over the Christian world and how the Papists are hardened seeing no end of Schism To all this I answer 1. I know Rome and some others too will triumph when there is no cause for their so doing but as long as we can shew Scripture-warrant for what we hold and do we are unconcerned in their censures 2. That there is no cause for their triumphing appeareth because the Dr. and his Party who have the same cause of Triumph that the Papists could have on this occasion have as yet had no such victory in their Debates with us as to make them triumph 3. If by the Christian World he mean the Protestant part of Christianity for the rest we are less mâ—ved by their Judgments I hope they will not laugh at us who scruple nothing but what most of them have condemned as Additions to the Word of God and Corruptions of His Worship for so all the Calvinist-Churches and Divines have done 4. If the Papists be hardened as seeing no end of Schism they are to be blamed for we can shew them and others a good end of it to wit ordering the worship of God by his Institution or at least imposing nothing uninstituted as Terms of Communion with the Church Sect. 7. His Second Argument is Sect. 24. That this Separation maketh Vnion among the Protestant Churches impossible supposing them to remain as they are This he proveth because the Lutheran Churches have these and more Ceremonies yet these Churches are thought true and fit to be united with by a Synod of the Reformed at Charenton 1631. The Helvetian Churches declare against separating for different Rites and Ceremonies So doth the Confession of Poland and that of Ausburg and Strasburg also Crecius and the Transilvanian Divines Nothing of all this cometh up the point as above stated We allow no Separation for these Rites and none of the Divines or Confessions mentioned disalloweth forbearing of them in our own persons nor injoineth using of them We do not separate because the Church useth them but She driveth us away because we cannot use them What he citeth out of Amyraldus p. 189. that the nature of Ceremonies is to be taken from the Doctrine that goeth along with them I have said somewhat to above I deny not but a bad Doctrine may infect an indifferent Ceremoâ—y that is built on it but I cannot assent That the best Doctrine can justifie an uninstituted Ceremony in God's Worship He citeth Davenant giving three Reasons that may hinder Union and the first is Tyranny over Mens Faith and Conscience let but this be removed and our Separation is at an end for I think the Dr. will hardly clear imposing of needless Ceremonies on them that are convinced of and can prove their sinfulness of this blame That Protestant Churches abroad have harder Terms of Communion than we he supposeth p. 198. but doth not prove the Calvinist Churches have not and if the Lutheran Churches have that is impose them with such rigour we cannot but eatenus condemn them Yet we shut not out the Lutheran Churches from all possibility of Union with them as he insinuates we can have Union with them as Sister Churches but we cannot partake in their instituted parts of Worship Sect. 8. His third Argument is that this will justifie the ancient Schisms that have alwaies been condemned in the Christian Church and he instanceth in the Schism of the Novatians and others But the Dr. hath done us Presbyterians the favour to free us of the trouble of this Debate with him by setting aside from their Pleas for Separation Ceremonies Liturgy and Holidays which are the things we insist upon I say no more on this Argument but take notice of the Dr's wonderful but most groundless confidence in a Parenthesis asserting That these are common to our Church with all other Christian Churches for many hundred years before the great degeneracy of the Roman Church and are continued by an universal consent in all parts of the Christian World. The first part of his Assertion is absolutely false for all the cunning used in inserting the Epithete great degeneracy of the Roman Church I know not where he will fix this great degeneracy whether in Boniface's usurping the Title of Vniversal Bishop or may be in the Council of Trent But he shall never prove that these were used in the Church before a notable degeneracy of the Church nor that they were used by all Christians even before the greatest degâ—neracy For the Second Part of his Assertion it is beyond comprehension what he can mean by it for he cannot be ignorant that these are not continued in all nor most of the Reformed Churches but disowned in their Confessions and by their Practice But some mens confidence or pretence to it runs highest when Truth and Reason is with them at the lowest ebb Sect. 9. I come now to his Fourth Argument Sect. 26. That these grounds will make separation endless He prosecuteth this Argument in 12 pages by shewing the evil of Schism p. 197. reprovâ—ng Mr. A. for making too light of it p. 198. and exposing him in a mimick loâ—g Oration in the excuse of it p. 199 200 201 202 203. and citing Mr. B. setting forth the evil of Schism p. 204 205 206. and reproving Mr. A. for not setting Bounds to Separation All which I shall pass by as not against the cause that I maintain and only briefly answer his Argument if either his Party or any pretended to be on our side will not keep within that Boundary let them answer it That Separation will soon be at an end if the Church impose nothing but what is warranted by Scripture and if People refuse nothing so as to separate for it but what they can shew Scripture-ground that it were their Sin to own it or do it Sect. 10. His Fifth Argument is taken from the Obligation that lieth on all Christians to preserve the Peace and Vnity of the Church To enforce this Argument the Dr. doth well prove several sound truths but such as none of them nor all of them conclude against withdrawing from the Church when sinful Terms of Communion are imposed as 1. That the Study of Unity is a Duty 2. That this Unity doth not lie in bare Communion in Faith and Love. 3. Nothing can discharge us from this Obligation to study Unity but what is allowed by Christ or his Apostles as a sufficient reason for it What is all this to make up an Obligation to sin against God rather than separate from the Church But a fourth thing he insisteth on may be will help him better He telleth us of three cases wherein Scripture alloweth of Separation to wit Idolatrous Worship False Doctrine mens making indifferent things necessary to Salvation That this is not a sufficient enumeration I prove 1. Because there may be sinful Terms of Communion imposed where none of these are May not men make owning Traditions of Men necessary to their
Scripture or solid Reason He judgeth p. 3 4. That East and West may meet and the most furious Antagonists of Popery may become of the easiest Converts Deus avertat omen If we may form any Conjecture of what may be from the Observation of what hath been easie Conversion to Popery is liker to be found among his own party who are tame and gentle towards Popery and no way furious And if any be furious against it let them bear their blame We applaud and practise Rational Zeal against it but not Fury for The Wrath of Man worketh not the Righteousness of God. He cannot get out of this fear concerning many Thousand zealous Protestants I deny not but there is cause of Fear for many have got sound Principles in their Heads without saving Grace in their Hearts and the Knowledge and Fortitude of most is very weak and the best have Cause to fear themselves and look to him who is able to make them stand but I hope all the Ground of Fear is not on our side Sect. 7. But now the Learned Author cometh closer to his Design viz. To lay down Grounds of his Opinion that he is so confirmed in That the principles and practice of Non-conformists do tend to re-introduce Popery among us one is That they mistake what Popery is being as much afraid of an innocent Ceremony and of the Cross as of real Idolatry and of Kneeling as of Adoring the Host. Ans. 1. The Dr. might have known that the learned Labours of some Non-conformists against Popery do sufficiently testifie that they are not ignorant what it is 2. We generally know that the Ceremonies are not Popery but loâ—k on them as a part of Popery but are far from equalling them with some other parts of Popery that are far 