and next parts were all to communicate with the Bishop and were no more than could meet to choose the Bishops and to be present as to the main body of them and disciplinary debates to give consent 5. In Cyprian's time at Carthage a place of greatness and great numbers of Christians the Church was grown very great but not beyond the exercise of such personal Communion as I described And the Bishops there and round about being worthy men kept up the life of the former Discipline And as great as their Church was we would be glad of such an Episcopacy Order and Communion For I oft told you that by present Communion I meant not that all must meet in one place at once For the tenth part of some Parishes cannot But that as Neighbours and Citizens may have personal Converse and Meetings per vices of some at one time and some at another as different from meer mental Communion or by Synods or Persons delegate or as their Governours or Representatives and this for mutual Edification in holy Doctrine Worship and Conversation And that the footsteps of this remained long when worldly Reasons had made a change And all this I have proved so fully in my Treatise of Episcopacy besides what 's said in my Abstract of the Episcopal History that till some man shall confute the full Evidence of Antiquity there brought I have no more in Reason to do upon that subject And though the Doctors History of this be the most considerable part of all his Book yet so far doth he leave what I say uncontradicted that I find not one word that he saith against any of my Testimonies nor any for his own cause for the first two hundred years But when he should have proved the extent of the Churches at two hundred years he begins his historical Proofs at two hundred and fifty for three or four great Cities in the World and so proceeds to Augustine at above four hundred and Victor Uticensis about four hundred and ninety Theodoret four hundred and thirty where he supposeth me to say that of his City which I said of the Diocess of that City And to confute all Impertinencies and groundless Suppositions while my full proofs are unanswered is but loss of time Sect. 3. His chief argument is that no City how great soever was to have more Bishops than one Ans 1. He can prove no such Rule in the first two hundred years 2. See how well the defenders of Prelacy agree Gratious de Imperio in Anotat and Dr. Hammond I cited who say that Cities at first had two Bishops in each Rome Antioch c. one of Jewish Christians and one of Gentile Christians and saith D. H. Peter at Rome was Bishop of the Jews and Paul of the Gentiles and they had two Successors and saith Gretius The Churches were formed to the manner of the Synagogues and there were divers Churches with divers Bishops in the same City in 1 Tim. 5. 17. de Imp. p. 355 356 357. 3. In the fourth Century a Council at Capua decreed that the two Bishops with their several Churches at Antioch Flavian's and Evagrins should live together in Love and Peace 4. This was a good custom while there were in the Cities no more than one Bishop might take care of And the custom held when times altered the case and reason of it And Possession and the Desire to avoid division made it held up by good men 5. I have at large in my Treatise of Episcopacy confuted the opinion of appropriating Bishops to Cities and so did the old Churches that set up Chorepiscopos Sect. 4. p. 259. He saith In Cities and Dioceses under one Bishop were several distinct Congregations and Altars Ans 1. Yes no doubt after the second Century and perhaps in two Cities a little before but in few in the World till towards the fourth Century 2. This is the same man who in the very Sermon which he defendeth said p. 27. Though when the Churches increased the occasional Meetings were frequent in several places yet still there was but one Church and one Altar and one Baptism and one Bishop with many Presbyters assisting him And this is so very plain in Antiquity as to the Churches planted by the Apostles themselves in several parts that none but a stranger to the history of the Church can ever call it in question But when I told him how this would agree us and hurt his cause he will quickly fall under his own censure and became a stranger to the history of the Church asserting many Altars in one Church of one Bishop This Sermon was written since his Irenicon And now he feigneth a distinction between An Altar taken with particular respect to a Bishop and for the place at which Christians did communicare But what was the Altar that was taken with particular respect to the Bishop Was it not the material place of Communicn And so the members of the distinction are co-incident Saith Optatus lib. 6. Quid est Altare nisi sedes corporis sanguimis Christi Each Church had long but one of these The best Altars that were made after the chief Church Altars were not for ordinary communion but honorary of some Martyrs The truth is the phrase of unum Altare was taken up when each Church had but one but to set up Altare contra Altare continued after to signifie Anti-Churches But I have fully answered this in my Treatise of Episcopacy His conjectures from the numbers of Officers c. he may see there also sufficiently confuted and in Ch. Hist And the odd instance of Theodoret he doth not at all make credible by his willing belief of Metius and other Popish Feigners And were that Epistle genuine a Cypher is easily dropt in by Corrupters It hath need of better authority that shall be so singular from the case of all other Churches And I suppose he knoweth that Cyrus was not a simple Bishoprick but a Metropolitane Seat and might have 800 Parish Bishops Yea whereas there were under Antioch seven Dioceses and fifteen Provinces or as others say thirteen that yet had many Bishops under them as Seleucia twenty four c. that were more dependant on Antioch Cyrus was one of the eight Provinces or Metropolis that were per se subsistentes And therefore when Theodoret said how many Churches were under hands it 's like he meant Bishops Churches and not meer Presbyters and either a Cypher dropt in corrupted the account or else the Bishops had but single Congregations But for my part as the case so late concerneth me not so I see nothing to perswade me that that Epistle is genuine and uncorrupt But I would not have a Diocess which then had many Provinces or a Province which had many Bishops Churches be taken for a single Church Sect. 5. The same I say of Carthage which was the Metropolis of Africa and the first of six Provinces before
after against the Emperours negative voice in the confirmation of Popes 2. And his negative in Investing Bishops But even in this strife the Election was confest to be in the Clergy the People chusing or freely consenting and no man to be made their Bishop against their will and it was but the Investiture per bâ—culum annulum as a confirmation which the Emperours claimed § 14. I have formerly named elder Testimonies not denied I will now recite but some Canons of Councils 1. The 9th and 10th Canons of the first great Nicene Council nullifieth the very Ordination of scandalous uncapable men And in the Arab. Can. 4. Si populo placebit is made a condition of the Episcopal relation And c. 5. in case of the Peoples disagreement the said People must take the most blameless 2. The Roman Council said to be under Silvester of 275 Bishops saith No Bishop shall Ordain any Clerke nisi cum omni adunatâ Ecclesia but with all the Church united If this Council be not certain the very forgers shew the Antiquity of the Churches right and custom 3. I before named a Council at Capua that decreed that the two Bishops at Antioch chosen by their two Churches should live in Love and Peace 4. Chrysostom's Church of Joannites would rather separate than forsake their chosen Bishop or his honour though Emperour Council and Patriarch was against him and though Cyril Alex. wrote that their breach of Canons was intolerable and to tolerate them a few stubborn Nonconformists would but discourage the obedient 5. Even the famous Pope Caelestine who helpt Austin against the Pelagians Decreed Let no man be given a Bishop to the unwilling Let the sense and desire of the Clergy the Laity and Magistracy ordinis be required or necessary 6. How the people deposed Theodosius Bishop of Synada and chose another and the change approved I have elsewhere shewed 7. After Atticus death the Clergy at Constantinople were for Philip or Proclus but the people chose Sisinnius and prevailed 8. Sisinnius sent Proclus to be Bishop at Cyzicum but the people refused him and chose another 9. The Orleance Council an 540. Can. 3. decreeth about Ordaining Bishops Qui praeponendus est omnibus ab omnibus eligatur as of old viz. Let him be chosen by all who is to be set over all 10. An. 541. The Concil Avern decree c. 2. That none seek the sacred Office of a Bishop by Votes but by merit nor seem to get a Divine Office rebus sed moribus and that he ascend to the top of that eminent dignity by the election of all and not by the favour of a few and that in chusing Priests