that popular Elections should be taken away Gregorius Nazianzenus's wish to that purpose is unduly represented it was That the Election might be in the hands of the Clergy and the more holy part of the people and that not only but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chiefly This doth evince that he looketh on the right of Election to be in them and only wished that bad men might be deprived of the use of that priviledge and so do we when they abuse it So it be taken from them orderly The 3d. Instance is at Alexandria where Dioseurus was chosen and Proterius killed This is a gross mistake or misrepresentation It was not at the Election but long after yea Proterius's Murder was 5 or 6 years after beside it was done and the Sedition raised by Hereticks Shall not the Church chuse her Pastors now because Papists would oppose it if they be not curbed Of the 4th Instance I have already spoken to wit that at Rome about Damasus What he saith of Chrysostom Jerom and others complaining of peoples unfitness to Judge doth not prove his point For all these Men were for popular Election as I have shewed above Beside that the Pastor's fitness is to be judged by the Ordainers after the Electors have done their part Sect. 14. His third thing is p. 320. That to prevent these inconveniences many Bishops were appointed without the choice of the people and Canons were made for regulation of Elections For proof of this he telleth us that at Alexandria the Bishop was not only to be chosen out of the twelve Presbyters but by them and citeth for this Jerome Ep. ad Enagrium Severus and Almacintus and Hilarius the Deacon Answ. 1. It is no woâ—der the Bishop was chosen out of the Presbyters and by them for he was their Moderator and had no power over the people more than the rest had as hath been shewed above If he can prove that he was chosen to be Pastor of his particular Flock without their consent that were to the purpose 2. This can make nothing for Patronages or the Magistrate obtruding a pastor on the people or a single Bishop doing it 3. Jeromâ—'s words are Presbyteri unum ex selectum in excelciori gradu collocatum Episcopum nominabant he saith not unum a selectum Severus speaketh not a word of the Presbyters â—lecting alone What is said by Hilarius of the altering of the custom is not who should Elect but that he might be Elected either from among the Presbyters or from any place else What is all this against popular Elections We find saith he Bishops Consecrating others in the room of the deceased in several Churchâ—s without mention of choice made by the people and mentioneth several instances A. A negative Testimony in this case signifieth nothing The Election being the constant practise might well be supposed but needed not be mentioned That Severus of Milevis and Augustine named their Successors is no proof unless he prove that they were obtruded on the People without their consent No doubt any man more the Great Augustine may name a Minister to the People but this taketh not away the Peoples free consent or choice which the Dr. doth not deny to have been had in both these Cases Yea Augustine himself took it ill that Severus named his Successor without acquainting the People and therâ—fore in his own case did acquaintthem Sect. 15. What he alledgeth out of the Greek Canonists whom he doth not name and so cannot be examined that the Council of Nice took away the power of Election from the people is inconsistant with the Epistle of that same Synod above mentioned and therefore these Canonists are not to be believed He citeth Concil Antiâ—ch to shew that Bishops were sometimes consecrated without the consent of the People which that Council doth not approve but rather alloweth the people to reject such a one yet they will have him to retain the Honour and Office. The words are Si Episcopus ordinatus ad paraeciam minime cui est electus accesserit non suo vitio sed aut axuia cum populus volet hic honoris sic Ministerii particeps This seemeth to shew the Election of the people to be necessary to a Mans officiating as their Pastâ—r whether it go before Ordination or follow after it The same Council Can. 17. mentioneth the case of a Bishop consecrated and neglecting to go to his charge which the Dr. improveâ—h to shew that a Bishop was not always consecrated in his Church I deny not that such abuses were committed The Council doth not approve of such a thing nor doth it hence follow that it was ordinary but rather the contrary it is pitty to see the Dr. put to such shifts as to instance Gregorius being made Bishop of Alexandria before he went thither seeing this was done by the Arians and he took possession by military Force and it was disliked by the rest of the eminent Persons of the Churches But the main thing that maketh this instance to be inimitable is that Anastasius was in the place and by this means expelled The next Instance of Basil ordaining Euphronius before the peoples consent was irregular but that he behoved to have the peoples consent before he setled there maketh it wholly impertinent to the thing in hand Nothing can be less to the purpose than what followeth of the peoples pititioning the Metropolitan to Ordain their Bishop for this supposeth their Election of him and that the Metropolitan had power to refuse him is no more then we allow to the Presbytery who may reject an unqualified person tho' chosâ—n by the people The Dr. is not yet weary of Writing beside the purpose whâ—n he telleth us of a Canon of the Council of Laodicea that a Bishop chosen by the people taking possession without the Provincial Synod was to be turned out We say the same because the people may Elect but the Pastors must Ordain This doth not shew as he alledgeth that the business of Election was in the East brought into the Bishops power but only that the peoples Election was not sufficient without the Bishops and other Pastors Ordination Sect. 16. He next citeth Justinians Law that the Clergy and better sort of Citizens name three to the Metropolitan whence the Dr. inferreth that the common People were excluded from the Election Ans. 1. Justinians Law cannot make void the Law of God and they that have not given their Names to Erastus do think that Christ's Laws which are to be declared by his Church and not Justinians Laws should take place in the Church of God. 2. It is not said they must present Three but they might do it but they might also present two or but one 3. It is not said that the Clergy and better Citizens were to Elect but they were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is to draw up the Decrees as they were then called wherein the Election was contained 4. In another
of Communion imposed putteth us out of capacity to assemble with our Brethren in publick These I now but propose but intend to dispute them as they fall in in the Doctor 's Discourse SECT II. Of Parochial Churches IN the beginning of this third Part the Reverend Author reduceth the Pleas for Separation to Four Heads 1. Such as relate to the constitution of our Church 2. To the Terms of Communion with it 3. To the Consciences of Dissenters 4. To the parity of Reason as to our Separation from Rome Under the First he ranketh 1. That the Parish Churches are not of Christ's Institution 2. That Diocesan Churches are unlawful 3. That the National Church hath no Foundation 4. That the People are deprived of their Rights in the choice of their Pastors About these Four last mentioned he spendeth the far greatest part of this third part of his Book and a very small part of it upon the Second Head which is that which he knoweth his Antagonists do most generally insist on and lay most weight on but it is easiest going over the Hedge where it is lowest Sect. 2. He beginneth with Parochial Churches because it is Separation from those that is most Conspicuous He saith the Non-conformists at first kept Communion with them I have before disproved the Truth of this and also given reasons why the practice of them who did so is not binding to us He saith Since the Congregational way prevailed in England the present Dissenters are generally fallen into it at least so far as concerns Communion with our Parochial Churches Ans. There was a withdrawing from the Parochial Churches because of unlawful Terms of Communion before the present Congregational way was either known or prevailed and to say that Dissenters are generally fallen into the Congregational way I suppose that he meaneth by it is a mistake it is true indeed the restraint he will be angry if I say Persecution that they are under maketh Presbyterian Meetings de facto in many places Independant because they cannot associate for Discipline but we have not quitted our principles for that Sect. 3. I do not Interpose in his Contests with Dr. O. about the Parochial Churches in England being true Churches or about Dr. O's reasons for separating from them But I cannot pass our Reverend Authors Ingenuity in acknowledging p. 221. That Tyranny over Mens Consciences is a good Ground of Separation which is our great Plea for withdrawing from their Assemblies They impose on us Terms of Communion that they can pretend to no other warrant for but their own Fancy and Will and they exclude us because we cannot yield to them If this be not Tyranny over the Consciences of Men let any unbyassed Person judge and if it be so judged to be we have good Ground for Separation by the Dr's own confession Sect. 4. Our Author Sect. 2. maintaineth a long debate with Dr. O. about this Question whether one Church is that which ordinarily assembleth in one place or divers assemblies that meet ordinarily in divers places for worship be to be reckoâ—ed divers Churches This Question is stiffly debated on both sides between the Congregational and Episcopal Brethren the reason of their so much concern in it is the one ascribeth all Church Power to every Congregation that ordinarily meeteth for worship and so maketh that the highest ruling Church The other placeth ruling Church-power only in the Bishop and so maketh a Diocesan Church to be the lowest ruling Church The Presbyterians go a middle way they stand not on the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whether a Congregation should be called a Church or only the Combination of more Congregations for the Exercise of Discipline they find the word used both ways in Scripture and the Word it self 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth any Convention Civil or Religious as 1 Cor. 1. 2. all the Christians in Corinth with their Officers are called the Church and yet 1 Cor. 14. 34. it is supposed that there were several Meetings among them ordinarily that might bear each of them that name of Church When the Apostle forbiddeth that their Women should speak in the Churches 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he must mean the Churches in Corinth for it is not to be thought that he would particularly have mentioned their Women 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if he had not meant the Churches of Corinth where they were likest to usurp that Authority The Dr. saith p. 235. That it doth not once fail that where Churches are spoken of in the Plural Number they are the Churches of a Province Here it faileth Sect. 5. But leaving the Word let us understand the thing which I shall set down in a few Assertions 1. All visible Christians are Members of one Great Body whereof Christ is the head to wit his Vniversal Church which if it could so meet together as to be taught and ruled ordinarily by the same Officers there needed be no distinction of Churches in the World. And it is probable it was so in the beginning of the Gospel till the encrease of Believers made it needful to divide into several Companiâ—s that might be ordinarily taught and ruled by their several Officers 2. The several Companies of Believers with their several Officers each of which in Scripture-sence may be called a Church are to be such as may commonly meet together in one place for partaking of God's Ordinances We read of the Apostles ordaining Elders in every City 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sure then they had respect to the conveniences of Peoples living together that so they might usually meet together 3. These single Congregations being furnished with one or more Pastors and Elders have ruling Power within themselves for Christ hath given ruling power to all the Pastors and Elders and not placed it single in a Diocesan Bishop for at Philippi Phil. 2. 1. all Church-Officers are divided into Bishops and Deacons a plurality of which were in that Church tho' in one City where our Brethren acknowledge that more Diocesans than one could not be 4. The Church power in single Congregations is not Independant but is to be subordinate to the power of them associate together This may be gathered from the Churches in Corinth being there also called a Church If there were not divers religious Assemblies ordinarily they could not be called Churches if they were not Associate they could not be called a Church and wherein they could be Assâ—ciate except in the Exercise of Government is not easy to guess 5. The Association of Churches for Government may be divers as their Convenience of meeting together for that end giveth them opportunity Hence particular Assemblies lesser and greater Associations have their Congregational Classical Provincial and National Presbyteries or Assemblies for the Government of the Church the Lesser in Subordination to the Greater And if Oecumenical Synods could as conveniently and duly assemble all the rest should be subordinate to them seeing every one of them should
