A Treatise of Episcopacy, Part 1 · Chapter 5 (2 of 3)

A Treatise of Episcopacy · Part 1 · Chapter 5 (2 of 3)

p. 68And ſo much as a juſt confutation of Biſhop Downame, not as referring to other men with whom he dealt, but to the cauſe which we have in hand. And that I anſwer not the whole Book, is becauſe I know of no more in it than what I have culled out, which needeth an anſwer as to the cauſe which I defend: Of which I make the judicious Reader Judge.

6. Biſhop Hall's Defence of Epiſcopacy meddleth ſo little with theBiſh. Hall. point now in Queſtion, that I have no need to ſay any thing to it, more than is already ſaid. And he granteth all that I deſire.

7. As for Petavius, I need not confute him; for he granteth me moſt,Petavius. as to matter of Fact, that I deſire, as I ſhall after further ſhew. His Fundamental Aſſertion is, That the two Offices of Biſhops and Presbyters, were both placed in the ſame perſon, in the Apoſtles days; at which Salmaſius juſtly laugheth: For what is that but to ſay, that then there was no ſuch perſon as a Subject Presbyter (much leſs as our half-Presbyters:) And Salmaſius juſtly congratulateth his conceſſion, [that ſolo confenſu hominum & vitandi ſchiſmatis gratia, unus enumero Epiſcoporum, eorundem que Presbyterorum, electus eſt qui praeeſſet caeteris: Quod nemo dici prohibet—Nam etſi Epiſcopalis ordo jure divino introductus eſt, non eodem tamen illo jure decretum eſt, ut unus in ſingulis civitatibus & Eccleſiis, eſſet Epiſcopus, ſed Eccleſiae authoritate conciliorumque ſanctionibus. viz. [It was only by Mans conſent and for the avoiding of Schiſm, that one was choſen out of the number of Biſhops, who alſo were Presbyters, to be above the reſt: This ſaying none forbiddeth. For though the Epiſcopal Order was introduced by Divine Right, yet was it not by the ſame right decreed, that One ſhould be a Biſhop in each City and Church, but by the authority of the Church and the ſanctions of Councils. Of this ſober Jeſuit more anon.

8. The Learned Biſhop Andrews in his Epiſtles to Pet. Molinaeus, hathBiſh. Andrews. ſaid ſomewhat; but in his Scheme (Printed at Oxford, 1641. before the Treatiſes for Epiſcopacy) much more. But as to his Deſcription of the Jewiſh Form, we dare not thence gather that Chriſtians may imitate them, while we know that the ceſſation of the Jewiſh Policy and Law is ſo largely pleaded for by Paul, and that Chriſt is the perfect Lawgiver to his Church, and that we muſt not add or alter on pretence of ſuppoſed parity of reaſon. And as to his Reaſons for Dioceſanes from the New Teſtament, though the well ordering of them make them very taking, yet when examined, they are no other but what we have found and anſwered in others.

9. The truly Learned, Reverend, and Godly Primate Uſher, in theB. Uſher. ſame forementioned Collection of Treatiſes hath one of the Original of Biſhops and Metropolitans, and another of the Proconſular Aſia. But, 1. The utmoſt which he pleadeth for is no more than we acquieſce in, as p. 69that it was his Model or Reduction (publiſhed ſince by Dr. Bernard) which we humbly offered to his Majeſty as the means of our common concord. And he hath himſelf told me his Judgment, that Biſhops and Presbyters differ not as two Orders, but in Degree; And that Ordinis eſt Ordinare, or that he that hath the Order hath intrinſical power to Ordain; though he is regularly to do it under the Biſhops overſight; And therefore it is not invalid and null, but only irregular or ſchiſmatical, when it is done diſobediently againſt the Biſhop (and ſo may be diſabled in foro exteriore;) which Dr. Bernard alſo hath publiſhed of him; and Dr. Maſon in the ſame Treatiſe fullier proveth. And he took Presbyters to be Governours of the Flocks; and the Synods of Biſhops to be but for Concord, and not to have a proper Governing power over the particular Biſhops, as he hath himſelf expreſſed to me. Him therefore that is for us, we need not confute. And yet I muſt confeſs, that the great Argument which he and Biſhop Andrews, and Saravia, and all others uſe, from the title of Angel given to the Biſhops, Rev. 2. and 3. did never ſeem of any weight to me; nor moved my underſtanding that way at all: Believing that Tyconius his old Expoſition mentioned by Auſtin ††Lib. 3. c. 30. de Doctrin. Chriſtian. which Auguſtine ſeemeth to approve.is liker to be true, and that indeed, it is neither one Prelate nor all the Clergy, but the whole Churches that is meant by the Angel of the Churches.

For the Prophecy coming by Viſion, the word [Angel] is mentioned in the Viſion phraſe, and oft in that book is by all confeſſed to ſignifie collective Bodies, and more than ſingle Individuals: As Uſher (de Babilone) himſelf holdeth, that by [the falſe Prophet] in the ſingular number, is meant the Roman Clergy. It would be more tedious than neceſſary to recite the inſtances in that Book. I therefore who, becauſe of its obſcurity, am apt to be diſtruſtful of almoſt all Arguments that are fetcht from the dark Prophecies of Daniel, or the Revelations, am little ſatisfied with this from the name Angel. And who can believe them that ſay Timothy was then the Biſhop of Epheſus, and ſo excellent a perſon, as that none was like minded, as deſcribed by Paul; and yet that Chriſt had this againſt him, that he had loſt his firſt love, and muſt remember from whence he is fallen and repent, and do his firſt works or be rejected, Rev. 2. 4, 5. And in a word, that the Apoſtles, who placed holy perſons in the Miniſtry, had ſet ſuch over thoſe eminent Churches, as were neither hot nor cold, and had the reſt of the faults that are mentioned by Chriſt. And the whole ſtyle of the Text doth eaſily prove this Expoſition againſt theirs, Rev. 2. 2, 4, 7. As the praiſes and diſpraiſes there ſeem to referr to the whole Church, ſo v. 7. what can be more expreſs than [Hear what the Spirit ſaith unto the Churches.] And v. 10. Behold the Devil ſhall caſt ſome of you into priſon, that ye may be tryed, and ye ſhall have tribulation ten days: be thou faithful, &c. And again, v. 11. He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit ſaith unto the Churches] which is repeated and ſpoken to every one of the ſeven. v. 14, 15. It is liker to be the whole Society than the Biſhop that is reproved for having falſe Teachers and Hereticks among them, and are called quickly p. 70to repent: And v. 20. that ſuffered the Woman Jezebel to teach: For the Biſhops could not hinder falſe Teachers, but by Excommunicating them, and diſſwading the People from hearing them: But the People could have done more, even refuſed to hear them.

V. 23. And all the Churches ſhall know] ſeemeth to intimate that this was written to the Church.

V. 24. Unto you I ſay, and to the reſt in Thyatira, as many as have not this Doctrine, and have not known the depth of Satan, &c. Was this ſpoken to the Biſhop only?

Chap. 3. v. 1. Was it the Biſhop of Sardis only that had a name to live and was dead, and that was warned to be watchful and ſtrengthen the things which remain that are ready to die, whoſe works were not perfect before God? that muſt remember how he had received and heard—that had a few Names in Sardis, &c. And ſo of the reſt.

Obj. But it is ſaid, Chap. 1. v. 20. The ſeven Stars are the Angels of the ſeven Churches; and the ſeven Candleſticks are the ſeven Churches.

Anſ. And what can a man gather hence to ſatisfie himſelf in this point? whether the ſenſe be [As the heavenly Angels, are the Guardians of the Churches, ſo theſe Stars are thoſe Angels, in whoſe Perſon I ſpeak to the Churches themſelves that are ſignified by the Candleſticks:] Or [As the Angels are the Guardians of the Churches, ſo by that title, I ſignifie the whole Miniſtry that guide them, and by the Candleſticks the Churches, and I write to the whole. For as every Meſſage begins with [To the Angel,] ſo it endeth with [To the Churches.

Obj. The Biſhop was to deliver it to the Churches.

Anſ. This is precarious. 1. The Apoſtle wrote it, that both Paſtors and People might immediately read it, and did not intruſt it as an unwritten tradition to one, to be delivered to the reſt. 2. All the Paſtors were to deliver or teach it to the People, and not one Biſhop only. This therefore is no cogent Argument.

10. As for the Diſputers for Epiſcopacy at the Iſle of Wight, with KingThe Diſpute at the Iſle of Wight. Charles, they manage Saravia's Argument (fetcht from the Continuance of the Ordinary part of the Apoſtles Office) as he did before them (and many others) ſo well, that for my part I cannot confute them, but remain in doubt; and therefore have nothing to ſay againſt them. But that's nothing to our Caſe, whether every particular Organized Church ſhould have a Biſhop or the full Paſtoral Office in it.