there be the greatest care because c. Therefore another Council at Orleance decreed that a Bishop must be ordained in his own Church which he must oversee 11. Another Orleance Council decree c. 10 That none get a Bishoprick by gifts or seeking but with the will of the King by the election of the Clergy and the Lay-people And Can. 11. And as the ancient Canons have decreed Let none be made Bishop to an unwilling People or without the Peoples consent Nor let the People or the Clergy be inclined to consent by the oppression of persons in power a thing not lawful to be spoken But if it be otherwise done let the Bishop be for ever deposed c. 12. I have formerly cited Pope Gregory I. his express Decrees herein 13. Clodovâ—us his Council at Cabilone renewed the old Decree That all Ordination of Bishops be null which was otherwise made than by the election of the Com-Provincials the Clergy and the Citizens 14. The General Council called Quinosextum an 692. decreed Can. 22. That Bishops and Priests Ordained with Money and not by Examination and Election be deposed Though the same Council by humane wisdom decreed Can. 38. That whatsoever alteration the Imperial power maketh on any City the Ecclesiastical Order also follow it The way by which Humane Order overthrew Divine Order and Institutions 15. And by the way you may conjecture of the Chusers by the Council of Toletane an 693. under King Egica where the King Preaching to the Bishops as was then needful decreeth That every Parish that hath twelve Families have their proper Governour But if it have less than twelve it shall be part of another's charge 16. K. Pepin who advanced the Pope to advance himself and added the Sword to Excommunication by mischievous decree yet altered not the common way of Election and decreeth that every City like our Corporations have a Bishop and none meddle in another's Diocess without his consent 17. The choice of Pope Constantine the humiliation of Stephen and many such instances shew that even at Rome still the People had the greatest hand in chusing the Pope and that to Communicate with a Bishop irregularly chosen was taken for a great sin And when Charles Mag. was gratified as to the Papal Chair it was but by making him a necessary Confirmer 18. The French Constitutions l. 1. c. 84. objected about this by Baronius and Binius say Not being ignorant of the sacred Canons we consented to the Ecclesiastick Orders to wit that Bishops be chosen by the Election of the Clergy and People according to the Statutes of the Canons out of their own Diocess without respect of persons or rewards for the merit of their life and their gift of wisdom that by example and word they may every way profit those that are under them 19. The old Canons gathered by Pope Adrian and sent to Charles Magn. recorded by Canisius depose a Bishop Presbyter or Deacon guilty of Theft Fornication or Perjury And Can. 28. A Bishop who obtaineth a Church by the secular power shall be deposed And Can. 33. That no one pray with Hereticks or Schismaticks Ex conc Sard. Can. 2. A Bishop that by ambition changeth his seat shall not have so much as Lay Communion at his end That no Bishop be above three weeks in another City nor above two weeks from his own Church Can. 17. A Bishop contradicted by opposers shall not after be ordained or purged by only three Bishops but by many And Can. 94. The people converted from Heresie by another Bishop may be of his flock without removing their Parish dwelling where another is Bishop Amongst the other 80 Canons against oppression as one is That no Bishop judge any Priest without the presence of his Clergy it being void if not so confirmed So another is against all foreign Judgment because men must be judged by those that are chosen by themselves and not by strangers And none of the Clergy must be condemned till lawful Accusers be present and the Accused answer the Charge 20. The second General Council at Nice though by servility they were for Images held to the old Church-Canons for Elections saying Can. 3. Every Election of a Bishop Priest or Deacon which is made by Magistrates shall remain void by the
would have all walk by he will not do it but instead of that with unusual gentleness tells me he will not differ about it if I do but grant that it is a Rule that binds us all to do all that lawfully we can for peace which I cheerfully grant And if it be not lawful for peace and concord to forbear silencing us imprisoning us accusing us as odious for not wilful sinning and urging Magistrates to execute the Laws against us and making us seem Schismaticks for not forbearing to Preach the Gospel to which we were vowed and consecrated by Ordination I know not lawful from unlawful I cannot yet get him to tell us what he would have the many score thousands do on the Lords Days that have no room in the Parish-Churches with many such which our case is concerned in § 14. I thought his Book had been an Answer to mine and other mens Prefaces but I find that I was mistaken Indeed he nameth five Books written against his Accusation what he saith to Dr. Owen and Mr. Alsop I leave to themselves to consider of The Countrey Gentlemans Case in sense was this Whether all they that think Parish Communion under the present impositions to be sin are bound till they can change their judgment to forbear all Church-worship and live like Atheists and so be damned And who can find any Answer to this Mr. Barret's Queries out of his Books he saith next nothing to but a dark retracting his Irenicon And far be it from me to blame him for growing wiser But why took he no notice of his own words cited in the Epistle out of his late Book against Idolatry threatning us all with no less than damnation if me prefer not the purest Church And as to my Defence his Book is nothing like an Answer unless his naming me and citing out of that and other Books a few broken scraps which he thought he could make some advantage of may be called an Answer § 15. I confess he hath made some attempt to tell me what the National Church of England is but so Independently as I doubt his party will disown it with great offence In short he holds that there is no such thing as a Church of England in the usual Political sense having any Constitutive Ecclesiastical Supreme Power Monarchical or Aristocratical or Democratical but it 's only the many Churches in England associated by the common consent in Parliament c. Remember that he and I are so far agreed As I was writing this I saw a Book against him of a friend too much for me and somewhat freely handling the Dr. which in this point would help them by saying that the Convocation having the Legislative Church-Power may be the Constitutive Regent part But he confesseth to me that he spake not what is but what he counts should be or wisheth for the Dr. himself had before told us that the Convocations of Canterbury and York are two and not united to make one National supreme power so that this proveth no one political Church of England at all but only 2 Provincial Churches in England § 16. The Dr. hath so judiciously and honestly pleaded our Cause in his defence of A. Bishop Laud and his Book against Idolatry that I have made his words the first Chap. of this Book which if he candidly stand to I see not but our principles are the same § 17. His book is made up of 3 parts I. Untrue Accusations II. Untrue Historical Citations abundance III. Fallacious Reasonings Would you have an undeniable Confutation ad hominem in few words I. As to his Principles he saith himself as aforesaid Of Idolat p. 7. We are sure that wilful ignorance or choosing a worse Church before a better is a damnable sin II. As to his History of the old Nonconformists read A. Bishop Bancrofts dangerous Positions and Heylins History of Presbytery charging them odiously with the clean contrary and the Canons made against them on that supposition III. As to his History and Doctrine against the Election of Bp s which I pleaded as I have fully proved his abuse of History in it I repeat Mr. Thorndikes words Forbear of Penalty It is to no purpose to talk of Reformation of the Churchtoregular Government without restoring the liberty of choosing Bishops and priviledg of enjoying them to the Synods Clergy and people in the making of those of whom they consist and by whom they are to be governed that I need make no other reason of the neglect of Episcopacy than the neglect of it O pray hard to God to provide greater store of skilful holy and peaceable Labourers for his Harvest that by the sound belief of a better world have overcome the deluding love of the honours prosperity and pleasures of the flesh and wholly live to God and Heaven POSTSCRIPT DR Edward Stillingfleet Irenic P. 114. saith The Episcopal men will hardly find any evidence in Scripture or in the practice of the Apostles for Churches consisting of many fixed Congregations for worship under the charge of one Pastor nor in the Primitive Church for the Ordination of a Bishop without the preceding Election of the Clergy and at least consent and approbation of the people and