Gifts and do not cross Christ's Institution whatever inconvenience may be in them 3. Nor do we deny the Lawfulness of a Presidency among Presbyters in the Person of one of them Nature maketh it necessary that one should preside in a Meeting to shun Confusion and Christ hath not instituted the duration of one man's Presidency whether for one meeting for a Month or Year or during his life and therefore the Church may determine in that Yet we must add That the perpetuating of a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or making a moderator constant having been of old and late the means of bringing in a Lordly Prelacy and corruption of ambitious men being so apt to improve it that way so that the Papal Chair hath arisen from this low and blameless Foundation we think it highly inconvenient 4. Neither do we deny that among Ministers the wiser graver and men of more Holiness and Experience should by their reason prevail over those that are not so well qualified It is Superiority of Power that is in question between us and our Brethren yea we deny not but some of Opinion for parity of Power have overborn their Brethren through their loftiness of Spirit an Episcopal Temper may be in a Presbyterian it is not mens Corruptions but their Principles that our debate is about 5. We deny not but the Name Bishop that in the Apostles times was common to all Eldeâ—s of the Church began very early to be appropriated to the Moderator who also was called Primus Presbyter and that this priority for as small as it was was too much affected and taken notice of even in the Apostles times Diotrephes who is said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Jo. 3. 9. i. e. affected to be Primus Presbyter had a great mind to that dignity but this was when â—ew of the Apostles were now alive It is neither the Presidency nor the Precedency that we debate about but the Imparity of Church-Power or Authority 6. We deny not that prelatical Usurpation obtained in some places and was sâ—atched at in other places while yet the ancient Order of Parity among the Pastors of the Church was in most places retained 7. Though we deny that Diocesan Episcopacy prevailed in the Church for the first Three Hundred Years or that it was general in the fourth Century and are willing to enter the Lists with our Brethren in this debate about the first and purest Antiquity of Church-Government yet it is not mens Authority but divine Institution that we are determiend by and lay the stress of our Cause upon and will admit of no absolute Rule of judging in this Controversie but the Scripture Sect. 3. It might have been expected that the Dr. when he would charge us with so great blame as he doth in not submitting to the Authority of Prelates should have proved the Divine Institution or at least the lawfulness of that Office and answered the Arguments that our Writers bring against it This were the way to satisfie Mens Consciences but the Dr. is pleased to take an easier though not so perswasive a way to wit to refute Mr. B's Assertions about Episcopacy and to prove some things that are short of the main thing that is in question as I hope shall appear in our Progress And I have often observed that the confidence of our Brethrens Assertions in this Controversie is too big for the strength and concludency of their Arguments Sect. 4. It will contribute to our clear and sure procedure in this Controversie if we consider the difference and inconsistency that is among our Prelatical Brethren about the Episcopacy that they assert and the Foundation on which they build it as to the thing some of them do so restrain the Power of Bishops denying both sole Ordination and sole Jurisdiction to them that they make it little or no more but a Presidency So the learned and Pious Vsher who is followed by many of the more sober and learned of that party Grotius also goeth this way de Imper. sum potest circa sacra p. 337. others allow them Jurisdiction over other Pastors of the Church and exempt them from being liable to the Censures of their Brethren yet so as they ought not to rule by themselves but with the consent of the Pastors of the Church who are to be their Counsel Our Author Iren. p. 309. saith that both Jerom and Ignatius agree that the Counsel of Presbyters was of Divine Institution Others are for their Monarchial power in their several Diocesses neither being obliged to take the Counsel of the Presbyters nor being liable to their censures So the generality of our High Church-men Some make the Bishop the sole Pastor of the Diocess and all the Parochial Clergy to be but his Curates others think the Parochial Pastors to be substitute or delegate to none but Christ some think the Bishop's work is to preach the Gospel and administer Sacraments in his own Person and that this he should be constantly exercised in Others that his Work is to rule and that he need not trouble himself with other Work unless he please Some allow the Bishop a Power of delegating his Authority not of dispensing the Word and Sacraments only but of Government and Discipline to others yea to Lay-men that by them he may Excommunicate and judge Ministers and People Others think that he hath no power to do so so me think that it is inconsistent with the Office of a Bishop to be imployed in Civil Government others allow it Some think a Bishop should be chosen by the Church and that really and not seemingly only as when the Magistrate nominateth the Person to the Chapter who yet are not the Church of whom they must proceed to a Mock election others think those that come in this way to be none of Christs Bishops Some own Diocesan Bishops who yet see no warrant for the Hierarchy as it is stated among us in Metropolitans Primates Arch-bishops Deans Arch-deacons Chancellors c. Some hold the Office of Bishop to be distinct from that of Presbyter others deny this many School men are on both sides it was debated at the Council of Trent In all these things I observe very much Confusion and want of a distinct Idea of that Office that is debated about in the Writings of our Prelatical Brethren Sect. 5. There is as little agreement or distinctness among them about the Foundation on which the Office of a Diocesan Bishop standeth Some of them are for iâ—s divine Right as being instituted by Christ But this Plea they find so hard to be managed and to have so ill success and to be so little the way to preferment as derogating from the Supremacy of the Magistrate that most have laid it aside others that it is of Apostolick institution being not commanded by Christ but prudently setled by the Apostles Others that it is juris ecclesiastici brought in by the Primitive Church afâ—er the decease of all the
Apostles Others that it is wholly indifferent and may be received or not as is thought most expedient in several times and places and some of these say this is to be determined by the Church Others by the Magistrate This Dr. Stillingfleet in his Irenicum asserteth but is very uncertain whether the Church or Magistrate is to determine in this matter One of the most Learned of our Adversaries Dr. Hammond holdeth the Divine Right of Episcopacy but goeth away different from all the rest in managing of that Opinion to wit that all the ordinary Pastors of the Church appointed by Christ or ordained by the Apostles were Diocesan Bishops and that Presbyters are a sort of Men unheard of in the New Testament and their Office but a device of Men or a constitution of the Church This fancy is solidly refuted by learned Mr. Durham on Rev. 3. p. 230. Where the Reader may see abundant ground of Satisfaction about the absurdity and inconsistency of this Notion from Scripture Reason and Antiquity Sect. 6. The question between us and our brethren being about the lawfulness of the prelacy now exercised in England the owning of which is required of us that we may judge aright of it we must have a true Idea of it and then consider whether such an Episcopacy was instituted by Christ practised in the primitive Church with general approbation or whether it hath any rational Foundation to stand upon The true Idea of our English Episcopacy is visible in these Lineaments of it First The Bishop is one of a Superior Order to and distinct Office from other Presbyters as appeareth not only from the power he hath and they have not and acts of church-Church-power reserved only to him but also because he is put into that Office by an ordination distinct from that by which he is made a Presbyter And yet further because the Presbyters are owned but as his Delegates or Curates and he is owned as the sole Pastor of all the Presbyters People and Flocks in the Diocess Secondly The Bishops have jurisdiction over other Presbyters Thirdly He hath the sole Power of Ordination of Presbyters Fourthly He may delegate this Power to whom he will whether Men Ordained to the Ministry or any of the people so that by this Delegation a Man that is no Church-Officer may exercise Church-Power over both Ministers and People Fifthly This power is exercised in the name of the Magistrate the Courts in which it is exercised being owned as the Kings Ecclesiastical Court. Sixthly They are not chosen to this Office by the Church but by the Magistrate and they are not Preaching but Ruling Bishops Now if our Brethren cannot shew us such a Bâ—shop as this in Scripture or Antiquity all that they say from either for an Episcopacy is short of the thing in question and our scruple cannot be taken away by their proofs for Episcopacy unless they prove this Episcopacy Sect. 7. Though our Writers have brought Arguments against the lawfulness of this Office in the Church that have never yet been answered and I think never shall and tho' I can promise no new nor better Arguments than have been already adduced by others yet that the Reader may see that our Scruples against Episcopacy are not without good ground I shall briefly set down some Arguments against it The first shall be ad hominem against our learned Author By this Author's Doctrine there is no ground to believe that such an Episcopacy as consisteth in a Superiority of Power above Presbyters was Instituted Allowed or Exercised in the Church Ergo according to him it hath no Foundation at all that can satisfie ones Conscience about the lawfulness of it The Antithesis I prove If such a ground there be it must lie in one of these three if any asserters of it can add a fourth we shall quit this Argument either Christs appointing it in Scripture or his allowing Men to appoint such an Office or the practice of the Church shewing us what was Christs allowance But none of these yield us a Warrant for Episcopacy all the three being denyed by this Author to be able to satisfie the Conscience in this matter For the first he denyeth such an Institution asserting expresly that Christ gave equal power to all the Ordinary Ministers of the Gospel this is the basis of his Irenicum The second he never had the confidence to assert neither is the least hint in all the Scripture that Christ hath allowed Men to take away that power from his Servants that He hath given them and to put it into the hand of others to whom He never gave such eminency of power For the third he proveth at length that the primitive form of Church-Government is uncertain from the Defectiveness Ambiguity Partiality and Repugnancy of the Records of the Ages that succeeded the Apostles times Iren. c. 6. p. 294. Let him tell us then what ground we have to belive that Episcopacy was Instituted by Christ practised by the Church in Her uncorrupted times or any way allowed Sect. 8. Our second Argument is There is no foot-step of any inequality of power among these Ordinary Pastors of the Church that are mentioned in the Bible neither in their Name nor Office nor Power nor Work nor Qualifications nor Respect or Obedience due to them nor any thing else from which any distinction can be rationally gathered whence I thus Argue If the Lord had allowed a distinction between Bishops and Presbyters in his Church he would have hinted some thing about this distinction but this he hath not done Ergo c. The first proposition I prove first Because this was needful for these distinct Officers that each might know his work And for the Church-Guides that they might know how to chuse and ordain qualified Men for so different Imployments And for the people that they might know how to carry toward these Officers respect according to the difference of their Stations that they might obey the Bishop rather than the Presbyter and submit to the Teaching of the Presbyter and ruling of the Bishop that they might not come to a Presbyter for Confirmation nor call Presbyters to ordain a Minister for them nor delegate a person that deserveth Excommunication to the Presbyters all these belonging to the Bishop 2. Our Lord hath made a clear distinction in Scripture among the other Ordinary Officers in the Church in their Names Qualifications Work and Office as between Elders or Bishops and Deacons Phil. 1. 