A Second True Defense of the Nonconformists, Treatise · Chapter 7

A Second True Defense of the Nonconformists · Treatise · Chapter 7

p. 99CHAP. VII. The Reply to his Third Part: The beginning.

Sect. 1. IN his third Part I firſt find my ſelf accuſed p. 242, &c. And that is not only by inſiſting on a falſe accuſation of my words, but adding a confutation of himſelf, as if he diſcerned not that he did it. In Treat. of Concord I ſay, [If it holdeth that God inſtituted only Congregational or Parochial Churches, as for preſent Communion, then none of the reſt inſtituted by man may deprive them of their priviledges granted by Chriſt.] I put it but with an (If it be ſo) becauſe I told them my own doubt of it. After I ſay, [To deviſe new ſpecies of Churches without Gods Authority, and impoſe them on the World; yea in his name, and call all Diſſenters Schiſmaticks, is worſe Uſurpation than to make and impoſe new Ceremonies and Liturgies.] And can any Chriſtian deny either of theſe? But he ſaith, [This ſuppoſeth Congregational Churches to be ſo much the inſtitution of Chriſt, that any conſtitution above theſe is unlawful and unſupportable:] which is more than the Independant Brethren do aſſert. And is any word of all this true? 1. The Independants much inſiſt on this? I refer him now but to Ameſii Medul. de Eccl. Miniſt. 2. Do the words ſuppoſe that which is plainly excepted in them? If it were granted. 1. That the Congregational only are ſo inſtituted. 2. And that others are not ſet over them by God, 3. And yet are obtruded in his name, without his authority. 4. And all Diſſenters called Schiſmaticks,] then I ſay they are unlawful. 5. To coufute himſelf plainly he confeſſeth that I ſay, The queſtion is not whether the Archbiſhops ſhould be over the particular Churches, as Succeſſors to the Apoſtolical and General Overſeers of the firſt Age in the ordinary continued parts of their Office. Nor whether Patriarks, Dioceſans, Lay-Chancellors as Officers of the King, exerciſing Magiſtracy be lawful.] And yet he ſaith that I ſuppoſe the contrary. He next pretends to give my Reaſons: And the chief is, becauſe it overthroweth the ſpecies of Gods making; when I only ſay, That which overthroweth it is unlawful; which is not the Archbiſhops that are over the lower Biſhops, but thoſe that put them all down, and governed the Carkaſſes of the mortified particular Churches as the loweſt Biſhops of many ſcore or hundred ſuch as themſelves. And he ſaith I am for the full exerciſe of Diſcipline within the particular Church; while he confeſt I ſpake not againſt Archbiſhops. And yet he ſaith, This is a fair repreſentation of my opinion.

p. 100Sect. 2. Coming to prove our Epiſcopacy the ſame with the Primitive he pretendeth to confute me: That which I aſſerted was, 1. That by the firſt Inſtitution, and Conſtitution, every Church no bigger for number of Souls than one of our great Pariſhes had a Biſhop of their own, (one or more I diſputed not.) 2. Yea that for the firſt two hundred years if not more, no one Biſhop had a Church ſo big as ſome of our Pariſhes, at leaſt except Alexandria and Rome, and even of them it is not certain that they had more Souls. 3. That after by degrees the caſe was altered: But yet after there were many Meetings like Chappels, a while there was but one Altar. 4. After that thoſe Chappels had Altars; but ſo as that at certain times of the year, the people of the Cities and next parts were all to communicate with the Biſhop, and were no more than could meet to chooſe the Biſhops, and to be preſent as to the main body of them, and diſciplinary debates, to give conſent. 5. In Cyprian's time at Carthage (a place of greatneſs and great numbers of Chriſtians) the Church was grown very great, but not beyond the exerciſe of ſuch perſonal Communion as I deſcribed: And the Biſhops there and round about being worthy men, kept up the life of the former Diſcipline. And as great as their Church was, we would be glad of ſuch an Epiſcopacy, Order and Communion. For I oft told you, that by preſent Communion, I meant not that all muſt meet in one place at once, (For the tenth part of ſome Pariſhes cannot:) But that as Neighbours and Citizens, may have perſonal Converſe and Meetings per vices, of ſome at one time and ſome at another, as different from meer mental Communion, or by Synods or Perſons delegate, or as their Governours or Repreſentatives, and this for mutual Edification in holy Doctrine, Worſhip and Converſation. And that the footſteps of this remained long, when worldly Reaſons had made a change.