neither in Scripture nor Antiquity the least foot-step of the delegation of Church-power so that upon the matter all of them at last make use of those things in Church-Government which have no other foundation but the principles of humane prudence guided by Scripture and it were well if that were observed still P. 370. Surely then their Diocesses we re not very large if all the several Parishes could communicate on the same day with what was sent from the Cathedral Church P. 361. I doubt not but to make it appear that Philippi was not the Metropolis of Macedonia and therefore the Bishops there mentioned could not be the Bishops of the several Cities under the jurisdiction of Philippi but must be understood of the Bishops resident in that City P. 157. There must be a form of Ecclesiastical Government over a Nation as a Church as well as of Civil Government over it as a Society governed by the same Laws For every Society must have its Government belonging to it as such a Society And the same reason that makes Government necessary in any particular Congregation will make it necessary for all the particular Congregations joyning together in one visible Society as a particular National Church For the Unity and Peace of that Church ought much more to be lookt after than of any one Congregation P. 131. The Churches power as to Divine Law being only directive and declarative but as confirmed by a Civil Sanction is juridical and obligatory P. 113. Where any Church is guilty of corruptions both in Doctrine and in practice which it avoweth and professeth and requireth the owning them as necessary conditions of Communion with her there a Noncommunion with that Church is necessary and a
Justinian and of seven after and Proconsular and the Church called Africae Caput as August ep 162. The sixth and seventh Carthage Councils tell us of the distribution of the Provinces decreeing three Judges to be sent out of each Province viz. Carthage Numidia Byzacena Mauritania c. Yea Leo 9. P. in Epist ad Thom. c. saith that the Bishop of Carthage was post Pont. Rom. primus Archiepiscopus totius Africae maximus Metropolitanus Though yet Binnius truly say that in Cyprian's time he was not an Archbishop that is no proper Governor of Bishops because they concluded in Council nemo nostrum dicitur Episcopus Episcoporum but he was the chief of that great Province And the Dr. himself out of Victor mentioneth one Cresseus that had one hundred and twenty Bishops under him He was Metropolitane of Aquitana and a Diocess then having many Provinces how many be in a Diocess Victor there 〈◊〉 you that the Bishop of Carthage in his own Eugitane Province had one hundred sixty four Bishops And how great were their Churches then and L. 2. when he lamenteth the great number of their banished Bishops Presbyters aud the Church-members were 4976. And one Parish here hath 40000 if not more He that considereth that Cyrus was at most but 60 miles from Antioch the Patriarchal Seat and that a Carthage Council had sometimes 600 Bishops and the Donatists perhaps had as many and that as he saith Cresceus had one hundred and twenty Bishops under him and that Cyprian so often tells us how Bishops were chosen by all the People and how he managed his Discipline in the presence of all his Plebs Laity and by their consent and how he telleth that it was the peoples duty to separate from the communion of a sinning Bishop which implieth communion before and how the Bishops in Council put the question When a Church wanted a Bishop whether one of them that was a Bishop and had perhaps but one or two or three Presbyters was bound to part with one to that wanting Church to make a Bishop of and considereth the circuit and distance of their Cities and much more which I have elsewhere named may well believe large Provinces and larger Diocesses but will think of their Bishops Churches as we must do of theirs in Ireland when a late converted Countrey had six hundred Bishops Make but Christs true discipline practicable and tie us not to swear or assent to your uncertain forms and we should no further trouble you in this Sect. 6. As for the credit he giveth to Syrmondu's copy of Theodoret's Epistle or to the later Editions of his Works I am not bound to be as credulous nor to take the last Editions for the best when they come out of the Jesuits hands And can prove the Epistle to Joh. Antioch which Bellarmine would disprove to be more credible than this And it 's one blot that he saith Theodoret's Epist 6. mentioneth the Metropolitane he was under when he was under none but was himself an Independant Metropolitane For so the Notitiae Episc tells us was Berytus Heliopolis Laodicea Samasata Cyros Pompriopolis Mopsuestia and Adama If his Province was as the Epistle cited saith fourty Miles square and the Christians so numerous as is said and he name none of the Bishops under him but number the Churches it 's like they were Episcopal Churches and very small And that Villages had Churches it 's no wonder when there were many Chorepiscopi not only under the Metropolitanes but the City Bishops And why I must reject his long received Work if I question his late found Epistles I know not But again I say this is nothing to our cause being so long after the ages I mentioned my contrary evidence being not at all confuted His confidence p. 260 261. about some citations out of Theodoret runs upon false Insinuations 1. That the question is not of the number of Churches but about the extent of the Episcopal Power whether it was limited to one Parochial Church or extended over many when he knoweth that I had no such question but whether those whose power was over many Churches in the first two Centuries at least had not as many Bishops under them over those Churches if such there were Or if the Bishops were of the lowest rank whether those under were not then denyed to be Churches for want of Bishops and were not only parts of a Church 2. And he feigneth me to bring Theodorets Testimonies to prove that even then in Alex. and Antioch a Church was but one Congregation when I brought it only to prove that even in that age they were so small that the footsteps of the ancient shape of them still appeared Such Fictions may deceive them that will not try what is said but only read the answerer But by this citation I see he read my Treatise of Episc before his Book came out And therefore I will pass by these niblings till he answer it Sect. 7. p. 262. He accuseth me of Rage and Bitterness for saying that if he will plead for so much Presumption Profanation of Gods name Usurpation Uncharitableness and Schism as to own their Churches to be new and devised without Gods Authority and yet may in his name be imposed on the World and all Dissenters called Schismaticks I leave him And first he feigneth that I charge him with this which is untrue unless he will charge himself with it But why do I put in If you will so plead Ans Because he accused me for saying the contrary viz. that so to divise and so to impose is worse c. But because I know not why he accused so plain a truth I said If you do so But he now tells me that he quoted it to shew that I looked on all Churches beyond Parochial as Churches meerly of mans devising which is another untruth confessed by himself who before had this up and cited my own words to the contrary viz. that I believe the Catholick Church and deny not National associated Churches nor Archbishops that put not down the particular Churches Pastors and Discipline one mistake is his excuse for another Had he meant as aforesaid had my words been Rage or necessary confutation Sect. 8. Yea it is his business in the very next page 263 to confute his own accusation of me by citing my own concessions And p. 264. he giveth me leave to call our Bishops Archbishops Ans But 1. Archbishops have Churches with their proper Bishops under them But our Bishops say that there are no such under them 2. I told you before that as the Major General Quartermaster General c. of an Army constituteth not a distinct body from the Army and the particular Regiments and Troops so I am not certain that Apostles or Evangelists or any general Preachers as such did constitute any Church Form distinct from the Catholick and the particular Bishops Churches But if they are supposed to have taken