1. 1 Tim. 3. 2 9. Also between Preaching Elders and those that are only Ruling Elders 1 Tim. 5. 17. If our Brethren can shew us as much for a distinction between Bishops and Presbyters let them do it I hope none of them will say that by Ruleing Elders is here meant the Bishop least it follow that the Preaching Presbyter should rather be honoured than he either by affording him more respect or maintenance I suppose our Bishops will rather
part with the Patrimony of this Text then with their Titles Grandeur and Revenues Sect. 9. The second Proposition is evident in the several Branches mentioned before for our Adversaries can produce no hint of any such distinction in Scripture and we can shew an identity in them And first for the name it is clear from Act. 20. 28. where the Apostle calleth all the Elders of Ephesus Bishops It is a groundless fancy of some that these Elders were the Diocesan Bishops of Asia for this is said without any shew of proof to serve a turn Besides that they are called the Elders of the Church not Churches as even in the prelatical Stile Diocesan districts should be called And it is called the Flock not Flocks and the Church of God not the Churches of God that they were to take heed to and the haste that the Apostle then was in considering the short time and long journey that he had before him was inconsistent with his expecting such an Assembly from so remote parts This identity of name is also clear from Phil. 1. 1. for no reason can be assigned why Deacons should be mentioned as concerned in what was written in that Epistle and not Presbyters Also it is most clear Tit. 1. 5. with 7. where shewing how Elders must be qualified a reason is given why they must have such Qualifications for a Bâ—shop must be Blameless if they were not one this reason should have neither force nor sence which were Blasphemy to averr it being the Holy Ghosts reasoning Sect. 10. In the next place Scripture maketh no distinction between the Office of Bishop and Presbyter many of our brethren deny a distinction of Office betwixt them how consistently with their other principles I enquire not and they that assert such a distinction cannot shew the least foot-step of it from Scripture Thirdly for their power if Bishops ordained so did Presbyters 1 Tim. 4. 14. If any alledge that the ordainers of Timothy were Diocesan Bishops they must prove it If Bishops had rule over the people were over them so were Presbyters 1 Thes. 5. 12. Heb. 13. 17. For none question but Presbyters are they who mainly labour among the people admonish them and watch for their Souls I am sure this is not the work that our Bishops are exercised in and the same persons in both places are the peoples Rulers and are over them Fourthly Their Work is the same as is clear both from the places last cited and Act. 20. 28. 1 Pet. 5. 1 2. Where taking heed to feeding and over-seeing in the Greek acting the part of Bishops 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are made the work of all the Pastors of the Church 5. The same qualifications are required in all the guides of the Church without any distinction 1 Tim. 3. 2. Tit. 1. 5. And the qualification of Deacons they being a distinct sort of Officers in the Church are set down by themselves 1 Tim. 3. 8. Sixthly for Obedience Reverence Maintenance or any thing else that concerneth a Bishop as distinct from a Presbyter there is not the least hint in Scripture from which any such thing can be gathered a Man must then put force upon his reason or be strangely swaâ—ed by prejudice who can perswade himself that there is an ordinary Officer mentioned or allowed in the New Testament that is above the Presbyters of the Church or hath jurisdiction over them Sect. 11. Argument third The Apostle doth thrice set down a list of the several Officers of the Gospel-Church without mentioning a Diocesan Bishop or any Officer to which this Office can be rationally reduced Ergo no such Officer ought to be allowed in the Church The consequence I prove first Because this should have been a defect not imputable to the Apostle infallibly guided by the Spirit to teach us designedly the several Church-Officers appointed by Christ and not tell us of them all Let our brethren if they can give us an instance of a defectiveness in any Scriptureinstruction of this moment that can be parallelled with this Secondly The consequence can yet less be questioned if we considâ—r that not only an Officer is left out and the Church left without a hint concerning him but the chief ordinary Officer in the Church that should make the greatest Figure in the Church to the end of the World and on whose management the weightiest affairs of the Church should depend He who can believe this his Judgment must be under the power of so strong a Byass that I know not what will be too hard for him to Swallow the Antithesis I prove out of 1 Cor. 12. 28. Eph. 4. 11. Rom. 12. 6 7 8. Not any of these Offices agreeth to the Diocesan Bishop some say they are reducible to Apostles With what face can wise men alledge this Was not the Office of an Apostle extraordinary and temporary appointed for the first dispersing the Gospel and planting Churches and besides every Apostle was an Universal Officer Diocesans have their limitted charges Some alledge they are reducible to Apostles not as being absolutely such but because they have power over inferior Ministers as the Apostles had But these men should prove that Christ instituted such an Office or that the Apostle meant not only extraordinary Apostlâ—s but these Semi-Apostles as ordinary Officers to continue in the Church Secondly They should prove that Christs instituting Apostles did warrant the Church to set up an Office made up of as much of the Apostles Office as should be afterward thought convenient What may not men devise in the Church that take on them thus to add to or diminish from Christs Institutions and thus to wrest Scripture to make it comply with their fancies and interests Sect. 12. Others make the Doctors or Teachers Eph. 4. 11. to be the Bishops and this with as little ground as the former though some learned Men have so dreamed as Estius and Doctor Hammon Grotius thinks Metropolitans also are here meant but the absurdity of this fancy will appear First If we consider that they are named after the Pastors or Presbyters which is an indecency unâ—uitable to the Apostles Exactness if my Lord Bishop weâ—e here meant I find many Interpreters argue that Prophets are the next in Dignity to Apostles and are extraordinary Officers because they are named alwaies next after the Apostles which Argument will as well hold here Secondly The work of the Bishop that we speak of which discriminateth him from the Presbyter is not to Teach but to Rule Therefore others as Calvin by Teacher understandeth him that educateth Ministers and instructeth them and others in the truth and defendeth it against Heresies such as are Divinity Professors in Universities others understand Catechists But it is evident that it cannot with any kind of Congruity be applied to the Diocesan Bishop who is least imployed in Teaching of any part of Church-Work some find the Diocesan Bishop under the name of Helps 1
Cor. 12. 28. As Grotius and Hammond both of them also make him to be meant by Government and the same two Authors in the same verse by Teachers understand the same Officer They would be sure to find him somewhere but this very uncertainty where to fix him is a token that he is no where to be found Is it imaginable that the Apostle in a list of Church-Officers set down in so few words would use such repetition When so Learned Men are put to such shifts it is a sign the cause is so weak that it affordeth no better reason to defend it by That they are not meant by Teachers I have already shewed neither are they meant by Helps 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Grotius significat curam rei alicujus gerere This is said without Book be it spoken with due respect to that great Critick I find Authors cited for its signifying to take hold undertake uphold help correct but none for its signifying to take charge of a thing The place he referreth to Luk. 1. 54. can bear no signification of the word so well as that of helping and among all Criticks and other Interpreters he cannot produce one that so expoundeth the word either here or in that place but Men will say any thing to serve a turn Neither can the Diocesan be meant by Government not only because they are among the last and so the most inferior of Church-Officers but also because our Brethren will not say that the Bishop should only Rule and not Teach though it is too much their practice yet they will not averr this to be according to Institution as this Officer must do he being a distinct Officer from the Teacher I conclude If the Apostle had intended to set forth to us such an Eminent Officer of the Church we might have expected he should have if not clearly yet to the Satisfaction of an inquisitive mind set him down in some of these Catâ—logues which is not done Sect. 13. Argument fourth The power that we read of in the New Testament was never exercised by any ordinary Officers alone but by the Church-Guides in Common Ergo there was no Diocesan Bishop in the New Testament and if we have no warrant there our scrupling to own such a one is not unreasonable That church-Church-Power was so exercised I prove by Instances leaving to our Brethren if they can to bring Instances to the contrary First Ordination was performed by Presbyters in Common 1 Tim. 4. 14. It is a groundless Notion that some Men of great Name and Worth have on this place that Presbytery is meant of the Office for both it is a harsh phrase the hands of the Office and further the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is often used in the New Testament yet is never used for the Office but for the College of Presbyters the Office is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Camerarius others say That by the Presbytery here is meant the Company of the Apostles who are called Presbyters This cannot be for the Apostle ascribeth to himself a special concern above others in the Ordination of Timothy 2 Tim. 1. 6. Which he would not have done if the rest of the Apostles equal in Authority with himself had concurred but might well do it when he as chief and the ordinary Pastors as subâ—rdinate did join in this Action for it is the observation of Camerarius on this Text the Apostles did not use their extraordinary power often but when the Church was constitutâ—d acted in Conjunction with the ordinary Pastors and there was good reason for this to wit both that the Church-Guides might know that Apostolick power was not always to continue among them and that they might learn the way of Church-Administrations which they behoved to exercise by themselves when the Apostles were gone Sect. 14. Another Instance is in Excommunication which the Apostle injoineth the ordinary Eldâ—rs of the Church of Corinth to exercise against the incestuous Man he directeth his Injunctions not to a single Bishop but to a Company of Men 1 Cor. 5. That they being gathered together should deliver him to Satan vers 4 5. That they should purge out that old leaven vers 7. That it was their part not a single persons part to Judge the Members of the Church vers 12. That they should put away the wicked person vers 13. and spâ—aking of this Sentence 2 Cor. 2. 