11. As to Joh. Forbes his Irenic. he maintaineth but ſuch an EpiſcopacyJohn Forbes as we offered to his Majeſty in Biſhop Uſher's Reduction: He pleadeth for ſuch a Biſhop as is the Moderator of a Presbytery, p. 242, 243. and as muſt be ſubject to cenſure himſelf, p. 145. and that ſhall do nothing of weight without the Presbyteries conſent, p. 145. and as is ſtill bound to the Work of a Presbyters Office, p. 146. And that an Orthodox Church p. 71that hath no Biſhop or Moderator hath but a certain Oeconomical defect, but is ſtill a true Church, and hath the power that other Churches have that have Biſhops, p. 158. And that jure divino Presbyters have the Power of Ordaining as well as of Preaching and Baptizing, though they muſt uſe it under the Biſhops inſpection in thoſe places that have Biſhops, page 164. And he is more full for the Power of Presbyters Ordaining, and the validity of it, than any man that I now remember.

12. The two Books of the Bohemian Government of the Waldenſian Churches, Written by Laſcitius and Commenius, contain that very Form of Government, which I think the ſoundeſt of any that I have yet ſeen.

13. The Learned and Judicious Grotius, (before he turned to Caſſander's Grotius▪and Eraſmus's temperament in Religion) in his book de Imper. ſum. pot. circa ſacra, in almoſt all things ſpeaketh the ſame which I approve and plead for; though he be for ſome Epiſcopacy.

1. As to the Paſtoral power, it ſelf in whomſoever, he affirmeth it to be but Nuntiative, Declarative, Suaſory, and per conſenſum, and not any Imperium; Like the power of a Phyſitian, a Counſellor, and an Embaſſadour.

Chap. 4. But then by Imperium he meaneth that which is coactive by the Sword: And he acknowledgeth the power of the Miniſtry by the Word upon Conſenters, to be of Divine Inſtitution, ſo that they ſin againſt God, who do reject it. And if the Paſtors of the Church did meddle with no other power, we ſhould the ſooner be agreed. For my part I take the very power of the Keys, to be no other, than a power of applying God's Word to the Conſciences of the Penitent and Impenitent, and the Church; and a power of judging who is fit or unfit for Church-communion according to God's Word, which judgment we can no otherwiſe execute but by the ſame Word, and by forbearing or exerciſing our own Miniſterial actions to the perſon: (As a Phyſitian may refuſe to Medicate the unruly.)

In chap. 6. He ſpeaketh juſtly of the Princes power (as in the former.)

And ſo he doth chap. 7. of the uſe and power of Synods or Councils.

Chap. 8. He well vindicateth the Magiſtrate, and denyeth to the Church or Biſhops, the Legiſlative power, circa ſacra: and ſheweth that Canons are not proper Laws.

Chap. 9. He ſheweth the Juriſdiction, properly ſo called, belongeth to the Magiſtrate, and not to the Paſtors as ſuch, (Though of old they might be alſo Magiſtrates.)

He ſheweth that the uſe of the Keys is called Juriſdiction, but by the ſame figure by which Preaching is called Legiſlation (which is true as to the Declaration who is bound or looſe, in foro caeli; but Paſtors more properly judge who is to be taken into Church-communion or excluded.) p. 72The preſcript of Penance he ſaith is no Juriſdiction, but as the Councel of a Phyſitian, or Lawyer, or Philoſopher. That the denying of the Sacraments is not properly Juriſdiction, he thus (excellently) explaineth [p. 229. As he that Baptizeth, or as the old cuſtome was, puts the Euchariſt into ones mouth or hand, doth exerciſe an act of Miniſtry and not of Juriſdiction; ſo alſo he that abſtaineth from the ſame acts. For the reaſon of the viſible ſigns, and of the audible is the ſame: By what right therefore a Paſtor denounceth by-words to one that is manifeſtly flagitious, that he is an utter alien to the Grace of God; by the ſame right alſo he doth not Baptize him, becauſe it is the ſign of remiſſion of ſin; or if he be Baptized giveth him not the Euchariſt, as being the ſign of Communion with Chriſt. For the ſign is not to be given to him that the thing ſignified doth not agree to; nor are pearls to be given to ſwine: But, as the Deacon was wont to cry in the Church [Holy things are for the Holy] Yea it were not only againſt Truth, but againſt charity, to make him partaksr of the Lords Supper, who diſcerneth not the Lords Body, but eateth and drinketh judgment to himſelf: In theſe things while the Paſtor doth only ſuſpend his own act, and doth ☞ Be it known to poſterity that if the Prelates would have granted us but ſo much liberty, our diſtracted Churches might have had Concord.not exerciſe any Dominion over the acts of others, it is apparent that this belongeth to the vſe of Liberty, and not to the exerciſe of Juriſdiction. Such like is the caſe of a Phyſician refuſing to give an Hydropick water when he deſireth it, or in a grave perſon who reſuſeth to ſalute a profligate fellow, and in thoſe that avoid the company of the Leprous. (Only it muſt be remembred that this avoidance is by a Society governed therein by an Officer of Divine Inſtitution.)

Next he proceeds to the Churches duty, and ſheweth, 1. That as Cyprian ſaith, The Laity that is obedient to God's commands, ought to ſeparate themſelves from a ſinful Paſtor or Prelate (that is, that is groſly bad.) 2. That they ought to avoid familiarity with ſcandalous Chriſtians: As a Schollar may forſake a bad Teacher, and as an honeſt Man may leave the friendſhip of the flagitious. As for the names of Depoſition and Excommunication, he ſaith, That we muſt interpret the name by the thing, and not the thing by the name; And that the Church depoſeth a Paſtor when they forſake him or refuſe to uſe him, and Excommunicateth a man, when they avoid his communion, (and declare him unmeet for communion.) In all which the Church uſeth her own right, but taketh not away another mans.

Then for the Canonical Enquiries after faults, and impoſitions of Penence, or delays of abſolution, he ſheweth that both the Canons and Judgments by them being but prudential Determinations of Modes and Circumſtances, bound none but Conſenters, without the Magiſtrates Law, except as the Law of Nature bound them to avoid offences. (He ſhould add, [and as obedience in general is due to Church-guides of Chriſt's appointment.]) And how the Magiſtrate may conſtrain the Paſtors to their duty.

Chap. 10. He ſheweth that there are two perpetual Functions in the Church, Presbyters and Deacons: I call them Presbyters (ſaith he) with all the Ancient Church, who feed the Church with the Preaching of the Word, the Sacraments p. 73and the Keys, which by Divine Right are individual (or inſeparable.) (Note. that.)

And §. 27. He ſaith, It is doubtful whether Paſtors where no Biſhops are, and ſo are under none, though over none, are to be numbered with Biſhops or meer Presbyters.

§. 31. His counſel for the choice of Paſtors is, that (as in Juſtinian's time) none be forced on the People againſt their wills, and yet a power reſerv'd in the chief Rulers to reſcind ſuch elections as are made to the deſtruction of Church or Commonwealth.

Chap. 11. §. 10. He ſheweth that Biſhops are not by Divine precept.

And §. 1. That therefore the different Government of the Churches that have Biſhops, or that have none, ſhould be no hindrance to Unity.

And §. 10, 11. That ſome Cities had no Biſhops, and ſome more than one: And that not only in the Apoſtles …ays, but after, one City had ſeveral Biſhops, in i…tation of the jews, who to every Synagogue had an Archiſynagogus. Page 357. He ſheweth that there have been at Rome and elſewhere long vacancies of the Biſhops See, in which the Presbyters Governed the Church without a Biſhop; And ſaith, that all the Ancients do confeſs, that there is no act ſo proper to a Biſhop, but a Presbyter may do it, except the right of Ordination. Yet ſheweth, p. 358. that Presbyters ordained with Biſhops, and expoundeth the Canon thus, that Presbyters ſhould Ordain none, contemning the Biſhop.

And p. 359. He ſheweth that where there is no Biſhop, Presbyters may Ordain, as Altiſiodorenſis ſaith among the Schoolmen. And queſtioneth again whether the Presbyters that have no Biſhops over them be not rather Biſhops than meer Presbyters; citing Ambroſe's words [He that had no one above him, was a Biſhop] (what would he have ſaid of our City and Corporation Paſtors that have divers Chapels and Curates under them: Or of our Preſidents of Synods: or ſuch as the Paſtor of the firſt Town that ever I was Preacher in (Bridgnorth in Shropſhire) who had ſix Pariſhes in an exempt Juriſdiction, four or five of them great ones, and kept Court as ordinary like the Biſhops, being under none but the Archbiſhop.)

And §. 12. He ſheweth that there was great cauſe for many Churches to lay by Epiſcopacy for a time.