comes to the point in question whether they have the Pastoral Power of the Keys over their own Flocks And 1. He saith One would think the objector had never read over the office of Ordination for them For the Epistle is read the Charge given by St. Paul to the Elders at Miletus Act 20 or the third Chapter of 1 Tim. concerning the Office of a Bishop What a great Impertinency had this been c Ans This is like the rest I must not suppose that he never read it himself See Reader whether any of this be true Indeed heretofore it was in the Book of Ordination but we shewed the Bishops that thence Bishop Usher in his Reduction argued that the Presbyters have some conjunct Power with the Bishops to govern their own particular Flocks and some true Pastoral Power of the Keys I was one that oft urged it on them And they told us that the Bishop was the Pastor and they but his Curates and to confute us put out both these parts of Scripture from the Book which he saith are in it so that neither of them is there And presently they also put out the very name of Pastor given to Parish Ministers in almost all places of the Liturgy Doth not all this shew their mind Sect. 17. Next he tells us of the Bishops Exhortation calling them the Messengers Watchman Pastors and Stewards of the Lord. Ans It was so in the old Book But the word Pastors here also is purposely put out to shew their judgment Is this just dealing And doth it not confute himself 3. He tells us of the Promise to Minister Doctrine Sacraments and Discipline Ans The truth is neither in the exhortation nor collation of Orders is there any mention of any power given him to govern but only to administer the Word and Sacraments and thus far the people are called his charge But in the question Discipline is named thus as the Lord hath commanded and as this Church and Realm hath received the same according to the Commandements of God so that 1. The Priest hereby owneth that as it is received in this Church and Realm it is according to Gods Commandments and 2. Then promiseth so to use it which is 1. To be an Accuser 2. And as a Cryer to publish the Bishops or Lay-Chancellors Excommunication and Absolutions This is the promisé Sect. 18. And what if the name of Government or the Keys had been put in when it is denyed in its essential part I have proved out of Cousins Tables Zouch and the Canons and actual Judgment and Practice of the Bishop that Government or Jurisdiction is denyed to them And instanced in many and most acts in which it doth consist in my Treatise of Episcopacy And this being my question whether the English frame depose not the ancient Churches which had every one their own Pastor with the power of the Keys and so the ancient Offices and Discipline I am not now concerned about the General Archiepiscopal Power of the Diocesans Sect. 19. p. 269. He saith that while the Apostles lived it is probable there were no fixed Bishops or but few Ans Mark this Reader 1. If so then while they lived there were but twelve or thirteen Bishops in the World if any And were then no more Churches that had governing Pastors 2. Then if it cannot be proved that the Apostles were fixed Bishops but ambulatory Apostles there were none in the World in their times 3. Then the Angels of the seven Churches were Apostles reprehended by Christ or meer Presbyters or of the few excepted Bishops Why then doth he himself elsewhere argue that there were Bishops then because these Cities were Metropoles 4. See what concord is between the chief Doctors of the Church of England Dr. Hammond saith that it cannot be proved that there were any Presbyters but Bishops in Scripture times and supposeth the Episcopal Party of his mind This Dr. saith It 's probable there were no fixed Bishops or but few And so they differ 1. Of the sence of the Texts that mention Presbyters and Bishops 2. And about the guidance of the Churches de facto in those times 3. And if the Arpostles were not fixed Bishops of single Churches they have no Successors as such If they were we must have but twelve or thirteen Bishops as their Successors in the World And which be those Seats and how prove they their claim Sect. 20. To prove the Parish Ministers Pastoral Power p. 272. he tells us of that he is judge of the Qualification of those that are to be confirmed Ans 1. Had I ever taken a Parish Charge under them I would have taken more advantage from the new Rubrike about this than any thing else and then the Bishops intended But 1. There is not one of a multitude confirmed and desire of Confirmation proveth not any understanding of Christianity 2. And if the Minister doubt whether they be Ready or capable they may refuse to give him any account 3. He is to send in the names of such as he judgeth fit But 1. it 's only when the Bishop Summons them 2. And the Bishop is no way obliged to confirm no more than the Priest approveth of To prove this 1. Their ordinary practice is to confirm without the Curates hands 2. When the Kings Declaration was debated at Worcester House 1661 before the K. Lords Bishops and Ministers I laboured almost only for this that day to have got in the word Consent of the Minister of the Parish for such as should be Confirmed supposing that one word would have partly restored the Parish Pastors power and so have made our Bishops tolerable Archbishops that if possible we might have been healed But the Bishops rejected it with all their might and got the King to refuse it But because I laid so great a stress on it the Lords and others that were to collect and publish the Concessions when we were gone put it in for that time and at the Convocation the Bishops cast it all away Did they not tell us then their sence And they call him only the Curate of the Parish and not the Pastor And 4. If this were practicable some good men would practice it at least this Doctor himself But I never heard of one that pre-examined his Communicants whether they were ready and willing to be Confirmed 5. And if he did he would keep away many fit Persons that scruple our sort of Confirmation 6. And what is all this to the many thousand Noncommunicants who quietly remain members of your Churches Sect. 21. As to his words p. 275. of power to keep the scandalous from the Sacrament I have in so many books proved it next to none and utterly insufficient that I will not wast time to repeat all here Sect. 22. He tells me that in Can. 26 is not in Reformatio Legum Eccles Ans But I have before told him how much more and better is which would go
one have been the generation of another how many Churches of England have you had 4. The whole Nation did not consent by Parliament when the Lords and Commons voted down the Bishops and Liturgy was there then no National Church 5. How shall we prove that the whole or half the Nation ever meant to put their consent into the hand of the Parliament to make a new Church of England and to alter it 6. What men make they may destroy May not the Nation withdraw such consent and the Parliament unmake their creature § 7. Next p. 300 he saith The Representative Church of England iâ— the Bishops and Presbyters of this Church meeting according to the Laws of the Realm to consult and advise about 〈◊〉 of Religion The consent of 〈◊〉 Convocations of Caâ—â—erbury and York Provinces â—â— the Representative National Church of England Answ 1. So here we have a Diffusivâ— Church and its Representative but no Government of either as a Church mentioned but the Civil 2. And they can be no Governours meerly as Representing those that are no Governours themselves Not as the peoples Representatives foâ— they are no Church Governours whatever elsewhere he saith like a Brownist of the Keys being given to Peter as representing the whole Church Not as the Presbyters representatives For 1. They are denied Episcopal power 2. And they are Governours at most but of their particular Churches and not of the whole 3. Not as the Bishops representatives for 1. They are there themselves 2. And they are no Common Governours of the whole as such 3. If he mean that the two Convocations when they consent become the One Common Constitutive Governing Power of the National Church this is intelligible but 1. He after denieth any such 2. And then their dissent would dissolve the Church and one Convocation not oblige it with much more such § 8. But yet he perceiveth he hath not answered me and therefore comes to it page 300 saying It 's a false supposition that where-ever there is the true notion of a Church there must be a Constitutive Regent part a standing Governing power which is an essential part of it Answ A true notion belongeth to equivocals The true notion and the proper political notion are words of various signification I have granted you that the true notion of a Church belongs to a Ship-full a Prison full a House-full of Christians as such and to our Parliament and to the Common-Council of the City But not the notion now in question 2. Is not Government essential to a Governed Church Fixed Government to a fixed Church and transient temporary Government to an answerable Church Deny this and few will follow you § 9. He adds Which I will prove to be false from Mr. B. himself He asserts that there is one Catholick visible Church and that all particular Churches headed by their particular Bishops or Pastors are parts of the Universal Church as a Troop is of an Army and a City of a Kingdom Then it will unavoidably follow that there must be a Catholick visible Head to a Catholick visible Church And so Mr. Bs Constitutive Regent part of a Church hath done the Pope a wonderful kindness But there are some men in the world that do not attend the advantages they give to Popery so they may but vent their spleen against the Church of England But doth not Mr. B. say that the Universal Church is headed by Christ I grant he doth But the Question is of the Visible