〈◊〉 re grosly evil 3. We never counted even the nocent Ceremonies used in England for innocent Ceremonies we know none but those of God's Institution so bad as real Idolatry nor Crossing and Kneeling so bad as worshipping Images tho' we count both sinful and dare practise neither Therefore if we should come to see our Mistake in the one Case which we expect not yet there is no Ground for the Consequence of this alledged by him viz. That we should suspect our selves deceived in the other also unless he would say that every Discovery of a Mistake that Men make about the smallest matters in Religion will shake the very Foundation of their Faith which I hope he will be very far from asserting left they that have read his Irenicum in former years and now read his Sermon and this Defence of it should inferr that which Good Men will be far from imputing to a person of his worth especially when he doth not deny but rather own a Change in some things now debated p. 72. of the Preface Sect. 8. It looketh like another Ground that Non-conformists serve the Designs of Papists that When they find the undoubted Practices of the Ancient Church condemned as Popish and Antichristian by their Teachers they must conclude Popery to be of much greater Antiquity than really it is and when they can trace it so very near the Apostles Times they will soon believe it setled by the Apostles themselves Ans. 1. Here is still a confounding of something that is Popish with Popery a part taken for the whole an Accident without which Popery can well consist and which doth subsist without Popery with the body and substance of Popery He looketh on his Antagonists according to his wonted Esteem of them as very mean Logicians when he will have them conclude the Antiquity of Popery in those things that he and we do jointly dislike it in from the Antiquity of some Rites that were used under that Apostasie and which we have continued among us under the Reformatiom 2. It were still as bad a Consequence from our traceing some things near to the Apostles times to inferr that they were setled by the Apostles For we can make it appear that not only soon after the Apostles times but in their times some things were in the Church that they did not setle as the Love-Feasts which they reproved and abolished after that abuse of them was observed 3. To call those things that Non-conformists Scruple Viz. The Ceremonies the undoubted practices of the Ancient Church which may be traced near to the Apostles times is gratis dictum a bold begging of the question the proof of it we expect Sect. 9. It will saith he P. 5. be very hard to perswade considering men that the Christian Church should degenerate so soon so Vnanimously and so Vniversally as it must do if Episcopacy and the use of Significant Ceremonies were any parts of the Apostasie Here is still the great Antiquity of these things taken for granted but not proved But further his Considering men if they read and consider the Scripture will easily be perswaded that a Church may very early and quickly degenerate and that Vnanimously and Vniversally especially in some things that are of lesser concern in Religion How suddenly did the Church of Israel degenerate and Aaron with them when Moses was but 40 days absent in the Mount that in matters of higher moment than what we contend about even worshiping a Calf for God see Ex. 32. 1. and particularly Vers. 8. And the Lord foretold to Moses their after Apostasies Deut. 31. 16. And Moses took notice of their Apostasies while he was yet with them and how soon they would break out after his departure 27. 29. How Quickly Vnanimously and Vniversally did the ten Tribes apostatize after Solomon's decease And is not the whole History of the Church of Judah under her Kings a witness of this When ever a bad King arose presently the pure Worship of God was turned to Idolatry In the days of Joash as soon as Jehojada was gone how quickly did a Faction with a Complement to the King turn the whole Nation to Idolatry 2 Chron. 24. 17 18. These Apostasies were in higher points than we now speak of and yet How quickly did the Church thus degenerate And that this should not be thought strange even in the Gospel-Church we may see if we consider what Christ telleth us of the Tares sown while men sleep and growing up insensibly and without Observation Also the degeneracy that the Church fell into even while the Apostles were alive and faithfully watching over her and that both in Doctrine and Practice is evident in the Errours in Corinth and Galatia in the Abuses in publick Administrations at Corinth insomuch as the Apostle behoved even in his own time to make a Reformation by bringing back to Apostolick Example and the Law of Nature for reforming some Indecencies among them and to Divine Institution for reforming their Enormities 1 Cor. 11. 1. 20. 23. If these evils crept in under the Inspection of the Apostles What wonder is it if Men afterwards began in some things to deviate in Church-practice
shew our consent with the Protestant Churches To these I return a word or two in general and then shall answer them particularly â— Why was not Scripture consulted in this weighty matter which wise men think is a safer and better Rule of Reformation than any of the Three here mentioned Shall we slight or cross Christ's Institution in the Worship of God for the sake of Antiquity or Papists or Protestants either I am far from thinking that our Reformers had so little regard to Scripture nay that was the Weapon they alwaies used against the Papists tho' in reference to the Ceremonies they did not so well consider it as they should have done But the Dr. and his Party seem to lay little weight on it in this Controversie for he maketh little or no use of it through this large Book which is somewhat strange in a Controversie of Divinity It is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to use weapons so far different from those of the Apostles and therefore I hope they will not prove mighty through Christ as his were 2 Cor. 10. 4. None of these Reasons nor all of them in conjunction is sufficient to establish any point of Truth or to warrant any part of Divine Worship Wherefore they should first have proved the Ceremonies to be lawful and then these three Reasons might well have come in as Auxiliaries to confirm the use of them but to manage the Worship of God by such Considerations without any other Reason was too slender a Ground to proceed upon Sect. 25. Let us now consider his three Reasons in particular For the First Due reverence to Antiquity Ans. 1. We reverence Antiquity as much as our Brethren do but with these two Cautions 1. That we preferr the first Antiquity to that which was later the Apostolick Church to the Ages of the Church that succeeded If they can shew us any footsteps of the Ceremonies in that Church we shall embrace them if not give us leave to reject them even out of Reverence to Antiquity 2. We do not own Antiquity where there was no Infallibility as was in the Apostles for the Rule of our Faith or Worship We know the Church may erre and did very soon begin to decline of which somewhat before and more afterward We reverence Antiquity so far as not to recede from it without sufficient warrant from Scripture or clear Reason and to reverence it further is to idolize it and put it in the place of Divine Authority Ans. 2. Why are not our Brethren uniform in their Reverence to Antiquity Do not they desert Antiquity in more things and those of more moment than the controverted Ceremonies are Will they deny the naevi patrum that Divines both Papists and Protestants have observed They have laid aside the osculum that then was called pacis sanctum vel fraternitatatis used presently after Prayer which Tertullian calleth Signaculâ—m orationis the Agapae that notwithstanding of the Apostles check 1 Cor. 11. 