And p. 360. he ſaith [Certainly Chriſt gave the Keys to be exerciſed by the ſame men, to whom he gave the power of Preaching and Baptizing. That which God hath joyned let no man ſeparate.] (But then how ſhould Satan have uſed the Churches as he hath done?) And he ſheweth of meer ruling Elders (as he had done of Biſhops) that they are not neceſſary, but are lawful; and that it may be proved from Scripture that they are not diſpleaſing to God; and that formerly the Laity joyned in Councils. Only he puts theſe Cautions (which I conſent to) 1. That they be not ſet up as by God's command. 2. That they meddle no otherwiſe with the Paſtoral Office, or Excommunication, than by way of Counſel. 3. That none be choſen that are unfit. 4. That they uſe no coactive power, but what p. 74is given them by the Soveraign. 5. That they know their power to be mutable, as being not by Gods command, but from man.

And Chap. 11. §. 8. He delivereth his opinion of the Original of Epiſcopacy, that it was not fetcht from the Temple pattern ſo much as from the Synagogues,) where as he ſaid before, every Synagogue had a chief Ruler.)

14. As for J. D. and many other leſſer Writers, (Sir Thomas Aſton, &c.) who ſay but half the ſame with thoſe forementioned, it is not worthJ. D. &c. your time and labour to read any more. Animadverſions on them.

15. But the great Learned M. Ant. de Dominis Spalatenſis deſerveth a more diſtinct conſideration: who in his very learned Books De Repub. Eccles. M. Ant. de Dom. Spalatenſis.doth copiouſly handle all the matter of Church-Government. But let us conſider what it is that he maintaineth. In his lib. 5. c. 1. he maintaineth that [the whole proper Eccleſiaſtical Power is meerly Spiritual. In cap. 2. that no Power with true Prefecture, Juriſdiction, Coaction and Domination belongeth to the Church. In c. 3. he ſheweth that an improper Juriſdiction belongs to it. Where he overthroweth the old Schoolmens Deſcription of Power of Juriſdiction, and ſheweth alſo the vanity of the common diſtinction of Power of Order and of Juriſdiction; and maintaineth, 1. that Power of Juriſdiction followeth, ab Ordine, as Light from the Sun: 2. That all the Power of the Keys which is exerciſed for Internal effects, although about External Matters, (of Worſhip or Government) belongeth directly to the Poteſtas Ordinis: 3. That the Power of Juriſdiction as diſtinct from Order, and reſerved to the Biſhops, is but the power about the Ordering of External things, which is uſed Principally and Directly for an External Effect (that is Church order.) §. 5. p. 35. 4. That it is fooliſh to ſeparate power of Order from any power of Juriſdiction whatſoever, that is properly Eccleſiaſtical, it being wholly Spiritual. 5. The Epiſcopal Juriſdiction (not properly Eccleſiaſtical) he maketh to conſiſt in ordering Rites and Ceremonies and Circumſtances, and Temporals about the Church, and about ſuch Modal Determinations about particular perſons and actions as are matters of humane prudence, (which have only a General Rule in Nature or Scripture. 6. By which (though he hold Epiſcopacy Jure Divino) that it is but ſuch things that he ſuppoſeth proper to the Biſhop (which the Magiſtrate may determine and make Laws for, as Grotius and others prove at laſt, and himſelf after; and as Sir Roger Twiſden hath Hiſtorically proved to have been uſed by the Kings of England, Hiſtor. Def. Cap. 5. 7. That all Eccleſiaſtical power whatſoever is fully and perfectly conjunct with Order. page 36. 8. That this plenitude of power is totally and equally in all Biſhops and Presbyters lawfully Ordained: and that it is a meer vanity to diſtinguiſh in ſuch power of Order, Plenitudinem poteſtatis a parte ſolicitudinis. 9. That this equal power of the Biſhop and Presbyter floweth from Ordination; and is the Eſſential Ordinary Miniſterial power. 10. That this vain ſeparating Power of Order and Juriſdiction p. 75is the whole Foundation of Popery. §. 7. p. 36. & paſſi… 37, &c. 21. He frequently calleth that [the Eſſential power] in which Biſhops and Presbyters are equal, and ſo taketh the reſt but for Accidental. 12. He thus deſcribeth the Biſhops power of Juriſdiction, c. 3. p. 39. §. 13. [About thoſe things which are conſtituted in the Church, only by Humane Eccleſiaſtical Right, there is in the Church true Juriſdiction not neceſſarily depending on the Sacred Order it ſelf, if there be any at all ſeparate from Order. Such as Licenſing a Biſhop to Ordain in anothers Dioceſs, &c. For theſe acts are not Actus Sacri neque ſpirituales, neque attingunt directè quicquam ſupernaturale, ſed ſunt merè temporales, & circa rem externam & temporalem qua eſt mera applicatio, &c. Theſe are not Sacred nor Spiritual, nor touch any thing directly that is Supernatural, but are meerly Temporal, and about an External and Temporal matter, Et his ſolis verum eſt, &c. So that it is moſt evident, that as God hath left to Humane Prudence the Ordering of ſome Modes and Circumſtances of Worſhip and Diſcipline and Church Order, and by his General Laws, ſo Spalatenſis thought that all the Biſhops proper Juriſdiction lay in theſe things, which were of Humane Right, and that all things of divine appointment were equally belonging to the Presbyters. Where again I deſire it may be obſerved. 1. That Magiſtrates may determine of ſuch things, and ſo make void or needleſs ſuch an Epiſcopacy. 2. That it is moſt certain that many things of External Order belong to a Presbyter to determine, as to one that is the Conducter of the Sacred Aſſemblies: As what Text to preach on, what Method to uſe, what Chapter to read: where and at what hour the People ſhall meet, how long they ſhall ſtay, what Tune to ſing a Pſalm in, and abundance of the like. So that even that Juriſdiction which he excepeth to the Biſhop is common to him with the Presbyter that officiateth: And all that can be pretended is that it belongeth to him, to determine ſuch Circumſtances as equally belong to many Churches (which yet Synods of Presbyters may do as effectually for Concord.) 3. That indeed there is no true Eccleſiaſtical act which tendeth not to Internal Spiritual effects: Publick Admonitions and Confeſſions as well as private are for the humbling of the Sinner, and the exercise of Repentance; and Excommunications and Abſolutions in publick are not only nor chiefly for the external Order of the Church, but for the preſerving of the peoples ſouls from ſin, and for the warning of others, and for the preſerving in their minds a due eſteem of the holineſs of our Religion, and the neceſſity of holineſs in us, and to convince thoſe without, that God's Laws and Ways and People are more holy than thoſe of the World. This is a clear and certain truth: and therefore according to Spalatenſis, Preſbyters muſt in publick as well as private Admonitions, and Abſolutions, and Excommunications, have equal power with Biſhops, except as to the ordering of the Circumſtantials of it. Which though he ſometime ſeem to reſerve for the Biſhop, yet (to do him right) when he doth ſo, he …th that it is a mixt power: As it is the exerciſe of the Keys, it is Eſſential to the Sacred Office, common to both; but as it is a prudential determination p. 76of Circumſtances according to Humane Right, directly and principally for outward and not for inward effects, it is the Biſhops Juriſdiction. So that really he maketh the Biſhop, as ſuch, to be but the Maſter of Order and Ceremonies, where the Magiſtrate doth not do it himſelf, and where it belongeth not to the Officiating Paſtor as ſuch.

His cap. 4. is to prove that the power for Internal Effects of Grace in the Church by External acts, is exerciſed only Miniſterially, by Miniſters as ſuch, Inſtanced cap: 5. in Baptiſme cap. 6. in the Lords Supper, cap. 7. in Confeſſions and Penance; and cap. 9. in that Fxcommunication which is the exerciſe of the Keys (for he miſtaketh in excluding Baptiſm from the Keys, which indeed is the firſt uſe for intromiſſion.) Cap. 12. He again purpoſely ſheweth who are the Miniſters of each Ordinance. And firſt again Vindicateth his Uniting of Order and proper Juriſdiction Eccleſiaſtical as before.

§. 4. p. 465. He confidently ſaith, that to him it is a moſt certain thing that the power of Order, is of the Word, Sacrament and Keys, and that it is, plena, tota, integra, fully, totally, intirely in every Biſhop and lawful Proſbyter.

§. 22. p. 472. He ſaith, that Confirmation is neither a true Sacrament, but a part of the Ceremonies of Baptiſm; nor is it at all of Divine, but of humane Eccleſiaſtical Inſtitution; nor doth it ſuppoſe any ſpecial power given by God to him that adminiſtreth it, for any ſpecial ſupernatural effect▪ But the Church for honour reſerveth this Ceremony to the Biſhop.