Church of which particular Churches are parts And they being Visible parts require a Visible Constitutive Regent Head therefore the whole Visible Church must have likewise a Constitutive Visible Regent part This is to make a Key for Catholicks Answ I am glad he speaketh so intelligibly in denying a Constitutive Regent part though sorry that he speaks so ill 1. When I have written against Johnson alias Terrae the Papist two Books on this subject especially the later fully proving the Catholick Church headed by Christ to be that visible Church Catholick of which all particulars are members Can the Reader think I should write it over again because this Doctor will talk over a little of the same with that Priest and take no notice of my proof or answer 2. Doth he believe that the Kingdoms of the World are not visible parts of God's Universal Kingdom and yet God invisible 3. Dare he say that all true Churches are not real parts of Christ's Universal Church as a Governed body and yet are not they visible Is it necessary then that the Universal Head must be visible if the subordinate be so 4. Doth he not perceive that he turneth the Controversie from the necessity of a Regent head to the necessity of his visibility As if our question had not been Which is the Regent part of the Church of England but whether it must be visible Is this edifying 5. All Christians are agreed that the Universal Church is Visible 1. In its parts and members on earth and their profession 2. In that Christ the Head was visible on earth 3. And hath left Visible Universal Laws 4. And hath a Body visible in Heaven as the King is to his Courtiers but not to most of his Subjects 5. And will shortly visibly judge all the World Thus far and no further save as seen extraordinarily to Paul Stephen c. is the Universal Head Visible And are we not agreed that this is a real and most excellent Political Church and that all other Visible Churches are parts of it Something besides spleen makes some men talk dangerously § 10. But really doth he think that this doth unavoidably set up the Pope Why first is there a word of this that a sober Christian dare deny or that the Christian World doth not commonly consent to And do the certain Doctrines of the Gospel and Church set up the Pope Will he turn Papist if this be proved and the Christian World be not deceived Is this our Champion against Popery now I thought no man but Mr. Cheny and some odd Papists had been of this Opinion But to Mr. Cheny and against Johnson I have confuted it and therefore thither refer the Reader Far be it from me to resist Popery by denying 1. That Christ's Church thus far visible is one Political body headed by himself 2. Or that all true visible Churches are parts of it 3. Or that every Political Governed body is constituted of the Regent and subdite parts Christians will reject me for the former and Politicians deride me if I hold the last § 11. He proceedeth 2. The plain resolution is that we deny any necessity of any such Regent Constitutive part or one formal Ecclesiastical Head as essential to a National Church For a National consent is as sufficient to make a National Church as an Universal consent to make a Catholick Answ No consent maketh a Catholick Church but consenting to one supreme Head Christ But I
Canon which saith If any Bishop use the secular Magistrates to obtain by them a Church let him be deposed and separated and all that Communicate with him How much more say these than my intolerable indiscretion I fear some will think that all this binds them to more separation than I am for The 15 Can. forbids them to have two Churches Can. 4. condemneth those to Lex talionis as unsufferably mad that faultily drive any from the Ministry and segregate them from the Clergy or shut up the Temples forbidding God's worship 21. By the way a Council at Chalons under Charles Magn. finding some Prelates setting on foot an Oath of Obedience to them thus condemn it It is reported of some Brethren Bishops that they force them that they are about to Ordain to swear that they are worthy and will not do contrary to the Canons and will be obedient to the Bishop that Ordaineth them and to the Church in which they are Ordained which Oath because it is very dangerous we all ordain shall be forbidden which other Councils after repeat yet our Bishops rest much on such an Oath of obedience to them 22. What the Electing Churches were may be partly conjectured from the Concil Regiaticin in Canisius Can. 6. That the Arch Presbyters examine every Master of a Family particularly and take account of their Families and lives c. A Council at Soisons about 852. a Presbyter by the King's Command being Ordained to the Church of Rhemes irregularly Decree That they that are made Presbyters without examination by ignorance or by dissimulation of the Ordainers when they are known shall be deposed because the Catholick Church defendeth that which is irreprehensible c. 23. An. 855. under Lotharius Rennigius Lugd. and others at a Council decreed because that bad King had by imposing corrupted the Clergy That because Bishops were set over the Cities that were untryed and almost ignorant of Letters and unlike the Apostolick prescript script by which means the Ecclesiastical vigor is lost they will petition the King that when a Bishop was wanting the Canonical Election by the Clergy and the People may be permitted that men of tryed knowledg and life and not illiterate men blinded by covetousness may be set Bishops over the Flocks 24. An. 857. Pope Nic. 1. is chosen by the Emperour Ludovicus consent and by All the People And he so far maketh the People self-separating judges as to decree Tit. 11. c. 1. That none hear the Mass of a Priest whom he knoweth undoubtedly to have a Concubine or sub-introduced Woman And Can. 2. That by the Canons he cannot have the honour of Priesthood that is faln into Fornication 25. An. 1050 or thereabout one of the worst of Popes at a Council at Rhemes was constrained to confirm the old Canon That no man be promoted to Church Government but with the election of the Clerks and the People c. 26. An. 1059. Again a Roman Council forbidding all men to joyn with a fornicating Priest maketh them so far separating judges 27. About An. 1077. A Council at Rome reneweth the Canon nulling all Ordinations made aus pretio precibus aut obsequio or that are not made by the common consent of Clergy and People for such enter not by Christ c. 28. From hence the Popes grew to usurp most of the power in chusing Bishops to themselves by degrees till they got Councils to judg it Heresie for Emperours to claim so much as a confirming investiture Whence bloody Wars rose And it 's greatly to be noted that yet these Emperours supposed the Bishops elected by the Clergy and People and claimed but the said investiture as is seen in the formula of Pope Paschals Grant of investitures to them 29. When they made Princes Investiture Sacrilege and entring by them they so far made the People judges of Priests and Communion as in a Council at Benevent an 1087. sub Vict. to decree That if no Catholick Priest be there it 's righter to persist without visible Communion and to Communicate invisibly with the Lord than by taking it from an Heretick to be separated from God For what concord hath Christ and Belial And Simoniacks are Infidels 30. But were good and bad Bishops in all Ages thus minded or was it only Popes I next add that it was one of the Articles charged against Wickliffe the Reformer as before against Wecelo who contemned their Excommunications That they that give over Preaching or hearing Gods word for mens Excommunications are Excommunicate and in the day of judgment shall be judged traitors to Christ Art 13. in Conc. Const Reader are we not in a hard strait between Wickliffe and Dr. Stillingflect 31. The same is one of the Articles against John Hus That men must not for Excommunications give over preaching We grant that they mean unjust ones 32. This became one of the great Controversies with the Bohemians against whom one of the four long Orations were made at Conc. Basil They would never yield that their chosen Ministers should obey the Silencers 33. Lastly the Romans themselves oft deereed That a simoniacal election even of the Pope is plainly null and conferreth no right or authority to the elected though this certainly overthroweth the uninterruptedness of their own Succession And how Popes were elected till the device of Cardinals is well known § 15. If all this be not enough to prove the constant consent of the Christian Churches down from the Apostles for the necessity of the Flocks consent to the relation of the Bishop and Pastors to them Let him that would have more read all that Blondel hath produced de jure plebis in regim Eccles § 16. I shall next prove the said necessity from the nature of the thing the work and benefit and the common nature interest and reason of mankind if more light will not put out the eyes of some unwilling men that are loth to know what they cannot easily be ignorant of And 1. Propriety is in order of nature antecedent to Regiment which supposeth it and is to order the use of it for common safety and good 2. As a mans propriety in his Members Children acquisitions is antecedent to Regiment so much more in his soul which is himself 3. Nature obligeth all to care for their lives but yet those must sometime be hazarded for publick good But the obligation to please God and obtain Salvation and escape Sin and Hell is so great that no man is to pretend publick good or the will of man against it 4. Self-government as to power and obligation is antecedent to humane publick Government in order of Nature And publick Government doth not destroy it but regulate it And therefore is not for destruction but for edification 5. The end of Self-government is so much to please God and save our Souls that no man on pretence of publick Government can disoblige us from this 6. God hath in the fifth Commandment