21 22. were used in Tertullian's time sometimes before the Lord's Supper sometimes after also the Baptizing if not only yet more ordinarily the day before Easter and Pentecost the Trina immersio the Communio Infantum the Gustatio mellis lactis all used in Baptism in Tertullian's time Of the same sort are the diluting of the Wine with Water in the Lord's Supper the sign of the Cross used in Omni conversatione as Tertullian hath it The carrying the Eulogias or consecrated Symbols to the Sick and others all these in the Second Century In the Third Century were brought in Offerings and Prayers for the Dead and Exorcism in Baptism What a world of Ceremonies were added in the Fourth Century is too well known Now all these were as ancient as the Times of the first Christian Emperors to which the Dr. saith p. 17. that Our Reformers endeavoured to reduce the state of the Church if it was thought fit and no disrespect to the Fathers to reject their practices in some things as innocent as our Ceremonies why not in them also there being no more warant in the Word for the one sort of things than the other This is to make Respect to Antiquity to â—erve a turn or mens own designs which I hope our worthy Reformers were far from whatever may be said of their Successors Sect. 26. Ans. 3. If the Dr. had pleased to tell us how ancient the Ceremonies that he contendeth for are we should have considered his Allegations I am sure he cannot equal them in Antiquity with the Rites above-mentioned which yet his Church rejecteth We affirm them to be Novel Inventions brought in under a considerable tho' not the highest Degeneracy of the Church when we meet with his proofs to the contrary they shall be answered I wonder to hear from such an Antiquary as Dr. Stâ—llingfleet That purging out of these Ceremonies is a Reforming 1600 years backward as if all the controverted Ceremonies or any of them had been in the first Century in the very daies of the Apostles I suppose he will find it a hard Task to prove this By what hath been said it is easie to discover the weakness of what he alledgeth about giving unspeakable Advantage to the Papists by reforming 1600 years backward for neither do we own the Ceremonies to be so old nor could Papists have any advantage if we reject what is unwarranted by the Word however ancient it be Indeed if we should part with Scripture and referr the decision of our Controversies with the Papists only to â—hurch-History it were to give them advantage if we should disown any thing so ancient but I hope the Dr. will not advise us to that course and therefore there is no hazard It addeth to this unspeakable advantage in the Dr's Opinion That when they the Non-conformists are pinched with a Testimony of Antiquity presently cry out of the Mystery of Iniquity already working in the Apostle's Times as tho' every thing that they disliked were a part of it Ans. Tho' we have hitherto met with none of his pinching Arguments from Antiquity yet we think that Allegation no such ridiculous Evasion as he would make it seeing the Spirit of God was pleased to give us this warning and after-Ages gave a clear proof of the fulfilling of this Scripture by the ripening of those Inclinations that were among some in the Apostles days of falling back to beggarly Elements Gal. 4. 9. and subjecting themselves to mens Ordinances touch not taste not handle not Col. 2. 20 21. into the highest of Superstition and Depravation of the Worship of God as Antichristianism came to a height If the load of humane Traditions were a part of that Mystery of Iniquity that was adult under Antichrist why should we not think that these Beginnings were a part of these first workings of it that the Apostle complaineth of If we make any thing that disliketh us a part of that working Mystery of Iniquity that we cannot prove to
with one another for that end Sect. 12. Next he enquireth Whether the Rule here mentioned was the Rule of mutual Forbearance I think the Question should rather be Whether it was a Rule of God's making or of Man's making Whatever the Rule were in particular Tirinus saith Regulam hic intelligit a Christo Apostolis ejus praescriptam Zanchius Doctrinam quam modo tradidit summam doctrinae Chrâ—stianae tum de dâ—gmatibus tum de moribus Doctrinam fidei say Estius Menochius Grotius saith Etiam qui de riâ—ibus circumcisione aliter sentiunt interim sâ—iant evangelij praecepta quae divina esse per suas sunt sibi esse sequenda If the Dr. can prove this Rule to be a humane Rule he will gain much by this Scripture otherwise nothing at all We are content to follow a Divine Rule for attaining Peace in the Church it doth indeed forbid peevish dividing of the Church by injoining to hold to the same Rule but the Dividers are not they that are content to follow all Christ's Rules but they that make Rules of their own and will tear the Church in pieces rather than these should not be observed The Third thing he enquireth into is What influence this Rule hath on our Case He saith It obligeth to go as far as we can This is confessed But then we say It is a Divine and not Humane Rule that must shew how far we can i. e. ought to go He saith When we can go no further we must sit down quietly and wait for further Instruction and not divide the Church Ans. When the Apostle speaketh ver 15. of God's further instructing them that mistake I suppose it expresseth rather the hope that the sound part should have of them that are short in Knowledge which should make them not over-drive them as our Brethren would do with us than what is their Duty I am far from saying that it is mens Duty to break the Peace of the Church but I am sure two things are far from being the Apostle's Scope to injoin such doubting Christians 1. That they should go over the belly of their Light to join with them that they differ from either in the Principles or the Practices that they scruple 2. That if they cannot have Communion in Ordinances with them unless they thus sin against Light that they should live without the Ordinances None of these we have any Rule for in the Gospel and therefore doing of these were not walking by any Rule that the Apostle here meaneth The Dr. saith p. 171. This Rule in order to Peace requireth the observing of such things which although they be not particularly appointed by God yet are injoined by lawful Authority and not repugnant to the Word I wish the Dr. had proved that the Apostle giveth any warrant to observe such things in the Worship of God we deny it It is fallacious to propose his distinction of things not particularly appointed by God but appointed by Lawful Authority but let us see a general Rule from the Word for what we scruple and that will satisfie us Or let us see what Authority Men have to appoint any thing that is in statu cultus or religioso that God hath not appointed It is most falsly asserted p. 172. that Because the Apostles decreed against a plausible pretence of Conscience about abstaining from Blood c. the Governours of the Church he hath now changed the stile it used to be the Magistrate by parity of Reason may determine those things which they think conduce most to the peace and welfare of the Church which they are bound to preserve For to give any colour of Truth to this Assertion he must prove 1. That ordinary Church-Governours have as much Power as the Apostles in such Cases 2. That there is a parity of Reason for the things determined by our Church-Guides and those by the Apostles these were necessary and the Apostles Decree found them so and had its Rise from this necessity The Ceremonies are confessed to be indifferent and to have no necessity but what it pleaseth the Church or Magistrate to give them Sect. 13. He saith p. 173 in answer to another of his Opposers That the Apostle gave binding Rules to particular Churches which are not extant in Scripture as appears by 1 Cor. 7. 