in both I think the Substance of our English Episcopacy is that one Man hath sole Power of Ordination and Jurisdiction over all the Church-Officers and Members in many Congregations if he will shew us that in the Primitive Times let him rejoice in his Argument from Antiquity 2. The Antiquity that the Dr. here pretendeth to is far short of that which himself and others do boast of with a great deal of Confidence some of them tell us of a clear Deduction that they can make of it down from the Apostles in all ages without Interruption some make it of more than 1500 years standing but the Dr. here is not pleased to pretend to that Cyprian lived in the Third Century Athanasius in the Fourth Augustine and Theodoret in the Fifth and it may easily be granted that there was a great degeneracy in Church-Discipline and Government by that time yet that Episcopacy was arrived at that heighth that is now in England even at that time we deny Sect. 2. To prove what he had undertaken he layeth down two Observations 1. That it was an inviolable rule among them that but one Bishop was to be in one Church I am little concerned in this though I see no rule for it except a Canon of Concil Cabilonens which was but Provincial and very late under Pope Eugenius about Ann. 654 yet I think it was generally and rationally practised for taking a Bishop for the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 among the Presbyters which I affirm to have been the Dialect of those times What needed more Bishops than one seeing all the Presbyters of one City might conveniently meet ordinarily for the Exercise of Discipline When Mr. B. proveth the contrary he taketh Bishop in the Apostles sence and then I affirm with him that there were more Bishops in one City that every Assembly for worship had one if not more The Dr's Argument that he seemeth to glory in p. 246. is of no value it is That if more Bishops than one could be in a City the Schism of the Donatists and Novatians might have been prevented this is either a great mistake or somewhat else for taking Bishops for Moderators of Presbytery the bare setting up of two Presbyteries and two Moderators could not have prevented these Schisms and if the Church had found it convenient to divide them retaining the same Principles of Faith and about Church-Order and Discipline there had been no Schism It is most false that these Schisms were meerly about the plurality of Bishops in a City The Schism of the Donatists had its rise at Carthage from the Ambition of Donatus who opposed the election of Cecilianus the pretence was that he had been ordained by a Proditor and that he had admitted another Proditor to Ecclesiastical Office Cecilianus being Tried and Acquitted both by the Emperor and the Church in several Councils Donatus and his party set up another Church an Eldership and People in opposition to Cecilianus disclaiming the discipline of Cecilianus and his Party in admiting the lapsed upon repentance and admitting the wicked as they alledged to the Sacraments So that it is plain that the Schism lay in this That they set up another Church-way and Order and consequentially to that set up another Bishop and Presbytery not beside but in opposition to that which was before and that without sufficient reason upon the very like occasion did Novatus separate from Cornelius Bishop at Rome and set up a new Church on the foresaid grounds Cyprian indeed condemneth Novatus and nullifieth his Church-Power because post primum secundus esse non potest but this is still to be understood of setting up another Bishop or meeting of Presbyters under a President without the Authority of the Church or good cause for so doing It is evident then that these Schisms were built on another Foundation than what the Dr. supposeth and that they could not have been prevented if forty Bishops had been allowed in a City as long as Donatus and Novatus retained their Principles they would have separated from all Bishops and Churches that were not of their way all that followeth in this his first Observation is easily Answered in one Word to wit that all these Citations prove no more than this that where a Church was setled and sufficiently furnished whether you take it for a single Congregation or more Congregations associate for Discipline with a President it was not fit for any to disturb that Unity by setting up another Church whether of the one or the other sort mentioned Sect. 3. His second Observation is That in Cities and Diocesses which were under the care of one Bishop there were several Congregations and Altars and distant places I contend not about the word Diocess supposing that one President of an Assembly of Presbyters with these Presbyters might have ruling power over many particular Churches call that District by what name he will the matter is not great Our question is not about the Name but the Power by which that District was ruled whether it were in one Man or in the body of Presbyters But it is well known that Diocess which now signifieth a Church Division did in those days signifie a Civil Division of the Roman Empire made by Constantine the Great who divided the hundred Provinces of the Empire into 14 Diocesses where all Africk was but one see for this Heylin Cosmogr lib. 1 p. 54. And it is as well known that Diocess did often Signifie a Parish or people of a Parish neither do I contend about the word Altar supposing the Dr. meaneth places where the Lords Supper was Celebrated Both Origen and Arnobius affirm that 200 years after Christ the Christians were blamed by the Heathens because they had no Altars the name of Altar was not used in the Church till the Third Century and not then neither but figuratively But the Dr. loveth to speak of Ancient things in his Modern Dialect borrowed from the more corrupted times of the Church Sect. 4. For his Observation it self I shall not contend about it tho' I think he will hardly answer what is said against it No Evid for Diocess p. 15. For it maketh nothing against what I hold unless he prove that the Bishop had the sole Power or had jurisdiction over the Presbyters in that District which he calleth a Diocess What he saith that seemeth to be Argumentative to this purpose I shall mind and no more The multitude and distance of places that he instanceth tho' all were true the contrary of which the forecited Author maketh appear will not prove Superiority of power in one Man neither Augustine's care for Neighbouring Places that wanted Ministers either to provide Ministers for them or to Baptize them or do other Church Acts for them in their need This proveth neither Extension nor Solitude of Power far less doth Cyprian's nameing Provincia nostra in which were many Bishops prove him to have been a Metropolitan the Empire was