your sight How will you escape being judged no rightful Possessor of your Deanry or Prebend or the King's Chaplains place or the Parish Church of St. Andrews I know not how And yet if an Usurper accuse you here and say e. g. that the Church of St. Andrews is his and not yours must not the people judge which of you they will take for the Usurper and which they will joyn with and obey In the times of Usurpation many of the people judged the Bishops to be none of their Pastors nor the ejected Ministers must not the rest therefore judge that they were Where Usurpers deny the King 's Right ought not the people to judge him to have right because they may err and what Prince or Prelate may not the people judge Usurpers What Landlord may not the Tenants deny What Master the Servants What Husband the Wife But must they not therefore be discerning Judges who is their Landlord Master Husband What Schoolmaster may not unlearned men miscensure What Physician may they not vilisie And yet they shall judge and choose for themselves and speed accordingly who can help it deny men a judgment of discretion to guide their own choice and actions and you contradict mankind and deny men to be men What in the world is more abused than Reason and Freewill and yet men must act by Reason and Freewil It 's unworthy a Divine to cry out against a thing for such unavoidable Inconveniences as humane darkness and badness do necessitate and to swallow Camels on the other side and take no notice of the mischiess thereof nor once to tell us how to escape both Sect. 25. He instanceth in mens censure of me for the Doctrine of Justification and asketh Are men bound to separate from me Answ One would think by many such words that the Doctor did seriously believe that I had 〈◊〉 that all men are bound to follow an 〈◊〉 Judgment and to theyâ—alâ—ly â—alâ—ly judge they ought If he think not that I said so I would not name his fault lest I more offend him If he think I said so I had hoped weaker Readers could have better understood me When I read in the Books of some Conformists yet living whom I much honour that to obey Conscience though it err is to obey God I took it for my duty oft and copiously especially in my Christ Direct to open that case and to prove that Conscience is no Law-maker but only a discerner of Gods Law and that an erring Conscience involveth a man in sin whether he followeth it or not because God changeth not his Law when we change our Judgments of it But yet there are some cases in which it is a farr greater sin to go against Conscience though it err than with it The Dr. dare deny none of this And doth ill if he would perswade men that I deny it and that God makes it mens duty to do ill whenever they judge it good or forsake good when they judge it evil Sect. 26. But the great offence is p. 130 that I insinuate that the whole Body of the Church is guilty of great Faults Conformity being a scandalous thing with thirty tremendous Aggravations And no wonder if men so judging prefer others c. Answ Again and again I say 1. This is unrighteous dealing To impose all those things on us To cast us out of the Ministry and Churches for not obeying To Fine and imprison us and accuse us as Schismaticks and Seditions To write and preach for the execution of the Laws against us to our Ruine To aggravate our Crime because we tell them not our Reasons To call us to tell them what we stick at To threaten to get the King to force us to give our Reasons To declare in Press and Pulpit that we wilfully keep up a Schism and have nothing to say for it To continue all this when we have been silent seventeen years as fearing that they could not bear it And after all this when we disavowed any Accusation of them and only told them what we feared our selves to come upon us with this charge of deep accusing their Conformity is injustice if there be any in the World Either it is sin or no sin which we fear If none why are we not confuted or invited yet to give our proofs If sin who should be most offended To be yet plainer with you had the case been in the times of the old Prophets and Priests I question whether to let such a Kingdom alone so long in that which we judge to be so great sins would not have been heavily charged on the Preachers And I profess that my conscience is more in doubt whether my so long forbearance was not my sin than whether saying at last what I did was sin And I had nothing to satisfie it but the men that I ought to judge wiser than my self perswaded me that it would have done more hurt than good and caused but our further rending And I think the Conformists should have been desirous to help them to try whether it were sin or not and to have been thankful for helping to save them from it if it proved such But though hence I extenuate the too great withdrawings of some men against their too deep accusations he knoweth that notwithstanding all these aggravations I neither justified nor practised proper Separation Sect. 27. p. 133. The next charge is that I make them Usurpers viz 1. All that come into the place of the ejected Ministers at least to the people that consent not But Law and Usurpation are contrary Answ 1. I never said that all are Usurpers to all the people that consent not If the body of the Church consent the man is no Usurper though some odd persons consent not He is the Churches Pastor though not the refusers 2. I never said that any that had the Law for them were Usurpers of the Tithes and Temples 3. I never said that all that succeed ejected Ministers are Usurpers many of them have the Churches after-consent though not their Election Yea I often said 1. That it is the peoples duty to consent to the change when it is for the Churches good 2. And that their constant Communion signifieth their consent But I will not believe yet that the Law will prove a man no Usurper of the Pastoral Relation And when I have so largely proved the contrary to be true and to be the judgment of the ancient Churches it 's an unsatisfactory course to me to leave it unanswered and suppose himself in the right Not only the first 300 years but even under Constantius Valens Theodosius Junior Zeno Basiliscus Anastatius Philippicus Justinian c. even the Patriarchal Seats practised the contrary keeping their chosen Pastors and refusing those imposed by the Emperors and other Bishops Seates the Emperors seldom meddled with as to the choice Yea in Arcadius's days Chrysostomes Joannites in his imperial City were of another mind
their several fixed Provinces which I never saw proved I will not contend whether those Provinces may be called Churches If we agree about the thing use the name as you see cause Sect. 9. And to your talk of our Bishops being of the same sort I ask you whether any of the Bishops for 300 years or for long after save Cyril Alexand. by violence did ever use or claim any power over any Ministers or Christians besides meer fatherly Teaching Perswading urging Gods Word on them and applying it to the consciences of particular Persons by Admonitions verbal Censures and Absolutions Did they meddle by Force with Body or Purse Let your Bishops use no other force or way of constraint than the Apostles did if they be their Successors and not lay the excommunicate in Prisons and ruine their Bodies and Estates valeat quantum valere potest But Mr. Glanvile and many of you tell us how little you care for it without the Sword Sect. 10. If any man will but consider what I cited out of Greg. Nazianzen that saith Men unfit were so ambitious to be of the Clergy that the Clergy was in many Churches almost as many as the Laity And that Presbyters then were much like the Presbyterians Elders save that they had the power of Word and Sacraments though they seldom exercised Preaching in Cities but left that to the Bishop and that the number of their Acoluthi Exorcistae Ostiarii Lectores Subdiaconi Diaconi c. made up the great body of them And the very Boys and Schollars that were bred up under them yea or but for Church-singing are sometimes joyned to make up the number see Isidor de Offic. Eccl. L. 2. even all the Monks are often numbred with them And Victor cited by him seemeth to number twice the Infantuli