offer to be considered is The observation of Spanhemius a most diligent searcher into the History of the Ancient Church in his Epitom Isagâ—g ad Hist. N. T. saeculo 2. V. 5. Where he moveth a doubt whether then there was Episcopus Praeses only in the greater Churches whether it was only Praesidentia Ministerii non imperii as Tertul. de pudicitia c. 25. or only a reverence to their age and their conversing with the Apostles and whether it did not with the defection of after ages receive addition SECT IV. The Dr's Arguments for Episcopacy Answered I Return now to the reverend Dr. to hear what he will say for this Episcopacy that we scruple on the forementioned grounds I begin with his first undertaking above mentioned to wit to shew That our Diocesan Episcopacy is the same in substance which was in the Primitive Church And this he laboureth to prove concerning the African Churches in the times of Cyprian and Augustine and the Church of Alexandria in the time of Athanasius and of the Church of Cyprus in the days of Theodoret. Concerning all this in general I make two observations before I come to examine his particular Allegations 1. That his phrase is ambiguous that their Episcopacy was the same in Substance with ours I wish he had shewed what is that Substance of Diocesan Episcopacy that he findeth
deny not tho' we deny that they had that Office or any part of it but then the question is whether they alone who in the 2. or 3. Century began to get the name of Bishops appropriate to them had that Government by themselves or in Common with the rest of the Presbyters unless the Dr. prove the former he speaketh not to the point None hath better proved the contrary of what is here held by the Dr. then he himself Iren. p. 308. to wit That not Bishops alone but all Presbyters succeeded to the Apostles and that by Testimonies out of Cyprian Ierom and Ignatius Sect. 11. He undertaketh to prove that the English Episcopacy doth not take away the whole Power of Presbyters as some alledge And that therefore it maketh no new Species of Government from what Christ Instituted or was read in the Ancient Church We do not alledge that it taketh away the whole power of Presbyters for that were to reduce them into the same order with the rest of the people but we say it usurpeth an undue power over them that neither Christ nor the Primitive Church ever allowed in taking out of their hand that power of Governing the Church that they have equal with the Bishop and in other things to be observed in our progess In order to makeing out what he alledgeth he proposeth two things to be enquired into Sect. 12. First What power is left to Presbyters in our Church 2. What Authority the Bishops have â—ver them For the first he asserteth their power in reference to the whole body of the Church and that because they have a place in the convocation where rules of Discipline Articles of Doctrine and forms of Service are determined How small a matter this is tho' the Dr. aggravateth it I do with him appeal to any Man of understanding who is unbyassed and who knoweth the constitution of an English Convocation it consisteth of two Houses in the upper House are only Bishops and let the lower House never so unanimously vote for a thing they can reject it that is 25 Men who by the Laws of the Gospel have no more power then any other 25 of near 9000 so many Churchs are reckoned in England take to themselves as much power as all these Then for the lower House of the Convocation it is made up of Presbyters indeed as the Dr. saith but many if not most of them such as by no Law of Christ have more power to sit there than any others have as Deans Arch-deacons and other Cathedral Officers here also the Presbyters are bereaved of that party of power that is their due besides that few of the inferior Presbyters are admitted often not above two or four in a Diocess If then their power be not swallowed up by the Bishops and their Creatures in the Convocation let any judge He next proveth the power by the hand that they have in Ordination or giving Orders as he calleth it to wit That by the Rules of this Church four Presbyters are to asist the Bishop and are to examine the persons to be ordained or the Bishop in their presence and to join the Imposition of hands Here also their power is swallowed up for all the rest have equal power with these four yea with the Bishop himself which is wholly taken out of their hands and managed at the Bishops pleasure who chuseth these four beside that this is really if ever practised the person is usually examined or said to be so by the Bishops Chaplain and the Bishop layeth his hands on him Sect. 12. Next he telleth us what power Presbyters have in their particular Charges p. 267. which he leaveth us to gather from 3 topicks The Epistle that is read at the Ordination of a Presbyter to wit Act. 20. or 1 Tim. 3. What an impertinency saith the Dr. had both these been if the Presbyters power had been swallowed up by the Bishop A goodly Argument some think it a great Impertinency and Boldness too in the face of these Scriptures to make a distinction as to any part of Church Power between a Presbyter and a Bishop His next topick is the Bishops Exhortation at the Ordination where he telleth them of the dignity of the Office and greatness of the Charge calleth them Pastors that they are to Teach Premonish and Feed and provide for the Lords Family c. This indeed implyeth their Preaching Power but there is not a word of Ruling Power which the Lord joyned with it but the Bishops do separate them and for all this saying over their cold â—esson at the Solemnity the Bishops will not suffer the Presbyter to Preach by vertue of this Ordination without License so that their Ruleing Power is taken away and their Preaching Power restraineâ— at the Bishops pleasure This is a crossing of Christs Institution who made them equal neither is it any more wonder that the Bishops practice should cross his own Exhortation then that he should cross the Scripture read on that occasion His third Topick is the ordained Persons Oath to miâ—ister Word and Sacraments and Discipline as this Realm hath received the same Here Discipline is pro forma mentioned but the following words shew the meaning for this Realm hath not received Christ's Discipline to be exercised by the Officers into whose hands he put it but the Dr. acknowledgeth little less then I say when he saith That the general care of Government and Discipline is committed to the Bishop I hope the Reader will by this time see that the Presbyters in the Church of England have not all that power left to them that Christ gave to his Ministers and therefore the English Episcopacy is another kind of Church Government than that which Christ Instituted or the purer primitive times knew Sect. 13. The other thing he proposeth is Sect. 13. to shew what Authority the Bishop hath by his Consecration which he placeth in Government Ordination and Censures and he saith the Church of England did believe that Bishops did succeed the Apostles in these parts of their Office. This I deny not but the Dr. should have proved that the Church of England had ground to believe so Mr. Bs. concession will not oblige us to be of the same mind that she did believe so I am not convinced from what he bringeth in proof of it but the contrary I have proved above wherefore I shall take no further notice of this Section except to examine his notion p. 269. on which he seemeth to value himself very highly it is that in the Apostles times they managed the Government of the Church themselves and therefore there was no Bishop but Bishâ—ps and Presbyters were one but as the Apostles went off Bishops came to be setled in the several Churchs whom the Apostles setled some sooner some later if which saith he we have an incontrouleable evidence in Timothy and Titus And by this he would reconcile the
will the Dr. reconcile this with what he citeth out of the Rubrick will private dealing with the offender amount to repelling of him from the Communion 2. Discipline is a publick and Authoritative Act and another thing then private dealing with a person the Apostle calleth it a rebuking before all 1 Tim. 5. 