6. He expresly saith it was done by many and ascribeth the power of forgiving i. e. absolving from the sentence of Excommunication to them not to one Man. What ever different thoughts men may have about this delivering to Satan or about the Apostles Interest in this Action it is evident that here is Church-Power adjudging which implyeth Authority exercised by a Community A Third Instance of this is 2 Thes. 3. 14. Where a Community not a single person is commanded to Note them that were Disobedient to Paul's Admonition in his Epistle This is not to be understood as some take it of Noteing the Disobedient Person in an Epistle that they should write to Paul For First The emphatick particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 put before 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 denoteth that Epistle to wit that the Apostle now wrote not an Epistle that they should write Secondly The Greek word will not bear that signification 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here used is Note or set a mark on him to Signifie or give Notice is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which word had surely been used if the Apostle had intended that they should give Notice to him by an Epistle of the Disobedient Thirdly He telleth them what should follow on this Note set on the Man and how they should carry towards him when thus Noted to wit that they should have no company with him this would not follow on their Writing about him to the Apostle while no Sentence was as yet passed against him but might rationally follow upon their setting the ignominious mark of Excommunication upon him If then Church-Discipline in the Apostolick and best times of the Church and especially while the Apostles being yet alive might have exercised it by themselves or their Delegates the Evangelists was yet exercised usually in Common and not by a single Bishop we have cause to scruple the owning of such an Officer in the Church Sect. 15. Other Arguments from Scripture may be brought but I shall not now insist on them having maintained some of them against this learned Author in my Animadversions on his Irenicum Wherefore I shall only add a fifth Argument as a ground of our scruple from some Testimonies of the Judgment and Practice of the Primitive Church that succeeded to the Apostles This may the more heighten our scruple that our brethren lay the stress of their cause on the Ancient Church if we cannot find there sufficient ground for a Diocesan Bishop but much to the contrary they ought not to blame us if we cannot with
in both I think the Substance of our English Episcopacy is that one Man hath sole Power of Ordination and Jurisdiction over all the Church-Officers and Members in many Congregations if he will shew us that in the Primitive Times let him rejoice in his Argument from Antiquity 2. The Antiquity that the Dr. here pretendeth to is far short of that which himself and others do boast of with a great deal of Confidence some of them tell us of a clear Deduction that they can make of it down from the Apostles in all ages without Interruption some make it of more than 1500 years standing but the Dr. here is not pleased to pretend to that Cyprian lived in the Third Century Athanasius in the Fourth Augustine and Theodoret in the Fifth and it may easily be granted that there was a great degeneracy in Church-Discipline and Government by that time yet that Episcopacy was arrived at that heighth that is now in England even at that time we deny Sect. 2. To prove what he had undertaken he layeth down two Observations 1. That it was an inviolable rule among them that but one Bishop was to be in one Church I am little concerned in this though I see no rule for it except a Canon of Concil Cabilonens which was but Provincial and very late under Pope Eugenius about Ann. 654 yet I think it was generally and rationally practised for taking a Bishop for the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 among the Presbyters which I affirm to have been the Dialect of those times What needed more Bishops than one seeing all the Presbyters of one City might conveniently meet ordinarily for the Exercise of Discipline When Mr. B. proveth the contrary he taketh Bishop in the Apostles sence and then I affirm with him that there were more Bishops in one City that every Assembly for worship had one if not more The Dr's Argument that he seemeth to glory in p. 246. is of no value it is That if more Bishops than one could be in a City the Schism of the Donatists and Novatians might have been prevented this is either a great mistake or somewhat else for taking Bishops for Moderators of Presbytery the bare setting up of two Presbyteries and two Moderators could not have prevented these Schisms and if the Church had found it convenient to divide them retaining the same Principles of Faith and about Church-Order and Discipline there had been no Schism It is most false that these Schisms were meerly about the plurality of Bishops in a City The Schism of the Donatists had its rise at Carthage from the Ambition of Donatus who opposed the election of Cecilianus the pretence was that he had been ordained by a Proditor and that he had admitted another Proditor to Ecclesiastical Office Cecilianus being Tried and Acquitted both by the Emperor and the Church in several Councils Donatus and his party set up another Church an Eldership and People in opposition to Cecilianus disclaiming the discipline of Cecilianus and his Party in admiting the lapsed upon repentance and admitting the wicked as they alledged to the Sacraments So that it is plain that the Schism lay in this That they set up another Church-way and Order and consequentially to that set up another Bishop and Presbytery not beside but in opposition to that which was before and that without sufficient reason upon the very like occasion did Novatus separate from Cornelius Bishop at Rome and set up a new Church on the foresaid grounds Cyprian indeed condemneth Novatus and nullifieth his church-Church-Power because post primum secundus esse non potest but this is still to be understood of setting up another Bishop or meeting of Presbyters under a President without the Authority of the Church or good cause for so doing It is evident then that these Schisms were built on another Foundation than what the Dr. supposeth and that they could not have been prevented if forty Bishops had been allowed in a City as long as Donatus and Novatus retained their Principles they would have separated from all Bishops and Churches that were not of their way all that followeth in this his first Observation is easily Answered in one Word to wit that all these Citations prove no more than this that where a Church was setled and sufficiently furnished whether you take it for a single Congregation or more Congregations associate for Discipline with a President it was not fit for any to disturb that Unity by setting up another Church whether of the one or the other sort mentioned Sect. 3. His second Observation is That in Cities and Diocesses which were under the care of one Bishop there were several Congregations and Altars and distant places I contend not about the word Diocess supposing that one President of an Assembly of Presbyters with these Presbyters might have ruling power over many particular Churches call that District by what name he will the matter is not great Our question is not about the Name but the Power by which that District was ruled whether it were in one Man or in the body of Presbyters But it is well known that Diocess which now signifieth a Church Division did in those days signifie a Civil Division of the Roman Empire made by Constantine the Great who divided the hundred Provinces of the Empire into 14 Diocesses where all Africk was but one see for this Heylin Cosmogr lib. 1 p. 54. And it is as well known that Diocess did often Signifie a Parish or people of a Parish neither do I contend about the word Altar supposing the Dr. meaneth places where the Lords Supper was Celebrated Both Origen and Arnobius affirm that 200 years after Christ the Christians were blamed by the Heathens because they had no Altars the name of Altar was not used in the Church till the Third Century and not then neither but figuratively But the Dr. loveth to speak of Ancient things in his Modern Dialect borrowed from the more corrupted times of the Church Sect. 4. For his Observation it self I shall not contend about it tho' I think he will hardly answer what is said against it No Evid for Diocess p. 15. For it maketh nothing against what I hold unless he prove that the Bishop had the sole Power or had jurisdiction over the Presbyters in that District which he calleth a Diocess What he saith that seemeth to be Argumentative to this purpose I shall mind and no more The multitude and distance of places that he instanceth tho' all were true the contrary of which the forecited Author maketh appear will not prove Superiority of power in one Man neither Augustine's care for Neighbouring Places that wanted Ministers either to provide Ministers for them or to Baptize them or do other Church Acts for them in their need This proveth neither Extension nor Solitude of Power far less doth Cyprian's nameing Provincia nostra in which were many Bishops prove him to have been a Metropolitan the Empire was
divided into Provinces If a Minister in England should say there are many Ministers in our Country it will not prove that they were under his Charge Vuler mentioneth Cresceus who had 120 Bishops under him the Dr. should have proved that he had sole jurisdiction over them and all their Churches or that he could act any thing in Church matters without them and so that he was more than president in their meeting when they came together about the Affairs of the Church These are the Goodly Arguments from Antiquity by which Men think to wreath on our Necks the Yoak of Domination Sect. 5. He bringeth another proof for his Diocesan Bishop Sect. 20. from Athanasius his having charge over the Church of Alexandira and these of Maraeotis And 1. Epiphamus saith that Athanasius did often visit Neighbour Churches especially those of Maraeotis Ans. So have many Presbyterian Ministers done to Neighbouring Parishes that were destitute and yet never pretended to Episcopal Power over them That this was an Act of Charity not of Episcopal Authority appeareth because Epiphamus calleth them Neighbour Churches not a part of Athanasiu's Church and that he mentioneth other Neighbour Churches besides these of Maraeotis which Athanasius saith were subject to him Next Athanasius saith Maraeotis is a region belonging to Alexandria which never had neither Bishop nor Suffragan in it but all the Churches there are immediately subject to the Bishop of Alexandria but every Presbyter is fixed in his particular Village Ans. Maraeotis or Mâ—ria as Ptolomy calleth it is a Lake not far from Alexandria now called Lago 〈◊〉 I suppose Athanasius means the Country about that Lake which it seems had then few Churches and Christians and therefore it was very fit they should Associate for Discipline with these of Alexandria being very near to it their Subjection to the Bishop of Alexandria doth not prove his sole jurisdiction over them but only that they were so by the Association of Presbyters of which the Bishop of Alexandria was Moderator Subjâ—cton to a Bishop in our days signifieth to be under his Jurisdiction by himself because men have set up such Bishops but it cannot be made to signifie the same in the Dialect of these times unless it were Aliunde proved that they were such Bishops which is not done by such an Argument as this wherefore I deny the Drs third Consequence that he draweth from this passage p. 254. to wit That these were under the mediate inspection of the Bishop of Alexandria so that the whole Government belongeth to him There is not the lest shadow of reason for such an inference his disputation that