And all this I have proved ſo fully in my Treatiſe of Epiſcopacy beſides what's ſaid in my Abſtract of the Epiſcopal Hiſtory, that till ſome man ſhall confute the full Evidence of Antiquity there brought, I have no more in Reaſon to do upon that ſubject. And though the Doctors Hiſtory of this be the moſt conſiderable part of all his Book, yet ſo far doth he leave what I ſay uncontradicted, that I find not one word that he ſaith againſt any of my Teſtimonies, nor any for his own cauſe, for the firſt two hundred years: But when he ſhould have proved the extent of the Churches at two hundred years, he begins his hiſtorical Proofs at two hundred and fifty for three or four great Cities in the World, and ſo proceeds to Auguſtine at above four hundred, and Victor Uticenſis about four hundred and ninety, Theodoret four hundred and thirty, (where p. 101he ſuppoſeth me to ſay that of his City, which I ſaid of the Dioceſs of that City:) And to confute all Impertinencies, and groundleſs Suppoſitions, while my full proofs are unanſwered, is but loſs of time.

Sect. 3. His chief argument is, [that no City how great ſoever was to have more Biſhops than one.] Anſ. 1. He can prove no ſuch Rule in the firſt two hundred years. 2. See how well the defenders of Prelacy agree? Gratious (& de Imperio & in Anotat.) and Dr. Hammond I cited, who ſay that Cities at firſt had two Biſhops in each (Rome, Antioch, &c.) one of Jewiſh Chriſtians, and one of Gentile Chriſtians, and ſaith D. H. Peter at Rome was Biſhop of the Jews, and Paul of the Gentiles, and they had two Succeſſors; and ſaith Gretius The Churches were formed to the manner of the Synagogues, and there were divers Churches with divers Biſhops in the ſame City (in 1 Tim. 5. 17. & de Imp. p. 355, 356, 357.) 3. In the fourth Century a Council at Capua decreed that the two Biſhops with their ſeveral Churches at Antioch (Flavian's and Evagrins) ſhould live together in Love and Peace. 4. This was a good cuſtom while there were in the Cities no more than one Biſhop might take care of: And the cuſtom held when times altered the caſe and reaſon of it: And Poſſeſſion and the Deſire to avoid diviſion made it held up by good men. 5. I have at large in my Treatiſe of Epiſcopacy confuted the opinion of appropriating Biſhops to Cities; and ſo did the old Churches that ſet up Chorepiſcopos.

Sect. 4. p. 259. He ſaith, [In Cities and Dioceſes under one Biſhop were ſeveral diſtinct Congregations and Altars.] Anſ. 1. Yes, no doubt, after the ſecond Century, and perhaps in two Cities a little before; but in few in the World till towards the fourth Century. 2. This is the ſame man who in the very Sermon which he defendeth ſaid [p. 27. Though when the Churches increaſed the occaſional Meetings were frequent in ſeveral places, yet ſtill there was but one Church, and one Altar, and one Baptiſm, and one Biſhop, with many Presbyters aſſiſting him: And this is ſo very plain in Antiquity, as to the Churches planted by the Apoſtles themſelves in ſeveral parts, that none but a ſtranger to the hiſtory of the Church can ever call it in queſtion.] But when I told him how this would agree us, and hurt his cauſe, he will quickly fall under his own cenſure, and became [a ſtranger to the hiſtory of the Church] aſſerting many Altars in one Church of one Biſhop. This Sermon was written ſince his Irenicon. And now he feigneth a diſtinction between [An Altar taken with particular reſpect to a Biſhop: and for the place at which Chriſtians did communicare.] But what was the Altar that was taken with particular reſpect to the Biſhop? Was it not the material place of Communicn? And ſo the members of the diſtinction are co-incident. Saith Optatus lib. 6. Quid eſt Altare niſi ſedes & corporis & ſanguimis Chriſti? Each p. 102Church had long but one of theſe. The beſt Altars that were made after the chief Church Altars were not for ordinary communion, but honorary of ſome Martyrs. The truth is, the phraſe of unum Altare was taken up when each Church had but one; but to ſet up Altare contra Altare continued after to ſignifie Anti-Churches. But I have fully anſwered this in my Treatiſe of Epiſcopacy. His conjectures from the numbers of Officers, &c. he may ſee there alſo ſufficiently confuted and in Ch. Hiſt. And the odd inſtance of Theodoret he doth not at all make credible by his willing belief of Metius and other Popiſh Feigners. And were that Epiſtle genuine a Cypher is eaſily dropt in by Corrupters: It hath need of better authority that ſhall be ſo ſingular from the caſe of all other Churches. And I ſuppoſe he knoweth that Cyrus was not a ſimple Biſhoprick, but a Metropolitane Seat, and might have 800 Pariſh Biſhops.