And §. 24. He ſaith, [And why are Biſhops ſo rigid that they will not permit to their Pariſh Miniſters the Faculty of Confirming, ſpecially when they themselves come very ſeldome ††Yea, never into one Pariſh of ten or twenty.into thoſe Pariſhes to viſit. And verily thoſe Biſhops which have large Dioceſſes of Chriſtians in the Turkiſh Dominions, as my Arch-Biſhoprick of Spalato, ought (if this Ceremony were of any great account) to give their Pariſh Miniſters there living free power of Confirming: Yea, if the Biſhops deny it them, the Pariſh Miniſters may and ought to exerciſe this Ceremony by their own Authority.

And here I will tell Poſterity, that if we could have but got our Prelates,☞ &c. to have Confirmed to us but one Word, which the King granted us, pre tempore, only in his Declar. of Eccleſ. Affairs, viz. that Confirmation as a ſolemn Tranſition from Infant Church-State, into the Adult, ſhould be but by the Miniſters [CONSENT] (as knowing his People better than the Biſhop that never before ſaw them, or heard of them, or examined them) it had healed one of the greateſt of our Breaches: But our Concord was not thought worth this little price; Though there is not in all the places that ever I lived in, one Perſon of an hundred (if five hundred) that I can hear of, that ever was Confirmed, or ever ſought it or regarded it. And yet their Rubrick ſaith, that we muſt not give the Lords Supper to any that are not Confirmed, or ready for it: Yet have we no power to require of any Man a Proof or Certificate of his Confirmation, nor can we know whether he be Confirmed or not; Nor can we refuſe any at the p. 77Lords Table that refuſeth to be examined by us, whether he be ready to be Confirmed, (ſave Infants.)

And in that 12. chap. §. 25, 26, 27. p. 473. Spalatenſis again ſheweth, that the Power of the Keys for binding and looſing, belongeth to Biſhops and Presbyters as Miniſters. And though he reſerve the Publick uſe of them to the Biſhop, he ſaith, that he may commit it to a Presbyter. For it is Mixt, and hath partly the External Juriſdiction which the Biſhop received by his proper Epiſcopal Ordination; and partly, yea much rather (or more) the Internal, by the Keys, which they have by virtue of their Presbyterial Ordination, in equality with the Presbyters. The External, becauſe it is External, may therefore be delegated to another, even a Lay-man: (which is it, which the Parliament of Scotland have lately declared to be in the King.) And doth not all this ſhew what Epiſcopacy is? Even a Magiſtrates Office, Circa Sacra, vindicated by Grotius and others. But (ſaith he) they cannot delegate the inward power which is properly of the Keys, becauſe this dependeth of the Sacred Presbyterial Order, both in fieri, in eſſe, in conſervari & operari. For the Presbyterial Order hath always the Keys annexed.—For when any is Ordained Presbyter, the Keys are given him, and Juriſdiction, with Orders, by Divine Right.

And §. 28. p. 474. Seeing the Apoſtles gave the Keys equally to all Biſhops and Presbyters,—No man can by Divine Right, reſerve part of the Keys to himſelf alone, and leave another part to others.

Moreover in lib. 2. c. 3. §. 61. p. 210. He ſheweth that Clement, Linus, and Anacletus, were all Biſhops in Rome at once.

Lib. 2. c. 9. §. 1. p. 282. He ſheweth, that Biſhops and Presbyters are wholly equal in all Eſſentials, which belong to the Eccleſiaſtical Miniſtries to be exerciſed towards the People. And that even in Government, the reſt of the Presbyters (without excepting any) in every Church make one College, of which the Biſhop is the Head; all Ordained to the ſame Cure and Government of Souls. (So this Dioceſs hath between a thouſand and two thouſand Miniſters, living ſome of them an hundred or ſixſcore Miles diſtance, to make a College to the Biſhop that is uſually at London.) How the Biſhop is bound to Govern with them, ſee him, §. 4.

And §. 5. To be plainly underſtood, he ſaith, We Biſhops therefore muſt all remember, that All the Presbyters are our Brethren, and Collegues in the Miniſtry; not our Servants or Slaves, and that by Divine Right they have no leſs power in feeding the people of God than we have: And if we exerciſe any External ☜ampler Juriſdiction over them, not properly Eccleſiaſtical, it is not of our own power, but delegated from the Magiſtrates power, as I ſhall prove lib. 6. and 10.

Yet plainer, §. 8, 9. p. 285. Theſe Pariſh Presbyters have by Divine Right, full Power in the Miniſtry of Chriſt, and in theſe Pariſhes are the Ordinary Miniſters, but under the Biſhop. For the Biſhop alone hath a General Eccleſiaſtical Government to ſettle Miniſters in their Dioceſs—But being applyed to the Government of their Church, they have the ordinary power, but Presbyterial in that Church.—By poſitive Right only Biſhops are deputed to certain Seats.— p. 78Yet Presbyters have ſo this Ordinary power, that they cannot by Humane Eccl…ſiaſtical Right reduce it into Act, till applyed by the Biſhop in his Dioceſs.—

And c. 9. §. 11. p. 286. …. 13. p. 287. He ſheweth, that in Vacancies, or the Biſhops Abſence, the Clergy of Presbyters have the whole Epiſcopal power of Government.

And p. 288, 289. He laboureth to prove, that one Church had many Biſhops, and that it is but Eccleſiaſtical Law or Cuſtome that one Church ſhould have but one Biſhop.

And §. 15. That if the Canons prohibited not, a Biſhop might make all his Pariſh Presbyters full Biſhops, as (§. 16.) in the Miniſterial Eſſentials towards the Faithful, they are by Divine Right equals. Vid. & §. 20. page 291.

This is enough to ſay of Spalatenſis, ſave that all that he ſaith for Biſhops againſt us, is ſo little a part of what is ſaid by the reſt, that it can require no new Anſwer. And if this great Moderator, (who returned to Rome, though for a miſerable impriſonment and end) becauſe we are not yet near enough to Antiquity, (or rather being flattered into covetous and ambitious hopes) be able to prove no greater a difference between Biſhops and Presbyters, we need not think that any other is like to do it.

16. The laſt great, Learned, Sober Defender of Epiſcopacy, and theDr. Hammond anſwered. laſt that I need to mention here, is Doctor Hammond, who in his Annotations, and his Treat. of the Keys, and eſpecially his Diſſertations againſt Blondel, and his Defence of them againſt the London▪ Miniſters, hath ſaid much in this Cauſe. But his way is new (ſave that he followeth Petavius in the main ſuppoſition:) He forſaketh almoſt all the Fathers, and almoſt all the Patrons of Epiſcopacy of later times (who have written for it) in the Expoſition of all the Texts of Scripture which mention the Elders and Biſhops of Churches in thoſe times, ſuppoſing that they all ſpeak of Biſhops only.

In his Treat. of the Keys, he maintaineth that the power of them was given to the Apoſtles onelyonly by Chriſt, and to Biſhops as their Succeſſors by the Apoſtles. But I take it for undeniable truth, that the Biſhops and Elders ſettled in every Church by the Apoſtles in their own time, had this power, and I need not expect a contradiction in it. And how fitly thoſe are called the Apoſtles Succeſſors, whom they ſet over the Churches in their own time, even from the beginning that they ſettled Churches, and with whom they continued in the ſame Churches many Months or Years (as Paul in Aſia, I leave to others to judge.

But the Queſtion is not whether Biſhops have the power of the Keys, but whether all Presbyters have it not alſo? And 1. He ſheweth that (according to the Canons,) the Presbyters might do nothing in this or in other Acts of Miniſtration, without the Biſhop. 2. That our Engliſh Ordainers, though they ſay, Receive the Holy Ghoſt, whoſe ſins you do remit, it p. 79ſhall be remitted, &c. Do not give the Presbyters all the Power of binding and looſing but ſo much as the Biſhops or the Governours are preſumed to have thought ſit to impart to them (which he ſaith is. 1. The declaring in the Church the abſolution of penitents after the Confeſſion. 2. The abſolving them by way of prayer before the Sacrament. 3. And by Baptiſmal waſhing, and 4. Upon Confeſſion to the ſick, and in private Conference, and Confeſſion, &c. Which yet he ſaith, [Is by Chriſts Authority committed to the Presbyters.] 3. He ſaith, [All this will not extend to the abſolving from the bond of excommunication, or proportionably to ſuch power of binding, any further (at moſt,) thau to confer the firſt power of it; which if it be then given, doth yet remain (as the other Power of Preaching, and adminiſtring the Sacraments) bound and reſtrained from being exerciſed, till they be further looſed by the donation of a Second Power.]

Anſ. But 1. Either he was not able, or not willing, to tell us whether this Power be given the Presbyters or not. For he avoideth it, by ſaying [at moſt] and if it be given.] If not able, his ability muſt be plainly deficient as to the deciſion of our main controverſie of the difference between Biſhops and Presbyters, which dependeth on it: If unwilling, he was unwilling to give us any ſolid ſatisfactory deciſion of this Caſe.