followeth about the Christians of Alexandria meetâ—ng in Diverse Assemblies I meddle not with it is nothing against us whether it weâ—e so or otherwise Sect. 6. The last proof that he bringeth is out of Theodoret which he saith is plain enough of it self to shew the great extent of Diocesan Poweâ— he saith he had the pâ—storal charge of 800. he should have said 80 Churches and that so many Parishes were in his Diocess The Dr. insulteth much on this Testimony but without cause for 1. Theodoret lived in the fifth century and we deny not but by that time Episcopal Ambition had in some places encroached on the Government instituted by Christ and which had been kept more intire in former Ages 2. It is much suspected by learned Men that Theodorets Epistles are not genuine and the Dr. doth not deny that Hereticks had feigned Epistles in Theodorets name as Leontius saith which doth darogate much from the credit of these that cannot be well proved to be true 3. Theodoret doth not say that he had the Pastoral charge of these Churches but that he had been Pastor in them the former Expression looketh like a sole power in him and therefore the Dr. thought fit so to vary the phrase the other hinteth no more power then is consistant with a party every Minister being a Pastor in the Churches to whose Association he belongeth 4. But whatever be in that this sheweth the extent of Theodorets Power as to place or bounds but doth not prove that he alone exercised that power and therefore is no proof of a Diocesan Bishop Sect. 7. Before I proceed I shall return to examine the Doctor 's Allegations for Diocesan Power p. 230. which I above referred to this place He asserteth That the Presbyters and whole Church were under the particular Care and Government of Cyprian This Assertion is too big for the Proofs that he bringeth for it to wit That Cyprian reproveth some of the Presbyters for receiving Penitents without consulting him and complaineth of the Affront done to his Place as Bishop and dischargeth the like to be done for the future Lucian saith that the Martyrs had agreed that the Lapsed should be received on Repentance but their Cause was to be heard before the Bishop and several Passages to this purpose To all which I. A. by denying the Consequence Cyprian as I cited above did not take on him to receive the Lapsed without the Presbyters Will it thence follow that he had no Power at all But it was solely in them even so that the Presbyters especially that some of them as the Dr. himself states the Case might not do it without Cyprian doth not prove that the Presbyters and whole Church were under his Government It amounteth to no more but this that in a Presbytery regularly constituted especially where they have devolved the Power of calling and presiding in their Meetings on a fixed and constant Moderator it is very irregular that a part should meet about Discipline without the rest and particularly without Consulting him whom they have so chosen Beside I will not deny but Cyprian sheweth too much Zeal in this Cause and might possibly attempt to stretch his Power a little too far as afterward many did He was a holy and meek Man but such may be a little too high To this same purpose are his other Citations of Moses and Maximus commending Cyprian for not being wanting to his Office. Cyprian's Epistle to the Clergy of Carthage that the Dr. citeth sheweth there were Disorders committed in the Matter of receiving the Lapsed in that not only some Presbyters took it on them without a regular Meeting of the whole but even Deacons medled with it which was out of their way His Citation of the Roman Clergy commending the Martyrs for not taking on them the Discipline of the Church is wholly out of the way for none ever supposed that every Martyr had Church-Power That they delayed some parts of Discipline till they had a new Bishop proveth as little as the rest for it is fit one should moderate in their Meetings and Custom had obtained that he should be fixed in that Office which was not from the beginning Cyprians appointing some to visit when he could not do it by reason of Persecution neither is a precedent for our Bishops doing their
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
will the Dr. reconcile this with what he citeth out of the Rubrick will private dealing with the offender amount to repelling of him from the Communion 2. Discipline is a publick and Authoritative Act and another thing then private dealing with a person the Apostle calleth it a rebuking before all 1 Tim. 5. 20. And it differeth from Preaching in that by Discipline reproofs are applyed to the person in Preaching they are in more general Terms Now how this should be without publick nameing the Man I know not 3. Who doubteth that Augustine did well in what the Dr. alledgeth it must be our practice when Discipline is most strictly exercisâ—d because Discipline cannot reach the secret sins of Men But Augustine never thought that therefore Discipline was not to be publickly and personally inflicted on Offenders and sure Discipline may in some cases be forborn hic num without fault aâ—d where it is fâ—ulâ—ily forborn it doth nullifie the being of a Church yet it must not always be forborn His 2. answer is If a restraint be laid on Ministers by Law whether the Minister ought to admonish publickly and debar in that Case Reply why doth the Dr. make the Rubrick and the Law thus to clash especially seeing the Common Prayers and its Rubriâ—k are setled by Law And he doth by this fairly yield that by the constitution of the Church of England now Established by Law a Parish Minister hath no power to keep back any from the Lords Table that hath a mind to come Why then hath he taken so much pains to prove they can do something and at last conclude that this same thing is just nothing parturiunt montes Sect. 17. He frameth an objection to himself Sect. 16. that the neglects and abuse of Discipline among us are too great to be justified and too notorious to be concealed To this he hath several Answers The 1. is That the question is whether this destroyeth the being of Parochial Churches this I pass for I think it doth not The 2. is It is easier to complain of this or separate then find out a way to remedy it We propose the Scripture remedy to wit to put it into the hands of the Pastors of the Church in Common The 3. is That therâ— is not that necessity of Church Discipline as in the primitive times the Christian Magistrate taking care to punish scandalous offenders and so to vindicate the honour of the Church And to confirm this he citeth a passage of King Charles the First to the same purpose Thus the Drs. zeal for Episcopacy is swallowed up in the Gulf of Erastianism to what purpose doth he cite Cyprians Tuâ—es petrus and why hath he pleaded so much for Episcopacy even out of these Fathers that lived under Christian Emperors as Augustine Theodoret c. if Church Discipline be at the Magistrates disposal But I see Men will say any thing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 let the Dr. answer what our Divines have written against Erastus and his followers proving that the Church and Republick are distinct Societies tho made up of the same Persons that Christ hath a visible Mediatory Kingdom in the World that the Rules Laws Punishments and immediate ends of Church-State are different Let him no more tell us of the Church of England but of the Civil Laws of England as that which the Ordinances of Christ are to be dispensed and ordered by I shall not digress to refute this Assertion but Men will be apt to think that this principle doth foully reflect upon Christ and his Apostles who gave all their directions about Chruch Affairs to Church-men and not to the Magistrate Sict 18. His Fourth Answer is that Excommunication by Protestant Divines is not left to a Parochial Church I do not plead for that but against putting it into the Hand of one Man. Neither will it hence follow a Parish Minister and his Elders may exercise no Discipline The Protestant Divines abroad are not of that miâ—d It is false That among us a Minister I mean with his Elders can only admonish not repel from the Lords Supper Why saith he may not our Ministers be obliged to certifie â—he Bishop as well as theirs to certifie the Presbytery Ans. Because Christ gave no power to a Bishop above other Presbyters and Discipline in the Apostolick and Primitive Church was exercised by a single person If the Dr's principle be true I think it is fitter to certifie the Justice of Peace than either of both What he saith of the Affrican Churches is answered above Let him prove that a Bishop by himself exercised discipline in them The Bishop is often named as the Speaker in the Presbytery by the declining of him is meant declining of them The Inconveniences that he allegeth by putting Excommunication into the Hands of a single Congregation we shun by a prudent reserving of that dreadful Ordinance to a meeting of Pastors But if it were done by the meanest Congregational Elder-ship it could hardly be so ill managed and made so ridiculous and contemptible as it is now in the Hands of Bishops or rather their Servants in England It is well known how solemn and terrible it is as practiced which is seldom in Presbyterian Churches and how it hath tamed some stout-hearted Sinners without a Capias or Magistratical power to back it I wonder why the Dr. should use such Arguments as he doth against Parochial Discipline to wit That there are no certain Rules to proceed by no Determination what faults deserve Excommunication no method of Tryal no security against false â—itnesses no limitation of Causes no liberty of Appeals besides multitudes of other Inconveniences Sure this Author thinketh the Bible of little use to the Church without a Book of Canons such reflections on the Word of God are very unbecoming a part of which is written on purpose to teach Ministers how to behave themselves in the House of God 1 Tim. 3. 15. I hope the Dr's more sober thoughts will satisfie him in all these and therefore I shall give no more particular Answer But he might have considered if the Bishop have directions for all these in the Bible and if he have not his Will must be his Law why may not the Classical and Congregational Presbytery respective take the help of them He thinketh a Parochial Court of Judicature so he is pleased to speak in the Episcopal Stile would prove more Tyranical than any Bishops Court. It may be so if managed by bad men but if they keep within the Rules they profess to go by it will seem Tyrannical to none but stubborn Sinners whose galled Necks cannot bear Christ's Yoke And it could never be so grievous to Mens Persons and Estates as the Bishops Courts for these we medle not with His fifth Answer I say nothing against Sect. 19. He hath yet a further Apology for the want of Parochial Discipline even supposing every one left to their own Consciences as to their