Yea whereas there were under Antioch ſeven Dioceſes, and fifteen Provinces or as others ſay thirteen, that yet had many Biſhops under them, as Seleucia twenty four. &c. that were more dependant on Antioch, Cyrus was one of the eight Provinces or Metropolis that were per ſe ſubſiſtentes: And therefore when Theodoret ſaid how many Churches were under hands, it's like he meant Biſhops Churches and not meer Presbyters, and either a Cypher dropt in corrupted the account (or elſe the Biſhops had but ſingle Congregations; But for my part as the caſe ſo late concerneth me not, ſo I ſee nothing to perſwade me that that Epiſtle is genuine and uncorrupt. But I would not have a Dioceſs which then had many Provinces, or a Province which had many Biſhops Churches, be taken for a ſingle Church.

Sect. 5. The ſame I ſay of Carthage, which was the Metropolis of Africa, and the firſt of ſix Provinces before Juſtinian, and of ſeven after, and Proconſular, and the Church called Africae Caput as Auguſt. ep. 162. The ſixth and ſeventh Carthage Councils tell us of the diſtribution of the Provinces, decreeing three Judges to be ſent out of each Province, viz. Carthage, Numidia, Byzacena, Mauritania, &c. Yea Leo 9. P. in Epiſt. ad Thom. &c. ſaith that the Biſhop of Carthage was poſt Pont. Rom. primus Archiepiſcopus & totius Africae maximus Metropolitanus, (Though yet Binnius truly ſay that in Cyprian's time he was not an Archbiſhop, that is, no proper Governor of Biſhops, becauſe they concluded in Council, nemo noſtrum dicitur Epiſcopus Epiſcoporum; but he was the chief of that great Province. And the Dr. himſelf out of Victor mentioneth one Creſſeus that had one hundred and twenty Biſhops under him: He was Metropolitane of Aquitana and a Dioceſs then having many Provinces; how many be in a Dioceſs Victor there … you that the Biſhop of Carthage in his own Eugitane Province had one hundred ſixty four Biſhops. And how great were their Churches then? p. 103and L. 2. when he lamenteth the great number of their baniſhed, Biſhops, Presbyters aud the Church-members were 4976. And one Pariſh here hath 40000 if not more. He that conſidereth that Cyrus was at moſt but 60 miles from Antioch the Patriarchal Seat, and that a Carthage Council had ſometimes 600 Biſhops, and the Donatiſts perhaps had as many; and that as he ſaith, Creſceus had one hundred and twenty Biſhops under him, and that Cyprian ſo often tells us how Biſhops were choſen by all the People, and how he managed his Diſcipline in the preſence of all his Plebs, (Laity) and by their conſent; and how he telleth that it was the peoples duty to ſeparate from the communion of a ſinning Biſhop (which implieth communion before) and how the Biſhops in Council put the queſtion, When a Church wanted a Biſhop, whether one of them that was a Biſhop and had perhaps but one or two or three Presbyters was bound to part with one to that wanting Church to make a Biſhop of? and conſidereth the circuit and diſtance of their Cities, and much more which I have elſewhere named, may well believe large Provinces, and larger Dioceſſes, but will think of their Biſhops Churches as we muſt do of theirs in Ireland, when a late converted Countrey had ſix hundred Biſhops. Make but Chriſts true diſcipline practicable, and tie us not to ſwear or aſſent to your uncertain forms and we ſhould no further trouble you in this.