2. Being his Neighbour, I wrote in his Life time, a Confutation of that Aſſertion, that the ordained received their Office and Power properly from the Ordainer as the neereſt Efficient of it, (in my Diſput of Ordination, in my Diſput. of Church-Government) and I proved that the Power or Office is immediately from Chriſt, and that the Ordainers do but deſign the Perſon that ſhall receive it, and Miniſterially deliver him poſſeſſion by an inveſting Sign.

3. Either the Office of a Presbyter is of Divine Inſtitution, or of Humane: Either fixed by the Holy Ghoſt in the Apoſtles, immutably; or made, and alterable by the Biſhops? If the Office be of Divine inſtitution, and fixed for the Churches conſtant uſe, whether by Chriſt immediately or by the Holy Ghoſt in the Apoſtles,) than it is not in the Biſhops Power to Altar it: And ſo whatever the Ordainers pleaſe to give them, is none of the meaſure of their Power: As the Arch-Biſhop may Crown or anoint the King, and yet not give him what Power he pleaſe: Or rather as it is of Divine appointment, that the Husband ſhould be the Governour of the Wife: And ſhe that chooſeth him, and he that Marrieth them, cannot alter it, nor do they give him his meaſure of Power as they pleaſe, but ſuppoſe him endowed with that by God, and do only chooſe the Perſon that ſhall receive it; and Miniſterially inveſt him in the Poſſeſſion of it. And if the Prieſt that marrieth them ſhould by any words Contradict, or limit this inſtitution of God, it were a Nullity; and invalid. If he do but ſay, I pronounce you Husband and Wife: He therefore pronounceth the man to have that Power of a Husband which God hath given him, though he vainly ſay after, you ſhall have but ſo much, or ſo much of it. And ſo it is in preſent Caſe: If God have made the Miniſterial Office, he hath made it ſomething p. 80conſtituted of its eſſential parts; And if ſo what man hath Power to alter it. But if it be humane, yea, and made by the Biſhops then I confeſs they may alter it, or deſtroy it. And if a Presbyter have what power the Ordainers pleaſe to give him, every Ordainer may alter the Office and make a new Species of Church Miniſters at his pleaſure: Prove that and our diſpute is at an end. But Papiſts, Greeks, and Proteſtants are agreed againſt it.

4. If Presbyters receive that which he calleth [the firſt Power] (which he would not deny, though he would not grant) it is all that at preſent I am pleading for it: And it isall that in their ordination they receive (as he ſaith) as to the Word and Sacraments. If then the Office of a Presbyter continue the ſame Power of the Keys as to Excommunication, and Abſolution, as it doth of adminiſtring the Word and Sacraments, at preſent I reſt ſatisfied with this (In which Learned Spalatenſis, and thoſe that go with him, cannot be confuted) For this proveth that their Divinely-inſtituted Office Eſſentially containeth this Power of the Keys, though to be exerciſed under the inſpection of a Superiour.

5. And if this Inſpection would prove that they have not the Power or that their Office, or Order is therefore diſtinct, it will alſo prove that Biſhops have not the Power of the Keys, becauſe they exerciſe it under the Inſpection of Metropolitans, Arch-Biſhops, Primates, or Patriarchs: And alſo that they are of a diſtinct Order from all theſe: And that a Phyſition hath no Power to Guide or Govern his voluntary Patients in order to Cure, and that he is off a diſtinct Office from the Colledge and Preſident, becauſe he is under their inſpection. And are not all Biſhops under the Government of the King, as well as Phyſitions and other Subjects: And have they no Power of the Keys, becauſe he ruleth them.

And as a Presbyter might do nothing without the Biſhop, ſo no one Biſhop could do any thing without other Biſhops: For he had no Epiſcopal Power till they ordained him.

And as to after Government or that which he calleth the grant of a Second Power.

6. Is it any thing but Humane Licenſe to Exerciſe the Power of Office of Divine inſtitution before received? And is not the Magiſtrates Licenſe as neceſſary to the Biſhop and the Presbyter too, as the Biſhops is to the Presbyter.

7. And I take it for undenied among Chriſtians, that humane Power of Government, extendeth but to the Ordering and not the Nulling of a Function inſtituted by God. It is not referred to King or Biſhop, whether there ſhall be a Preaching or none, Sacraments, or none, Church diſcipline and exerciſe of the Keys, or none; no more than whether there ſhall be a Scripture, and Divine Law, a Chriſt, a Heaven, and whether men ſhall be good or bad, ſaved or damned: But only by whom, and when, and how, this Divine Function ſhall be ſo exerciſed, as may beſt attain the end, as to thoſe circumſtances not determined of by God; and not contradicting Gods Inſtitutions. Therefore if the Biſhops ſay that the Preachers of the Goſpel p. 81ſhall be ſilenced (perhaps by hundreds or thouſands) while the neceſſity of the Peoples Souls is undeniable, their Authority in this ſhould hinder no man from going to Preach (further than their violence hindreth.) And ſo by his own Rule it muſt be as to Diſcipline, if Diſcipline be a Work belonging to a Presbyter. And as Spalatenſis ſaith of Confirmation, the Presbyter ſhould do it, though the Biſhop rorbid him.

8. The Second Power which the Presbyter muſt receive from the Prelate for Teaching, Worſhipping, and Governing the Plock, is either, 1. For the exerciſe of it in General to any fit perſons, or elſe for the limitation of him to ſuch a particular Flock. 2. And it is either a General Licenſe or power at once given to do all his Work, or to do this of Government whenever there is cauſe, or elſe it is a particular Licenſe for each particular act.

1. We deny not, but that as a Phyſician Licenſed to practice, is not thereby made the Phyſician of this or that Perſon, Hoſpital or City, but have a particular Call for ſuch an Exerciſe or Application of his skill. So an Ordained Miniſter of Chriſt hath no prepared Object on which to Exerciſe a Paſtoral Office, but by a particular Call to ſuch a Flock. But however you Cenſure our ſimplicity for it, we are reſolved to believe, till you ſay more againſt it, 1. That the ſame may be ſaid of a Biſhop too; and therefore by your Argument, when this Biſhop is fixed in a particular Flock, he receiveth a ſecond power as you call it, and ſo without it hath not the power of the Keys any more than the Presbyter; and ſo muſt be of a diſtinct Order from the Biſhops that give him his ſecond power: And who giveth them theirs? And if▪ you riſe to a Patriarch or Pope, what Superiour of another Order giveth them their ſecond Power? 2. That inſtitution or fixing a man (before Ordained) to a particular Flock, doth not make him of another Order or Office, nor is a new Ordination; nor is he as oft Ordained and made of another Office, as he changeth his Flock, or receiveth a new Licenſe from the Biſhop or the King, (from whom I had rather have it.) 3. That the People as well as the Biſhop (if not much more) do give the Miniſter this opportunity for the exerciſe of his Office, (as the Patient chooſeth his Phyſician.) And yet it is my Opinion that this will not prove that the People are his Governours, much leſs that they give him a new Order or Office. And of old the People choſe their Biſhops themſelves: It will be as much honour for you Learnedly to prove that there were no Kings in the World till Biſhops made them, as to confute D. Blondels Hiſtorical proof of the Peoples ancient choice of their Biſhops.

2. And as to a General Licenſe, I will thank the King for it, yea, or any man that hath power to hinder me, that he will give me leave to Preach and Exerciſe my Office: But I do not think that every man that doth not hinder me when he can, doth give me power. And if a Biſhop be ſo extraordinary good as not to ſilence nor hinder a Miniſter from Preaching Chriſt, I do not think that this man is an Uſurper in Preaching the Goſpel, p. 82for want of a Licenſe or ſecond Power: Nor yet in exerciſing the reſt of his Office, where he and the People do conſent. Theſe things ſeem plain to us, and they that (whether by Learning, or the Love of Riches and Honour and Domination) are made wiſer than we, may ſuffer ſuch Fools gladly, while themſelves are (in re vel ſpe) Rich, Honourable and wiſe. 3. And what is Ordination but a General Inveſtiture in the power of performing the Miniſterial Office? And why may not the General Power or Licenſe be given at once as at twice? I think [Take thou Authority to Preach the Word of God, and Adminiſter the Holy Sacraments, and the Diſcipline of the Church, when thou art thereto lawfully called, (that is, haſt opportunity and fit Objects) is a General Licenſe: And a Man may preſently Exerciſe this Office on Conſenters: Unleſs the ſence be [Take thee power when it ſhall be given thee.]

3. But if it be a Particular Licenſe that is here meant by the grant of ſecond power, I confeſs that there is ſomewhat conſiderable in it, and that in old time the Biſhop and his Clergy living together, and meeting in the ſame Church, the Presbyters (like our Pariſh Curates now) were in all the Worſhip of the day, and in their privater Miniſtry to the People to be ruled by the Biſhop, and to Modifie and Circumſtantiate all as he directed them: And ſo may it be again. But ſure a Miniſter is not to travel an hundred miles to the Biſhop, to know whether he ſhall viſit this ſick man, or give the Sacrament to the other, and to know what Chapter he ſhall read, and ſuch like? If it be not a General Licenſe that is meant, it muſt needs ſuppoſe the Biſhops preſence.