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
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
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
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
Sect. 10. Yea the Apostle 2 Thess. 2. foretelling the Antichristian Apostacy v. 3. telleth us That that Mystery of iniquity did then work v. 7. This Allegation the learned Dr. putteth off with a Scoff p. 17. but we must not therefore part with it It is evident that there was then a tendency among some of the Members of the Christian Church to several of these Evils which being grown up to Maturity of Wickedness Antichristianism was afterwards made up not to speak of the gross Heresies that then were and others that were foretold Act. 20. 29 30. The Ambition of Diotrephes was a fermenting toward Lordly Prelacy 3 Joh. ver 9. So was the Idolizing of some Ministers among the Corinthians 1 Cor. 3. 4. So the turning aside to the Jewish Ceremonies a carnal gawdy sort of Religion not contented with the simplicity of Gospel-Worship for which the Galatians are reproved Gal. 4. 9. The worshipping of Angels voluntary Humility subjection to Ordinances touch not taste not handle not Will-Worship Col. 2. 18. Forbidding of Meats and Marriage 1 Tim. 4. 3. and in a word the turning the Spiritual Religion of GOD into a Carnal outward Shew All these I say was a working toward the vile Superstitions that afterward grew up under the Antichristian Apostasy of which our Ceremonies are some Remains Now if there was such a secret working of such Evils in that time is it any wonder that some unallowable practices should be in the Church soon after the Apostles and be little taken notice of Sect. 11. And this is yet less to be wondred at if we consider the defects and uncertainty of the History of the Church in Times next after the Apostles as it was in the first Times of the Church before the Law which the Jews call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Dies inanitatis because of the want of the Light of History It was little better with the Christian Church at first We have very little distinct account of her Order and what we have is but in some things not so full as to enable us to pass a Judgment with Confidence of all their Practices in Church-Administrations It is no good Argument there is no mention of Dissent from or Non-conformity to the Church-practices of the First Times â—rgo there was none especially considering that the Writers of those Times who were glorious Lights yet Men and subject to mistakes and passions would not readily give account of what might make against their own practices And it can be made appear that the best of the Church Guides after the Apostles were in mistakes greater than what we now scruple at But the early Degeneracy of the Christian Church which our Author thinks it so absurd to imagine is witnessed by the most ancient History and nearest to these Times Eusebius lib. 3. c. 29. relating out of Egesippus the Martyrdom of Simon Son of Cleopas second Bishop of Jerusalem who had seen the Lord and was his Cousin Germain he addeth that After that the Sacred Company of the Apostles were worn out the Church having before been a pure Viâ—gin the Conspiracy of detestable Errors through Deceit of such as delivered strange Doctrine took rooting c. If Heresie so soon got head what Absurdity is it to think that lesser Evils might early prevail This may be also proved in reference to the Rites used in the Church how early there was a degeneracy in these out of Irenaeus who lived in the second Century Epist. ad Victor Episc. Rom. Quae varietas observantiae pascatis jejuniorum non 〈◊〉 primum neque nostris temporibus caepit sed multo aute nos ut opinor qui non simpliciter quod ab initio traditum est tenentes in alium morem vel per negligentiam vel per imperitiam postmodum decidere Where it is evident that Irenaeus imputeth such negligence and unskilfulness even to the First Age and nearest to the Apostles if not in the days of some of them as made them fall from Christs Institution in some things The consideration of all which maketh me wonder at the Confidence of the learned Author who saith that So sudden and insensible a Change of the Church is so incredible that they that think it could be may on the same Grounds believe that other parts of Popery did as soon prevail That this Change did soon prevail we believe not but that it might we see no Absurdity in it and for other parts of Popery we can tell when most of them begun and therefore are not obliged from the Antiquity of one part of it to acknowledge the same of another neither is there any Inconveniency in asserting that these Mistakes crept in insensibly Seeing the Apostle speaketh of them as a Mystery that was long working before it came above-board What he saith of humane Policies keeping long to their first Institution maketh little to his purpose both because the contrary is most frequently observed they often degenerate and that unobserved by the Vulgar through the Cunning of Statesmen and because corrupt Nature is not so apt to deviate from Humane Constitutions as from those that are Divine Few Politick Frames have been so often and quickly and easily changed as the Religious Worship of the Jews was in the time of the Judges and Kings I hope by this time it will appear that the Principles of the Church's Enemies so he falsly calleth the Non-conformists who are no Enemies to the Church but to her humane Ceremonies bringeth no such mighty prejudice on the Cause of the Reformation as he with confidence inferreth from what he had discoursed for we neither own such Antiquity in the Ceremonies nor if we did would that inferr the Antiquity of Popery in its grosser parts Sect. 12. He again chargeth his Adversaries that They must forgo the Testimony of Antiquity and that by so doing they run into insuperable Difficulties in dealing with the Papists which his Principles do lead through for they can justly charge Popery as Innovation And to that purpose citeth Bishop Sanderson p. 6. In answer to him and the Bishop too We say 1. That we do not forgo the Testimony of Antiquity though we do not Idolize it as some do we will not be concludâ—d by it against Scripture and not often without Scripture but take its help to search into the Mind of God revealed in His Word It s greatest Admirers must needs forgo it sometimes both Papists and Prelatists and the ancient Authors themselves do not seldom disown all Authority in them or any men to determine in the Controversies of Religion But I shall not digress into this Debate What Weight is to be laid on Antiquity it is enough at present that we deny and our Adversaries have not proved nor shall they ever be able to prove that Bishops and Ceremonies are so ancient as they affirm them to be what Instances he intendeth or can give from his present Adversaries the Non-conformists that they