Sect. 6. As for the credit he giveth to Syrmondu's copy of Theodoret's Epiſtle or to the later Editions of his Works, I am not bound to be as credulous, nor to take the laſt Editions for the beſt, when they come out of the Jeſuits hands: And can prove the Epiſtle to Joh. Antioch, which Bellarmine would diſprove, to be more credible than this: And it's one blot that he ſaith Theodoret's Epiſt. 6. mentioneth the Metropolitane he was under, when he was under none, but was himſelf an Independant Metropolitane: For ſo the Notitiae Epiſc. tells us, was Berytus, Heliopolis, Laodicea, Samaſata, Cyros, Pompriopolis, Mopſueſtia and Adama. If his Province was as the Epiſtle cited ſaith fourty Miles ſquare, and the Chriſtians ſo numerous as is ſaid, and he name none of the Biſhops under him, but number the Churches, it's like they were Epiſcopal Churches and very ſmall. And that Villages had Churches it's no wonder when there were many Chorepiſcopi not only under the Metropolitanes but the City Biſhops. And why I muſt reject his long received Work if I queſtion his late found Epiſtles I know not. But again I ſay, this is nothing to our cauſe, being ſo long after the ages I mentioned, & my contrary evidence being not at all confuted

His confidence p. 260, 261. about ſome citations out of Theodoret, runs upon falſe Inſinuations: 1. That the queſtion is not of the number of Churches, but about the extent of the Epiſcopal Power, whether it was p. 104limited to one Parochial Church, or extended over many: when he knoweth that I had no ſuch queſtion; but whether thoſe whoſe power was over many Churches in the firſt two Centuries at leaſt, had not as many Biſhops under them over thoſe Churches (if ſuch there were.) Or if the Biſhops were of the loweſt rank, whether thoſe under were not then denyed to be Churches for want of Biſhops, and were not only parts of a Church? 2. And he feigneth me to bring Theodorets Teſtimonies to prove that even then in Alex. and Antioch a Church was but one Congregation, when I brought it only to prove, that even in that age they were ſo ſmall, that the footſteps of the ancient ſhape of them ſtill appeared. Such Fictions may deceive them that will not try what is ſaid, but only read the anſwerer. But by this citation I ſee he read my Treatiſe of Epiſc. before his Book came out. And therefore I will paſs by theſe niblings till he anſwer it.

Sect. 7. p. 262. He accuſeth me of [Rage and Bitterneſs] for ſaying that [if he will plead for ſo much Preſumption, Profanation of Gods name, Uſurpation, Uncharitableneſs and Schiſm, as to own their Churches to be new, and deviſed without Gods Authority, and yet may in his name be impoſed on the World, and all Diſſenters called Schiſmaticks,] I leave him. And firſt he feigneth that I charge him with this; which is untrue, unleſs he will charge himſelf with it. But why do I put in [If you will ſo plead.] Anſ. Becauſe he accuſed me for ſaying the contrary, viz. [that ſo to diviſe, and ſo to impoſe, is worſe, &c. But becauſe I know not why he accuſed ſo plain a truth, I ſaid [If you do ſo.] But he now tells me that he (quoted it to ſhew that I looked on all Churches beyond Parochial, as Churches meerly of mans deviſing,) which is another untruth confeſſed by himſelf, who before had this up and cited my own words to the contrary; viz. that I believe the Catholick Church and deny not National aſſociated Churches; nor Archbiſhops that put not down the particular Churches, Paſtors and Diſcipline: one miſtake is his excuſe for another. Had he meant as aforeſaid, had my words been Rage, or neceſſary confutation?

Sect. 8. Yea it is his buſineſs in the very next page 263 to confute his own accuſation of me by citing my own conceſſions. And p. 264. he giveth me leave to call our Biſhops Archbiſhops. Anſ. But 1. Archbiſhops have Churches with their proper Biſhops under them. But our Biſhops ſay that there are no ſuch under them. 2. I told you before that as the Major General, Quartermaſter General, &c. of an Army conſtituteth not a diſtinct body from the Army and the particular Regiments and Troops, ſo I am not certain that Apoſtles or Evangeliſts or any general Preachers as ſuch, did conſtitute any Church Form diſtinct from the p. 105Catholick and the particular Biſhops Churches: But if they are ſuppoſed to have taken their ſeveral fixed Provinces (which I never ſaw proved) I will not contend whether thoſe Provinces may be called Churches. If we agree about the thing, uſe the name as you ſee cauſe.

