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
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
the Government of Churches we 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
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
about all humane Ceremonies in the worship of God 2. What he saith of Mr. Rogers is a very Imperfect Representation of him for Fox Act. and Monu Vol. 3. pa. 131. the place which he citeth saith no such thing as that this was Mr. Rogers only scruple and Mr. Fuller loco citato saith the contrary Mr. Fox is telling a story of his Dissent from a Determination of the Bishops and Clergy in the Reign of Edw. 6. for wearing of Priests Caps and other Attire belonging to that order Mr. Rogers said He would not agree to that decree of uniformity unless it be also decreed that the Papists for a difference betwixt them and others should wear on their slâ—eves a Chalice with an Host upon it which sheweth his factious and resolute way of refusing that thing on that occasion rather than that he did not scruple any thing else and it hath no shew of probability that such a wise and holy man would stick at that and not at other Ceremonies that had as little warrant and were more intrinsick to Religion and worship and so less in the power of men to be Determined Sect. 7. 3. We may say the same of excellent Hooper who was long at Zurick and very dear to Bullinger and one of those that had suck'd in the Air and Discipline of the Places where they lived and were for rooting out of Ceremonies He was a Ring-leader of these and this his scrupling the Episcopal Habit is never mentioned as the whole of his Opnion about Ceremonies but is taken notice of on a particular Occasion For his after submission it was by the force of Temptation being in prison and Deserted by his patron the Earl of Warwick Fuller ubi supra p. 404. And with what reluctancy he did it see p. 405. 4. That on the review of the Liturgy in the Reign of King Edw. 6. there was little or no Dissatisfaction left at least as to the things now scrupled is still false History for that review was Anno 1547. Full. Ch. Hist. Lib. 7. p. 386. whereas 1550. he telleth us pa. 402. of two parties discovered Conformists and Non-conformists and the one against all the Ceremonies Sect. 8. That there was no separation at first he next asserteth but people tho scrupling them complyed with the use of Liturgies and Cerimonies May be it was so at the very first while Reformation was hopefull going on I have already shewed why we are not bound by such Examples I shall now Apologize for the unimitable practice of the those holy men to excuse them atanto though not atoto The glorious Change that then was wrought in the Church did so affect then engage their zealous hearts to Gods Ordinances that they did not so throughly consider as they ought the sinfulness of the Ceremonies They had got so many things reformed the evil of which was so incomparably beyond that of the Ceremonies that these seemed as nothing to them It is known that the limitted scant powers of our Souls our Understandings Affections yea our Senses are by some vehement Objects so diverted as that meaner Objects at the same time cannot move them nor be noticed by them It was much that these men discovered any evil in the Ceremonies but that the principles that the Reformation was built on led them to that to wit That Scripture is the Rule by which the Affairs of the House of God must be ordered but it is no wonder that they did not so fully discover the Evil of them nor were so affected with it as we who have had longer time and less hindrance to think on these things I am far from thinking that they had either less Light or less tenderness of Conscience than we but that their Mind and Conscience were exercised about higher Matters which we have through the Lord's goodness so settled to our hand that reforming of these is not our Work. They were imployed to do the hardest part of the Work to cast out Antichristianism it was left to others that succeeded them to cast out of the House a little of Antichrist's Furniture that had been forgotten or by minding greater things over-lookt lying in some corners of the House So that it doth no more inferr blame on us forbearing the use of the Ceremonies that they used them while they reformed the Church from Popery than it was a Blame to Hezekiah Josâ—ah and such Reformers who took away the High Places that other Reformers had left when they threw out Baal's Worship Sect. 9. This may satisfie an unbyassed mind that our non-compliance with the Liturgy and Ceremonies is consistent with all that respect that is due to those excellent Persons who in the beginning of the Reformation practised otherwise for we owe such respect to no man nor men as to reckon them infallible in Opinion or Practice Also what hath been said may take off the edge of the Dr's jeering Insinuations That these things are now such Bug-bears to scare People from our Communion and make them cry out in such dreadful manner of the mischief of Impositions as though the Church must unavâ—idably be broken in pieces by the weight and burden of two or three unsupportable Ceremonies We have little Answer to this sort of Argumentation only we say It is not Childish Fear but Conscience guided by Scripture that scareth us neither do we count these Ceremonies such as will break tho' they defile the Church but they are too heavy for our Consciences to bear and the example of men using them can yield us no ease of this Burden When the Dr. doth thus ridicule the Scruples of Conscience that his opposites pretend to have either he thinketh that an Erring Conscience is to be cured by contempt and scorn or that we do only pretend to Conscience in our Dissent The former is no sign of a good Casuist nor the latter of a good Christian for such will not judge lest they be judged He stormeth much at two Expressions of one of his Antagonists one is That it is unreasonable that Men should create a necessity of Separation and then complain of the Impossibility of Vnion Hath our Church saith he made new Terms of Communion or altered the old ones Ans. Though the Terms of Communion be not new as to the matter of them they are perpetuated on new grounds which make them now harder to be submitted to than before for they were brought in at first on a present Necessity as then was thought the Nation being Popish and ready to abandon the Reformation if that was offended Now it is not so they were continued in a Reforming time and now fixed in a time when no such thing is to be expected but rather the contrary They were retained in the Morning twi-light of the Reformation but now in the Noon-day of Gospel-light long shining among us fixed in perpetuity so that the present Prelates give a new Being to these Stumbling-blocks especially they are
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-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
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