so bred up with the great number of Readers to the Carthage Clergy I say he that considers all this will not judge of the number of people or Churches by the number of the Clergy as he would do now with us where the great Parishes have but two or three Priests Sect. 11. And as to the cause that I plead for it is enough that I have proved that even when the name of Bishop was confined to the Episcopi Pastorum yet the Presbyters had the power of the Keys and were Episcopi Gregis and exercised this power in their distant Countrey assemblies though under the Bishop and the Bishop was to exercise his with them as Assistants so that the particular Churches were not really unchurched Sect. 12. p. 265. He cometh nearer our controversie but first falsly stateth the question supposing that I say that the whole power of the Presbyters is swallowed up by the Bishops And is the disputing of a question falsly stated of any profit I only said that the office of a Church-Pastor or Presbyter hath three essential parts viz. the power of Teaching the Church of conducting them in Worship and Governing the people by the use of the Keys And that he that destroyeth one part that is essential though he swallow not up all the power altereth the essence of the Office and that so the English Diocesan Form doth I have largely proved in my Treat of Episcopacy which he doth not answer Sect. 13. 1. He tells us that the Presbyters are the lower house in the Convocation and so have their Votes in passing all the Rules of Discipline Articles of Doctrine and Forms of divine Service Ans 1. According to his description the Church of England hath no one Ecclesiastical Government either Monarchical or Aristocratical or Democratical And therefore the Acts of the Convocation are no Acts of governing the Church of England but meer Agreements Therefore this proveth not the Presbyters power of governing it 2. If this be a part of Government it is the Legislative Part or the Executive The later it is not The former the Lawyers say it is not King and Parliament only being Legislators But if this be Legislation we deny it to be any of the power of the Keys in question which is but to judge who is fit or unfit for Church-communion to Admonish Absolve or Excommunicate according to Christs Law and is the execution of Christs Law and not the making of new Laws 3. It is lis sub judice whether the things here named be any part of true lawful Church-Government Rules of Discipline Christ hath made enough except about meer mutable Accidents Articles of Doctrine man must not otherwise make than to declare what he believeth Christ hath made Forms of Divine Service commanded to all others the Apostles never made nor that we find appointed any others to make them If these be lawful by way of agreement of many Churches this is none of the Power we speak of Yet he calls this one of the greatest Rights of Government viz. making Rules for the whole body which he denyeth to have any constitutive Government Sect. 14. He saith In this main part of Government our Church falls behind none of the ancient Churches only there they were taken singly in every City c. Ans That is 1. When the Ministers of a Diocess choose four out of whom the Bishops take two And 2. This only to make agreements without any governing power over the Church of England 3. And this only about general Regulation 4. In either unlawful or doubtful Impositions on others about meer Accidents or Circumstances of Order This is the same or as good as when every true Church hath present Pastors personally to exercise the executive Church-Government called the Keys by the Laws of Christ already made in judging the case of each particular Person as to his Title to Church-communion and the Kingdom of Heaven For that is the thing which by us is pleaded for Sect. 15. Next he tells us of four that are to joyn in Ordinatiom and Examination when 1. It is not the making or governing of Pastors which I am speaking of but the Government of the Flocks 2. He knoweth that it is no strange thing for our Bishops to say that both in Convocations and Ordination the Presbyters act only as the Bishops Council and the Bishops only act by governing authority 3. I never disputed for Presbyters Power to ordain as essential to them nor did I ever meddle in any Ordination 4. If four Presbyters have such power that proveth not that four hundred have it that never exercise it in the same Diocess 5. If by all this you mean that really Presbyters have the governing Power of the Keys it condemneth those the more that give it to four and deny it to four hundred or one thousand 6. When I was ordained none examined us but the Bishops Chaplain and two or three City Ministers called by the Bishop that never saw us before meerly pro formâ laid hands on us with him But it 's well that you give such a power to ordain Sect. 16. Next p. 267. he
Nor unwillingly desire the Pastors visitation and prayers in his sickness 7. Nor unwillingly seek and receive absolution c. I mean he can do none of this that doth not consent And is he a Pastor to such men that refuse all this It 's a shame to think that learned men should bend their wits to prove that the Sun is not light Did the Church at Alexandria ever after chuse their Bishops and not before All the Alexandrian Church-History tells us that the people there indeed exercised too great power after this no place on earth more tumultuous and unruly And yet no place where the Bishops were more secular and more assumed the power of the Sword But the people chose them 4. And if it had been true that the choice lay only and absolutely on the Presbyters how came they to have so long two Bishops and two Churches besides the Arians 5. And he wisely overlooketh the Question who chose those Pres byters that were the chusers of the Bishop § 22. He next instanceth ex Euseb l. 6. c. 10. in Germanion and Gordius Ordained by the Bishops in Narcissus place at Hierusalem Answ 1. His argument if any must be this Eusebius saith the Bishops Ordained them not mentioning the peoples consent or choice Ergo their consent or choice was not used How easily might he have known that we would deny the consequence Doth any of us deny that the Bishops were the Ordainers of Bishops 2. And even the words of Eusebius confute him saying That when Narcissus shewed himself again the brethren no doubt the Laity intreated him to enjoy his Bishoprick again § 23. His next instance is Severus Bishop of Milevis in his life time appointed his successour acquainting only the Clergy with it And Augustine prevented the peoples disturbance and got them to receive him Answ Thus it is some mens work to confute themselves It 's a known thing that the peoples right was so universally and unquestionably acknowledged that the Canons forbad any Bishop to nominate and chuse his Successour lest it should forestall them and prejudice their choice And why else was the peoples resistance feared And what did Austin but perswade them to consent And why doth he mention that the People consented and received him if they had no consenting Vote or right on just cause to dissent It would be an odd argument to prove that a woman had no power of choice in Marriage because one was put to perswade her to consent which proveth the necessity of her consenting § 24. He next tells us of Austin's own nomination of his Successour Eradius Answ More and more against himself All that men do is in danger of miscarrying by their faultiness Wise men would do their best to prevent this and the peoples consent being of necessity they sometimes will pre-engage them so Austin's predecessour thought it the craftiest way in his life-time to take in Austin for his Coadjutor or fellow Bishop two in a City lest the people should miss of so excellent a man But this being against the Canons Austin confesseth that he did it ignorantly and disowneth it Yet lest the people who grew more and more faulty should mischuse he in his life time commendeth to them Eradius that their love to him might procure their acceptance Doth not this prove that their choice or consent was necessary Reader if the Doctor can perswade thee that the Country have not the choice of Parliament men because some are commended or named to them thy yielding is too easie § 25. The next is the story of Paul the Novatian out of Socrat. l. 8. who hath but seven Paulus was advising his Clergy to chuse his Successour They told him their fear of their own disagreement and to prevent it intreated him to nominate one He made them promise to stand to it and named Mercianus in a sealed paper Doth not this instance prove that the Bishop had not power to chuse one of himself And was not his fear of the disagreement of the Clergy And doth any of this disprove the peoples consenting right And would the Doctor perswade us that even the Novatians excluded them § 26. He tells us that the Greek Canonists think that the Council of Nice took away all the power of election of Bishops from the people and gave it to the Bishops of the Province Answ 1. In all reason he should have cited