Sect. 9. And to your talk of our Biſhops being of the ſame ſort, I ask you whether any of the Biſhops for 300 years, or for long after ſave Cyril Alexand. by violence, did ever uſe or claim any power over any Miniſters or Chriſtians, beſides meer fatherly Teaching, Perſwading, urging Gods Word on them, and applying it to the conſciences of particular Perſons by Admonitions, verbal Cenſures and Abſolutions? Did they meddle by Force, with Body or Purſe? Let your Biſhops uſe no other force or way of conſtraint than the Apoſtles did, (if they be their Succeſſors) and not lay the excommunicate in Priſons and ruine their Bodies and Eſtates, & valeat quantum valere poteſt. But Mr. Glanvile and many of you tell us, how little you care for it without the Sword.

Sect. 10. If any man will but conſider what I cited out of Greg. Nazianzen that ſaith Men unfit were ſo ambitious to be of the Clergy, that the Clergy was in many Churches almoſt as many as the Laity; And that Presbyters then were much like the Presbyterians Elders, ſave that they had the power of Word and Sacraments though they ſeldom exerciſed Preaching in Cities, but left that to the Biſhop; and that the number of their Acoluthi, Exorciſtae, Oſtiarii, Lectores, Subdiaconi, Diaconi, &c. made up the great body of them. And the very Boys and Schollars that were bred up under them, yea or but for Church-ſinging, are ſometimes joyned to make up the number, ſee Iſidor. de Offic. Eccl. L. 2. even all the Monks, are often numbred with them. And Victor cited by him ſeemeth to number twice the Infantuli ſo bred up with the great number of Readers, to the Carthage Clergy, I ſay he that conſiders all this, will not judge of the number of people or Churches by the number of the Clergy, as he would do now with us, where the great Pariſhes have but two or three Prieſts.

Sect. 11. And as to the cauſe that I plead for, it is enough that I have proved that even when the name of Biſhop was confined to the Epiſcopi Paſtorum, yet the Presbyters had the power of the Keys, and were Epiſcopi Gregis, and exerciſed this power in their diſtant Countrey aſſemblies, though under the Biſhop, and the Biſhop was to exerciſe his with them as Aſſiſtants; ſo that the particular Churches were not really unchurched.

Sect. 12. p. 265. He cometh nearer our controverſie, but firſt falſly ſtateth the queſtion, ſuppoſing that I ſay that (the whole power of the Presbyters p. 106is ſwallowed up by the Biſhops.) And is the diſputing of a queſtion falſly ſtated of any profit? I only ſaid that the office of a Church-Paſtor or Presbyter hath three eſſential parts, viz. the power of Teaching the Church, of conducting them in Worſhip, and Governing the people by the uſe of the Keys. And that he that deſtroyeth one part that is eſſential (though he ſwallow not up all the power) altereth the eſſence of the Office: and that ſo the Engliſh Dioceſan Form doth, I have largely proved in my Treat. of Epiſcopacy which he doth not anſwer.

Sect. 13. 1. He tells us that the Presbyters are the lower houſe in the Convocation, and ſo have their Votes in paſſing all the Rules of Diſcipline, Articles of Doctrine and Forms of divine Service.] Anſ. 1. According to his deſcription the Church of England hath no one Eccleſiaſtical Government, either Monarchical or Ariſtocratical or Democratical: And therefore the Acts of the Convocation are no Acts of governing the Church of England, but meer Agreements. Therefore this proveth not the Presbyters power of governing it. 2. If this be a part of Government it is the Legiſlative Part or the Executive. The later it is not. The former the Lawyers ſay it is not; King and Parliament only being Legiſlators. But if this be Legiſlation, we deny it to be any of the power of the Keys, in queſtion, which is but to judge who is fit or unfit for Churchcommunion, to Admoniſh, Abſolve or Excommunicate according to Chriſts Law; and is the execution of Chriſts Law, and not the making of new Laws. 3. It is lis ſub judice whether the things here named be any part of true lawful Church-Government: Rules of Diſcipline Chriſt hath made enough, except about meer mutable Accidents. Articles of Doctrine man muſt not otherwiſe make, than to declare what he believeth Chriſt hath made. Forms of Divine Service commanded to all others, the Apoſtles never made, nor that we find appointed any others to make them. If theſe be lawful by way of agreement of many Churches, this is none of the Power we ſpeak of. Yet he calls this [one of the greateſt Rights of Government, viz. making Rules for the whole body; which he denyeth to have any conſtitutive Government.