fitness for the Communion he saith 1. The greatest offenders abstain of themselves and they that come are usually the most devouâ— 2. If Debauched Persons come it is upon some awakening of Conscience Then both which nothing can be said more contrary to common experience 3. He saith This doth not defile right Communicants That is true and therefore it is no cause of Separation but it is the Churches fault and should be amended 5. and 6. Some Presbyterian Churches and the Church of Constantinople were for a Time without Discipline This is no imitable Example SECT V. The National Constitution of the Church of England debated HAving now examined what the Dr. saith for Diocesan Episcopacy I proceed to consider the next ground for Separation pleaded by some to wit the National Constitution of the Church of England I have above declared that I look on this as no ground for Separation yea nor cause of complaint if it be taken sano sensu Though I think every organized Congregation hath a governing power in it self yet this power is not Independent but Subordinate to the Association of such Churches These Associations may be greater or smaller one contained in another and so subordinate to it as the Conveniency of meeting for Discipline doth allow and because the Association of Churches in a whole Nation containeth all the Churches in it and may all meet in their representatives for the governing them all in common This we own as a National Church wherefore on this Head I have no debate with the Dr. except in so far as he is for National and Provincial Officers in this National Church Archâ—bishops and Bishops put but Provincial and National Synods in the place of these and I shall contend no further I shall not then medle with the substance of this his Discourse but only note a few things Sect. 2. The First thing that I take notice of is p. 289. Where the Dr. maketh the institution of the Apostolick Function in the Hands of twelve Men to be an Argument against Churches Power of governing themselves This proveth nothing for the ordinary Government of the Church must be regulated by what the Apostles appointed which is an abiding thing not by their own governing the Church which ceased with them Next p. 290. he saith the Succession of Bishops from the Apostles is Matter of Faâ—t attested by the most early knowing honest and impartial Witnesses which I deny and have disproved The next remark shall be upon p. 291. where he pleadeth for Bishops joining together and becoming one National Church he shuneth mentioning a Primate under and in whom they unite and this he seemeth to vindicate from making way for Papal Vsurpation and and Universal Head of the Christian Church by its being intended for the good of the whole so united and no ways repugnant to the design of the Institution and not usurping the rights of others nor assuming more than can be managed This he saith an Vniversal Pastor must do and he therefore mentioneth this that any one may see that the force of this reasoning will never justifie the Papal Vsurpation I cannot for all this see that it is more justifiable or consistent with Christ's Institution to unite a National Church under a Primate than to unite the Universal Church under a Pope Save that the one is a further remove from Parity that Christ instituted and so a greater Evil than the other but magis minus non variant speciem To clear this I shall run over these Four qualities that he mentioneth in their uniting under a Primate and consider whether they do agree better to him than to a Pope The First is it is intended for the good of the Whole so Vnited If we judge by Intentions no doubt this intention will be pretended to by the Papists also and is de facto as much pleaded by them and with as specious pretences And if we consider the reallity of the thing sad experience sheweth that neither the one nor the other doth conduce to the good of the whole but is improved to Tyrannizing over mens Consciences and Rending and Harassing the Church for the sake of superstitious Concepts of corrupt Men. Sect. 3. The Second This Vnion is no way repugnant to Institution This he should have proved we deny it Let him shew us more Institution or warrant for a Metropolitan than for a Pope If we should own Bishops as Successors to the Apostles yet an Arch-bishop a Metropolitan a Patriarch a Pope must still be beside Institution except the Dr. will own an Imparity among the Apostles and so be for Peters Supremacy The Third is That in this Vnion there is no usurping the Rights of others I say there is as really as there is in the Papacy for it is the Right of every one of Christ's Ministers to govern the Church in equallity of power with the rest this is taken from them and put into the hand of a Bishop and that right that the Bishop hath usurped from the Presbyters the Primate usurpeth from him and the Pope doth no more but usurp the same from all the Metropolitans and Patriarchs that they had usurped from these under them The 4th is not assuming more than can be managed Nothing but prejudice could hinder a man of the Doctors understanding to see that the Bishop assumeth more power than he can manage as really as the Primate or the Patriarch yea or the Pope doth For as the Pope cannot administer the Word and Sacraments and Discipline of the Church to all Christians in his own person no more can a Primate to a whole Nation nor a Bishop to a Diocess consisting of many thousands of People and hundreds of Congregations And as the Bishop can do all this by the Parochial Clergy for Word and Sacraments and by his Chancellors Archdeacons c. for his Discipline such as it is And as the Primate can rule a whole National Church by his and the Bishops Courts So can the Pope rule all Christian people ut cunque by Cardinals Patriarchs Metropolitans Bishops by his Legate or other Officers of his appointment I challenge the Doctor or any man to shew such a difference between a National Officer and an Oecumenick Officer in the Church as maketh one lawful and the other unlawful The Pope's usurping a Plenitude of Civil Power and more grosly abusing his pretended Church Power will not make this difference For we speak of a Pope and Primate as such abstracted from all Accidents of such an Officer in the Church Sect. 4. Pag. 292. He seems to expose the framing of Church-Government too much to the reason or rather fansie of Men when he saith That Vnion being the best way to preserve the Church the preservation of which Christ designeth by his Institution we may reasonably infer that whatever tendeth to promote this union and to prevent notable inconveniences is within the design of the first Institution tho' it be not
plead against himself For he saith p. 316. That he requireth no more but their Testimony that it be done sub populi Assistentis conscientia that by their presence either their Faults might be published or their good Acts commended that so it might appear to be a just and lawful Ordination which hath been examined by the Suffrages of all And after Cyprian saith It came down from Divine Tradition and Apostolick practice that a Bishop should be chosen plebe presente not by the Votes of the people says the Doctor One would think all this time the Doctor is secretly undermining his own cause and yet will out-face plain light to defend it Doth not Cyprian mention the Suffrages of all and yet the Doctor maketh him deny them Votes if their presence their Testimony commending or publishing the faults of the Candidate their knowledge and assistance can consist with Patronage and obtruding of Ministers on the people as a Master of a Flock setteth a Sheepherd over his Sheep it is one of Bellarmin's Arguments for the Doctor 's Conclusion If these do not import the peoples consent to be required and so amount to Election let any indifferent Reader judge It is plain that Cyprian not only alloweth the people this power but maketh it a Divine Right and maketh Ordination without it to be unjust and unlawful Wherefore if we should adhere to Cyprian's judgment there would be few Ministers in the Church of England and so more cause for separation than he is aware of but I do not improve his Testimony to that end The Doctor p. 317. bringeth Cyprians Testimony That it belongeth chiefly to the people to refuse the bad and chuse the good and yet hath the Brow to say That this is no more then their Testimony but if Testimony be chusing we require no more but Testimony It is nothing to the purpose that Lampridius says Severus proposed the Names of Governors of Provinces to the people to see what they had to say against them and that this will not infer popular Election of these Governors For 1. This was never declared to be necessary and appointing Governours unjust or unlawful without it as it is in our case 2. We have proved that the people have power of Suffrage and of chusing which was not granted by Severus That Origen saith a Bishop must be Ordained Astante populo is such an Argument against us as sheweth a very weak cause especially when so Learned a Man thought better to use it then say nothing For it is Election we speak of not Ordination in which we confess the people have no hand neither doth Origen say That this Ordination could proceed without the peoples being more concerned about the person than standing by while he was Ordained and yet even this favour is not granted to the people in England the Bishop will not be at the pains to come to the several Parishes to ordain the Ministers before the people Sect. 12. The 2. thing that the Dr. insisteth on is p. 318. That the people upon this Assuming the power of Elections caused great Disturbance and disorders in the Church To this I answer in general 1. I desire to know on what the people assumed the power of Election whether on Christ's Institution or any subsequent ground if the latter let him shew it if the former it is improper to say they assumed what was ever their due The Doctor seemeth to speak of it as an act of the people after that priviledge had been out of their hand for some time 2. There is no Institution of Christ but inconveniences may follow on it as long as sinful men have the managing of it Hath none followed on Church Power in the hands of Bishops and Presbyters Yea of civil power in the hands of Magistrates yea of power of Election in the hands of Patrons It were easie to fill a Volume with Histories to this purpose Will the Doctor thence conclude that all these should be abolished 3. As few inconveniences can be instanced as following on the peoples Election of their Pastors as of most other things The Doctor instanceth but four in the space of 1000 years that this power of the people lasted unviolated and that through all the Christian Churches I do not deny but more there might be but when so few occurr as observable to a man of so great reading it saith more against the Doctors design than all these Instances say for it 4. Most of these disturbances fell out by the Ambition of Bishops influencing the people and leading them into Factions and were occasioned by the worldly advantage of Episcopacy in the degenerate State of the Church and were not to be seen where Bishops kept within due bounds and were in a mean condition so that indeed this Consideration is more against Episcopal grandeur and imparity than against popular Elections As is evident from Ammian Marcellin whom the Doctor citeth as the Author of that Story of a Bloody Election at Rome when the Contest was about Damasus where he sheweth That they aspired to that Bishoprick with all their might considering how the Bishop was enriched Oblationibus Matronarum rode in Chariots were Gorgeously attired fared sumptuously and saith They might have shuned these inconveniences had they despised this grandeur and imitated the Bishops in the Provinces whose humble carriage poor fare and mean habit commended them to God and good men 5. It is worth our Observation that not one of these Disorders fell out for 300 years after Christ when the Church was in her Integrity and had not degenerated as she did afterward 6. There is a better means of preventing these disturbances to wit the Magistrate ought to suppress them and the Rulers of the Church ought to regulate Elections and take away the exercise of that power from the unruly as they take the Sacraments though peoples priviledge from them that walk unworthy of them When inconveniences fall in we must take God's way not our own to set things right again Sect. 13. This might suffice for Answer to all the Doctors Alledgeances on this head but further there is not so fair a representation made of matters of fact as need were For the â—st Instance the Disorder at Antioch it was not as he representeth it about the chusing of a new Bishop to a vacant place but about putting an Arian Bishop at least supposed to be so into the place of Eustathius who had long been peaceably in that place and regularly chosen but was injuriously deposed by the Arians Neither was Eustathius chosen at last as the Doctor saith but rid out the Storm and kept his place against the violent attempts of these Hereticks And therefore this Instance is wide from the purpose The next Instance is at Caesarea The person that carried the Election was Basil the Magistrates and the worst of the people opposing him Of this Nazianzen justly complaineth and it cannot be justified but cannot infer