17. Ans. 1. This Rule is expresly said to be given in all Churches not to any Church in particular 2. That this Rule is not extant in Scripture is false for it is extant in this place 3. This Rule that a man should keep within his station is no prudential Rule of Order and Government as the Dr. hinteth but a Principle of the Moral Law. 4. We are content to submit to all Rules that can be justly proved out of or inferred from Scripture tho' they be not in terminis extant there But the Rules for Liturgy and Ceremonies are none of these SECT VI. The Dr's Arguments against Independent Separation considered in so far as they may be thought to reach Presbyterians FRom Sect. 21. and forward the Reverend Author insisteth on the Charge of Schism against those that deny any Communion with the Church of England to be lawful to wit in partaking of the Ordinances with them who deny them tho' true Churches in some sence to be such Churches as they can abide in the Communion of and therefore must keep separate Meetings which they own as other Churches distinct from the Patrochial Churches He aimeth I suppose especially at the Independents I am not of that Perswasion and therefore leave the Patrociny of it to them that are Yet because many of the Dr's Arguments against their Separation may be thought by the unwary Reader to militate also against the Meetings of the Presbyterians I must not wholly pass over this part of his Book but I shall answer his Arguments so far only as they may be thought to condemn our Principle and Practice Sect. 2. Before I examine his Arguments I shall shew two considerable Differences between our withdrawing from the Church and that of the Independents 1. They have more grounds on which they separate than we and consequently more is required to bring them back to Communion with the Church than is to bring us to it for we withdraw as they also do because of the Liturgy Crossing in Baptism Kneeling in the Act of receiving the Lord's Supper observing of Holidaies If the Church will either remove these or bear with us in them we are ready to join with Her in Acts of Communion But besides these they sâ—parate because of the wrong Constitution of the Church in her Members want of a right Discipline faults in the election and ordination of Ministers Tho' the Liturgy and Ceremonies were not they would still separate as they do from the Presbyterian Churches where these are not 2. They separate because these are used We only because they are imposed as necessary terms of our being admitted to
part with the Patrimony of this Text then with their Titles Grandeur and Revenues Sect. 9. The second Proposition is evident in the several Branches mentioned before for our Adversaries can produce no hint of any such distinction in Scripture and we can shew an identity in them And first for the name it is clear from Act. 20. 28. where the Apostle calleth all the Elders of Ephesus Bishops It is a groundless fancy of some that these Elders were the Diocesan Bishops of Asia for this is said without any shew of proof to serve a turn Besides that they are called the Elders of the Church not Churches as even in the prelatical Stile Diocesan districts should be called And it is called the Flock not Flocks and the Church of God not the Churches of God that they were to take heed to and the haste that the Apostle then was in considering the short time and long journey that he had before him was inconsistent with his expecting such an Assembly from so remote parts This identity of name is also clear from Phil. 1. 1. for no reason can be assigned why Deacons should be mentioned as concerned in what was written in that Epistle and not Presbyters Also it is most clear Tit. 1. 5. with 7. where shewing how Elders must be qualified a reason is given why they must have such Qualifications for a Bâ—shop must be Blameless if they were not one this reason should have neither force nor sence which were Blasphemy to averr it being the Holy Ghosts reasoning Sect. 10. In the next place Scripture maketh no distinction between the Office of Bishop and Presbyter many of our brethren deny a distinction of Office betwixt them how consistently with their other principles I enquire not and they that assert such a distinction cannot shew the least foot-step of it from Scripture Thirdly for their power if Bishops ordained so did Presbyters 1 Tim. 4. 14. If any alledge that the ordainers of Timothy were Diocesan Bishops they must prove it If Bishops had rule over the people were over them so were Presbyters 1 Thes. 5. 12. Heb. 13. 17. For none question but Presbyters are they who mainly labour among the people admonish them and watch for their Souls I am sure this is not the work that our Bishops are exercised in and the same persons in both places are the peoples Rulers and are over them Fourthly Their Work is the same as is clear both from the places last cited and Act. 20. 28. 1 Pet. 5. 1 2. Where taking heed to feeding and over-seeing in the Greek acting the part of Bishops 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are made the work of all the Pastors of the Church 5. The same qualifications are required in all the guides of the Church without any distinction 1 Tim. 3. 2. Tit. 1. 5. And the qualification of Deacons they being a distinct sort of Officers in the Church are set down by themselves 1 Tim. 3. 8. Sixthly for Obedience Reverence Maintenance or any thing else that concerneth a Bishop as distinct from a Presbyter there is not the least hint in Scripture from which any such thing can be gathered a Man must then put force upon his reason or be strangely swaâ—ed by prejudice who can perswade himself that there is an ordinary Officer mentioned or allowed in the New Testament that is above the Presbyters of the Church or hath jurisdiction over them Sect. 11. Argument third The Apostle doth thrice set down a list of the several Officers of the Gospel-Church without mentioning a Diocesan Bishop or any Officer to which this Office can be rationally reduced Ergo no such Officer ought to be allowed in the Church The consequence I prove first Because this should have been a defect not imputable to the Apostle infallibly guided by the Spirit to teach us designedly the several Church-Officers appointed by Christ and not tell us of them all Let our brethren if they can give us an instance of a defectiveness in any Scriptureinstruction of this moment that can be parallelled with this Secondly The consequence can yet less be questioned if we considâ—r that not only an Officer is left out and the Church left without a hint concerning him but the chief ordinary Officer in the Church that should make the greatest Figure in the Church to the end of the World and on whose management the weightiest affairs of the Church should depend He who can believe this his Judgment must be under the power of so strong a Byass that I know not what will be too hard for him to Swallow the Antithesis I prove out of 1 Cor. 12. 28. Eph. 4. 11. Rom. 12. 6 7 8. Not any of these Offices agreeth to the Diocesan Bishop some say they are reducible to Apostles With what face can wise men alledge this Was not the Office of an Apostle extraordinary and temporary appointed for the first dispersing the Gospel and planting Churches and besides every Apostle was an Universal Officer Diocesans have their limitted charges Some alledge they are reducible to Apostles not as being absolutely such but because they have power over inferior Ministers as the Apostles had But these men should prove that Christ instituted such an Office or that the Apostle meant not only extraordinary Apostlâ—s but these Semi-Apostles as ordinary Officers to continue in the Church Secondly They should prove that Christs instituting Apostles did warrant the Church to set up an Office made up of as much of the Apostles Office as should be afterward thought convenient What may not men devise in the Church that take on them thus to add to or diminish from Christs Institutions and thus to wrest Scripture to make it comply with their fancies and interests Sect. 12. Others make the Doctors or Teachers Eph. 4. 11. to be the Bishops and this with as little ground as the former though some learned Men have so dreamed as Estius and Doctor Hammon Grotius thinks Metropolitans also are here meant but the absurdity of this fancy will appear First If we consider that they are named after the Pastors or Presbyters which is an indecency unâ—uitable to the Apostles Exactness if my Lord Bishop weâ—e here meant I find many Interpreters argue that Prophets are the next in Dignity to Apostles and are extraordinary Officers because they are named alwaies next after the Apostles which Argument will as well hold here Secondly The work of the Bishop that we speak of which discriminateth him from the Presbyter is not to Teach but to Rule Therefore others as Calvin by Teacher understandeth him that educateth Ministers and instructeth them and others in the truth and defendeth it against Heresies such as are Divinity Professors in Universities others understand Catechists But it is evident that it cannot with any kind of Congruity be applied to the Diocesan Bishop who is least imployed in Teaching of any part of Church-Work some find the Diocesan Bishop under the name of Helps 1