Sect. 14. He ſaith, [In this main part of Government our Church falls behind none of the ancient Churches—only there they were taken ſingly in every City, &c. Anſ. That is, 1. When the Miniſters of a Dioceſs chooſe four, out of whom the Biſhops take two, And 2. This only to make agreements, without any governing power over the Church of England. 3. And this only about general Regulation. 4. In either unlawful or doubtful Impoſitions on others about meer Accidents or Circumſtances of Order; This is the ſame or as good as, when every true Church hath preſent Paſtors p. 107perſonally to exerciſe the executive Church-Government called the Keys, by the Laws of Chriſt already made, in judging the caſe of each particular Perſon, as to his Title to Church-communion and the Kingdom of Heaven. For that is the thing which by us is pleaded for.

Sect. 15. Next he tells us of four that are to joyn in Ordinatiom and Examination; when 1. It is not the making or governing of Paſtors which I am ſpeaking of, but the Government of the Flocks. 2. He knoweth that it is no ſtrange thing for our Biſhops to ſay, that both in Convocations and Ordination, the Presbyters act only as the Biſhops Council, and the Biſhops only act by governing authority. 3. I never diſputed for Presbyters Power to ordain as eſſential to them (nor did I ever meddle in any Ordination.) 4. If four Presbyters have ſuch power that proveth not that four hundred have it, that never exerciſe it, in the ſame Dioceſs. 5. If by all this you mean that really Presbyters have the governing Power of the Keys, it condemneth thoſe the more that give it to four and deny it to four hundred or one thouſand. 6. When I was ordained none examined us but the Biſhops Chaplain, and two or three City Miniſters called by the Biſhop that never ſaw us before, meerly pro formâ laid hands on us with him. But it's well that you give ſuch a power to ordain.

Sect. 16. Next p. 267. he comes to the point in queſtion, whether they have the Paſtoral Power of the Keys over their own Flocks? And 1. He ſaith, One would think the objector had never read over the office of Ordination for them. For the Epiſtle is read, the Charge given by St. Paul to the Elders at Miletus Act 20, or the third Chapter of 1 Tim. concerning the Office of a Biſhop. What a great Impertinency had this been, &c? Anſ. This is like the reſt. I muſt not ſuppoſe that he never read it himſelf. See Reader, whether any of this be true? Indeed heretofore it was in the Book of Ordination; but we ſhewed the Biſhops that thence Biſhop Uſher in his Reduction argued that the Presbyters have ſome conjunct Power with the Biſhops to govern their own particular Flocks, and ſome true Paſtoral Power of the Keys (I was one that oft urged it on them.) And they told us that the Biſhop was the Paſtor and they but his Curates, and to confute us, put out both theſe parts of Scripture from the Book which he ſaith are in it; ſo that neither of them is there: And preſently they alſo put out the very name of Paſtor given to Pariſh Miniſters, in almoſt all places of the Liturgy. Doth not all this ſhew their mind?

Sect. 17. Next he tells us of the Biſhops Exhortation, calling them [the Meſſengers, Watchman, Paſtors and Stewards of the Lord.] Anſ. It was p. 108ſo in the old Book, But the word (Paſtors) here alſo is purpoſely put out to ſhew their judgment. Is this juſt dealing, And doth it not confute himſelf? 3. He tells us of the Promiſe to Miniſter, Doctrine, Sacraments and Diſcipline.] Anſ. The truth is neither in the exhortation nor collation of Orders, is there any mention of any power given him to govern, but only to adminiſter the Word and Sacraments: and thus far the people are called his charge: But in the queſtion, Diſcipline is named thus [as the Lord hath commanded, and as this Church and Realm hath received the ſame, according to the Commandements of God:] ſo that 1. The Prieſt hereby owneth that as it is received in this Church and Realm it is according to Gods Commandments, and 2. Then promiſeth ſo to uſe it: which is 1. To be an Accuſer, 2. And as a Cryer to publiſh the Biſhops or Lay-Chancellors Excommunication and Abſolutions. This is the promiſé.