make a part of these Sect. 6. But because the diversity of Civil Powers and frequent clashings of them in divers Nations maketh this hardly practicable therefore the highest Church-power is usually in National Assemblies And tho' I am far from the opinion of them who think that Church Government should be modelled according to the civil government of the Nation the contrary of which I have asserted elsewhere against the Learned Author whom I now dispute with yet in this particular it not only may but must be suited to the extent of the Civil Government This being no essential part of Church-Government nor instituted but a Circumstance of it determinable by necessity and conveniency On the same Score where a Congregation could have no other to Associate with it might act Independently and be blameless 6. Tho' Christians should so divide themselves into particular Churches as they may attend the Ordinances together ordinarily yet is not this meeting together but their being under the particular Inspection of the same Officers that maketh one particular Church For 1. One Congregation may encrease to that number that one place cannot contain them and yet continue one Congregation till they be regularly divided Thus it was in some of the Ancient Churches 2. Where Parochial Bounds are so large as all the People cannot always travel to one place the Pastor or Pastors of the Church may well have places more convenient for some of them where he or they may Administer the Ordinances to them sometimes as in Chapels of Ease and yet they all continue one particular Church 3. It is a frequent case with Families that but a part of them at one time can leave the House to wait on publick Ordinances and the rest at another time yet are they one Congregation 4. In a time of Persecution where the Flock is but small and might easily be contained in one House the Danger of numerous Meetings may be such as it may be needful that but a part of them should come together at once and that by turns as we are necessitated at this time to do This doth not make divers Congregations All this considered we are little concerned whether in the Primitive Times there were but one Chuâ—ch in a City or more Whether those called Churches did meet in one place or not as long as the one Party cannot prove that each Meeting was ruled Independantly by it self nor the other that a Diocesan Bishop ruled over more Churches than one and over their Presbyters Sect. 7. Before I part with this dâ—scourse of the Dr's about the Unity of Churches I take notice of his confident Asserting p. 226. the impossibility of the change of Church-Government so suddenly from its first institution even though the Church fell into Heresies very soon yet this change could not be The same thing he had asserted before and I have answered it Praef. Sâ—ct 9. His further considerations to enforce what he had said are not weighty to wit That Government is so nice and tender a Point thâ—t they cut of whose Hands it was taken by those who usurped it would certainly have complained This he enlargeâ—h upon But I answer 1. It may be they did that they did not is not proved by the silenâ—e of History A Negative Argument here is not concludent especially considering the Lameâ—ess of the History of the first Centuries and what we have of it is by those who had a Hand in the Usurpation 2. He doth not consider that Men might Sleep while others were robbing them as Christ foretold Matth. 13. 25. 3. We may rationally think that Government in the Church which then was no Lordly Dominion but a painful Ministery or Serviâ—e and made unpleasant by the cross Humors of them that needed it most was not then so â—ice and tender a Point to honest and well-meaning Presbyters as it is now to our aspiring Church-men they were Men of another stamp they were willing to lie by if the work were done and they might think that others might do it better than they this is not to justifie them but to take off mens wonder at this and Men of higher parts and Spirits might easily by degrees wrest Power out of the Hands of as good men as themselves who were not so fore-seeing as they should have been nor so tinctured with Ambition as they though other ways good and eminent Men. And we need the less wonder at this when we consider that this thing was not done suddenly but by insensible steps in the space of three or four Hundred Years Cyprian whom the Dr. layeth most weight on in this matter lived in the third Century even then we deny that Diocesan Episcopacy was setled What the Dr. saith under this Head of the Plurality of Congregations in the several Cities that seemeth to prove Episcopal Power over Presbyters shall be answered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the next Section where it is more proper Also what he here saith against popular Election is to be considered in its place because I would not confound Subjects so divers SECT III. Whether Diocesan Episcopacy be lawful THE Second Plea for Separation that the Learned Dr. considereth is the Vnlawfulness of Diocesan Episcopacy which he taketh a great deal of pains to prove to be 1. Primitive 2. Not repugnant to any Institution of Christ 3. That its Discipline as exercised in England doth not overthrow the Being of Parochial Churches All this he manageth Sect. 8 c. I might shun this whole Debate having above disowned this as a Plea for Separation except in so far as we are required to own it But because we look on this Episcopacy as unlawful to be used or owned I shall examine what the Dr. saith in defence of it This is done already to much more advantage than can be expected from me by the learned Auther of No Evidence for Diocesan Churches or Bishops c. and the defence of that Piece under the Title of Diocesan Churches not yet discovered in the Primitive Times which might supersede all that I have to say and shall make me say the less referring the Reader to these two most Learned Books yet lest there should be an hiatus in this Disâ—ourse I shall not wholly decline this debate with the Doctoâ— Sâ—ct 2. Mr. b's Frame of Church-Government which the Dr. disproveth p. 242 243. being singular himself can best defend it wherefore I leave it and shall attend the Dr's proof of the three particulars above mentioned first asserting a few things that may clear our way 1. That it is not the Name of Bishop that we quarrel it being applied in Scripture to all the ordinary ruling Officers in the Church as distinguished from her Servants the Deacons Phil. 1. 1. and the Exercise of it called a good Work 1 Tim. 3. 1. and applied to all the Elders of Ephesus Act. 20. 28. 2. We meddle not with their Titles and Revenues those are the Magistrates
them own such an Office in the Church The first Testimony that I bring is that of Jerome who giveth his Judgment of this matter not Obiâ—er but of set purpose as that which was his setled Opinion and that oftner than â—nce In his Epistle to Euagrius where he sharply reproveth some as Impudent that preferred Deacons to Presbyters i. e. saith he to Bishâ—ps but sheweth at length that Bishops and Prebyters are the same for which he citeth Phil. 1. 1. Act. 20. 28. Tit. 1. 5 6 7. 1 Tim. 4. 14. 1 Pet. 5. 1 2. and if any should think little of these Testimonies he addeth clanget tuba Evangâ—lâ—j filius toniâ—ru c. and so citeth 2 Joh. ver 1. and 3. Joh. v. 1. and after he hath shewed the occasion of preferring one Presbyter to the rest he telleth that notwithstanding of their Riches or Poverty Greatness or Meanness the difference of Cities where they are sive Romae sive Eâ—gâ—bij sive Constantinopoli c. they are ejusdem meriti Sacerdotii and sheweth that the Apostle giving direction to Timothy and Titus about Ordination of Bishops and Deacons saith nothing of Presbyters because the Presbyter is contained in the Bishop that is they are the same What may seem to make against our cause in this Epistle is that he saith quod autem unus electus quem caeteris praeponeretur id in Schismatis remedium factum which he saith was ne unusquisque Ecclesiam ad se trahens Christi ecclesiam rumperet which was done saith he in Alexandria a Marci Temporibus This may well be undeâ—stood of a Moderator of their Meetings who had power of Convening the Presbyters least every one might call a Meeting of them at his pleasure and so breed confusion and it must be so understood not of a Bishop with sole jurisdiction unless we will make Jerom to contradict the whole strain and design of this Epistle Another passage is quid enim facit Episcopus praeâ—er Ordinationem quod non facit Presbyter Which cannot be understood of Ordination or sâ—le Ordination of Presbyters for that were to make a material difference between Bishop and Presbyter which is directly contrary to his whole Discourse but Ordination here must be ordering of their Meetings which is the part of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Moderatâ—r One might also alledge that in the Writings of this learned Father a passage Obiter set down is not to be taken notice of in prejudice of the Scope and Strain of hâ—s Discourse tho' they be â—nâ—â—nsistent and might ground this allegation on the account that he giveth of his own Writings and cited also by Dr. Stillingflâ—et Ireniouâ—â— p. 278. Itaqâ—e ut simpliciter fatear legi haec omnia in meâ—â—e mea plurima conservans accito notario vel mea vel aliena dictavi nec ordinis nec verborum interdum nec sensuum meinor Sect. 16. Another Testimony is also out of Jerom câ—mment in Tit. 1. where he insisteth at length on the same subject and asserteâ—h the same opinion as before Idem ergo saith he Presbyter qui Episcopus antequam diaboli instinctu studia in religione fierent diceretur in populis Ego sum Pauli ego Appollo ego Cephae alluding to the Schism mentioned 1 Cor. 3. not meaning it in particular as some fansy Communi Presbyterorum concilio ecclesia gubernabatur postquam vero unusquisque eos quos Baptizaverat suos putabat esse non Christi toto orbe decretum est Vt unus de Presbyteris electis superponeretur reliquis ad quem omnis ecclesiae cura pertineret ut Schismatum semina tolerentur and for proof of the Identity of Bishop and Presbyter he citeth many Scriptures as above and sheweth that Bishop denoteth the Office Presbyter the Age. He citeth also Heb. 13. 17. Ibi saith he equaliter inter plures ecclesiae cura dividitur And after he sheweth the difference between Bishop and Presbyter to be magis consuetudine quam dispositionis dominicae veritate And in conclusion of that discourse making a Transition to the qualities that the Text mentioneth saith videamus igitur qualis Presbyter sive Episcopus ordinandus sit What Jerom saith toto orbe decretum est is not to be understood of the Decree of an Oecumenick Council for no such Decree can be produced but that this Remedy of Schism in many places began then to be thought on and it was no wonder that this Corruption began then to creep in it being then about the end of the Fourth Century when Jerom wrote And this remedy Jerom declareth was not of God's but of Mans inventing and accordingly it succeeded for it proved worse than the Disease bringing in Tyranny and overturning Christ's Institution and at last setting up the Man of Sin. Satan gave the occasion to it as Jerom saith Man gave a Being to it and Satan improved it to carry on his designs The omnis eccleâ—iae cura that he mentioneth is inconsistent with the cura inter plures aequaliter divisa which he saith was the way of the Gospel and therefore either we must make Jerom say That the practice in his days was a direct overturning of Christ's Institution and contrary to Apostolick practice which will make the way of the Primitive Church and Writings of the Fathers to be no good Commentary upon the institution and way of the Apostles times and so destroy the Argument that our Brethren insist most upon for Episcopacy or we must expound this omnis cura of the extent of it to the whole Church not of the solitude of it in one Man excluding the rest of the Presbyters that he had a special inspection though he might not exercise Discipline by himself Sect. 17. A third Testimony out of Jerom is Ep. ad Heliodorum Fol. mihi 283. speaking of the Dignity of a Presbyter and shewing that they have power to consecrate the Eucharist they have claves Regni Coelorum quodammodo diem judicij indicant and then addeth Illi Presbytero si peccavero licet tradere me Satanae Sure then he is not for sole jurisdiction of a Bishop And this he speaketh of the principle and practice of his time which confirmeth what I said before of the meaning of Omnis cura ecclesiae There is yet another place in Jerom that is plain to this purpose Ep. ad Demet Sunt quos ecclesia reprehendit quos interdum abjicit in quos nonnunquam Episcoporum Clericorum censura desaevit which clearly putteth the Censures of the Church in his days into the Hands of Presbyters and not into the Hands of Bishops only whatever Priority they had above the other It is worth our Observation that several Popish Writers as zealous for Prelacy as ours are confess such light in the Writings of Jerom to this purpose that they find no way to Answer but to Condemn him of Error in this matter And Bellarm. de clericis lib. 1. c. 15.