Cor. 12. 28. As Grotius and Hammond both of them also make him to be meant by Government and the same two Authors in the same verse by Teachers understand the same Officer They would be sure to find him somewhere but this very uncertainty where to fix him is a token that he is no where to be found Is it imaginable that the Apostle in a list of Church-Officers set down in so few words would use such repetition When so Learned Men are put to such shifts it is a sign the cause is so weak that it affordeth no better reason to defend it by That they are not meant by Teachers I have already shewed neither are they meant by Helps 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Grotius significat curam rei alicujus gerere This is said without Book be it spoken with due respect to that great Critick I find Authors cited for its signifying to take hold undertake uphold help correct but none for its signifying to take charge of a thing The place he referreth to Luk. 1. 54. can bear no signification of the word so well as that of helping and among all Criticks and other Interpreters he cannot produce one that so expoundeth the word either here or in that place but Men will say any thing to serve a turn Neither can the Diocesan be meant by Government not only because they are among the last and so the most inferior of Church-Officers but also because our Brethren will not say that the Bishop should only Rule and not Teach though it is too much their practice yet they will not averr this to be according to Institution as this Officer must do he being a distinct Officer from the Teacher I conclude If the Apostle had intended to set forth to us such an Eminent Officer of the Church we might have expected he should have if not clearly yet to the Satisfaction of an inquisitive mind set him down in some of these Catâ—logues which is not done Sect. 13. Argument fourth The power that we read of in the New Testament was never exercised by any ordinary Officers alone but by the Church-Guides in Common Ergo there was no Diocesan Bishop in the New Testament and if we have no warrant there our scrupling to own such a one is not unreasonable That Church-Power was so exercised I prove by Instances leaving to our Brethren if they can to bring Instances to the contrary First Ordination was performed by Presbyters in Common 1 Tim. 4. 14. It is a groundless Notion that some Men of great Name and Worth have on this place that Presbytery is meant of the Office for both it is a harsh phrase the hands of the Office and further the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is often used in the New Testament yet is never used for the Office but for the College of Presbyters the Office is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Camerarius others say That by the Presbytery here is meant the Company of the Apostles who are called Presbyters This cannot be for the Apostle ascribeth to himself a special concern above others in the Ordination of Timothy 2 Tim. 1. 6. Which he would not have done if the rest of the Apostles equal in Authority with himself had concurred but might well do it when he as chief and the ordinary Pastors as subâ—rdinate did join in this Action for it is the observation of Camerarius on this Text the Apostles did not use their extraordinary power often but when the Church was constitutâ—d acted in Conjunction with the ordinary Pastors and there was good reason for this to wit both that the Church-Guides might know that Apostolick power was not always to continue among them and that they might learn the way of Church-Administrations which they behoved to exercise by themselves when the Apostles were gone Sect. 14. Another Instance is in Excommunication which the Apostle injoineth the ordinary Eldâ—rs of the Church of Corinth to exercise against the incestuous Man he directeth his Injunctions not to a single Bishop but to a Company of Men 1 Cor. 5. That they being gathered together should deliver him to Satan vers 4 5. That they should purge out that old leaven vers 7. That it was their part not a single persons part to Judge the Members of the Church vers 12. That they should put away the wicked person vers 13. and spâ—aking of this Sentence 2 Cor. 2. 6. He expresly saith it was done by many and ascribeth the power of forgiving i. e. absolving from the sentence of Excommunication to them not to one Man. What ever different thoughts men may have about this delivering to Satan or about the Apostles Interest in this Action it is evident that here is Church-Power adjudging which implyeth Authority exercised by a Community A Third Instance of this is 2 Thes. 3. 14. Where a Community not a single person is commanded to Note them that were Disobedient to Paul's Admonition in his Epistle This is not to be understood as some take it of Noteing the Disobedient Person in an Epistle that they should write to Paul For First The emphatick particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 put before 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 denoteth that Epistle to wit that the Apostle now wrote not an Epistle that they should write Secondly The Greek word will not bear that signification 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here used is Note or set a mark on him to Signifie or give Notice is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which word had surely been used if the Apostle had intended that they should give Notice to him by an Epistle of the Disobedient Thirdly He telleth them what should follow on this Note set on the Man and how they should carry towards him when thus Noted to wit that they should have no company with him this would not follow on their Writing about him to the Apostle while no Sentence was as yet passed against him but might rationally follow upon their setting the ignominious mark of Excommunication upon him If then Church-Discipline in the Apostolick and best times of the Church and especially while the Apostles being yet alive might have exercised it by themselves or their Delegates the Evangelists was yet exercised usually in Common and not by a single Bishop we have cause to scruple the owning of such an Officer in the Church Sect. 15. Other Arguments from Scripture may be brought but I shall not now insist on them having maintained some of them against this learned Author in my Animadversions on his Irenicum Wherefore I shall only add a fifth Argument as a ground of our scruple from some Testimonies of the Judgment and Practice of the Primitive Church that succeeded to the Apostles This may the more heighten our scruple that our brethren lay the stress of their cause on the Ancient Church if we cannot find there sufficient ground for a Diocesan Bishop but much to the contrary they ought not to blame us if we cannot with
imposing of them His reason of this is not so clear to wit Where there is no plain prohibition men may with ordinary Care and Judgment satisfie themselves of the lawfulness of the things required And there is no plain prohibition he saith of the Liturgy and Ceremonies We deny the imposing the Liturgy and Ceremonies to be as much in mens power as is the determining of Circumstances of Time and Place and such-like We deny also that men with the best Care and Judgment can see the lawfulness of every thing imposed in the Worship of God for of such things we now discourse that is not plainly prohibited For What if they be prohibited tho' not plainly It is too great peremptoriness to take upon us to teach the Spirit of God how to speak in Scripture if He expects Obedience from us the Dr. was in this strain also in his Irâ—nicum if we have any hint of His Will tho' never so obscurely so as we can understand that it is the Mind of God we are obliged to obey it Again we deny that want of either obscure or plain Prohibition is good ground to satisfie us about Religious Ceremonies that they are lawful though imposed by men It is enough that they are not commanded nor instituted Will Worship is condemned in Scripture and Can it be denied that what is not commanded tho' it be not plainly forbiddâ—n is Will-Worship And What Argument will the Dr. bring against most of the Popish Ceremonies but that they are not commanded Where is the plain Prohibition of them Sect. 5. Further we say That the Liturgy and Ceremonies are plainly enough forbidden tho not in particular yet in general terms The Traditions of men in Gods Worship are plainly forbidden Mat. 15. 