maintain such principles as destroy the Justice and Equity of the Reformation I know not when we meet with them we shall consider them mean while we profess our selves ready to disown all Principles that can be made appear to be of that tendency Sect. 13. Bishop Sanderson's three ways how Non-conformists promote Popery eventually tho' not intentionally which he mentioneth p. 7. are such as to unbyassed men will seen unworthy of the learned Bishop to propose or the learned Dr. to applaud the first is By helping to pull down Episcopacy at which he saith Rome rejoiced But will any say that this Joy of Rome was because Episcopacy is such an Enemy to Popery when they have it as well as we and when it is not to be seen in any Protestant Church as in England yea I must say Except in England Is it not obvious that their Joy was for our Broils on that occasion and not for the Ruin of that which they love so well Will any deny that Rome rejoiced as much at the pulling down of Presbytery in Scotland and the hindrance of its Settlement in England for our Changes Anarchy and Confusions are their Advantage The Second is Their opposing the interest of Rome with more Violence than Reason The Third is Their frequent mistaking the Question especially through the necessity of some false Principles which they will maintain whatever come of the common Cause of the Reformation It is not easie to reply to these I shall only say there is no Truth in what is here said nor the Candour becoming a Disputant in saying of it without any pretence to proving it Let not the Dr. think that the Bishop's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 will convince us the Folly and Indiscretion that he is pleased next to grieve us with the Imputation of and to back again with the same learned Bishop's Authority p. 8. is another of his Arguments which we will not attempt to answer save with the words of Psal. 123. 3 4. Have mercy upon us O Lord have mercy upon us for we are exceedingly filled with contempt our Soul is exceedingly filled with the scorning of those that are at ease and with the contempt of the proud What he after mentioneth of the Popish Instruments being for the most violent courses doth not concern us who endure but use no Violence Let them look to it who with such Violence do press their Brethren in things acknowledged Indifferent which they think unlawful and ruine them for not yielding What Service this may do to the Papists who are such Lovers of Violent Courses let the World judge The Jews by indiscreet zeal brought the Romans on them which they designed to shun If he will prove our zeal against Popery to be also indiscreet we shall endure the parallel He cannot get that Notion out of his Head p. 9. that was met before That Non-conformists attempt to overthrow the Constitution of the Church because they are against the Ceremonies What Service this may do the Papists may be considered to make the Protestant Religion which I suppose doth constitute the Church of England have a Trifle such an Indifferent Ceremony must be for such a part of her Constitution as with it she is overturned they will be apt to inferr that we reckon our Religion a Trifle Let it be considered whether talking at this rate doth not look liker a Transport than what can be justly charged on the Non-conformists Sect. 14. Who doubteth but the Papists envy the Church of England and wish her torn in pieces and wish there were no Bishops in England and that they have endeavoured to destroy her Constitution and Government But what is all that to the purpose Doth it hence follow that they who dislike her Bishops and Ceremonies are doing the same Work The Tendency much less the Designs of Papists and Non-conformists can never be drawn into one Channel till he prove that it is the Ceremonies of the Church of England that Papists aim to destroy and not the Protestant Religion in it and that their spight at the English Bishops is not because they are Protestant Bishops but because they are Bishops It may with as much shew of Reason be said That a Physician promoteth the design of his Patient's Enemy who aimeth to kill him whereas the Physician 's Work is to remove his Disease both would have the Man what he is not but there is no Concurrence between them either in their intention or tendency of their Work. What followeth doth as little prove his point as I shall shew by brief Answers to his Questions Did not Cranmer Ridley c. suffer Martyrdom by their the Papists means Ans. Yes but not because Bishops but as Protestants Did not they own the same Episcopacy which is now among us and which men by Book upon Book seek to destroy p. 10. Ans. That maybe a Question but I now suppose they did these worthy Servants of God had Reformed much but left this Unreformed they did worthily in their Generation yet as men who are Imperfect we may rather wonder that in that time of Darkness which they had been born in and under the prejudices of their Education they discovered so much of Errour than that they in that Crowd of Corruptions that they had to purge out over-looked this Sect. 15. Some further Argumentative Questions he moveth Is all this writing against Bishops and Ceremonies done for the honour of the Reformation Is this the way to preserve the Protestant Religion among us to fill mens minds with such prejudices against the first Setâ—â—ment of it and to make the World believe that the Church-Government then Established was repugnant to the Institution of Christ and that our Martyr-Bishops exercised an unlawful Authority over Diocesan Churches But whâ—ther will Mens indiscreet Zeal carry them Here 's a Tragical Outcry as if Non-conformists went about to destroy Religion because they are not for Bishops and Ceremonies What a strange unaccountable fondness have these Men for their Diana who talk at this rate If this Discourse have any Nerves it will at once condemn all these as the worst Enemies that true Religion hath who have found any fault in a Reformed Church as if it were a thing impossible that a True Reformation should be an Imperfect Reformation But thus it is with Men who have left Scripture-Guidance and become fond of Humane Authority in Religious Matters We honour the Reformers but do not Idolize their Persons where they follow Scripture we follow them and the Apostle required no more of his Followers 1 Cor. 11. 1. but where they recede from the Rule we must needs Dissent Sect. 16. It may very much clear us silence such Clamours of our Adversaries if we consider that the English is not the only Imperfect Reformation that hath been in the World and that what our Author here alledgeth would equally justifie all their defects and condemn all Endeavours after further nearness