20. And it differeth from Preaching in that by Discipline reproofs are applyed to the person in Preaching they are in more general Terms Now how this should be without publick nameing the Man I know not 3. Who doubteth that Augustine did well in what the Dr. alledgeth it must be our practice when Discipline is most strictly exercisâ—d because Discipline cannot reach the secret sins of Men But Augustine never thought that therefore Discipline was not to be publickly and personally inflicted on Offenders and sure Discipline may in some cases be forborn hic num without fault aâ—d where it is fâ—ulâ—ily forborn it doth nullifie the being of a Church yet it must not always be forborn His 2. answer is If a restraint be laid on Ministers by Law whether the Minister ought to admonish publickly and debar in that Case Reply why doth the Dr. make the Rubrick and the Law thus to clash especially seeing the Common Prayers and its Rubriâ—k are setled by Law And he doth by this fairly yield that by the constitution of the Church of England now Established by Law a Parish Minister hath no power to keep back any from the Lords Table that hath a mind to come Why then hath he taken so much pains to prove they can do something and at last conclude that this same thing is just nothing parturiunt montes Sect. 17. He frameth an objection to himself Sect. 16. that the neglects and abuse of Discipline among us are too great to be justified and too notorious to be concealed To this he hath several Answers The 1. is That the question is whether this destroyeth the being of Parochial Churches this I pass for I think it doth not The 2. is It is easier to complain of this or separate then find out a way to remedy it We propose the Scripture remedy to wit to put it into the hands of the Pastors of the Church in Common The 3. is That therâ— is not that necessity of Church Discipline as in the primitive times the Christian Magistrate taking care to punish scandalous offenders and so to vindicate the honour of the Church And to confirm this he citeth a passage of King Charles the First to the same purpose Thus the Drs. zeal for Episcopacy is swallowed up in the Gulf of Erastianism to what purpose doth he cite Cyprians Tuâ—es petrus and why hath he pleaded so much for Episcopacy even out of these Fathers that lived under Christian Emperors as Augustine Theodoret c. if Church Discipline be at the Magistrates disposal But I see Men will say any thing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 let the Dr. answer what our Divines have written against Erastus and his followers proving that the Church and Republick are distinct Societies tho made up of the same Persons that Christ hath a visible Mediatory Kingdom in the World that the Rules Laws Punishments and immediate ends of Church-State are different Let him no more tell us of the Church of England but of the Civil Laws of England as that which the Ordinances of Christ are to be dispensed and ordered by I shall not digress to refute this Assertion but Men will be apt to think that this principle doth foully reflect upon Christ and his Apostles who gave all their directions about Chruch Affairs to Church-men and not to the Magistrate Sict 18. His Fourth Answer is that Excommunication by Protestant Divines is not left to a Parochial Church I do not plead for that but against putting it into the Hand of one Man. Neither will it hence follow a Parish Minister and his Elders may exercise no Discipline The Protestant Divines abroad are not of that miâ—d It is false That among us a Minister I mean with his Elders can only admonish not repel from the Lords Supper Why saith he may not our Ministers be obliged to certifie â—he Bishop as well as theirs to certifie the Presbytery Ans. Because Christ gave no power to a Bishop above other Presbyters and Discipline in the Apostolick and Primitive Church was exercised by a single person If the Dr's principle be true I think it is fitter to certifie the Justice of Peace than either of both What he saith of the Affrican Churches is answered above Let him prove that a Bishop by himself exercised discipline in them The Bishop is often named as the Speaker in the Presbytery by the declining of him is meant declining of them The Inconveniences that he allegeth by putting Excommunication into the Hands of a single Congregation we shun by a prudent reserving of that dreadful Ordinance to a meeting of Pastors But if it were done by the meanest Congregational Elder-ship it could hardly be so ill managed and made so ridiculous and contemptible as it is now in the Hands of Bishops or rather their Servants in England It is well known how solemn and terrible it is as practiced which is seldom in Presbyterian Churches and how it hath tamed some stout-hearted Sinners without a Capias or Magistratical power to back it I wonder why the Dr. should use such Arguments as he doth against Parochial Discipline to wit That there are no certain Rules to proceed by no Determination what faults deserve Excommunication no method of Tryal no security against false â—itnesses no limitation of Causes no liberty of Appeals besides multitudes of other Inconveniences Sure this Author thinketh the Bible of little use to the Church without a Book of Canons such reflections on the Word of God are very unbecoming a part of which is written on purpose to teach Ministers how to behave themselves in the House of God 1 Tim. 3. 15. I hope the Dr's more sober thoughts will satisfie him in all these and therefore I shall give no more particular Answer But he might have considered if the Bishop have directions for all these in the Bible and if he have not his Will must be his Law why may not the Classical and Congregational Presbytery respective take the help of them He thinketh a Parochial Court of Judicature so he is pleased to speak in the Episcopal Stile would prove more Tyranical than any Bishops Court. It may be so if managed by bad men but if they keep within the Rules they profess to go by it will seem Tyrannical to none but stubborn Sinners whose galled Necks cannot bear Christ's Yoke And it could never be so grievous to Mens Persons and Estates as the Bishops Courts for these we medle not with His fifth Answer I say nothing against Sect. 19. He hath yet a further Apology for the want of Parochial Discipline even supposing every one left to their own Consciences as to their
contained in express words The Papists are dull if they cannot out of this principle hammer out a Pope as well as the Doctor can frame a Bishop or Arch-Bishop This Inference as thus loosly set down is no way to be admitted because Christ hath not provided for the unity and preservation of his Church by leaving it to Mens will or wholly to their reason either but by his own Institutions to be wisely managed by the Officers that he hath appointed in his house Unity is then to be preserved Divisions and Heresies to be prevented by the painful and faithful preaching of the Gospel by Christs Ministers in their several particular Charges by private and publick Instructions and Admonitions By their joynt Concurrence in censuring and drawing out the Sword of Discipline against stubborn Offenders These are Christs Institutions and will be effectual when he is pleased to bless them and this blessing we are to expect on his own appointed means not on mens Devices But we deny that Unity in the Church is to be preserved in any way that men in their Wisdom think fit and particularly that it is to be preserved by setting up arch-Arch-Bishops and Bishops in the Church These being none of Christ's means appointed for that end It is often seen that means thus devised of Men by Crossing of Christ's Institution either fail of their end or by mending one evil make a worse Peace and Unity is sometimâ—s and in the case in hand procured to the Church with the bearing down of Piety and shutting out of Purity Sect. 5. I dislike one Particle of that Definition that he giveth of the National Church of England diffusive p. 299. to wit he saith It is the whole Body of Christians in this Nation consisting of pastors and people agreeing in that Faith Government and Worship which are established by the Laws of this Realm Had he put the word of God insteâ—d of the Laws of this Realm I should have fully assented to this description But against that Particle I have two Exceptions 1. The Civil Law is accidental to the Church and is neither a constituent part of its essence nor a necessary adjunct of it The Church hath been without it and I hope he will not say That if the Laws were taken away the Church is unchurched for that 2. This makeâ—h the Church of England a variable and mutable thing as the Laws of men are for if Presbytery if Anabaptism If Independency Popery Socinianism and what sort of Religion you can name either as to Faith or Worship or Government were established by Law They that are of that way should then be the Church of England which is not only absurd but a dangerous notion in such a critical time as this I hope the Doctor did not design a fair retreat by this if Popery which God forbid should come to be establiâ—hed by Law The Papists were the Church of England and all the Ties that men are under to the Church of England by theâ—r Oaths and Subscriptions should oblige them to be Papists and all the True Sons of the Church must turn with the Law as the Weather-cock doth with the Wind This is like to be pleasing Doctrin to many But I pâ—rceive the Doctors design by this fine new notion is To let men see how easily the Church of England is distinguished from Papists on the one side and Dissenters on the other which makes him wonder at them who cannot tell what is meant by the Church of England If Men wondred much before they may wonder far more now what is meant by the Church of England when they see her painted in so changeable colours as that she may be one thing now and another next year and another the third year and so on The Scripture placeth the Moon under the Churches Feet and the Twelve Stars Apostolick Doctrine on her Head as her cognizance and Glory but the Doctor hath advanced the Moon to her Head that she must be known by it what he will do with the Twelve Stars I know not He is more favourable to the Papists and Dissenters they are to be known by their Conformity or Nonconformity to Scripture not to the Laws of the Land But if Papists or Dissenters should happen to