9. And ſeeing the Biſhops may Licenſe a Presbyter to uſe the Keys, the opening of this will help our underſtandings about the nature of the Biſhops Office. There is no act of Juriſdiction which they do not Ordinarily commit to others. The ſentence of Excommunication and Abſolution is ordinarily decreed by a Lay-Chancellor. (And Spalatenſis ſaith, that Epiſcopal Juriſdiction may be done by a Lay Delegate.) The ſame ſentence is Pronounced in Court by a Lay-Man, or a meer Presbyter. The ſame ſentence is publiſhed in the Church by a Presbyter or Deacon. And a Prince may give a Licenſe to exerciſe the Miniſtry to which we were Ordained.

I enquire then, 1. Whether the granting of this Epiſcopal Power, be a making that Man a Biſhop that it's granted to? If ſo, a Biſhop, a Preſbyter, and a Chancellor are all of one Office, when thus impowred. If not ſo, then a Lay-man, or one of another Office, may have power to do the Work of the Biſhops Office. And what is the Office (tell me if you can) beſide Authority and Obligation to do the Work? A Lay-man and Preſbyter may by the Biſhop be Authorized and Obliged to do the Work of a Biſhop, and this ordinarily as an Office: (For ſo they do,) Ergo, a Chancellor and a Presbyter may be made really a Biſhop, and yet in their eſteem remain a Lay-man and a Presbyter ſtill. And is not that a Lay Office which a Lay-man may be Commiſſioned to do? If a Lay-man were but Commiſſioned to do the Work of a Presbyter (to Teach a Church ordinarily, p. 83to Adminiſter the Sacraments, and to Excommunicate and Abſolve in foro internae poenitentialis, either it would make the Man a Presbyter, or it would be a Nullity. And if it be not ſo with the Biſhops Office, what is the Reaſon? Is it not becauſe it is not of Divine Specification and Inſtitution, but Humane, and therefore mutable, or ſuch as Men may parcel out, and commit to Lay-men by pieces as they pleaſe? So much to Dr. Hammond's Appropriation of the Power of the Keys in that Treatiſe.

As to his Annotations, I ſhall have occaſion to recite them hereafter,The Annotations. among thoſe that give up the Dioceſan Cauſe (as oppoſed by us) and therefore ſhall here paſs them by.

His Diſſertations againſt Blondel, have a Premonition about Ordination, which though moſt confident, I ſhall manifeſt, when I come to the point of Ordination, to be moſt weak; and indeed have done it before his death in my Diſput. of Ordin.

His firſt Preliminary Diſſertation of Antichriſt, of the Myſtery of Iniquity and of Diotrephes, I will not be ſo needleſly tedious as to meddle with any further then to ſay that I will believe Dr. Hammond here, and in his Annot. on 2 Theſ. 2. when I am fallen into ſo deep a ſleep, as to dream, 1. That the famous Coming of Chriſt, and our gathering together to him, (which is a great Article of the Chriſtian Faith) is but Titus his Deſtruction of Jeruſalem; and that the reward promiſed to all that love his appearing, is meant to all that love the ſaid Deſtruction of Jeruſalem; 2. And that this Deſtruction was not to be called nigh, or at hand, which fell out ſo few Years after. 3. And that the Gentiles of remote Countries were ſo ſhaken in mind and moved about a Queſtion of a few Years diſtance of the Deſtruction of the Jews, more than about Chriſt's coming to the Common Judgment. 4. And that the Gnoſticks were indeed ſuch terrible Perſecutors of the Church, (who were diſperſed Subjects) when their Doctrine was but that they might diſſemble to eſcape Perſecution themſelves; and greater Perſecutions were near? and not the Gnoſticks, nor Jews, but Nero beheaded Paul; and the Jews themſelves were baniſhed Rome? 5. And that Simon Magus was indeed ſo famous a Fellow, as to be taken for the ſupream God, when Church Writers ſpeak ſo uncertainly of his conflicts with Peter as of a doubtful ſtory, and the evidence is ſo obſcure, and the Roman Hiſtories ſay ſo little of him? He might as well have thought the Apoſtle would have made all that ado about James Naylor, if he had been then alive. 6. And that there were not many other Hereticks as well as the Gnoſticks that troubled the Churches, if Epiphanius knew how to name them and deſcribe them rightly, or Irenaeus before him, or John in Rev. 2. and 3. before them. 7. And that Simon Magus and his Hereſie was a Myſtery of Iniquity not revealed when Paul wrote the ſecond Epiſtle to the Theſſalonians. 8. And that many had not then followed him and fallen away to Hereſie. 9. Or that by the Apoſtaſie that muſt firſt come, is meant the Apoſtles ſeparation from the Jews, and Moſes's Law; As if p. 84he had ſaid, we will firſt ſeparate, and that ſhall bring perſecution on you, but till we do that, it is with-held. 10. Or that the ſaid ſeparation was not done by degrees, ſome before this, and ſome after. 11. Or that the difference between the Jews perſecution of the Chriſtians, before the Apoſtles Apoſtaſie, and after it, was indeed ſo great as to be the Criſis of the Antichriſts Revelation. 12. And that poor Simon ſhould be the Man that ſitteth in the Temple of God, and oppoſed and exalted himſelf above all that is called God, when as the Scripture never once nameth him after his deprecation of the Apoſtles curſe or threatning; though Nicolaitanes are named, and Alexander, Hymenaeus and Philetus named, and other Adverſaries, and all the terrible things foretold, which are here ſuppoſed to be done by Simon, and his Doctrine? What, were all the Sacred Writers afraid to name him when they recited all the Evils that he muſt do, and are ſuppoſed to make it a great part of all the Epiſtles, and the Hiſtory in Acts 15. and when he had been ſo ſharply rebuked and humbled before, Act. 8. 13. That the foreign, he that with-holdeth, till he be taken out of the way, is not meant of any perſon, power or ſtate, but the aforeſaid ſeparation of the Apoſtles. 14. That verſe 8. that the breath of Chriſt's own mouth, ſignifieth St. Peter's words that caſt down Simon when he fell and hurt him; and that the brightneſs of his coming, or the appearing of his own preſence, is nothing but the foreſaid Deſtruction of Jeruſalem. 15. And ſo many of the Gnoſticks and Hereticks, that troubled all the Churches of Aſia and other Countries, were got together into Jeruſalem, as that they might be ſaid to be conſumed and deſtroyed there, who ſo long after troubled the Churches. 16. And when I can believe that the Revelation is made up of ſuch a ſence, and that moſt or much of it, was fulfilled before it was revealed and written, and all the reſt fulfilled long ago (about Conſtantine's days) except one Parentheſis, or a few Verſes in the 20th Chapter. And that the Reſurrection and Thouſand Years reign of the Martyrs, is that 1000 Years from Conſtantine's beginning, in which the Biſhops had Wealth and Honour, and ſate on Thrones, and judged the People in Courts, as our Lay-Chancellors now do; and that this Glory, Wealth, and Grandure of Prelates, is the Churches Reſurrection, Glory and Felicity: And that theſe happy thouſand Years continued 700 Years after the riſing of Mahomet; and included thoſe 8th, 9th, 10th, and 11th Ages, which Eraſmus and all learned men (even Bellarmine himſelf) ſo dolefully bewail. And that when Boys, and Whores, and Sorcerers, and Murderers, and Hereticks, and Schiſmaticks ruled the Church, they were happy that had a part in this firſt Reſurrection to all this Glory, yea, that theſe are Holy too, Rev. 20. 6. And that the ſecond death ſhall have no power on them; that is while they are drowning the true Churches of Chriſt in the Floods of all abomination, and bringing in all corruption, and laying the grounds of all diviſion, ſubduing Kings, and murdering Chriſtians by thouſands, till the Year 1300. Bleſſed and holy and happy are they, becauſe though they perſecute the Godly, they are free from being perſecuted p. 85themſelves, which is the ſecond death: Yea, that the Church was freed from perſecution in the Ages when the poor Waldenſes, and Albigenſes were murdered in greater numbers than ever the Heathens murdered the Chriſtians heretofore. When I can believe abundance of ſuch things as theſe, I will believe Dr. Hammond's firſt Diſſertation.