of Puritans P. 102. he sheweth that the same Canons being now Nine Years after ratified by Parliament The Bishops began to urge Subscription more severely than before which made many Dissenters keep their private Meetings in Fields Words their Friends Houses c. And may not one rationally think that the Jesuits might in their own way prompt the Bishops to this Severity as well as the Dissenters not to yield to it Sect. 20. The notions that Jesuits have of Spiritual Prayer mentioned p. 15. some of them extravagant enough the learned Dr. useth as a repreach to the Non-conformists how rationally let the VVorâ—d judge seeing we never vented nor owned such Fancies only we think Set Forms of Prayer unfit to be used where Ministers are tolerably gifted to pray without them and that all the praying that we read of to have been either practised or commended in the Apostolick Church was without Book the Spirit not the Book helping their Infirmities even as to what they are to pray for or the Matter of Prayer Rom. 8. 26. When he saith p. 16. that It is not improbable the Jâ—suits were the first Setters up of this way in England â—nd that it was never known here or in any other Reformed Church before this time If he meâ—n Prayer without a Set-form if he mean any thing else it is not to the pâ—rpose it is a rash and untrue Assertion Was ever Prayer without Book condemned by any Râ—formed Church Yea Can any Reformed Church be instanced where it hath not been and is not used Or let him mention a Reformed Church that hath restrained Extemporâ—â— Prayer and imposed a Set-form But this Debate he resumeth afterward and till then we shall leave it it doth not savour of tha◠〈◊〉 regard to the Spirit of Prayer that is promised to be â—â—ured out on the people of God Zâ—â—h 12. 10. to mock the using oâ— his help to pray wiâ—hout a Book as a Charm Effectual with jâ—dicious Pâ—ople and to jeâ—r the zeal and warmth of Devotion that appeareth in it Many know the Advantage of what he thinketh but a Fancy let him abound in his own Sence for De gustiius non est 〈◊〉 If by meâ—ns of this manner of worshipping God the Division wonderfully 〈◊〉 as he saith I hope it was not the Debauched nor Unserious that were so taken with that way and therefore this Encrease was no reproach to it Sect. 21. He citeth the Admonition given in to the Parliament 14 Eliz. of which he saith the Authors Mr. Fâ—ller's Church History p. 102 103. maketh Mr. Thomas Cartwright Author both of the first and second Admonition would have neither Papists nor oâ—â—ers eâ—â—strained to communicate I do not understand whether any person should be constrained to partake of the Lord's Supper for I suppose that is meant otherwise than by forcible perswasions which is the Compulsion meant Luk. 14. 23. Brugensis saith it expresseth viâ—â—â—vangelij so others That Ordâ—nance was never appointed by the Lord to be a Test of a Man's Profâ—ssion while he is uncapable to improve it to higher ends But if the Admonition plead for Tolerating of Popery I have not the book by me and therefore cannot determine in this we are far from approving it Though we think we have a Right by the Gospel not only to Toleration but further Coâ—ntenance for our way yet if we might chuse we had rather be under the severest Peâ—secution than have the least hand in obtaining Liberty to that Idolatry We must not do yea nor wish Evil that Good may come What he citeth out of Archb. Whit gift and Archb. Grindal p. 17 18. I look on as Invectives against the Non-conformists of the same stamp with his own they are Parties and therefore not to be adduced as Witnesses Dr. Sutclife saith no more than we will say that our Divisions give advantage to the Papists Let them who are the culpable Cause of the Divisions look to it The Prophecy cited out of Mr. Solden is to the same purpose and needeth no other Answer Sect. 22. The politick hellish Advices given by the Jesuit Contzen and Seignior Ballarini make nothing against us at all tho' he filleth p. 19 20 21. with them for all that can be thence inferred is That they labour to divide Protestants and this Dâ—vision falleth out according to their wish Now the Division hath its Rise from the Impositions of one party that assume the Name of the Church and the Scruples of another party If the Church impose that which is lawful and necessary and the other party scruple that and so divide in that case the Dissenters must bear the blame of the Division and are guilty of co-operating with the common Enemy in ruining the Protestant Religion But if the Church by Her Impositions burden the Consciences of Her Members with things that She counteth Indifferent i. e. Needless and the Scruplers reckon as unlawful and have just ground so to do then the blame of Separating and of helping the Papists to ruin our Religion lieth at the Church's door wherefore all this might have been spared Let the learned Dr. soundly refute our Principles and then cast what blame he will on us but till that be done which we expect not let him â—ake heed where the blame will be laid when the Secrets of Men shall be judged It may be observed in these Advices that the Jesuits as their Master the Devil often doth speak some Truths out of a bad end Sect. 23. Next he cometh p. 22. to reproach us with the Indulgence that was granted March 1671-2 as being procured by the Papists If any Non-conformists had a hand in procuring Liberty which I do not believe to them I think their Brethren will disown them in that Act. That Papists had a hand in it is not improbable both for their own ease and to make the Difference among Protestants the more conspicuous But was it fit that we should forbear a necessary Duty because of their ill Design We did not join in the practices of the Church before that but worshipped God after his own Institution without Humane Ceremonies All the Change in our way on that Occasion was that what before we had done in corners and with hazard then we did safely and openly and what fault was in this But One saith that the Presbyterians suspected the kindness and joined with the Conformists like wise Men and refused the Bait Who said so or on what Ground I know not we went no further from the Conformists than Conscience of Duty had made us do before but it had been a strange thing if when Liberty was granted us to worship God in his own way we had then joined with a Superstitious Worship which we could not do before If that Author mean That Presbyterians were then willing to concurr with the Conformists as their Protestant Brethren in all things lawful to disappoint the Designs of the common Enemy we approve of that