Sect. 18. And what if the name of Government or the Keys had been put in, when it is denyed in its eſſential part? I have proved out of Couſins Tables, Zouch, and the Canons and actual Judgment and Practice of the Biſhop., that Government or Juriſdiction is denyed to them: And inſtanced in many and moſt acts in which it doth conſiſt, in my Treatiſe of Epiſcopacy. And this being my queſtion, (whether the Engliſh frame depoſe not the ancient Churches (which had every one their own Paſtor with the power of the Keys) and ſo the ancient Offices and Diſcipline.) I am not now concerned about the General Archiepiſcopal Power of the Dioceſans.

Sect. 19. p. 269. He ſaith (that while the Apoſtles lived it is probable there were no fixed Biſhops, or but few.) Anſ. Mark this Reader. 1. If ſo, then while they lived, there were but twelve or thirteen Biſhops in the World, if any. And were then no more Churches that had governing Paſtors? 2. Then if it cannot be proved that the Apoſtles were fixed Biſhops, but ambulatory Apoſtles, there were none in the World in their times. 3. Then the Angels of the ſeven Churches were Apoſtles (reprehended by Chriſt) or meer Presbyters, or of the few excepted Biſhops. Why then doth he himſelf elſewhere argue that there were Biſhops then, becauſe theſe Cities were Metropoles? 4. See what concord is between the chief Doctors of the Church of England. Dr. Hammond ſaith that it cannot be proved that there were any Presbyters but Biſhops in Scripture times: and ſuppoſeth the Epiſcopal Party of his mind. This Dr. ſaith, (It's probable there were no fixed Biſhops, or but few. And ſo they differ. 1. Of the ſence of the Texts that mention Presbyters and Biſhops. 2. And about the guidance of the Churches de facto in thoſe times. 3. And if the Arpoſtles were not fixed Biſhops of ſingle Churches, they have no Succeſſors p. 109as ſuch. If they were we muſt have but twelve or thirteen Biſhops as their Succeſſors in the World. And which be thoſe Seats? and how prove they their claim?

Sect. 20. To prove the Pariſh Miniſters Paſtoral Power p. 272. he tells us of that he is judge of the Qualification of thoſe that are to be confirmed. Anſ. 1. Had I ever taken a Pariſh Charge under them, I would have taken more advantage from the new Rubrike about this, than any thing elſe, and then the Biſhops intended. But 1. There is not one of a multitude confirmed, and deſire of Confirmation proveth not any underſtanding of Chriſtianity. 2. And if the Miniſter doubt whether they be Ready or capable, they may refuſe to give him any account. 3. He is to ſend in the names of ſuch as he judgeth fit. But 1. it's only when the Biſhop Summons them. 2. And the Biſhop is no way obliged to confirm no more than the Prieſt approveth of. To prove this, 1. Their ordinary practice is to confirm without the Curates hands: 2. When the Kings Declaration was debated at Worceſter Houſe 1661, before the K. Lords, Biſhops and Miniſters, I laboured almoſt only for this that day, to have got in the word (Conſent) of the Miniſter of the Pariſh for ſuch as ſhould be Confirmed, ſuppoſing that one word would have partly reſtored the Pariſh Paſtors power, and ſo have made our Biſhops tolerable Archbiſhops, that if poſſible we might have been healed. But the Biſhops rejected it with all their might, and got the King to refuſe it: But becauſe I laid ſo great a ſtreſs on it, the Lords and others that were to collect and publiſh the Conceſſions, when we were gone put it in for that time, and at the Convocation the Biſhops caſt it all away. Did they not tell us then their ſence? And they call him only the Curate of the Pariſh, and not the Paſtor. And 4. If this were practicable ſome good men would practice it, at leaſt this Doctor himſelf: But I never heard of one that pre-examined his Communicants whether they were ready and willing to be Confirmed. 5. And if he did, he would keep away many fit Perſons, that ſcruple our ſort of Confirmation. 6. And what is all this to the many thouſand Noncommunicants, who quietly remain members of your Churches?