get the Law on their side what will that party be that is now the Church of England It seems the Doctor is fond of this notion for he hath it up again p. 300. to the question how comes it to be one National Church He answereth because it was received by the Common consent of the whole Nation in Parliament as other Laws of the Nation are and is universally received by all that obey these Laws And thus he cleareth our Mists about the Church of England He had debated much with Mr. B. owning a Christian Kingdom but not a National Church but here he homologateth all that Mr. B. had said for the Parliament owning the Faith maketh a Christian Kingdom but it is some other thing that maketh a National Church to wit the Collective Body of all the Congregations of a Nation agreeing in the same Faith and Worship and Government as it is held forth in the Word of God. If the Doctor say thiâ— leaveth room for every party to call themselves the Church for all pretend to have the Word on their side I answer This is not to be denied for till the Lord cure our Divisions about truth and about his Ordinances we are not like to come to a decision of that question Who is the Church For all Congregations are parts of the Church and these that are nearest to the Scripture rule are the truest part of the Church The Apostle decided that Controversie who is the Circumcision the Dialect of some in that time for who is the Church not by the Laws of men but by the truth of God that they owned Phil. 3. 3. The Doctor hath found out a new Mark of the Church that Bâ—llarmine hath not though he hath more than enough to wit They that have the Law on their side are the Church Sect. 6. He telleth us that the representative Church of England is the Bishops and Presbyters of this Church meeting together according to the Laws of this Realm to consult and advise about matters of Religion This is saith not of the Convocation at Westminster but of the Consent of both Convocations Here I observe 1. That the Law of the Land is so constitutive of a Church to this Author that without it there is neither diffusive nor representative Church Then what becometh of the Apostolick Church and that of the first 300 years and of the Greek Churches under the Turk yea and of the Protestant Church of France where their Prince is not only Christian but most Christian And yet his Law does not favour that Church 2. I have shewed before that the Convocation can make no Church National representative The Presbyters and Churches of the Nation being
so insufficiently represented there 3. Neither do I understand how the Consent of two Convocations that never meet personally together can be called a Church or National representative Church I thought a Church had been a Meâ—ting not a consent of men A Personal Concurrence in some Religious Acts not a mental consent about them Bodies are requisite to make a Church as well as Souls Sect. 7. I pleâ—d not for Mr. B's Constitutive Regent part of the Catholick Church though an Oecumenick Counsel if it could be had might better challenge that Name than the Pope and I think Christs Headship over the Catholick Church dâ—th not answer to what is debated about to wit a visible power super-intending all the Inferiour Church powers on earth We own a Catholick diffusive visible Church but wish rather than hope for one representative for we are perswaded the Pope hath no title to such a headship But the question between him and Mr. B. being about a visible representative or regent Head of the National Church of England I have shewed that consent cannot stand in this room and therefore bringeth in the arch-Arch-Bishops Bishops and Presbyters summoned by the Kings Writ whose Conclusions must be enacted by a Parliament Against this National Head I object 1. That it hath no Warrant to represent the Churches of the Nation of which before 2. He seemeth above to make two such Convocations and so there must either be two Churches of England or the one Church of England must be Biceps and so a Monster 3. This consent or Convocation call it what you will is not a regent head of the Church of England it medleth only with makeing rules for Government which is none of the Churches work she is only ministerially to execute Christs Laws but doth not govern by receiving Appeals censuring the Maleversation of inferior ruling Churches inflicting Censures c. Sect. 8. Mr. B. asketh whether the rules that unite the Church of England be Divine or Humane The Dr. answereth Sect. 22. The Church is founded on a Divine Rule but requireth a conformity to the rules that she hath appointed as agreeable to the Word of God. This I conceive is not to answer the question he should have told us in which of the two rules their unity lieth We know that all Churches as well as these of New-England which he mentioneth if the Magistrate own them have civil Priviledges annexed to Church Orders but that is still wide from the question whether these Orders be Divine or Humane Doth the Church or do the Churches of New-England make Orders for observing Ceremonies in God's Worship devised by Man and place their unity in that It remaineth then still that if the National Unity of the Church of England be made by Divine Rules that either are expresly or by Consequence in Scripture we are members of it and will in all these joyn with it but if they place their unity in observing rules that have no Warrant from Scripture if we cannot joyn with them in so doing we do not separate from them but they in so far separate from us and from all the pure Churches of Christ. Sect. 9. He maintaineth p. 305. against one of his Opponents who had objected That the Church had no power to make Laws about Foederal Rules teaching Signs and Symbols c. That such a Church hath power to appoint Rules of Order and Decency not repugnant to the Word of God and that all setled Churches are for this I reply 1. He doth not answer to the Objection I hope all Rules for Order and Decency are not about Foederal Rites and teaching Symbols Ordering the natural Circumstances of Worship comprehendeth the one but not the other 2. It is false that all setled Churches appoint Rules for such Order and Decency as consisteth in Religious Ceremonies teaching Symbols and such like 3. It is also false that all setled Churches appoint Rules of Order and Decency even in the Circumstantials of Religion so as to exclude all from their Priviledges and to incite the Magistrate to punish them who do not conform to these Rules as he alledgeth other Churches use to rule by holding forth light and Perswasives not to impose with rigour and force on the Consciences of men Nor do they concern the Magistrate but where some notable violations of the Law of God otherwise not to be restrained doth require it 4. It is a false supposition that our Imposed Rules about Ceremones are not repugnant to the Word of God but this is not the place of that Debate SECT VI. The Peoples Right of Electing their Pastors THe last of these four Pleas that the Reverend Author ranketh under the first Head and which he alledgeth some make use of for separation is That the people are deprived of their right in the choice of their own Pastors This he proceedeth to Sect. 24. I do not make the depriving the people of this power a cause of separation though I reckon it a notable Grievance and earnestly desire a redress of it and pray that the Lord may move the Hearts of Rulers to defend the people in this their Right against them that take it from them But our work is now to defend this Right of the Members of the Church against the Doctor 's Assaults But before I come to this I shall shew 1. What this Right is that they have in Electing their Pastors 2. From whom they Derive it 3. What ground we have to think that they have such a Right Sect. 2. To shew what this Right is I assert 1. That the people have no Right to bestow the Benefice on their Pastor nor to elect him to it unless either it be their own gift or the giver of it hath transferred that power on them It is Election to the Office not to the Benefice that we debate about which if the Doctor had considered he might have spared a great deal of his following Discourse It is true the Magistrate ought to provide for the Church so as the person regularly chosen may enjoy the Benefice but if the Magistrate please to reserve it to his own disposing there is no Remedy the people must either chuse the man that may have the maintenance if he be tollerably qualified or they must provide for him themselves And so when a Patron giveth a Maintenance on these terms That he have the chusing of the person who shall enjoy it the Church should either reject it and provide for their Minister another way or chuse the person that the Patron presenteth But this Patronage is a sad Grievance to the Church devised in Satan's Kitchen saith Beza confess fid c. 35. it is an oppressing of people in their Spiritual Rights and in that which concerneth their Souls A greater bondage than if the whole Parish were obliged to eat nothing but what the Patron pleaseth And it had been less blame-worthy if these Donors of Church Livings had kept their Gift