the Church The Bishops shewed kindness unto them for their Zealous Preaching A few remarks on this will serve to clear our way 1. It seems the Episcopal Party had not such respect as was fit to the Consciences of their dissenting Brethren in that they were getting Laws made to force them to that which they could not perswade them to by the Gospel but this is the Old Spirit of that party which still createth trouble to the Church 2. That some of them accepted of Preferment and these he nameth Gilby Whittingham are among them whom Fuller placeth in the Ranck of fierce Non-conformists sheweth how loath they were to divide from their Brethren as long as they were suffered to keep their Consciences undefiled 3. He omitteth to tell us that these men would never subscribe to the Liturgy nor use the Ceremonies which Mr. Fuller Lib. 9. p. 76. informeth us of that not only these fiery men as he calleth them but even the moderate Non-conformists as Mr. Fox Mr. Lawrence Humfrey refused to subscribe 4. It was a commendable piece of Moderation in the then Bishops that they suffered these Men to Preach notwithstanding of their Non-conformity Indeed there was cause for it they were able and useful men and the Church had much need of their Labours Fuller saith p. 65. Tolerability was Eminency in that Age. A Rush Candle seemed a Torch where no brighter Light was seen before where he telleth us of a Sheriff's Preaching for want of other to do that work and how sorrily he performed it If the present Bishops would exercise the same moderation they needed not to be afraid of Separation Sect. 31. He proceedeth to tell us that these Non-conformist Preachers first let fall their dislike of Ceremonies and gaining Ground they called them the Livery of Antichrist and enflamed the People and this was the first Occasion of pressing Vniformity with Rigor Some were silenced as kindness had made them Presumptuous this made them Clamorous Mr. Fuller giveth another account of this matter p. 76. The English Bishops conceiving themselves Impowered by their Canons began to shew their Authority in urging the Clergy of their Diocess to subscribe to the Liturgy Ceremonies and Discipline of the Church and such as refused the same were Branded with the Odious Name of Puritans and p. 81. He sheweth how Ministers were contented before B. Grindal one of the most moderate but pressed to Rigor by the rest who asked them have we not a Godly Princess speak is she Evil A Question fitter for the Inquisitors in Spain than a Protestant Bishop That the Non-conformists preached against the Ceremonies is neither to be doubted nor wondered at so did our Lord and Master and his Apostle Paul It was their duty to teach people to observe all that Christ hath Commanded that being their Commission if they spake Falshood or Truth in an undue manner they were liable to Correction What our Author calleth inflaming the People others will call faithful warning of them against what might displease God and defile their Consciences Any who enflameth them to unsober or unpeaceable principles or practices let them bear their blame I see nothing in their Carriage under the Bishops forbearing of them that deserâ—eth the Name of presumption nor under their Sufferings that should be called Clamorousness as the Dr. calleth their informing their Friends at Geneva how they were used But it is the Spirit of that party to use cruel Severity against them that differ from them and reproach them if they say they feel it Patience and Stoical Apathy are not the same thing There is nothing yet said by the Dr. that can cast the Blame of Separation on the Non-conformists or free the Bishops of it Sect. 32. He saith further p. 19. at the end About this time the dissenting Party being exasperated by silencing some of their most Zealous Preachers began to have separate Meetings where they Preached and Prayed and had the Sacraments Here we have out of the Mouth of an Adversary the true Cause and Original of the Separation tho' somewhat unfavourably represented the cause of it was they could not have Gods Ordinances without Mans Inventions their Ministers being silenced who administred them purely and tho' but some of them at first were silenced yet the rest were under the same Condemnation by the Law and daily expected the Execution of the Law on them and all the People could neither have the ordinances by those that were as yet unsilenced nor could they live without them So that it was not Exasperation but desire to wait on God in his own Ordinances that made them take that course This account of it themselves give as the Dr. hath it p. 20. before the Bishop of London whose Discourse to them the Dr. relateth unbecoming the Moderation of B. Grindal charging them with lying pretences without any Ground mentioned and unbecoming the Learning of a Bishop charging them with Condemning the Reformation Sect. 33. The next thing he insisteth on is Beza's advice to the Ministers and people who tho' he sheweth his dislike of the Ceremonies and adviseth the Ministers not to subscribe yet presseth the silenced Ministers not to Exercise their Function against the will of the Queen and the Bishops And the People to wait on the Word and Sacraments notwithstanding of the Ceremonies that they might by these means obtain a through Reformation And to Ministers he saith that they should not leave their Functions for the Sake of the Ceremonies In which Advice the Dr. doth much insult How impartially Beza's opinion in this case is represented by the Dr. I know not not being able at present to get a sight of the Book but some other Citations already examined make me jealous especially seeing the Dr. maketh Beza contradict himself for p. 21. he maketh him advise the silenced Ministers to live privately and not exercise their Functions against the Will of the Q. and the Bishops But p. 22. he maketh Beza say to them that the Ceremonies are not of that moment that they should leave their Functions for the sake of them But whatever were Beza's opinion Non-conformists of old and late took the Word of God and not the Authority of Men for the Rule of their Faith and Practice They honour such as Beza and are ready to receive Instruction from them but must have leave to examine all by Scripture as the Beraeans did the Doctrine even of Paul. Again Beza is far from advising Ministers to forbear Preaching a together because restrain'd by the Magistrate That principle never obtained among Protestant Divines and is to be examined afterward but he disliked their publick appearance in that case which may be constructed a Defiance and Contempt of the Magistrate For they had hired a Hall in London as publick as any Church for their Meetings Christ's Apostles were private with the Doors shut when they might not be publick and so should we and yet not give over