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
Work by Delegates when they are at ease nor doth it prove that these did any thing without the Presbyters that Cyprian citeth tu es Petrus and whatsoever you shall bind c. was to very good purpose when some Martyrs invaded the Discipline of the Church and i proveth that as Christ gave the power of the Keys to Peter and the rest of the Apostles not to the People so he had given it to Cyprian and the rest of the Presbyters not to the Martyrs It had been well if tu es Petrus had never been more abused He saith indeed that the Church hath ever been governed by Bishops but the Dr. must prove that he meaneth by Bishops alone as they are distinct and separate from the other Presbyters The rest that followeth that the Bishop is to govern and give Account to God that he is in the place of Christ that a Church is a People united to a Bishop do all agree very well either with a Congregational Bishop or Minister or a Presbyterian Moderator acting in parity with other Presbyters and yet these are the Herculean Arguments from Antiquity that men make such a noise with Sect. 8. I now proceed with the Dr. to the third Thing that he had undertaken to wit to prove That such an Episcopacy as is practised here and was so in the Primitive Church this Last he supposeth that he hath proved is no devisiâ—g a new species of Churches nor repugnant to any Institution of Christ. To prove which Sect. 11. he bringeth some of Mr. B's Concessions which I neither yield nor will vindicate He bringeth also some Arguments of Mr. B's to prove that the ordinary governing part of the Apostolick Office was setled in all Ages Wherefore I must for a little leave the Dr. and Answer these Arguments of Mr. B's But first I take notice that it is a Mistake in the Dr. and Mr. B. too to call the governing part of the Apostle's Office ordinary For 1. That is to suppose the Thing in question to wit that it was continued in the Church that they governed and preached is true but that Officers that after were imployed in governing or preaching can claim that power as succeeding to the Apostles in any part of their Office and without other warrant we deny The Apostles governed and preached by another Commission from Christ than men now do and that both as to the manner of it the one being immediate the other mediate and as to the matter of it their Commission warranted them to do many Acts in governing and preaching that others have no power to do as giving Authoritative rules to all Churches where they came ordaining and censureing every where going up and down to Preach every where without a call from any Church without being fixed any where this power no Man can now pretend to Wherefore I say that Minâ—sters Teâ—ch and Rule the Church not by vertue of Apostolick Office or any part of it committed to them but by vertue of anoâ—her Office distinct from that of the Apostles which they receive by their Ordination 2. It is evident that the Apostles governing Power was not ordinary because there was an ordinary governing Power in the Church even in the Apostles times distinct from that of the Apostles and exercised by other Men tho' in subordination to the Apostles governing Power The Presbytery did then Ordain they did also Excommunicate as was above shewed and the Apostles directed them so to do and sometimes concurred with them and sometimes they acted without them Sect. 9. Let us now hear Mr. B s. Arguments 1. We read saiâ—h he Christ direct pt 3. Question 56. p. 831. Of the sâ—â—lâ—ng of that form viz. general Officers as well as particular but we never read of any Absolution Discharge or Cessation of the Institution Ans. 1. If this Argument have any force it will prâ—ve the continuance of all the extraordinary Offices that ever were in the Church Prophets Evangelists Workers of Miracles c. For we read not that ever they were discharged Ans. 2. It is enough to Abolish and Discharge that Institution that this Office was setled in the persons of some Men immediately by Jesus Christ himself and after their decease He neither put others in their room immediately by himself nor gave the Church any hint that such a thing should be done but instead of that he hath given sufficient direction for propogating other Officers in the Church in all Ages Argument 2. If we affirm a Cessation without proof we seem to accuse God of Mutabillity as setling one form of Government for one Age only and no longer Ans. I hope Mr. B. will not say that a change in Gods Works yea or Institutions doth argue mutability in God are not all the Old Testament Institutions now changed Were not Prophets Evangelists Men gifted with divers tongues c. His Institutions and yet now ceased and no other proof can be given for their Cessation then what we give for the ceasing of Apostles Neither do we say they are ceased without proof that they were by immediate Commission from God that that now cannot be pretended to and that the Lord hath hinted no other way of continuing such an Office in his House nor that it should be continued is abundant proof of this Cessation Argument 3. We leave room for audacious Wits accordingly to question other Gospel Institutions as Pastors Sacraments c. and to say that they were but for an Age. Ans. There is not the least shew of reason for this for their Gospel Institutions have more abiding Warrant then Immediate Commission given by Christ to some to Administer them Argument 4. It was General Officers that Christ promised to be with to the end of the World Maâ—h 28. 20. Ans. 1. If this Argument prove any thing it proveth too much to wit that only General Officers have that promise which I hope Mr. B. will not say Ans. 2. It was spoken to General Officers but the promise is not made to them alone but to all that should be Imployed in the work of Teaching and Baptizing And these being particularly here mentioned will prove that there shall be Teachers and Baptizers to the end of the World but not that there shall be General Officers as the Metropolitans c. that Mr. B. dreameth of to the end of the World. Sect. 10. The Dr. to improve these Arguments of Mr. Bâ— to his purpose joineth with him the consent of the Ages succeeding the Apostles that the Apostles did leave successors in the care of Government of the Churches Aus Who doubteth of that but the question is to whom did the Apostles commit this care we say to the Pastors in Common he saith to Diocesan Bishops this we deny that it can be proved either from any Writing or Deed of the Apostles or from the consent of the Ages next after them that the Bishops were looked on as succeeding to the Appostles in
neither possession â—or Acts of Parliament can take that right that Christ hath given to hâ—s people and bâ—stow it on another His Allegation that the peoples consent is swallowed up in the Parliaments Act is answered above That this right hath been owned in the King from the first planting of Christianity in England is said with more confidence than any semblance of Truth or shadow of Reason That Edward 3d asserted it in an Ep. to Clement will not prove it men use big words sometimes instead of strong Arguments and I believe that his Assâ—rtion was so far true that from the beginning of Christianity heâ—e the Pope had not that power which he had claimed and which the King was debating with him Sect. 23. He saith p. 326. That the right of inferior Patronage is justly thought to bear equal daâ—e with the first settlement of Christianity in peace and quietness A bold Assertion It must then have begun in the days of Constantine the Great His proof of this is Presbyters were setled in Country Cures what then In the First Council of Orange express mention is made of Patronage and it is reserved to the first Founders of the Churches If a Bishop saith the Dr. built a Church on his own Land in another Bishop's Diocess yet the right of presenting the Clerk was reserved When first I read this I could think of no other Answer but that this was far from what was to be proved Christianity was setled in peace long befâ—re this time for I doubted not of the Truth of a Citation made by a Man of so much Learning Reading and Integrity but I now find it is fit we should see with our own Eyes for in that Canoâ— it is the 9th the Dr calleth it the 10th there is no mention expresly nor implicite of Patronage nor presenting of a Clerk only this Favour is reserved to the Builder of the Church ut quos desiderat in re sua videre ipsos ordinetis in cujus civitatis terri orio est vel si ordinati jam sint ipsos habere acquiescat It is evident that no contest between the People and the Bishop is here determined who should chuse the Clerk but between the Bishop that builded the Church and him in whose Diâ—cess it is built The Builder of the Church is to have his desire as to the Officers of the Church and not the Bishop in whose Diocess it is but it may be rationally thought that the Bishop's desire was not to cross Christ's Institution nor tâ—e ancient Canons in depriving the people of the Election Such a desire this Councâ—l could not grant him nor is it rational to suppose that they granted it But it might be supposed that tâ—e Builder of the Church might more influence the People they being his own Vassals or Tenaâ—ts as we now speak then the other Bishop in whose Diocess the Church was and therefore the one is here decreed to have his desire rather than the other He saith this was confirmed by Concil Arelat 2. c. 36. it is mihi Can. 35. Now let any judge whether this Canon doth affirm any such thâ—ng or rather doth not speak plainly for popuâ—ar Election The words of it are placuit in ordâ—natione Episcopi hunc ordinem custodiri ut primo loco venâ—litate vel ambitione suâ—inata ad Episcopis nec nominentur de quibus Clerici vel Laiâ—i Cives erga unum eligendi haebeâ—nt potestate The Relative de quibus is not Diacritick as if some might be named by the Bishops which is the only ground on which this Canon could be drawn into the Dr's design for here Bishops not a Bishop are mâ—nâ—ioned and the choice is of a Bishâ—p not a Presbyter of whom a Bishop might be a Paâ—ron the Relative is then to be understood Vniversâ—litâ—r that the Clergy and Lâ—ity have the power of chuâ—ing their Bishop and therefâ—re the rest of the Bishops must not name him Sect. 26. He bringeth next the Constitutions of the Emperours Zeno and Jusiinian I have above answered to this they were out of their Line when they medled in these matters The Citatiâ—ns tâ—emselves I cannot examine not having the Books but if they be like what goeth before it is little matter He saiâ—h this was setlâ—d also in the Westâ—rn Church as appeareth by the 9th Council of â—oledo Ans. 1. This Council was held An. 650. saith the Dr. 656. saith Alstedius this was in a time when Corruptions in the Church were come to a great height 2. In this Provincial Council were buâ—â—â—xteen Bishops With what face then can it be said that what they did was brought into the Western Church This it is to speak big words instead of using strong Arguments 3. The 1st â—anon impowereâ—h the Heirs of Founders of Churches to prevent Dilapidations in those Churches The Second impowereth the Founder himself quum diu in hâ—c vita supeâ—stes extiterit during Life to have a care of these places and to offer fit Rectors to â—erve in them Where it is to be noted 1. That the Founder might be pâ—esumed to be a good Man by his liberality and theremore trust might be reposed in him as to this matter but his Heirs who mâ—ght be profane Hereticks or Atheists are not intrusted with a conâ—ern of that nature as it is with us Where Papists must chuse a Minister for Protestants or an Atheist or Drunkard c. 2. It is not said that the people shall not chuse nor must consent but he was to offer a Pastor which might well consist with the Peoples Election All that followeth is nothing but a raking into the Dunghil of the latter Corruptions of the Church to confirm this right of patronage I therefore wave it Sect. 27. He is now arrived at his last consideration p. 328. Things being thus setled by general consent and established by Laws there is no ground for the people to resum the liberty of Elections I hope the weight of this is already taken of in the judgment of the unbyassed Reader that there never was such general consent nor Laws till the Church was quite corrupted and that these if they had been could not take away the peoples right of Election and therefore they are to own iâ— still He giveth three reasons for this Assertion 1. It was not unalterable That is deny'd 2. No inconvenience can be alledged against the setled way of disposing of Livings but may be remedied by Lâ—w easier than those which will follow on popular Elâ—ctions in a divided Nation Ans. 1. It is not only inconveniences that we object but crossing of Christ's Institution 2. The Doctor hath nothing in his eye but Liviâ—gs it is the Pastoral Relation that we mind and the conâ—ern of Souls in it we desire to know who put the power of disposing of these into the handâ— of Paâ—rons 3. We deny his Asserâ—ion for though the Law will restrain a Popish Patron from presenting a Popish