say the peoples action is also included in the force of the Word to wit their Voteing by lifting up their hands which in no reason can be applied to the Apostles being but two men the mater needed not such a way of Voteing between them I conclude this being done 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in every Church the people respective chusing their Pastors and the Apostles Ordaining them it is clear to have been generally the practice of these times and so the Institution of Chirst Sect. 5. Argument 2. The Apostles were so careful yea rather the Lord was so careful to preserve this right in Election or ordinary Officers that when Men for extraordinary Work were to be sent forth the Peoples choice was not neglected Hence two were chosen by the Multitude and presented to the Lord that by Lot the Lord might chuse one of them to be an Apostle Successor to Judas Act. 1. 23. and Matthias being chosen by Lot it is said of him ver 26 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he was reckoned by Votes among the Apostles and Act. 13. 1 2. the Lord chused Barnabus and Paul for a special Service but he would have the Votes of the Church for it If the Lord thus condescended to take the present consent in such a matter is it fit for Bishops or Patrons to neglect them and obtrude Men upon them whether they will or not Argument 3d. When ever any extraordinary piece of work I mean such as was not daily exercise was to be put into the Hands of Ministers without a special Revelation they were chosen to it by the Suffrages of the People as appeareth by Act. 15. 22. where Judas and Silas are sent to Antiech about carrying the Decrees of the Synod at Jerusalem and backing them with their Doctrine So 2 Cor. 8. 19. 23. Some are chosen by the Churches to accompany Paul in carrying a Collection to the Jews in Judea and are called the Messengers of the Churches Argument 4th The Deacons were appointed to be chosen by the People 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 also the other Church Officers see Act. 6. 2 3. It is a frivolous Answer that it doth not follow that they should chuse their Pastors because they may chuse the Distributers of their Benevolence For 1. both are Church Officers instituted by Christ In this then they are alike 2. It were a less matter that people were imposed on in this lesser concern than in that of greater consequence and if the Lord have taken care that they should be satisfied about the one much more that they should be satisâ—ied about the other Sect. 6. Our 5th Argument is from the concurrent Testimony of the purer primitive times which we the rather use because our Brethren lay so much weight on this for the Power of Bishops it should not be neglected by them in the matter of Election and that of other Church Officers Also because nothing of Church-Ordâ—r is more clearly and frequently and unanimously in the Writings of the Ancients nor did longer continue untaken away even in the degenerate Ages of the Church so that we may reckon Patronages and obâ—ruding Ministers on the People among the Novelties of Popery I shall in the first place bring some Canons of Council for this Theoderet mentioneth an Epistle from the Famous Council of Nice to a Church in Egypt in which are these words Dignum est vos potestatem habere eligendi quem libet eorum nomine dandi quem clero St. Digni And after si quum vero conâ—igerit requiescere in Ecclesia tunc pro vehim honorem defuncti eos quem nuper Assumpti St. solummodi si videantur digni populus eos Elegerit The Synod Constantinopolit in an Ep. to Damasus and others shew that they had ordained Nectarius cuncta decernente pariter civetate and that they had ordained Flavianus omni Ecclesia parriter decernente Hist. inpert lib. 9. c. 14. Also 4. Carthagin cau 1. It is required that a Bishop be Ordained cum omni consensu Clericorum Laicorum Concil 3. Carthag can 22. Nullus ordinâ—tur Clericus sine Episcopi examinatione populi Testimonio Also the Tenth Canon of Council Cabilonens which was in the midle of the Seventh Century hath these words as they are in Caranz Summa Concil Signis Epâ—scopus de quacunque Civitate fuerit defunctus non ab aliis nisi a com provinicialibus clero civibus suis alterius habeatur electio sin autem aliter fiet ejus Ordinatio irrita habeatur Here the want of Popular Election is held to make void Ordination Sect. 7. Another sort of Testimonies out of Antiquity are the Decrees of Popes it was of old the Canon Law that the People should have a Hand in Elâ—ction of Ministers Bishops and others Anacletus who lived very near the Apostles time hath these words in one of his Epistles cum ejectionem summorum sacerdotum sibi Pominus reservaverit eorum electionem tamen benis sacerdotibus spiritualibus populis concessit Caelestinus primus who lived in the beginning of the Fifth Century hath these words nullus invitis detur Episcopus cleri plebis ordinis consensus requiratur Galasius about the 500 year decreed Electionem Episcopi esse totius Ecclesiae Also Stephanus Pecretat dist 63. saith Electionem non solum ad spiritualâ—s sed etiam ad Paicos pertinere And Lâ—o Magnus Anno 440. dist 63. is plain and full to this purpose So Gregorius Magnus about 590. frequently writeth to this purpose I instance only his Letter to Scholastâ—us Hâ—rtanum Magnitudâ—nem vestrâ—m ut cerâ—ocantes pâ—iores vel plâ—bem civitatis de electione alterius Sacerdotis cogites and when in case they found not one he desireth they may send three to Rome to consult about it adding quorum judicio plâ—bs tota consentiat Hadriarus who lived near the end of the Eighth Century in an Ep. to Charlemain commendeth Canâ—nes Olitanos and saith at electâ—ones he caused to proclaim the consuetudo Olitana to wit Plebs clerus Ecclesiae illius simul consistens elegerunt sibi Episcopum Sect. 8. Also particular Fathers have frequently given their Vote for this priviledge of the People Cyprian Ep. 3. often mentioneth his being chosen by the Suffrage of the whole Church of Carthage and in his Ep. de Martial Basilid he saith Plebs in sua potestate habâ—t eligendi dignos sacerdotes And he saith Idemvidemus de divina Authoritate descendere And he excuseth himself very carefully that in a case of necessity he had chosen Aurelius to be Reader in the Church without the Knowledge and Consent of the People Tertul. apol cap. 39. saith of the Seniores that preside in their Assemblies that is the Ministers Approbantur Suffragiis eorum quos regerâ—debent Greg. Nazianzen in a Funeral Sermon made on his Fathers Death discourseth much of this priviledge of the People Chrysostom lib. 4. de Sacerdotio is of the same
mind Also Augustine naming Eracius his Successor addeth this express caution si Ecclesia Consentiat and declareth hoc esse receptum provatumque jus consuetudine ut tota Ecclesia sibi elegat Episcopum aut in ipsum consentiat Hierom Ep. ad rustic Monachum Foll 292. cum ad perfectam aeâ—atem veneris si tamen vita comes fuerit â—e vel populis vel pontifâ—x Civitate Elegerint agito quae Clerici St. He supposeth it as the received practice that the People should elect Ambros. Ep. 82. Electio vocatio quae sit a tota Ecclesia vere certo est divina vocatio ad munus Episcopi Many more Citations might be added but these may suffice and abundance more may be seen append ad Catalog Test. veritat where this right of the People is deduced from the Days of the Apostles to the Eigth Century by Testimonies out of all sorts of Authors That Author taketh notice of this as an ordinary Clause in many of the Epistles which Tinemeras Archbishop of Rhemes in the Reign of Charlemain ab omnibus debet eligi cui debet ab omnibus obediri Sect. 9. I shall now attend to what the Learned Dr. hath to say in the contrary of this right of the People so divinely appointed so anciently universally and long approved He discourseth these three things to this purpose 1. What inherent Power the People had 2. How they came to be devested of it 3. Whether there be sufficâ—ent Ground to resume it One would think that if this Power be from Christ his other two parts of his discourse mighâ— have been spared For who then could take it from them And they always had a Right to resume it being unjustly deprived of it As to the first of these his debate with Dr. O. about the Peoples Church-Power and the Government of the Church being Democriâ—al I medle not with we plead for this power in them not all Church-power But he cometh Sect. 25. to this power of Election for disproving of which he undertaketh to make out six things I shall examine them in order But I think it had been more to the purpose to have answered the Scriptures and Testimonies out of Antiquity alledged by the opposites which he hath not done The First of these is That the main ground of the Peoples Interest was founded on the Apostles Canon that a Bishop must be blameless and of good report 1 Tim. 3. 