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
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
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
say the peoples action is also included in the force of the Word to wit their Voteing by lifting up their hands which in no reason can be applied to the Apostles being but two men the mater needed not such a way of Voteing between them I conclude this being done 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in every Church the people respective chusing their Pastors and the Apostles Ordaining them it is clear to have been generally the practice of these times and so the Institution of Chirst Sect. 5. Argument 2. The Apostles were so careful yea rather the Lord was so careful to preserve this right in Election or ordinary Officers that when Men for extraordinary Work were to be sent forth the Peoples choice was not neglected Hence two were chosen by the Multitude and presented to the Lord that by Lot the Lord might chuse one of them to be an Apostle Successor to Judas Act. 1. 23. and Matthias being chosen by Lot it is said of him ver 26 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he was reckoned by Votes among the Apostles and Act. 13. 1 2. the Lord chused Barnabus and Paul for a special Service but he would have the Votes of the Church for it If the Lord thus condescended to take the present consent in such a matter is it fit for Bishops or Patrons to neglect them and obtrude Men upon them whether they will or not Argument 3d. When ever any extraordinary piece of work I mean such as was not daily exercise was to be put into the Hands of Ministers without a special Revelation they were chosen to it by the Suffrages of the People as appeareth by Act. 15. 22. where Judas and Silas are sent to Antiech about carrying the Decrees of the Synod at Jerusalem and backing them with their Doctrine So 2 Cor. 8. 19. 23. Some are chosen by the Churches to accompany Paul in carrying a Collection to the Jews in Judea and are called the Messengers of the Churches Argument 4th The Deacons were appointed to be chosen by the People 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 also the other Church Officers see Act. 6. 2 3. It is a frivolous Answer that it doth not follow that they should chuse their Pastors because they may chuse the Distributers of their Benevolence For 1. both are Church Officers instituted by Christ In this then they are alike 2. It were a less matter that people were imposed on in this lesser concern than in that of greater consequence and if the Lord have taken care that they should be satisfied about the one much more that they should be satisâ—ied about the other Sect. 6. Our 5th Argument is from the concurrent Testimony of the purer primitive times which we the rather use because our Brethren lay so much weight on this for the Power of Bishops it should not be neglected by them in the matter of Election and that of other Church Officers Also because nothing of Church-Ordâ—r is more clearly and frequently and unanimously in the Writings of the Ancients nor did longer continue untaken away even in the degenerate Ages of the Church so that we may reckon Patronages and obâ—ruding Ministers on the People among the Novelties of Popery I shall in the first place bring some Canons of Council for this Theoderet mentioneth an Epistle from the Famous Council of Nice to a Church in Egypt in which are these words Dignum est vos potestatem habere eligendi quem libet eorum nomine dandi quem clero St. Digni And after si quum vero conâ—igerit requiescere in Ecclesia tunc pro vehim honorem defuncti eos quem nuper Assumpti St. solummodi si videantur digni populus eos Elegerit The Synod Constantinopolit in an Ep. to Damasus and others shew that they had ordained Nectarius cuncta decernente pariter civetate and that they had ordained Flavianus omni Ecclesia parriter decernente Hist. inpert lib. 9. c. 14. Also 4. Carthagin cau 1. It is required that a Bishop be Ordained cum omni consensu Clericorum Laicorum Concil 3. Carthag can 22. Nullus ordinâ—tur Clericus sine Episcopi examinatione populi Testimonio Also the Tenth Canon of Council Cabilonens which was in the midle of the Seventh Century hath these words as they are in Caranz Summa Concil Signis Epâ—scopus de quacunque Civitate fuerit defunctus non ab aliis nisi a com provinicialibus clero civibus suis alterius habeatur electio sin autem aliter fiet ejus Ordinatio irrita habeatur Here the want of Popular Election is held to make void Ordination Sect. 7. Another sort of Testimonies out of Antiquity are the Decrees of Popes it was of old the Canon Law that the People should have a Hand in Elâ—ction of Ministers Bishops and others Anacletus who lived very near the Apostles time hath these words in one of his Epistles cum ejectionem summorum sacerdotum sibi Pominus reservaverit eorum electionem tamen benis sacerdotibus spiritualibus populis concessit Caelestinus primus who lived in the beginning of the Fifth Century hath these words nullus invitis detur Episcopus cleri plebis ordinis consensus requiratur Galasius about the 500 year decreed Electionem Episcopi esse totius Ecclesiae Also Stephanus Pecretat dist 63. saith Electionem non solum ad spiritualâ—s sed etiam ad Paicos pertinere And Lâ—o Magnus Anno 440. dist 63. is plain and full to this purpose So Gregorius Magnus about 590. frequently writeth to this purpose I instance only his Letter to Scholastâ—us Hâ—rtanum Magnitudâ—nem vestrâ—m ut cerâ—ocantes pâ—iores vel plâ—bem civitatis de electione alterius Sacerdotis cogites and when in case they found not one he desireth they may send three to Rome to consult about it adding quorum judicio plâ—bs tota consentiat Hadriarus who lived near the end of the Eighth Century in an Ep. to Charlemain commendeth Canâ—nes Olitanos and saith at electâ—ones he caused to proclaim the consuetudo Olitana to wit Plebs clerus Ecclesiae illius simul consistens elegerunt sibi Episcopum Sect. 8. Also particular Fathers have frequently given their Vote for this priviledge of the People Cyprian Ep. 3. often mentioneth his being chosen by the Suffrage of the whole Church of Carthage and in his Ep. de Martial Basilid he saith Plebs in sua potestate habâ—t eligendi dignos sacerdotes And he saith Idemvidemus de divina Authoritate descendere And he excuseth himself very carefully that in a case of necessity he had chosen Aurelius to be Reader in the Church without the Knowledge and Consent of the People Tertul. apol cap. 39. saith of the Seniores that preside in their Assemblies that is the Ministers Approbantur Suffragiis eorum quos regerâ—debent Greg. Nazianzen in a Funeral Sermon made on his Fathers Death discourseth much of this priviledge of the People Chrysostom lib. 4. de Sacerdotio is of the same