7 8 9. Mark 7. 6 7 8. Gal. 4. 9 10 11. Col. 2. 20. which Scriptures and other Arguments proving them to be forbidden by God have been so fully managed against his Party without any Answer as may let the world see that neither Ordinary Care nor Judgment hath been wanting to find out the lawfulness of such Impositions and yet we cannot find it I shall not now repeat what I have elsewhere said to this purpose but intend to answer what the Dr. will please to say in defence of these his Lawful Impositions Sect. 6. The Dr. is at some pains to prove that the prohibition of these is not in the Second Commandment But if he would have convinced us of our Error he should have proved that they are neither forbidden there nor elsewhere by giving satisfying Answers to all our other Arguments but he is pleased to insist only on our Argument from the Second Commandment and to that as he is pleased to frame it he giveth an Answer such as it is I observe some mistakes in his treating of this Argument 1. That he expecteth that the Liturgy and Ceremonies should have been forbidden in words if they be forbidden that is that they should have been expresly named Will he forbear no Sin but what is named in one of the Ten Commandments What will he say of Fornication Incest Rebellion against Kings c. May be he will say these are forbidden expresly in other parts of Scripture Ans. So are humane Inventions in God's Worship as hath been shewed And beside it were impertinent to deny Fornication to be forbidden in the Seventh Commandment because it is not named there tho' it be in other Scriptures Even so it is here yea I suppose the Dr. will not think that whatever is not named in Scripture as a Sin is no Sin mispending the Sabbath day in sleep idleness play c. advising or commanding one man to murder another and many things of that nature are not named in Scripture and yet comprehended under general prohibitions Sect. 7. 2. His Question is very absurd How shall we come by the sence but by the words He must mean the words of the second Commandment And then I answer That we could never by this way know the sence of the seventh Commandment Fornication is a Sin Nor by the words of the sixth Commandment could we know it is a Sin to say to our Brother Thou fool Wherefore hath the Spirit of God written so much more Scripture holding forth Sins and Duties if we are only to look to the bare words of the Ten Commandments for learning the preceptive or directive part of His revealed Will His Commands are exceeding broad Ps. 119. 96. and therefore we are to look for more understanding from them than the words by themselves can afford us Ezra and the Levites read the words to the People and gave the Sence Neh 8. 8. It is our Duty also to read it and enquire into the sence of it One useful means of coming by the sence of the Commandments is to consider how they were expounded by Christ enlarged on by the Prophets and Apostles injoining and forbidding things of the same nature with what the words of the Commands do express and in general we must compare Scripture with Scripture if we would understand the meaning of the several parts of it It is strange that the Dr. and his Paâ—ty should deal so unequally they take a great deal of Liberty to impose things on the Church of God from a very general Command Let all things be done decently and in order Which words they practise upon at their pleasure devising Rites for the Worship of God and bringing This to warrant them tho' they can bring no such sence out of the words as that Crossing Kneeling c. are lawful But if we scruple any of their Inventions we must be obliged to give words of Scripture where they are expresly forbidden Sect. 8. In the Third place When his opposites alledge certain Rules for interpreting the Commandments he asketh Whether they be divine or humane I again ask him Whether doth he own them as sound or reject them as fallacious But to his question I answer They are by men collected out of the Scripture and therefore have Divine Authority tho' the frame of them be Humane as the Dr's Sermons I do not mean that at Guild-hall are divine Truths and of divine Authority tho' of humane frame and composure 4. One of these Rules is That where any thing is forbidden something is commanded We chuse after the generality of Divines rather to express it thus That in every Negative Precept the contrary Duty is commanded And in the Affirmative Precept the câ—ntrary Sin is forbidden His Answer is There is here a Command to worship God without an Image A Logician would say this is still a Negative Command for here the matter of this Precept is expressed Negative All Protestant Divines agree that the matter of the Second Command is the mâ—dus of Divine Worship Divine Worship it self being commanded and what is contrary to it forbidden in the First Commandment Now though this preceptive proposition of the Dr's Worship God be set down
Communion They separate because the Church is polluted with these We only because we dare not pollute our own Consciences with them If we may have leave but to forbear personal concurrence in these we think the fault of other men I mean in things of that nature no ground for us to withdraw from the Ordinances in and with the Church so that in effect they go away from the Church We are driven away by the Church Sect. 3. The first Argument that the Dr. bringeth against denying Communion to the Church is It weakâ—neth the Câ—use of the Reformation This he undertaketh to prove by the testimony of some French Divines and he beginneth with Calvin whose words too long here to be transcribed do prove indeed Separation from a Church to be unlawful because of lesser Impurities or great Faults while the Doctrine and Worship are not greatly corrupted But he speaketh not one word of the Case of them who are driven away from a Church because they cannot submit to sinful Terms of Communion with Her yea he speaketh more in favour of such a Case than against it for he maketh Corruption in Christ's Institutions even in the words cited by the Dr. p. 181 182. and being anathematized for not complying with these Corruptions a ground of Separation from the Church of Rome which is parallel to our case But saith the Dr. he doth not mean indifferent Rites Ans. Neither do we scruple indifferent Rites but sinful Ceremonies And tho' I am far from comparing the Church of Enâ—land with that of Rome as â—o causes of Separation yet here there is a likeness the one rejecteth some of her Members because they will not sin with her and will force her Impositions on their Consciences and so doth the other Another Author he citeth is Daillie giving most substantial Reasons for Separation from Rome and he doth not mention our Ceremonies among them And what need was there to mention them when there were such weighty Reasons beside to be insisted on But Monsieur Daillie saith expresly if the differences had been such as we might safely have yielded to then Separation had been rash and unjust So say we for we cannot yield to the lesser sinfulness of superstitious Worship as we cannot to that which is greater to wit idolatrous Worship Sect. 4. Next he citeth Amyraldus who saith If there had been no other faults in the Roman Church beside their unprofitable Ceremonies in Baptism and other things beyond the measure and genius of Christian Religion they had still continued in Her Communion Ans. Neither should we refuse Communion with the Church of England for these and such-like faults We refuse the use of these and because of that the Church casteth us out of Her Communion And if Amyrald us say That he would have used these rather than have fallen under Rome's anathema we leave him to his own Sentiments in that but are of another opinion It is no wonder these men think little or next to nothing of the Evil of our Ceremonies when they are compared with these Romish Abominations but when we consider them by themselves and compare them with Scripture we cannot think so of them The Dr. further urgeth us with the Answers given by Claude Paion and Turretine to the Book entituled Prejudes legitimes contre les Calvinustes That they do not defend the