2 7. Ans. I have produced other grounds and not made this either the main or any ground of this Right of the People for indeed that passage of Scripture doth direct the Electors but doth not determine who should Elect. I deny not but some of the Ancients made use of that Scripture to this purpose but they made use of others also and having established the Truth on other Grounds they might well apply this place as spoken to the People to direct them how to manage that power of Elâ—ction that the Lord had given them This is a sorry Shift to shun the Dint of Arguments to pitch on that which is either no Argument or a weak one and to set up that as the only Argument and so by beating it down to Triumph Sect. 10. He bringeth a passage out of Clem. on which he taketh a great deal of pains to make it speak for him contrary to the manifest design of it The passage is The Apostles Preaching through Cities and Countries did appoint the first Fruites having made a Spiritual Tryal of them to be Bishops and Deacons The Apostles foresaw the Contentions that would be about the Name of Episcopacy i. e. saith the Dr. about the choice of Bishops therefore they appointed the Persons mentioned and left the Distribution of their Office with this Instruction that as some dyed other approved Men should be chosen into their Office These therefore who were appointed by them or other eminent Men the Church being therewith all pleased discharging their Office with Humility cannot be justly put out of their Office. A Man of less learning than the Dr. might easily draw the quite contrary Conclusion from these words of Clement but it will require all his Skill and more too to conclude from them against popular Election But thus he argueth They were to be appointed by the Apostles therefore not of the Peoples choice Ans. Non sequitur The Deacons were appointed by the Apostles Act 6. 3. yet the People are to look out from among them i. e. to chuse and the Apostles to appoint them i. e. set them apart for their work Many other Instances may be given yet this Argumentation the Dr. useth again pag. 315. as if it were a mighty Argument He saith it seems some of the People were Contentious and endeavoured to throw out some of their Officers which occasioned this Ep. Ans. This Ep. is clear that the People may not cast out their Officers doing their Work in Humility but not a Word in it against their Electing of them but clearly to the contrary in these words the whole Church being therewith well pleased implyeth that it is not to be done without them and what Hand they can have in placing their Officers that doth not amount to Election I know not He saith they took this course of Purpose to avoid Contentions What course doth he mean It cannot be meant of Obtruding Officers on the Church for he saith they must be well pleased Therefore the Course must be appointing Officers Authoritatively by Ordination who being so appointed could not be ejected again quemdiu se bene gesserunt as appeareth by Clem. instancing the Blossoming of Arons Rod to put an end to the Emulation among the Tribes which was a Strife not about Election but about changing of the setled Officers of the Church He saith all that the People had to do was to give their Testimony Clem. saith they must be well pleased And it is clear that that excludeth obtruding â—astors on people either by Patrons or the Magistrate or Bishop He saith it seems probable to him that the reason of the Faction among them was that some represented it as a Grievance that those Officers were appointed by others not chosen by them Why this should seem to him I know not except that prejudice representeth things otherwise than they are as coloured Spectacles do It seemeth to me there could be no such thought among the People because Clement supposeth the Officers to have been chosen by themselves the whole Church being well pleased That these Factious Men had no Objection against the Presbyters themselves the Dr. Asserts but he doth not prove It is true Clem. supposeth there was no Ground for Objection and therefore they could not be cast out while they were humble quiet ready and blamless but for all that Factious Men will find fault and pick quarrels with the most innocent men Sect. 11. He next bringeth Cyprian to plead against popular Election that is to
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
that popular Elections should be taken away Gregorius Nazianzenus's wish to that purpose is unduly represented it was That the Election might be in the hands of the Clergy and the more holy part of the people and that not only but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chiefly This doth evince that he looketh on the right of Election to be in them and only wished that bad men might be deprived of the use of that priviledge and so do we when they abuse it So it be taken from them orderly The 3d. Instance is at Alexandria where Dioseurus was chosen and Proterius killed This is a gross mistake or misrepresentation It was not at the Election but long after yea Proterius's Murder was 5 or 6 years after beside it was done and the Sedition raised by Hereticks Shall not the Church chuse her Pastors now because Papists would oppose it if they be not curbed Of the 4th Instance I have already spoken to wit that at Rome about Damasus What he saith of Chrysostom Jerom and others complaining of peoples unfitness to Judge doth not prove his point For all these Men were for popular Election as I have shewed above Beside that the Pastor's fitness is to be judged by the Ordainers after the Electors have done their part Sect. 14. His third thing is p. 320. That to prevent these inconveniences many Bishops were appointed without the choice of the people and Canons were made for regulation of Elections For proof of this he telleth us that at Alexandria the Bishop was not only to be chosen out of the twelve Presbyters but by them and citeth for this Jerome Ep. ad Enagrium Severus and Almacintus and Hilarius the Deacon Answ. 1. It is no woâ—der the Bishop was chosen out of the Presbyters and by them for he was their Moderator and had no power over the people more than the rest had as hath been shewed above If he can prove that he was chosen to be Pastor of his particular Flock without their consent that were to the purpose 2. This can make nothing for Patronages or the Magistrate obtruding a pastor on the people or a single Bishop doing it 3. Jeromâ—'s words are Presbyteri unum ex selectum in excelciori gradu collocatum Episcopum nominabant he saith not unum a selectum Severus speaketh not a word of the Presbyters â—lecting alone What is said by Hilarius of the altering of the custom is not who should Elect but that he might be Elected either from among the Presbyters or from any place else What is all this against popular Elections We find saith he Bishops Consecrating others in the room of the deceased in several Churchâ—s without mention of choice made by the people and mentioneth several instances A. A negative Testimony in this case signifieth nothing The Election being the constant practise might well be supposed but needed not be mentioned That Severus of Milevis and Augustine named their Successors is no proof unless he prove that they were obtruded on the People without their consent No doubt any man more the Great Augustine may name a Minister to the People but this taketh not away the Peoples free consent or choice which the Dr. doth not deny to have been had in both these Cases Yea Augustine himself took it ill that Severus named his Successor without acquainting the People and therâ—fore in his own case did acquaintthem Sect. 15. What he alledgeth out of the Greek Canonists whom he doth not name and so cannot be examined that the Council of Nice took away the power of Election from the people is inconsistant with the Epistle of that same Synod above mentioned and therefore these Canonists are not to be believed He citeth Concil Antiâ—ch to shew that Bishops were sometimes consecrated without the consent of the People which that Council doth not approve but rather alloweth the people to reject such a one yet they will have him to retain the Honour and Office. The words are Si Episcopus ordinatus ad paraeciam minime cui est electus accesserit non suo vitio sed aut axuia cum populus volet hic honoris sic Ministerii particeps This seemeth to shew the Election of the people to be necessary to a Mans officiating as their Pastâ—r whether it go before Ordination or follow after it The same Council Can. 17. mentioneth the case of a Bishop consecrated and neglecting to go to his charge which the Dr. improveâ—h to shew that a Bishop was not always consecrated in his Church I deny not that such abuses were committed The Council doth not approve of such a thing nor doth it hence follow that it was ordinary but rather the contrary it is pitty to see the Dr. put to such shifts as to instance Gregorius being made Bishop of Alexandria before he went thither seeing this was done by the Arians and he took possession by military Force and it was disliked by the rest of the eminent Persons of the Churches But the main thing that maketh this instance to be inimitable is that Anastasius was in the place and by this means expelled The next Instance of Basil ordaining Euphronius before the peoples consent was irregular but that he behoved to have the peoples consent before he setled there maketh it wholly impertinent to the thing in hand Nothing can be less to the purpose than what followeth of the peoples pititioning the Metropolitan to Ordain their Bishop for this supposeth their Election of him and that the Metropolitan had power to refuse him is no more then we allow to the Presbytery who may reject an unqualified person tho' chosâ—n by the people The Dr. is not yet weary of Writing beside the purpose whâ—n he telleth us of a Canon of the Council of Laodicea that a Bishop chosen by the people taking possession without the Provincial Synod was to be turned out We say the same because the people may Elect but the Pastors must Ordain This doth not shew as he alledgeth that the business of Election was in the East brought into the Bishops power but only that the peoples Election was not sufficient without the Bishops and other Pastors Ordination Sect. 16. He next citeth Justinians Law that the Clergy and better sort of Citizens name three to the Metropolitan whence the Dr. inferreth that the common People were excluded from the Election Ans. 1. Justinians Law cannot make void the Law of God and they that have not given their Names to Erastus do think that Christ's Laws which are to be declared by his Church and not Justinians Laws should take place in the Church of God. 2. It is not said they must present Three but they might do it but they might also present two or but one 3. It is not said that the Clergy and better Citizens were to Elect but they were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is to draw up the Decrees as they were then called wherein the Election was contained 4. In another