Sect. 21. As to his words p. 275. of power to keep the ſcandalous from the Sacrament, I have in ſo many books proved it next to none, and utterly inſufficient, that I will not waſt time to repeat all here.

Sect. 22. He tells me that in Can. 26 is not in Reformatio Legum Eccleſ. Anſ. But I have before told him, how much more and better is, which would go far to heal us could we obtain it. He ſaith that [any one that hath ſeen them knoweth it to be a miſtake, to ſay it was publiſhed by John Fox. Anſ. His Reader muſt be a ſtrong believer, and take much on his word; 1. I p. 110have ſeen them, and ſpake with men of great underſtanding that have ſeen them, that yet judge it no miſtake. 2. The Preface of the publiſher is like his Style. 3. It is called Praefatio I. F. And can every Reader know that I. F. meaneth not John Fox? 4. Ordinary Tradition ſaith it was John Fox's: And what ſhould I ſooner believe in ſuch a caſe? Inſtead of proving that they have all a power (to their condemnation) which we ſee they exerciſe not, let him procure a real power declared and granted, and it will do more than theſe words.

Sect. 23. But when it comes to the queſtion whether me may ſo much as call a ſinner to repentance by name before the Church, who rejecteth all more private admonition, he puts the queſtion, whether the obligation to admoniſh publickly an offender, or to deny him the Sacrament if he will come to it, be ſo great as to bear him out in the violation of a Law, made by publick authority, &c. Anſ. The firſt queſtion is whether Chriſt have not made his Church ſo different a thing from the World, that they ſhould be openly differenced, by a Communion of Saints? 2. And whether he hath not inſtituted an office to judge of this and by Government execute it? And 3. Whether any man have authority to ſuſpend this Law or Office? And then 4. I ſhall grant that not only Diſcipline, but Preaching and Prayer and Sacraments may be forborn hic & nunc in the preſent exerciſe, when elſe the exerciſe would do more hurt than good. 5. But are theſe Laws good that forbid it? and ſhould we Covenant never to endeavour an Alteration?

Sect. 24. He next tells us of the great difficulty of exerciſing true Diſcipline, (which is moſt true) and ſeems thence to defend the forbearance of it with us. Anſw. I have in my Treatiſe of Epiſcopacy and oft proved that it is of great importance to Chriſt's ends, and that he would have it continued to the laſt, and that the Communion of Saints is a practical Article of Faith; and that making ſmall difference between the Church and the World, tends to Church deſtruction, and to the reproach of Chriſtianity, and the utter undoing of millions of Souls.

And though Pope and Prelates have abuſed it to captivate Princes and Nations, the juſt uſe of it (he knoweth) is mentioned by the Univerſal Church, and viſibly recorded in the Canons of the ſeveral ages. Though ſome Eraſtians are of late againſt it; And Jeſuits and worldly Proteſtants can diſpenſe with it when it would hurt their worldly Intereſt, and turn it chiefly againſt Gods Servants that diſpleaſe and croſs them.

Sect. 25. p. 284. He ſaith, [The want of Diſcipline in the Pariſh p. 111Churches was never thought by old Nonconformiſts deſtructive to the being of them.

Anſw. They did not confound the Power and the Exerciſe: Nor what the Miniſters office is indeed and from God, and what it is by the Biſhops Mind and Rules of Conformity. I ſay as they. 1. The Exerciſe may be ſuſpended without nulling the Power or Policy. 2. They are true Paſtors and Churches by Gods will, againſt the will of thoſe that would degrade them.

Sect. 26. But ſuppoſing every man left to his own Conſcience, for Communion. 1. He ſaith the greateſt Offenders generally excommunicate themſelves.

Anſw. 1. And is it your way to leave all the reſt to their Conſciences, and yet to preach and write againſt, and lay in Jail diſſenting godly People that communicate not with you? 2. And are not all theſe Offenders ſtill Members of your Church? Albaſpineus complaineth of their Roman French Church, that he never knew any further caſt out than from the Sacrament, and left ſtill to other parts of communion as Members; And ſo do you by thouſands who are all Sons of your Church; but we are none.

He is again at it, what Church I was of, and I have told him oft enough.