Reformation by the unlawfulness of the Ceremonies this is both false and inconcludent It is false for Monsieur Claude spendeth a good part of the Third Chapter of his First Part in defending the ground and right that the Reformers had to depart from the Communion of the Romish Church because of their Ceremonies One of the chief Objects saith he that presented it self to our Fathers was that of the great number of the Ceremonies which he setteth forth as defacing God's Worship making it look partly like Judaism and partly like Heathenism He saith It was without doubt a character very opposite to the Gospel of Jesus Christ and much more to that purpose What the other two Answerers of that Book say on this Head I know not for I have not seen them This Argument is also inconcludent because the Reformation is abundantly defended by weightier Objections against Popery Sect. 5. One passage he citeth p. 184. out of Mr. Turretine that no tolerable superstitious Rites that do not infect the Conscience are sufficient grounds of Separation And the Dr. addeth is parenthesi as they cannot be where they are not forced on it by fâ—lse Doctrine To Mr. Turretine's Assertion I assent for nothing that is tolerable can warrant Separation And I deny not that some Superstitious Rites may be tolerable to wit where men will use them and do not impose them on others They that are left to their liberty may well tolerate others in the use of them but I do not so well see that any Superstition imposed is tolerable to a tender Conscience for Superstition is Sin and no Sin is tolerable in that case To the Dr's Parenthesis I answer That it is absolutely false and I wonder that he should assert it so confidently without proof for that I may not deny as he asserteth without reason 1. A Superstitious Riâ—e is one of the Traditions of Men in the Worship of God and that the Scripture doth simply condemn without all noticing of any false Doctrine to enforce the Tradition I know not what false Doctrine the Pharisâ—ical Washings were enforced with but I am sure Christ condemneth them without mention of any such false Doctrine distinct from the asserting of their lawfulness Mat. 15. 6 9. but of this afterward 2. May not enforcing a Superstitious Riâ—e on the Conscience of one that scruples it by Command and Will make it to defile the Conscience as well as enforcing it by false Doctrine If this Doctrine were true men might impose what they will in the Worship of God they might impose all the Rites that ever Jews or Heathens used or Papists either if they keep but orthodox mind and give no reason that is heterodox for these Rites but only sic volo sic jâ—beo To what purpose he citeth le Blanch shewing the impossibility of re-union with the Papists I see not but that many Names of Authors make a shew and it argueâ—h great reading for he saith not one word of the â—eremonies and we all know that if we would swallow down not only the Ceremonies of England but those of Rome it self yet Re-union with them is impossible on other grounds Sect. 6. It was needful that the Dr. should bring all this Discourse and these long Citations home to his purpose which every Reader could hitherto hardly â—iscern how it should be done Wherefore p. 185. he telleâ—h us what Triumphs the Church of Rome would make over us if we had nothing else to justifie our Separation from them by but the things that we now scruple And he telleth us how we would be laughed at all
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
to themselves than thus to prelimit the people in that which so nearly concerns their Souls and to make that but an Accessory to wit the charge of Souls which should be the thing principally minded As now the Living is 2. The Magistrate or Patrons electing of a Minister may give him a Title to the Living but it can never make him the Pastor of such a people nor fix a Relation between him and them of Pastor and Flock For it is wholly Forreign to the Church as a Church it is a thing of Worldly concern and therefore can never found that Relation which is an Institution of Christ in his Church 3. We do not deny but when the people have chosen a Pastor and the Presbytery hath ordained him also the Magistrate may Imprison Banish or otherwise punish him so as he is consequentially restrained from the exercise of his Ministry among that people if the man be guilty of a civil crime of which the Magistrate is Judge but we deny that this Act doth dissolve the ministerial relation between that Pastor and People that cannot be done but by the Church 4. We do not so put Election into the hand of the multitude as either to exclude the Eldership that is among them or to exempt the people from their guidance in this The Eldership ought to regulate this Action yet so as it be not done without the consent of the generality 5. We are far from saying That the People by their Election doth make the Elected person a Minister that is done by Ordination which is in the Hands of the Presbytery 6. We do not say That this Elective power of the people is Arbitrary and independent they are to be bounded in it by the Rules of the Gospel that set forth the qualifications of Ministers and if they chuse contrary to these the Presbytery may reject the person and refuse to ordain him 7. We deny not but a part of a Church or the whole Church may forfeit this Right as to the present exercise of it by Ignorance Scandal Irreconcileable Contentions about the matter and such like in which case the power of Election devolveth into the hands of the Pastors of the Churches associated I mean the Presbytery Yet the peoples satisfaction should be endeavoured as much as is possible 8. It is the Right of the people which they ought not to be deprived of nor restrainâ—d from exercising ordinarily nor without singularly weighty cause to chuse their own Pastors and other Church Officers Sect. 3. As to the Author of this Right in the people I maintain that it is neither from the Churches Determination nor from any grant from the Magistrate neither do I plead any Law of nature for it For by Divine Institution which is never contrary to the Law of Nature it was otherwise in the Jewish Church And though there be abundant reason for it it being the priviledge of Free Corporations and other Societies to chuse these that are to govern them and it being rational that a Corporation or person may chuse the Lawyer that they will intrust their Estates to and the Physician in whose hand they put their life so men should not be imposed upon to entrust the Conduct of their Souls to a person that they have not confidence in and whom they cannot chuse for that end Yet I say we do not lay the stress of the matter on Humane Reason but on Gospel Institution I affirm then that this is the Institution of Christ that it is the order that he hath appointed in the Gospel that people should have liberty to chuse their own Pastors and other Church Officers Sect. 4. I am next to shew the grounds that we have to think so I shall prove this by shewing that it was the constant practice in the Church while the Apostles managed the Affairs of it that Church Officers were chosen by the suffrages of the people and I hope it will not be denied that such practice is declarative of Christ's Institution The first Argument for it is from Act. 14. 23. where though Ordination or appointing be expressed in our Translation yet the Greek Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 â—ignifieth a chusing by Suffrages as the manner of the Grecians was by stretching out or lifting up the hand for that is the force of the Word to declare their Votes I deny not that this Word is sometimes used figuratively for potestative mission the effect or consequent of Election and that by one person withot Suffrages as Act. 10. 