Law of Justiniâ—n it is appointed that the Election be made by the Inhabitants of the City And I hope he will not impute Contradictions to Justinian's Laws He next objecteth Concil Laodic can 13. He doth not cite the Words and I meet only with the Title in these Words Deo quod non sit populis concedendum electionent facere eorum quam altaris Ministerio sit applicandi Ans. If this be meant of excluding the People wholly it is inconsistent with other Canons above cited and therefore not to be minded Therefore the meaning must rather be that the Election is not to be left to the Rable but they are to be assisted and directed in that Action by the Presbyters and better-sort of the People The Second Council of Nice is next cited but much amiss for it is Ordination not Election that is restrained to Bishops i. e. not to be done without them and Election is only taken out of the Hand of the Magistrate That Second Council citeth for Conformation of their Decree the Fourth Can. of Concil Nice 1. Where there is not a Word of Election by Bishops but only of Ordination He concludeth with Concil Constantinop 2. Can. 28. Carazanze hath it 22. Whereas the Greek Church owned but Fourteen of these Canons and the rest are look'd on as a Forgery Beside That Council was in the end of the Ninth Century when the Bishop of Rome had got very high and therefore less to be regarded Sect. 17. The Fourth thing the Dr. considereth is p. 323. That the Magistrate when Christian did interpose in this as he judged expedient Ans. We are not against the Magistrates interposing to repress Tumults assist the Oppressed oppose unpeaceable Persons c. But the question is Whether the Magistrate did take away the Election from the People and did interpose generally and when there was no special necessity for his interposing 2. We deny not but some Magâ—strates did interpose against Right and Reason but quo jure did they do so But let us hear his Instances the first is Constantine recommended to the Synod two Men to chuse either of them or whom they should judge fit without taking notice of the Interest of the People Ans. 1. This is far from taking away the Peoples right to deprive them of the present use of it on occasion of their dissension 2. How doth he prove that no notice was taken of the Peoples Interest That it is not mentioned is no proof it was so universally owned in those days that it might well be supposed without mention 3 Yea the Emperour in his Ep. to the People of Antioch doth mention it several times as Eusâ—bius relateth for he willeth them not to desire the Bishop of Antiâ—ch but to chuse one according to the Custom of the Church as our Saviour had dâ—rected them His next instance is in a Dissension at Constantinople about Paulus and Macedonius The Emperour Constantius put them both by and put in Eusebius of Nicomedia And after his Death when the Oxthodox party chused Paulus the Emperour put him out by force and put in Macedonius Ans. Such Instances will be little to the Credit of his cause for all this was done by a persecuting Emperour Constantius for râ—oting out the sound Faith and planting Arianism and was complained of by all the Orthodox as an Encroachment on the Liberties of the Church What followeth is far short of the point to wit the Emperours restoring Athenasius and several other Bishops who had been duly Elected and Ordained and by him thrust from their placâ—s Next Theodosius would have Nectarius made Bishop of Constantinople when many of the Bishops opposed it Ans. This maketh more against Episcopal Ordination than against Popular Election But that tâ—e peoples Election was not here Impedited is clear from the Synod at Ep. cited above Sect. 6. where the consent of the whole City is mentioned Next Chrysostom was appâ—inted by the Emperour to Constantinople without the People for Palladius doth not mention any consent but what was subservient to the Emperours determination Ans. Whether the câ—nsent was Antecedent or Subsequent if it was it destroyeth his design Beside both Socrates and Sozomen do expresly mâ—ntion the peoples Votes and Palladius whom the Dr. in this leaneth to doth not deny them Next he saith the Emperour would have none of the Clergy of Constantinople chosen to succeed Sinsinnius therefore Nestorius was brought from Antioch Ans. It doth not follow that he was not chosâ—n by the People and the Emperour laying this restraint on the People is only if at all excâ—sable because he feared disturbance Such pretences have often given occasion to Oppression His last instance is Proctus was made Bishop by the Emperours order before the Burial of his Successor Ans. It is not proved that the People did not chuse him yea the People had chosen him before Maximanus his predecessor got the place and he being now dead he might enter in without the Formality of a new choice Let the Reader now judge whether any Orthodox Emperour did ever disown this priviledge of the People either by declaring that the power was not in them but in himself or by interposing ordinarily or without hazard of the Civil Peace in the Elections of the Pastors of the Church wherefore the Dr. in all this hath said nothing that can conclude against this power of the people Sect. 18. His fifth Consideration p. 325. is That upon the alteration of the Government of Christendom there was greater reason for the Magistrates interposing thâ—n before I suppose by the alteration of the Government of Christendom the reverend Author meaneth the breaking of the Roman Empire and the setting up of many Kingdoms out of it which fell out in the latter and very corrupt times of the Church Himself dateth it from the endowment of Churches by the liberality of the Northern Princes Against this I argue 1. This practice being so long after the Churches purity began to decay and when Christian Religion was almost destroy'd by the encrease of Apostacies and when Princes and Prelates had as it were divided the spoiles of the Church between them and robbed the People both of their Rights and many of the Ordinances of God as to the purity of them it hath no weight to conclude against the Peoples right of Election which they had from Christ and enjoyed in the purer Ages of the Church for many Centuries of years If this reasoning have any force it will make as much for the Mass Imagiâ—s denying the Cup in the Lords Supper to the People and many such things which I hope the Dr. will not argue for tho' he unwarily saâ—th more for them than wâ—â—ld have been expected 2. He acknowledgeth p. 325. That this was obtained by Princes by degrees and indeed it was very late before it became common and the Power was wholly wrested out of the peoples Hands He confesseth that this way was not