Law of Justiniâ—n it is appointed that the Election be made by the Inhabitants of the City And I hope he will not impute Contradictions to Justinian's Laws He next objecteth Concil Laodic can 13. He doth not cite the Words and I meet only with the Title in these Words Deo quod non sit populis concedendum electionent facere eorum quam altaris Ministerio sit applicandi Ans. If this be meant of excluding the People wholly it is inconsistent with other Canons above cited and therefore not to be minded Therefore the meaning must rather be that the Election is not to be left to the Rable but they are to be assisted and directed in that Action by the Presbyters and better-sort of the People The Second Council of Nice is next cited but much amiss for it is Ordination not Election that is restrained to Bishops i. e. not to be done without them and Election is only taken out of the Hand of the Magistrate That Second Council citeth for Conformation of their Decree the Fourth Can. of Concil Nice 1. Where there is not a Word of Election by Bishops but only of Ordination He concludeth with Concil Constantinop 2. Can. 28. Carazanze hath it 22. Whereas the Greek Church owned but Fourteen of these Canons and the rest are look'd on as a Forgery Beside That Council was in the end of the Ninth Century when the Bishop of Rome had got very high and therefore less to be regarded Sect. 17. The Fourth thing the Dr. considereth is p. 323. That the Magistrate when Christian did interpose in this as he judged expedient Ans. We are not against the Magistrates interposing to repress Tumults assist the Oppressed oppose unpeaceable Persons c. But the question is Whether the Magistrate did take away the Election from the People and did interpose generally and when there was no special necessity for his interposing 2. We deny not but some Magâ—strates did interpose against Right and Reason but quo jure did they do so But let us hear his Instances the first is Constantine recommended to the Synod two Men to chuse either of them or whom they should judge fit without taking notice of the Interest of the People Ans. 1. This is far from taking away the Peoples right to deprive them of the present use of it on occasion of their dissension 2. How doth he prove that no notice was taken of the Peoples Interest That it is not mentioned is no proof it was so universally owned in those days that it might well be supposed without mention 3 Yea the Emperour in his Ep. to the People of Antioch doth mention it several times as Eusâ—bius relateth for he willeth them not to desire the Bishop of Antiâ—ch but to chuse one according to the Custom of the Church as our Saviour had dâ—rected them His next instance is in a Dissension at Constantinople about Paulus and Macedonius The Emperour Constantius put them both by and put in Eusebius of Nicomedia And after his Death when the Oxthodox party chused Paulus the Emperour put him out by force and put in Macedonius Ans. Such Instances will be little to the Credit of his cause for all this was done by a persecuting Emperour Constantius for râ—oting out the sound Faith and planting Arianism and was complained of by all the Orthodox as an Encroachment on the Liberties of the Church What followeth is far short of the point to wit the Emperours restoring Athenasius and several other Bishops who had been duly Elected and Ordained and by him thrust from their placâ—s Next Theodosius would have Nectarius made Bishop of Constantinople when many of the Bishops opposed it Ans. This maketh more against Episcopal Ordination than against Popular Election But that tâ—e peoples Election was not here Impedited is clear from the Synod at Ep. cited above Sect. 6. where the consent of the whole City is mentioned Next Chrysostom was appâ—inted by the Emperour to Constantinople without the People for Palladius doth not mention any consent but what was subservient to the Emperours determination Ans. Whether the câ—nsent was Antecedent or Subsequent if it was it destroyeth his design Beside both Socrates and Sozomen do expresly mâ—ntion the peoples Votes and Palladius whom the Dr. in this leaneth to doth not deny them Next he saith the Emperour would have none of the Clergy of Constantinople chosen to succeed Sinsinnius therefore Nestorius was brought from Antioch Ans. It doth not follow that he was not chosâ—n by the People and the Emperour laying this restraint on the People is only if at all excâ—sable because he feared disturbance Such pretences have often given occasion to Oppression His last instance is Proctus was made Bishop by the Emperours order before the Burial of his Successor Ans. It is not proved that the People did not chuse him yea the People had chosen him before Maximanus his predecessor got the place and he being now dead he might enter in without the Formality of a new choice Let the Reader now judge whether any Orthodox Emperour did ever disown this priviledge of the People either by declaring that the power was not in them but in himself or by interposing ordinarily or without hazard of the Civil Peace in the Elections of the Pastors of the Church wherefore the Dr. in all this hath said nothing that can conclude against this power of the people Sect. 18. His fifth Consideration p. 325. is That upon the alteration of the Government of Christendom there was greater reason for the Magistrates interposing thâ—n before I suppose by the alteration of the Government of Christendom the reverend Author meaneth the breaking of the Roman Empire and the setting up of many Kingdoms out of it which fell out in the latter and very corrupt times of the Church Himself dateth it from the endowment of Churches by the liberality of the Northern Princes Against this I argue 1. This practice being so long after the Churches purity began to decay and when Christian Religion was almost destroy'd by the encrease of Apostacies and when Princes and Prelates had as it were divided the spoiles of the Church between them and robbed the People both of their Rights and many of the Ordinances of God as to the purity of them it hath no weight to conclude against the Peoples right of Election which they had from Christ and enjoyed in the purer Ages of the Church for many Centuries of years If this reasoning have any force it will make as much for the Mass Imagiâ—s denying the Cup in the Lords Supper to the People and many such things which I hope the Dr. will not argue for tho' he unwarily saâ—th more for them than wâ—â—ld have been expected 2. He acknowledgeth p. 325. That this was obtained by Princes by degrees and indeed it was very late before it became common and the Power was wholly wrested out of the peoples Hands He confesseth that this way was not