His ſecond Diſſertation which is to vindicate the Epiſtles of Ignatius, I little regard, as not concerning me. I leave it to Dr. Pierſon (who they ſay is about it) to anſwer Dallaeus his numerous Arguments againſt him (with Dionyſius.) For my part, I wiſh Dr. Pierſon may prevail; For there is no Witneſs among all the Ancients whom I more truſt to (at leaſt ad hominem) as a plain undoubted deſtroyer of our Prelacy, than Ignatius, who is the confidence of the Prelatical Champions. I am poſſeſt with admiration as much at their glorying in Ignatius, as the Patron of Dioceſans, who is ſo much againſt them, as I am at their glorying in Rich. Hooker as a Defender of Monarchy and the Prelates Loyalty: Of Ignatiu… I ſhall ſay more anon.

His third D…ert. about Scripture paſſages more concerneth us.

Cap. 1. which tells us of Chriſts Epiſcopacy, concerneth not our Cauſe.

Cap. 2. Whether the foreign, the Regeneration, be the New Church State, and the Apoſtles Epiſcopal Thrones be there meant, as ſetled in ſeveral Provinces (which cannot be proved ever to have been) is little to our buſineſs. Nor yet whether he will prove that it is not Prelacy but Secular Coactive power and g…andure that is denyed to the Apoſtles, and that it was thoſe that grudged at the Precedency deſired for James and John, which Chriſt intended to reprehend, becauſe it was not an injurious Secular power, but a labour that was to be in the Prelates of the Church. It ſufficeth me that ſo much is here confeſſed. And it cannot be denied: For that Precedency and Power which Chriſt alloweth in the Rulers of the Nations, is it which he denyeth to his Diſciples: But it is not Tyranny, proud Domination and Oppreſſion, but juſt Secular Government, which he alloweth in the Rulers of the Nations: Ergo, it is this and not the former which he denyeth to his Diſciples.

And let all the Prelates here remember, that the Q…eſtion, Whether they be Above their Brethren by Dr. H's Confeſſion, is, Whether they may take more care and pains for Mens Salvation? When one of us poor Miniſters were not able night and day to Catechiſe, inſtruct and overſee a Congregation of two or three thouſand Souls, without much help or many ſad unavoidable Omiſſions, the Q…eſtion ſhall be, whether the Biſhop may not undertake to Teach and overſee many hundreds or a thouſand Pariſhes, and Catechiſe, Pray with, and Exhort a thouſand times more than any Pariſh Miniſter doth or is able to do; And to do all this without ever coming into thoſe Pariſhes, or ever ſeeing the Faces, or hearing the names of one of a multitude of the People; or ever ſpeaking one word to them, but ſummoning th…m by Apparitors to a Lay-Chancellors p. 86Court, to be Excommunicated firſt, and after impriſoned while they live, if they do not what the Chancellor bids them. O what is mans underſtanding! when a Carnal intereſt hath there clothed it ſelf with a Sacred name.

Cap. 3. He telleth us of the Power of the Keys commited to the Apoſtles, and by them to the Biſhops, as their Succeſſors: But whether all the Biſhops Ordained by them, and living with them, (and ſome dying before them it's like) were their Succeſſors, and whether all true Paſtors were not ſuch Biſhops as had the Power of the Keys; and whether by thoſe Keys be meant the Government of the Flocks, or alſo of the Governors themſelves, and of what extent the Churches under each Biſhop was, and to what end and uſe, are the things in Queſtion, which he here ſaith nothing to.

Cap. 4. He proveth by ſtrong affirmation, that the Apoſtles were by Chriſt's laſt Commiſſion, Mat. 28. 19, 20. to be the Biſhops of their ſeveral aſſigned certain Provinces. But confidence goeth not for proof with us. He tells us of the name of Epiſcopacy, Acts 1. 29. We never queſtioned, whether the Apoſtles had the Overſight of the Church; but we hold, 1. That the World was the firſt Object of their Office, from whence they were to gather Churches. 2. That the Place, Courſe, or Circuit of their Travels and Miniſtry, was not of any Divine Inſtitution, but left to their prudent choice, by the Common Rules of Nature (doing all things in Order, and to Edifying) and ſometime directed in their motions by the preſent inſpiration of the Holy-Ghoſt. 3. That more than one Apoſtle was oft in the ſame Cities and Countries, none claiming it as his peculiar Province, nor denying the right of others to be there. And where one was this Year, another was the next. 4. That when an Apoſtle planted a Church in any City, and ſettled Biſhops over the People, they themſelves were called by many of the Ancients, the firſt Biſhops of thoſe Cities; in which ſence, one Man had many Biſhopricks. 5. That the Apoſtles were Itinerant unfixed Biſhops, and not fixed Biſhops, ſuch as they themſelves confined to any one limited Church or Province. Nor can it be proved out of all Antiquity, that any one of all the Apoſtles, was confined to any one limited Province, much leſs what that Province was; but only that their Ability, Opportunity, Time and Prudence limited every Man, and directed him as the End required. 6. And that if the Apoſtles had fixed themſelves in particular limited Provinces, they had diſobeyed their Commiſſion, which was, to go Preach the Goſpel to all the World. And no Man did ever yet ſo dote, as to pretend that they divided the whole World into twelve Provinces, and there fixed themſelves: And ſuch twelve Provinces as they had been capable of overſeeing, would have been but a little of the World: And it was but a little part, comparatively, that they Preacht the Goſpel to: Moſt Kingdoms of the World they never ſaw: And thoſe which they came into, were ſo great and many, that they Preached but to a few of the People. Yet this was not their culpable Omiſſion, becauſe p. 87they were limited by Natural Impotency, and ſo by Impoſſibilities of doing more: But had it been by a Voluntary ſetling themſelves in twelve Provinces to the neglect of all the reſt, the Caſe had been otherwiſe. But whilſt they did their beſt for the whole World themſelves, and Ordained others to do the reſt, they performed their Office.

There needeth no more to be ſaid as to thoſe Ancients that name the Apoſtles Biſhops: Nor is their Epiſcopacy, if proved, any thing to our Caſe, as ſhall be manifeſted.

Cap. 5. He thought he had proved that Power in the Church is given by the Apoſtles to the Biſhops only. Whereas (with Spalatenſis, and moſt Chriſtians) we hold it given to Chriſt's Miniſters, as ſuch, and therefore to them all, though in an Eminency the Apoſtles only had it. And, 1. Whereas he denyeth the Power of the 70, becauſe they were not Apoſtles, but Diſciples: We Anſwer, 1. That Evangeliſts and other Miniſters that were not Apoſtles, had the Power of the Keys. 2. That to deny that the 70 were at leaſt Temporary Apoſtles limited to the Jews, and had the power of Preaching and working Miracles, would be to deny the letter of the Text. And the Apoſtles themſelves could not Govern Churches, till they were gathered.

2. And yet if neither they, nor John Baptiſt, in Baptizing, did exerciſe any power of the Keys (which he can never prove) it is nothing to our Caſe.

3. When will he prove that the Evangeliſts and the Itinerant Aſſiſtants of the Apoſtles, had not the power of the Keys? When themſelves commonly ſay, that the higher Orders contain the powers of the lower? And are the Biſhops higher than the Evangeliſts?

4. Nay, when will he prove, that ever any Presbyter was Ordained by the Apoſtles, or by any others as they appointed, without the power of the Keys? It would weary one that loveth not confuſion and loſt lalabour, to read long Diſcourſes of the Power of the Keys or Government, which diſtinguiſh not the Government of the Laity or Flocks, from the Government of the Miniſters themſelves? and that abuſe the Church by feigning an Office of Presbyters that are not Presbyters, and proving that Church-Governors are not Church-Governors? For what is the Office of the Presbyter or Paſtor eſſentially, but a Stated Power and obligation to Teach and Govern the People, and Worſhip as their mouth and guide?

Cap. 6. He ſeemeth, by denying the Evangeliſts the power of the Keys, and of Church-teaching, and making them meer Preachers to the Inſidels, to favour the Independants Opinion, who think the Laymen ſent forth are to do that work. But, 1. Mat. 28. 19, 20. Chriſt maketh ſuch Officers as muſt Preach and Baptize and gather Churches among the Infidels before they govern them, to be them that he will be with to the end of the World. And the ſame men had the Power of teaching the Churches when they were gathered, as is there expreſſed. 2. Call them by what name you will, ſuch Itenirants were uſual in the Apoſtles daies, as Silas, Apollo, and many p. 88more. 3. It was not the twelve Apoſtles only that Converted the World, but ſuch other Miniſters, that were called thus to labour by them, or by the Spirit immediately. Joſeph of Arimathea is ſaid by many to have preached here, and in other Countries. 4. What man will dream that when theſe went abroad the World to convert men, they were the fixed Biſhops of particular Churches firſt, which they thus forſook? 5. Who will believe that Joſeph, Silas, Apollo, Luke, Mark, Nathaniel, Philip, or any other, when they had converted any City, or Countrey, had no power after to teach them as a Church, or give them the Lords Supper, no nor to Baptize them firſt, nor to ordain them Biſhops, and ſettle them in order, but muſt either have an Apoſtle or a City Biſhop to come thither after them to do it? Such Fancies are obtruded on the Church, becauſe the one Miniſterial or Prieſtly Office is firſt diſmembred, and then new Officers feigned to be made up of the ſeveral Limbs.