always observed in the days of Cloâ—harius in France which of them he meaâ—eâ—h I know not there were three of that Name the first of them was about the Year 560. the last a hundred years after now if the Infancy of this usage was so late and it grew by degrees the adult State of it must be as indeed it is a very Novel device of men to subject Religion to their Lusts. Sect. 19. 3. I deny that on that alteration of Government in the State there was either greater reason than before or any reason for Princes to interpose so in the Election of the Pastors of the Church as to take it out of the peoples Hand That there was no greater reason then before I prove both because he cannot shew us such reason and also because before this there were Tumults and Confusions which might require the Magistrates interposition and also because the Christian Emperours had as much power over the Church in their large Dominions as Christian Kings could pretend to in their lesser Kingdoms No difference in this can be assigned either from any grant of Christ to the one more then to the other nor from sound reason That which the Dr. bringeth for a Reason is none at all to wit The Northern Princes endowing Churches liberally For 1. Did not the Emperours so too Coâ—stantin's liberality was exceâ—ding great which occasioned that saying hodie veninum infusum est in Ecclesiam and yet he laid not out that Treasure to purchase the Rights that Christ had given to his People 2. The Liberality was no sufficient price to purchase Gospel Priviledges from them that Christ had granted them to more than Jacobs Pottages was for Esâ—us's Birth-right It is a Conceit unworthy of a Divine and only fit for Simon Magus that the Liberality of Princes or others to the Church can entitle them to be Masters of her priviledges As there is no more reason now then before so there neither was nor is any reason at all why Magistraâ—es should mâ—dle with the Election of Church Officers because it is the peoples right by Christ's Institution and hath been owned by the Church and the Magistrate for many Ages as hath been shewed above Sect. 20. The Dr. saith that after the solemn Assemblies of the people came to be much used these priviledges in Election of Church-men of Princes came not only to be Confirmed by the consent of the people but to be enlarged This he insisteth much upon afâ—erward alledging that the people of England by their representatives in Parliament have given away their power of Elecâ—ion and put it into the Hand of the Magistrates Bishops and other Patrons A s. 1. I deny that the people could give away this right it was Christ's Legacy to them and not alienable by them It doth concern their Souls not their temporal Estates and such concerns are not at Mens disposal 2. I deny that this was done people never gave away this Right it was partly by violence and partly by Fraud wrested out of their Hands what he saith of the Parliaments giving it away wherein the People are represented is a mistake for the people are represented in Parliament as they are Members of the Body Politick and they instrust all their worldly Interests and Lives and Estates to them whom they chuse and they may dispose of these by making Laws to secure them and also to take them away when the publick good doth so require but they are not there represented as they are Members of the Church neither do they or can they entrust the Parliament with the concerns of their Souls or the Church Rights and Priviledges These Christ hath made Laws about and no Man can make Laws about them all that men can do in reference to these is Ministerial not Magisterial as Acts of Parliament are it is to declare Christ's Laws and to put them in Execution and Christ hath not entrusted Kings nor Parliaments with these Affairs but only his Ministers and the people can entrust no other with them The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this discourse of the Dr's on which all of it is built is his confounding of Church and State with Erastus which is to mingle Heaven and Earth Sect. 21. He saith The Princes obtained by degrees not only the Conâ—irmation of the Election bâ—t the Liberty of Nomination with a shadow of Election by the Clâ—rgy and others of the Court as appears by the formula of Marculphus Answ. Here is plain dealing both to let us see what fraâ—dulent ways were used to cheat the people of their Right by leaving a Shadow of Election when the substance was taken away and also that Princes were not in ancient possession of this Priviledge that they behoved by such Policies to wind themselves into And further that it is so grosly evil that Princes are ashamed openly to own such a Power over the Church but must thus hide the shame of this practice if they have a good Title why leave they a shadow of Election If not why do they assume the substance of it He ciâ—eth on the Margin in Confirmation of this grant made to Kings several Acts of Couâ—cils as Concil Aurelian An. 549. but this destroyeth his cause for Can. 3. which I suppose is that he aimeth at dâ—th barely name the King whose interest in all Church matters no man denyeth so far as the peace of the State is concerned in tâ—em but expresly requireth the Election of the Clergy and People and again their consent and moreover maketh this Election a clero plebe to be as it is written in the Antient Canons Concil Aurelan 2. Can. 7. doth also expresly mention popular Eâ—ection and Concil Aurelâ—an 3. Can. 2. doth require their consent And Concil Aurelian 4. Can. 4. requireth a Bishop to be ordâ—ined in his Church to which he was Elected decreto that was the ordinary Term for the Writing wherein the peoples Election was conâ—ained And in all these Canons there is not one word of the Magistrate except in the first as abovesaid His Concil Tarracoâ— I cannot find Concil Tolet. 12. that he citeth was in the end of the seventh Century when Corruptions were come to a great height and it was but provincial it saith indeed quoscunque pâ—testas regia â—lâ—gerit but the peoples Election is not exluded tho not mentioned and there is an express salvo it is the 6th Can. for the liberty of the Provinces which cannot well be understood but of the priviledge of the people of the Province Sect. 22. He telleth us of great Contests between the Papal and Regal power and how the latter prevailed in England and citeth several Acts of Parliament as of Edward 6th and others Aâ—sw What doth all this prove If two contend about a Third Persons Estate and the one prevail against the other doâ—h that give him a Title We deny that either Pope or Prince had a right to that they strove about and
bring Papists to the Church tho' it proved after a while rather a mean of carrying Protestants to the Mass. And King Edward 6th with the Council did affirm as much in a Letter to the Rebels in the West who had risen in defence of Popery saying that the Service that now they had in English was almost the same that before they had in Latin. And any that readeth the Bible and the Mass and this Service may easily see that there is a far greater Simitude between it and the Mass than between it and all the Worship of God that the Scripture giveth account of to have been practiced in the Apostolick Church 2. This may appear if we consider the Original of this Service it was taken out of several Popish Books the Prayers out of the Breviary the Sacraments Burial Matrimony Visitation of the Sick out of the Ritual Adminstration of the Lords Supper out of the Mâ—ss-book and Consecration of Bishops out of the Pontifical as any may see who will be at the pains to compare the Books mentioned together Sect. 12. I know it will be said that they retain only those parts of those Books that were composed by the Orthodox Fathers of the Church and used in the primitive times But this is no sufficient defence for 1. Suppose that Frame of worship had so good an Original yet being now of late so grosly abused to Idolatry and being so like to the Idolatrous worship of the Papists rather than like Apostolick Worship and we having departed from that Church on good Grounds why should we chuse their way of worship and in so doing both differ from the primitive times especially the Apostles times and from all other Reformed Churches 2. It is false that this Frame of Service was composed by the Fathers it is indeed said by some that Jerom composed some Prayers for the use oâ— weak Christians but that he or any other such did compose this Frame or any thing like it is denyed and I have proved that there was no such thing in these Times The Prayers were made by Gregory the Great Anno 600. or thereabout other parts were added by other Popes the Responds came not in till many years after What is commonly talked of the Liturgies of the Apostles or Evangelists James Peter Matthew Mark is now so exploded as learned men among our Brethren do not plead for them This shall suffice concerning the Liturgy about which more might have been said but I have said more than at first I intended SECT VIII The other Terms of Communion that they impose considered I proceed now to attend the Learned Dr's Discourse about thesâ— other Terms of Communion that his Church imposeth and we scruple And first I take notice that he chargeth his Answerers with remaining in Generals and pretending that they judge they esteem the Terms of Communion unlawful but bring no particular Arguments to prove the unlawfulness of them He saith Protestants do not do so when they charge the Church of Rome with unlawful Terms of Communion The Answer to this is easie 1. They were charged with Separation and in answering the Dr's Sermon acted the part of Defendants it was enough for that deâ—ence to plead that they did not Separate without good Ground and to shew that they scrupled such and such Terms of Communion imposed on them by the Church It was not needful in this debate to resume all the Controversie about the Liturgy and Ceremonies 2. Our Party have given abundant proof of the reasonableness of their scrupling at these things the Books above mentioned against the Liturgy and against the Ceremonies Didoclavius the Author of the Book called the English Popish Ceremonies Mr. Jeans Treasuâ—e out of Rubish a Treatise of Divine Worship English Puritanism Twelve Arguments against Ceremonies Smectymn G. F. questions betwixt Conformists and Non-conformists and many other pieces There is so much said in these and yet unanswered that it was needless to repeat what is there said I must be guilty of the same fault if it be one having at length disputed against the Ceremonies and proved them to be unlawful to be used in a Piece entituled A Vindication of the Purity of Gospel Worship against Mr. Geoâ—ge Ritchel and others I may without blame referr the Reader thither and not repeat what is there written provided I leave nothing unanswered that the Dr. hath here said on that Subject 3. Our Party do not stand on equal Ground with the Dr. and his Party Neither have we the liberty of the Press as they have nor that immunity to speak out our Arguments but we are ready to be concluded by a Prison instead of Arguments but let not the Dr. think our Cause is laid low because our Persons and worldly Interests are so Sect. 2. He resumeth an Argument out of his Sermon against our Separating that there ought to be no Separation where there is agreement in Doctrine and Substantial parts of Worship and that this Agreement is acknowledged in our case He saith Mr. A. denyeth such Agreement both in Doctrine of this I have given my judgment above Part 2. S. 1. Section 2. also in Substantial parts of Worship and alledged the Cross in Baptism to be a Substantial part of Worship Hence the Dr. undertaketh p. 335. 