always observed in the days of Cloâ—harius in France which of them he meaâ—eâ—h I know not there were three of that Name the first of them was about the Year 560. the last a hundred years after now if the Infancy of this usage was so late and it grew by degrees the adult State of it must be as indeed it is a very Novel device of men to subject Religion to their Lusts. Sect. 19. 3. I deny that on that alteration of Government in the State there was either greater reason than before or any reason for Princes to interpose so in the Election of the Pastors of the Church as to take it out of the peoples Hand That there was no greater reason then before I prove both because he cannot shew us such reason and also because before this there were Tumults and Confusions which might require the Magistrates interposition and also because the Christian Emperours had as much power over the Church in their large Dominions as Christian Kings could pretend to in their lesser Kingdoms No difference in this can be assigned either from any grant of Christ to the one more then to the other nor from sound reason That which the Dr. bringeth for a Reason is none at all to wit The Northern Princes endowing Churches liberally For 1. Did not the Emperours so too Coâ—stantin's liberality was exceâ—ding great which occasioned that saying hodie veninum infusum est in Ecclesiam and yet he laid not out that Treasure to purchase the Rights that Christ had given to his People 2. The Liberality was no sufficient price to purchase Gospel Priviledges from them that Christ had granted them to more than Jacobs Pottages was for Esâ—us's Birth-right It is a Conceit unworthy of a Divine and only fit for Simon Magus that the Liberality of Princes or others to the Church can entitle them to be Masters of her priviledges As there is no more reason now then before so there neither was nor is any reason at all why Magistraâ—es should mâ—dle with the Election of Church Officers because it is the peoples right by Christ's Institution and hath been owned by the Church and the Magistrate for many Ages as hath been shewed above Sect. 20. The Dr. saith that after the solemn Assemblies of the people came to be much used these priviledges in Election of Church-men of Princes came not only to be Confirmed by the consent of the people but to be enlarged This he insisteth much upon afâ—erward alledging that the people of England by their representatives in Parliament have given away their power of Elecâ—ion and put it into the Hand of the Magistrates Bishops and other Patrons A s. 1. I deny that the people could give away this right it was Christ's Legacy to them and not alienable by them It doth concern their Souls not their temporal Estates and such concerns are not at Mens disposal 2. I deny that this was done people never gave away this Right it was partly by violence and partly by Fraud wrested out of their Hands what he saith of the Parliaments giving it away wherein the People are represented is a mistake for the people are represented in Parliament as they are Members of the Body Politick and they instrust all their worldly Interests and Lives and Estates to them whom they chuse and they may dispose of these by making Laws to secure them and also to take them away when the publick good doth so require but they are not there represented as they are Members of the Church neither do they or can they entrust the Parliament with the concerns of their Souls or the Church Rights and Priviledges These Christ hath made Laws about and no Man can make Laws about them all that men can do in reference to these is Ministerial not Magisterial as Acts of Parliament are it is to declare Christ's Laws and to put them in Execution and Christ hath not entrusted Kings nor Parliaments with these Affairs but only his Ministers and the people can entrust no other with them The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this discourse of the Dr's on which all of it is built is his confounding of Church and State with Erastus which is to mingle Heaven and Earth Sect. 21. He saith The Princes obtained by degrees not only the Conâ—irmation of the Election bâ—t the Liberty of Nomination with a shadow of Election by the Clâ—rgy and others of the Court as appears by the formula of Marculphus Answ. Here is plain dealing both to let us see what fraâ—dulent ways were used to cheat the people of their Right by leaving a Shadow of Election when the substance was taken away and also that Princes were not in ancient possession of this Priviledge that they behoved by such Policies to wind themselves into And further that it is so grosly evil that Princes are ashamed openly to own such a Power over the Church but must thus hide the shame of this practice if they have a good Title why leave they a shadow of Election If not why do they assume the substance of it He ciâ—eth on the Margin in Confirmation of this grant made to Kings several Acts of Couâ—cils as Concil Aurelian An. 549. but this destroyeth his cause for Can. 3. which I suppose is that he aimeth at dâ—th barely name the King whose interest in all Church matters no man denyeth so far as the peace of the State is concerned in tâ—em but expresly requireth the Election of the Clergy and People and again their consent and moreover maketh this Election a clero plebe to be as it is written in the Antient Canons Concil Aurelan 2. Can. 7. doth also expresly mention popular Eâ—ection and Concil Aurelâ—an 3. Can. 2. doth require their consent And Concil Aurelian 4. Can. 4. requireth a Bishop to be ordâ—ined in his Church to which he was Elected decreto that was the ordinary Term for the Writing wherein the peoples Election was conâ—ained And in all these Canons there is not one word of the Magistrate except in the first as abovesaid His Concil Tarracoâ— I cannot find Concil Tolet. 12. that he citeth was in the end of the seventh Century when Corruptions were come to a great height and it was but provincial it saith indeed quoscunque pâ—testas regia â—lâ—gerit but the peoples Election is not exluded tho not mentioned and there is an express salvo it is the 6th Can. for the liberty of the Provinces which cannot well be understood but of the priviledge of the people of the Province Sect. 22. He telleth us of great Contests between the Papal and Regal power and how the latter prevailed in England and citeth several Acts of Parliament as of Edward 6th and others Aâ—sw What doth all this prove If two contend about a Third Persons Estate and the one prevail against the other doâ—h that give him a Title We deny that either Pope or Prince had a right to that they strove about and
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