Cap. 7. As he rob'd the Evangeliſts of the Power of the Keys, he would now rob all the meer Presbyters of it; and all (without ſhew of Scripture proof) from ſuch words of Canons or Ancients as ſay the Presbyters ſhall do nothing without the Biſhops. 1. As if the Presbyters were no Rulers of the Flocks, becauſe the Biſhops are Rulers of the Presbyters? As if a Judge or a Juſtice were no Governour, becauſe he is under the King? 2. O Cruel Biſhops that will undertake to do that for the Souls of many hundred Pariſhes, which many hundred Miniſters are too little for, that the Souls of men and their own together may be damn'd by the Omiſſion of it! If the power of the Keys be appointed for mens Salvation, they perfidiouſly betray them that thruſt out the many hundreds that ſhould do it, pretending that it belongeth to one man among the many hundred that cannot do it. But of the Biſhops great undertaking, I muſt ſay more anon.

Cap. 8. Of the Chorepiſcopi there is little that concerneth us, ſaving that he cometh near to grant us all that we deſire, while that §. 15 he ſaith that Learned men believe that in the Church of one Region, of old there was but one Altar, ſo that lgnatius rightly conjoyneth foreign and foreign: And all Schiſmaticks were ſaid to ſet up Altar againſt Altar. As Cypr. de Unit. Eccle. Ep. 40. 72, 73] This is the ſum of all that we plead for. And §. 29. he mentioneth the Chorepiſcopis as immitating the 70, when yet he had denied the 70, to have the power of the Keys, which he ſuppoſeth the Chorepiſcopi to have under the Biſhops. Of Clemens words in due place.

Cap. 9. About the ſence of a Canon variouſly read.

And Cap. 10. Whether Eutychius Alexandrinus erred in one thing; and therefore were not to be believed in another, are little pertinent to our buſineſs.

In his 4th. Diſſert. the Cap. 1. is but Proem, but Cap. 2. he tells us that the Apoſtles as Biſhops Governed the Churches which they had planted, without the mediation of a Colledge of Presbyters (all ways) and he bringeth not a word to prove it, but 1 Cor. 3. 6. You have not many Fathers in p. 89Chriſt, I have begotten you by the Goſpel, c. 4. 15, 16. I have planted, and c. 9. 19, 21. I will come to you, will ye that I come with the Rod? and c. 5 3, 4. I as abſent in Body but preſent in Spirit have judged—This is all. And will not the impartial Reader wonder at humane frailty, how eaſily men believe what they would have to be true, and what, an evident Nothing will go for undenyable proof. Let the Reader Note, 1. That the queſtion is not whether an Apoſtle after that he had planted a Church remain ſtill an Apoſtle to them as well as others, and have the Apoſtolical eminency of Power, which is greater than any meer Biſhop had. 2. But firſt, Whether the Apoſtles had any fixed Provinces, or Cities undertaken as their ſpecial charge, in which no other Apoſtle had Apoſtolical Power? And 2. Whether there were not fixed Biſhops ſetled by them in all the Churches which they planted? 3. And whether it was not ſo in the Church of Corinth' in particular? Yea, whether they had not more Biſhops or Presbyters than one? For by [Unius] which here he applyeth to Paul, he meaneth Unicus, Paul only, or elſe he abuſeth his Reader and himſelf. And 1. He that will follow Paul in his Travels, will find that he went the ſame way that ſome other Apoſtles went, viz. John and Peter, and therefore that they muſt have the ſame Dioceſſes, or have their Dioceſſes notably intermixt: John was in Aſia as well as Paul, and no man can prove that he was the Second Biſhop of Epheſus, or Aſia, as Paul's ſucceſſor only when he was dead. Nor will the Romans be willing to grant that Peter was Biſhop of no more at Rome but the Jews only (as this Dr. elſewhere intimateth) leſt that prove not that the Gentile Church of Rome was founded by Peter, but by Paul alone. 2. What proof hath he that beſides Peter and John, there were not many other Apoſtles per vices in the ſame Cities where Paul had been? And that when they did come thither, they had not Apoſtolical Power there? 3. Doth not the Text expreſly ſay that Paul and Barnabas long travelled together? And doth it any where intimate that Paul was the Governour of Barnabas, or the ſole Biſhop of the Churches planted by them both together? Sure the people that would have worſhipped Barnabas, as Jupiter, and Paul but as Mercury, did ſee no Sign of ſuch a Prelacy in Paul. And the Apoſtles ſeem ſo to have ordered the matter, by going by Couples (as Chriſt ſometimes ſent two and two before him,) as if they had done it purpoſely to prevent theſe Monarchical conceits. Peter and John were together at the healing of the Criple, and the ſucceſsful preaching that followed thereupon. Sometime Paul and Barnabas are together; ſometime Paul and Silas, and Barnabas and Mark: Paul and Soſthenes are the inſcribed Names who ſend the firſt Epiſtle to the Corinthians, and Paul and Timothy the ſecond. And in the Text alledged, it is ſaid, One ſaith I am of Paul, and another I am of Apollo; and c. 1. 12. Every one of you ſaith, I am of Paul, and I of Apollos, and I of Cephas.—And Paul baptized none of them ſave Criſpus and Gaius, and the houſhold of Stephanus. By which it appeareth that Peter was among them as well as Paul; and if Peter had been only the Biſhop of p. 90the Jews here alſo, Apollos would not have been brought in as a third in a way of equality: And the Controverſie would have been otherwiſe decided by Paul, by telling the Jews that Peter was their ſole Biſhop, and the Gentiles that Paul was theirs, and all of them, that Apollos was but their Subject. But he goeth quite another way to work, preferring none, nor dividing Dioceſes, but levelling Miniſters, as being but the helpers of their Faith. And though they had Apoſtolical preeminence above Apollos, yet Peter and Paul are not ſaid to have a proper Epiſcopacy over him.

And now to his Arguments. 1. Paul planted; Paul onelyonly was their Father. What then? Ergo, Paul onelyonly was their Biſhop. I deny the Conſequence, and may long wait for a ſyllable of proof. Contrarily, Paul onelyonly was not their Apoſtle: Ergo, Paul onelyonly was not their Biſhop. For every Apoſtle you ſay hath Epiſcopal Power included in the Apoſtolical: and none of them ceaſed to have Apoſtolical Power where-ever they came, (though they were many together, as at Jeruſalem) Ergo, None of them ceaſed to have Epiſcopal Power. The conceit of Converſion and Paternity entituling to ſole Epiſcopacy, I ſhall confute by it ſelf anon.

2. But Paul judged the inceſtuous perſon, and ſpeaketh of coming with the rod. And what followeth? Ergo, None but Paul might do the ſame in that Dioceſs. I deny the Conſequence. Any other Apoſtle might do the ſame. Where is your Proof? And if all this were granted, it is nothing againſt the Cauſe that we maintain.

And next let us inquire, whether this Church had no Biſhops or Presbyters but Paul? As here is not a word of proof on their ſide, ſo I prove the contrary:

1. Becauſe the Apoſtles ordained Elders or Biſhops in every Church and City, Acts 14. 23. Tit. 1. 5. Therefore the Church of Corinth had ſuch.

2. If they had not Presbyters or Biſhops, they could hold no ordinary Chriſtian Church-Aſſemblies, for all Gods publick Worſhip; e. g. They could not communicate in the Lords Supper; for Lay-men may not be the Miniſters of it, nor the ordinary Guides and Teachers of a Worſhipping Church. But they did hold ſuch ordinary Aſſemblies, communicating in the Lords Supper. And to ſay, that they had onelyonly Paſtors that were itinerant in tranſitu as they came one after another that way, is to ſpeak without book, and againſt it; and to make them differ from all other Churches, without proof.

3. 1 Cor. 14. doth plainly end that Controverſie, with 1 Cor. 11. when they had ſo many Prophets, and Teachers, and gifted Perſons in their Aſſemblies, that Paul is put to reſtrain and regulate their Publick Exerciſes, directing them to ſpeak but one or two, and the reſt to judge: and this rather by the way of edifying plainneſs, than by Tongues, &c. And c. 11. they had enow to be the ordinary Miniſters of the Sacraments. And cb. 5. they had Inſtructions for Church-Diſcipline, both as to the inceſtuous man, and for all the ſcandalous for the time to come, and are chidden for not p. 91uſing it before. And who but the Separatiſts do hold, that the power of the Keys for the exerciſe of this Diſcipline is in the Peoples hands? Therefore moſt certainly they had a Clergy. And if all this go not for proof againſt a bare Affirmation of the contrary, we can prove nothing.