those Canonists for it 's strange that yet their following Customs and Canons should say the contrary 2. There is not a word in the Canon cited about election but only ordination that all the Bishops in the Province should Ordain a Bishop But when that cannot be there shall be at least three present and three more consenting by writing And what 's this to the Case the Peoples election or consent § 27. Yet he bringeth more against himself viz. Can. 18. Concil Antioch which is That if one be Ordained Bishop and go not to the Parish because the people refuse him he shall have the honour and Office of a Bishop not troubling the peace of the Church which plainly saith what I have oft said That the people have no power to hinder any from being Ministers or Bishops indefinitely in the Church Universal but only to judge whether he shall be theirs whereas the Ordainers have power in both cases and usually were the first chusers though the people had a refusing or accepting power as there appeared cause § 28. Next he addeth more for what I plead that Basil Ordaining one first perswades the Senate and People to accept him Adding Their way then was if the people did agree on a person to be Bishop to petition the Metropolitan and Synod who had the full power to allow or refuse him Answ Is not this a strong proof that the people had no such agreeing or chusing power because the Metropolitan and Synod also had their vote what need Basil perswade them to accept him when they had no power to refuse Did Basil or any Synod say all people are bound to accept those whom we chuse be they what they will and not to try them and judge themselves § 29. And here I desire the Reader to remember 1. That we take the chief trust to be by Christ committed to the Ordainers for taking in fit men and keeping out the unfit They being the only Judges with the person himself who shall be a Minister of Christ in the Church Universal And neither Magistrate or People have a power to chuse or refuse them 2. That the Universal Church being one body of Christ though Ministers have not such a charge of each others flocks as the particular Bishops of them have yet are they bound to give them all the help they can as neighbour families to help each other And therefore to offer to vacant Churches the best they know and perswade them to accept them when they are at a loss or need advice 3. The
doth this meddle with the peoples Recipient power which is only levelled against Princes and Lay Patrons Impositions and deposeth the English Clergy and Church The same is repeated Can. 25. which it's likely is that which he meant viz. That according to the old Canons the promotions and consecrations of Bishops be made by the choice and decree of the College and that no Lay Princes or men in power potentuâ— do mix themselves in the election or promotion of Patriarchs Metropolitans or any Bishop lest hence there be inordinate confusion or contention specially seeing that it is not convenient that any Potentates or other Lay men have power in such matters but rather attend with silence And if any secular Prince or Potentate men in power or Lay men of other dignity strive against the common and consonant and Canonical Election of the Ecclesiastical Order let him be anathema till he consent and obey in this which the Church shall shew its will in in the Election and Ordination of its Proper Bishops Here 1. The Churches will is made the determiner of the Election and Ordination of their proper Bishop 2. The Canonical Order is established which ever required the Clergies and Peoples consent 3. Nothing of the Laity but acts of Princes power and dignity is excluded 4. And hereby our English Clergy deposed The Doctor had been better to have let alone his History and Antiquities § 36. His 4th note is Christian Magistrates did interpose in this matter as they judged expedient Answ Hitherto he hath produced the Testimonies of Councils and Bishops against Magistrates choice or medlings mistakingly thinking it had been against the Flocks Receptive power And now he will prove that Magistrates interposed as you shall hear § 37. And first So Constantine did in the Church of Antioch Soz. l. 2. c. 19. Answ What did he He motioned a Bishop to end the difference And who opposeth that § 38. Next Constantius put by two that the people strove about and set up Euseb Nicom Answ An unhappy testimony Socrates whom he citeth thus relateth it Alexander dying commended Paulus to the chusers as the fittest but if they would have a man of prowess to chuse Macedonius The people were divided in the choice and made a greater stir than formerly But the Orthodox carried it for Paulus against the Hereticks that were for Macedonius Constantius being the first persecuting Arian Emperour was offended and got a Council to depose Paulus and he got in his great favourite Eusebius Nicomed the head of all the Arians Doth not this shew 1. That the people were chusers 2. That the Emperour deposed him not but by a packâ— Council of Bishops which we know had a deposing power 3. That this is Recorded as an Act of two Hereticks a Prince and Prelate wronging the Church § 39. Saith he When Eusebius was dead the Orthodox party again chose Paulus and Constantius sends Hermogenes to drive him out by force Answ 1. I doubt he will next cite Valens Gensericus Hunnericus c. for murdering and persecuting the Bishops Was an Arians Tyranny a note of right 2. The story in Socrates cited by him is this Euseb the Arian being dead the People again went to the choice and chose as before But some were kill'd in the tumult The Arian Emperour sends Hermogenes to force out Paulus the chosen Bishop The people tumultuously fight for their Bishop and priviledge and set Hermogenes Lodgings on fire and kill him The Emperour comes from Antioch amerceth the City and puts Paul out and yet is angry that Macedonius was chosen by the other part without his advice but consenteth to him 1. Doth not this shew that the people were the chusers 2. And even their murderous tumult moved neither an Heretick Prince nor the Bishops to deny their right of choice 3. Murder and such violence was a fair colour for more severity 4. Yet all this was by a Heretick noted as an act against the Church 5. And all this was but about a Patriarch and not an ordinary Bishop and that at his Imperial seat where it concerned the Emperours to have most regard 6. And I told you that Princes are the Judges whom they should tolerate whoever have the choice § 40. He adds When Athanasius was restored Constantius declared it was by the decree of the Synod and by his consent Answ 1. If he meant here to intimate the exclusion of the peoples consent or choice he could scarce have named in History an instance more against himself than that of Athanasius who thereby was brought in upheld and oft restored 2. This History tells you the Arian Emperour was forced to this consent to avoid a threatned War from his brother 3. This was not to make him Bishop but to call him to his flock from his banishment 4. And doth not all this confirm what I plead for as to the Peoples Synods and Princes several parts § 41. Nectarius case is next about whom Historians disagree but the most credible say that the Council named Nectarius with some others in a paper and in honour to an excellent Emperour bid him take which he would But all this excluded not the peoples part who would not have left Gregory but by his own request and were glad to accept one from such a Council and Prince § 42. Next he saith out of Sozomen That the People and Clergy chose Chrysostome and Arcadius consented and then he affroâ—teth Sozomen with Palladius Answ 1. Palladius denyeth nothing that I plead for but only tells us of the Emperours premotion and endeavours in his Royal City about a Patriarch to prevent the division of the people Nor is Palladius credit to be equalled to Sozomen's herein much less preferred 2. Socrates the most credible of all in this saith l. 6. c. 2. It seemed good to them to send for John Chrys Wherefore not long after Arcadius with the general consent both of Priests and People sent for him And did not the Doctor think I needed help by such Citations § 43. The choice of Nestorius was just such another The people had no reason to deny consent to one out of Chrysostom's Monastery nominated by so good an Emperour who was judge whom to tolerate in his Royal City But both he and they after repented of the choice § 44. His last instance is Theodosius getting in Proclus before Maximianus was buried Answ Reader 1. All this is a good Emperours care about one Patriarch of his own City to avoid division and nothing to the common choice of Bishops 2. The true case Socrates cited thus describeth The people were the chusers They were for Proclus but some adversaries objected a Canon that a Bishop might not be removed from one Church to another and he being a Bishop already they could not have him Socrates pleadeth for the dispensableness of this Canon but the people were fain to take Maximianus The Emperour being for dispensing with that Canon and gratifying