1. To shew what he meaneth by Substantial parts of Worship 2. That the Cross is not made such The Dr. seemeth to lay some weight on this distinction of parts of Worship to wit Substantial and Circumstantial or Accidental and alledgeth that many of us are misled by not considering it I much desire the clearing of it and therefore resolve carefully to observe what he saith and shall be ready to receive Light. He saith that The Nonconformists great Principle is That what ever was any ways intended or designed for the Worship of God was a Real and Substantial part of his Worship and when their Adversaries told them that Divine Institution was needful to make a part of Worship they said that made True Worship but without it an Act might be Worship that is False Worship and yet they allow'd the Application of common Circumstances to Acts of Worship This Subject I have discoursed at large in the Book above cited cap. 3. sect 1 3 4. But shall now a little consider what representation the Dr. is pleased to make of our Principles 1. I know no Nonconformist that ever asserted that all that was intended or designed for Worship was Worship either Real or Substantial for they well know that the Meeting-place the Ministers Maintenance the Pulpit Communion-Table c. are designed for Worship and yet are no Worship Real nor Imaginary Substantial nor Accidental True nor False If he mean by being designed for Worship that the person doing such an Act intendeth to Worship God by so doing which I cannot take to be his meaning I hope himself will acknowledg that though such a design is needful to make an act
Church declareth that this is not commanded out of an Opinion that such kneeling c. is antecedently pleasing to GOD nor that this their Command is unalterable nor binding to all nor that the things commanded are unalterable and so binding but only the Church judgeth this decent and fit to adorn the other parts of Worship I say in this case this bowing should be innocent Ceremony and no Act of false Worship which I think will hardly go down with the greatest Ceremony-Mongers And in a word let us but receive this one Principle that there is no false Worship without such Opinion as he mentioneth and men may do what they will and the Church impose what she will in the Worship of GOD provided they keep a right Opinion about the nature of these things so that it is no more our concern to look to Scripture that we may learn how to order the external Worship of GOD but to look to our Opinion that it be not faulty And by this means there are few of the Ceremonies that ever Papists or Heathens used but a Church sound in the Faith and in opinion about Superstition might bring them into the Worship of GOD which is to open the door for Ceremonial Worship a little too wide in the opinion of most sound Divines Sect. 7. Another Exception I make against the Dr. Two ways how an Act becometh superstitious is let them especially the first of them be applyed to our Ceremonies and I doubt not but even what himself hath said might condemn them for however the pliable People that use the Ceremonies because commanded by the Church and see no antecedent necessity or goodness in them may by this means be acquitted from Superstition the Church that imposeth them cannot be so innocent for either the Church must have reason for this Imposition or none but sic volo sic jubeo sit pro ratione Voluntas The Latter I hope the Dr. will not say lest by purging his Church of Superstition he make her guilty of as great a Crime to wit being Lords over GOD's Heritage and Church-Tyrants If he say the Former this Reason must be that these things are needful that they please GOD No say our Adversaries the Churches Reason for imposing them is She thinketh them decent and edifying But doth she not think this Decency and that Edification that is by them to be antecedently pleasing to GOD and needful for the Church If she do not she acteth by meer will if she do she is guilty of a superstitious opinion in supposing uninstituted things in VVorship to be pleasing to GOD antecedentally to a humane Law for if the use of them be pleasing to God so must the things out of which that usefulness doth result And indeed it may abundantly appear to the Conviction of all unbyassed Men what opinion of the necessity of these Ceremonies our Bishops have when they appoint them by their Canons impose them with Rigour and Severity punish the Neglect of them with such Violence and when they force them upon the Consciences of them who agree with themselves in all things else and when they make such distractions and divisions in the Church rather than lay aside these things Can any man of common sense whose reason is not fetter'd by Prejudice and Interest judge that men who act so have no opinion of the antecedent Goodness of the Ceremonies or that they do not think them pleasing to God He that thinketh otherwise can think what he will. Sect. 8. I come now to examine what the Dâ— saith in defence of these Two things which he requireth to make an uncommanded Act in Worship to be superstitious The 1st is That it be supposed to be necessary and pleasing to God and the omission of it unpleasing to God antecedently to a humane Law. All the proof that he bringeth of what he saith is that the Observations that Christ condemned in the Pharisees had no other evil in them nor were condemned on any other account but because of this Opinion that they had about them as Grocius observeth that Touching any thing unclean by Law did communicate uncleanness to Soul and Body and that Washing did cleanse both on which supposition they thought this Washing pleasing to God. Three things I here reply before I come to answer the Drs. Proofs of this his Allegation 1. All this is nothing to our purpose unless it can be made appear that Christ condemneth only their erroneous Opinion and not theâ—â— Practise or that they might Lawfully have added these Religious observations to these that the Lord had appointed in his Law provided they had no opinon of the antecedent necessity of the things which is so far from being proved that the Contrary is evident for our Lord doth expresly Condemn the observing of these things Mark 7. 8. Ye hold the Tradition of men as the Washing of Pots and Cups and many other such things do ye Their Doing not their Thinking only is condemned Will any man say that if any of the Pharisees should have laid aside that Opinion that the Dr. imputeth to them and look'd on these observations as of no necessity antecedent to the Tradition of the Elders and yet observed them Carefully and Religiously that such a one had sufficiently complyed with Christ's Doctrine no surely for the Controversy between the Disciples and Pharisees was not about Thinking but about Doing the Disciples not only were not of their Opinion but abstained from their Practice Sect. 9. It is evident from Galat. 4. 9 10. that the Apostle condemneth the observation of the old Jewish Ceremonies though it is clear that he is mainly disputeing against their opinion of Justification by works and these among other works yet this doth not hinder the practice of these abstracted from that opinion to be evil it being expresly condemned wherefore it is not enough that our practice in Gods Worship be not built on a bad opinion but it self must have warrant from God. 2. Christ in that debate is mainly dealing with the Imposers of these Ceremonies the Pharisees who continued that Yoak on the People that their Ancestors had laid on them and therefore it is no wonder that he took notice of a perverse opinion in them which moved them so to impose on the People whereas the people that obeyed might be moved only by the authority of their Guides hence he calleth them their Traditions because they continued them and put new life in them by their Authority The parallel then still holdeth between our Case and theirs as they behoved to have some undue esteem of these washings that made them Impose them with the same yea more Zeal than that with which they enjoyned the Ordinances of God so there must be in our Church-Guides some apprehension of Good in the Ceremonies more than is meet that maketh them not only intermix them with Divine Worship but impose them with equal if not superiour Zeal with the