14. yet it is very rare that the Word is so used And it is evident that the Word is most commonly usâ—d in this sence of all the Instances that Scapula in his Lexicon giveth of the use of this Word not one of them is to the contrary And it cannot be Instanced that ever this word is used for laying on of hands lifting up which is the force of the Word and laying them down being so opposite it is not to be imagined that the one should be put for the other Neither is it fit to seek for the Figurative signification of the Word when the proper signification may be admitted It is objected against this use of the Word here that they ordained 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to them not to themselves that is the Apostles to the people ordained Elders Answ. It cannot be denied but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used indifferently for them or themselves and why it may not here be understood of themselves I see not so as that here is denoted the Action of appointing Elders for the people in which the people had a hand by Election as the Word here importeth and the Apostles had a hand by Ordination as can be proved by other Scriptures But if we should turn 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 them the sense may run plainly thus the Apostles appointed by Ordination Elders for the people upon their Electing them by Suffrages It is no strange thing in Scripture to see divers Actions expressed by the same Word where one is the consequent of the other as Is. 38. 17. Thou hast Loved my Soul out of the pit of corruption i.e. delivered it because thou loved it Also Act. 7. 9. The Patriarchs are said to sell Joseph to Egypt where both their Actions and the Actions of the Midianites who carried him to Egypt and there sold him are included in one Word Many Instances of this kind of Synthesis may be seen in Glâ—ss Philol. Sacr. lib. 3. tract 3. p. 229 It is also objected that these are said to Ordain who commended the people to the Lord that is the Apostles and that the Apostles are spoken of all along in the Nominative Case and not the people and therefore they must be the Actors meant by this word Answ. We deny not the Apostles to be Actors meant in this Word as the Patriarchs were in the Word Selling to Egypt Act. 7. 9. but we
mind Also Augustine naming Eracius his Successor addeth this express caution si Ecclesia Consentiat and declareth hoc esse receptum provatumque jus consuetudine ut tota Ecclesia sibi elegat Episcopum aut in ipsum consentiat Hierom Ep. ad rustic Monachum Foll 292. cum ad perfectam aeâ—atem veneris si tamen vita comes fuerit â—e vel populis vel pontifâ—x Civitate Elegerint agito quae Clerici St. He supposeth it as the received practice that the People should elect Ambros. Ep. 82. Electio vocatio quae sit a tota Ecclesia vere certo est divina vocatio ad munus Episcopi Many more Citations might be added but these may suffice and abundance more may be seen append ad Catalog Test. veritat where this right of the People is deduced from the Days of the Apostles to the Eigth Century by Testimonies out of all sorts of Authors That Author taketh notice of this as an ordinary Clause in many of the Epistles which Tinemeras Archbishop of Rhemes in the Reign of Charlemain ab omnibus debet eligi cui debet ab omnibus obediri Sect. 9. I shall now attend to what the Learned Dr. hath to say in the contrary of this right of the People so divinely appointed so anciently universally and long approved He discourseth these three things to this purpose 1. What inherent Power the People had 2. How they came to be devested of it 3. Whether there be sufficâ—ent Ground to resume it One would think that if this Power be from Christ his other two parts of his discourse mighâ— have been spared For who then could take it from them And they always had a Right to resume it being unjustly deprived of it As to the first of these his debate with Dr. O. about the Peoples Church-Power and the Government of the Church being Democriâ—al I medle not with we plead for this power in them not all Church-power But he cometh Sect. 25. to this power of Election for disproving of which he undertaketh to make out six things I shall examine them in order But I think it had been more to the purpose to have answered the Scriptures and Testimonies out of Antiquity alledged by the opposites which he hath not done The First of these is That the main ground of the Peoples Interest was founded on the Apostles Canon that a Bishop must be blameless and of good report 1 Tim. 3. 2 7. Ans. I have produced other grounds and not made this either the main or any ground of this Right of the People for indeed that passage of Scripture doth direct the Electors but doth not determine who should Elect. I deny not but some of the Ancients made use of that Scripture to this purpose but they made use of others also and having established the Truth on other Grounds they might well apply this place as spoken to the People to direct them how to manage that power of Elâ—ction that the Lord had given them This is a sorry Shift to shun the Dint of Arguments to pitch on that which is either no Argument or a weak one and to set up that as the only Argument and so by beating it down to Triumph Sect. 10. He bringeth a passage out of Clem. on which he taketh a great deal of pains to make it speak for him contrary to the manifest design of it The passage is The Apostles Preaching through Cities and Countries did appoint the first Fruites having made a Spiritual Tryal of them to be Bishops and Deacons The Apostles foresaw the Contentions that would be about the Name of Episcopacy i. e. saith the Dr. about the choice of Bishops therefore they appointed the Persons mentioned and left the Distribution of their Office with this Instruction that as some dyed other approved Men should be chosen into their Office These therefore who were appointed by them or other eminent Men the Church being therewith all pleased discharging their Office with Humility cannot be justly put out of their Office. A Man of less learning than the Dr. might easily draw the quite contrary Conclusion from these words of Clement but it will require all his Skill and more too to conclude from them against popular Election But thus he argueth They were to be appointed by the Apostles therefore not of the Peoples choice Ans. Non sequitur The Deacons were appointed by the Apostles Act 6. 3. yet the People are to look out from among them i. e. to chuse and the Apostles to appoint them i. e. set them apart for their work Many other Instances may be given yet this Argumentation the Dr. useth again pag. 315. as if it were a mighty Argument He saith it seems some of the People were Contentious and endeavoured to throw out some of their Officers which occasioned this Ep. Ans. This Ep. is clear that the People may not cast out their Officers doing their Work in Humility but not a Word in it against their Electing of them but clearly to the contrary in these words the whole Church being therewith well pleased implyeth that it is not to be done without them and what Hand they can have in placing their Officers that doth not amount to Election I know not He saith they took this course of Purpose to avoid Contentions What course doth he mean It cannot be meant of Obtruding Officers on the Church for he saith they must be well pleased Therefore the Course must be appointing Officers Authoritatively by Ordination who being so appointed could not be ejected again quemdiu se bene gesserunt as appeareth by Clem. instancing the Blossoming of Arons Rod to put an end to the Emulation among the Tribes which was a Strife not about Election but about changing of the setled Officers of the Church He saith all that the People had to do was to give their Testimony Clem. saith they must be well pleased And it is clear that that excludeth obtruding â—astors on people either by Patrons or the Magistrate or Bishop He saith it seems probable to him that the reason of the Faction among them was that some represented it as a Grievance that those Officers were appointed by others not chosen by them Why this should seem to him I know not except that prejudice representeth things otherwise than they are as coloured Spectacles do It seemeth to me there could be no such thought among the People because Clement supposeth the Officers to have been chosen by themselves the whole Church being well pleased That these Factious Men had no Objection against the Presbyters themselves the Dr. Asserts but he doth not prove It is true Clem. supposeth there was no Ground for Objection and therefore they could not be cast out while they were humble quiet ready and blamless but for all that Factious Men will find fault and pick quarrels with the most innocent men Sect. 11. He next bringeth Cyprian to plead against popular Election that is to