Defense of Non-Conformity, Part 3 · Section 4

Defense of Non-Conformity · Part 3 · Section 4

p. 173SECT. IV. The Dr's Arguments for Episcopacy Answered.

I Return now to the reverend Dr. to hear what he will say for this Episcopacy that we scruple, on the forementioned grounds. I begin with his first undertaking above mentioned; to wit, to shew That our Diocesan Episcopacy is the same in substance which was in the Primitive Church. And this he laboureth to prove concerning the African Churches, in the times of Cyprian and Augustine, and the Church of Alexandria in the time of Athanasius and p. 174of the Church of Cyprus in the days of Theodoret. Concerning all this in general; I make two observations before I come to examine his particular Allegations, 1. That his phrase is ambiguous, that their Episcopacy was the same in Substance with ours: I wish he had shewed what is that Substance of Diocesan Episcopacy that he findeth in both. I think the Substance of our English Episcopacy is, that one Man hath sole Power of Ordination and Jurisdiction over all the Church-Officers and Members in many Congregations; if he will shew us that in the Primitive Times, let him rejoice in his Argument from Antiquity. 2. The Antiquity that the Dr. here pretendeth to, is far short of that which himself and others do boast of with a great deal of Confidence; some of them tell us of a clear Deduction that they can make of it down from the Apostles in all ages without Interruption, some make it of more than 1500 years standing; but the Dr. here is not pleased to pretend to that. Cyprian lived in the Third Century, Athanasius in the Fourth, Augustine and Theodoret in the Fifth, and it may easily be granted that there was a great degeneracy in Church-Discipline and Government by that time; yet that Episcopacy was arrived at that heighth that is now in England, even at that time, we deny.

Sect. 2. To prove what he had undertaken, he layeth down two Observations. 1. That it was an inviolable rule among them, that but one Bishop was to be in one Church. I am little concerned in this, though I see no rule for it, except a Canon of Concil. Cabilonens. which was but Provincial, and very late, under Pope Eugenius, about Ann. 654, yet I think it was generally and rationally practised for taking a Bishop for the foreign among the Presbyters, (which I affirm to have been the Dialect of those times.) What needed more Bishops than one, seeing all the Presbyters of one City might conveniently meet ordinarily for the Exercise of Discipline. When Mr. B. proveth the contrary, he taketh Bishop in the Apostles sence, and then I affirm with him that there were more Bishops in one City, that every Assembly for worship had one, if not more. The Dr's. Argument that he seemeth to glory in, p. 246. is of no value; it is, That if more Bishops than one could be in a City, the Schism of the Donatists and Novatians might have been prevented; this is either a great mistake, or somewhat else; for taking Bishops for Moderators of Presbytery, the bare setting up of two Presbyteries, and two Moderators could not have prevented these Schisms; and if the Church had found it convenient to divide them, p. 175retaining the same Principles of Faith, and about Church-Order and Discipline, there had been no Schism: It is most false that these Schisms were meerly about the plurality of Bishops in a City. The Schism of the Donatists had its rise at Carthage from the Ambition of Donatus, who opposed the election of Cecilianus; the pretence was, that he had been ordained by a Proditor, and that he had admitted another Proditor to Ecclesiastical Office; Cecilianus being Tried, and Acquitted, both by the Emperor and the Church in several Councils, Donatus and his party set up another Church, an Eldership, and People, in opposition to Cecilianus, disclaiming the discipline of Cecilianus, and his Party, in admiting the lapsed upon repentance, and admitting the wicked as they alledged to the Sacraments. So that it is plain, that the Schism lay in this, That they set up another Church-way and Order, and consequentially to that, set up another Bishop and Presbytery, not beside, but in opposition to that which was before, and that without sufficient reason; upon the very like occasion did Novatus separate from Cornelius Bishop at Rome, and set up a new Church on the foresaid grounds. Cyprian indeed condemneth Novatus, and nullifieth his Church-Power, because post primum secundus esse non potest; but this is still to be understood of setting up another Bishop, or meeting of Presbyters under a President without the Authority of the Church, or good cause for so doing. It is evident then, that these Schisms were built on another Foundation than what the Dr. supposeth, and that they could not have been prevented if forty Bishops had been allowed in a City; as long as Donatus and Novatus retained their Principles, they would have separated from all Bishops and Churches that were not of their way; all that followeth in this his first Observation is easily Answered in one Word, to wit, that all these Citations prove no more than this, that where a Church was setled, and sufficiently furnished (whether you take it for a single Congregation, or more Congregations associate for Discipline with a President) it was not fit for any to disturb that Unity by setting up another Church, whether of the one, or the other sort mentioned.

Sect. 3. His second Observation is, That in Cities and Diocesses which were under the care of one Bishop, there were several Congregations and Altars, and distant places. I contend not about the word Diocess, supposing that one President of an Assembly of Presbyters, with these Presbyters might have ruling power over many particular p. 176Churches; call that District by what name he will, the matter is not great: Our question is not about the Name, but the Power by which that District was ruled, whether it were in one Man or in the body of Presbyters. But it is well known that Diocess, which now signifieth a Church Division, did in those days signifie a Civil Division of the Roman Empire made by Constantine the Great, who divided the hundred Provinces of the Empire into 14▪ Diocesses, where all Africk was but one; see for this Heylin, Cosmogr. lib. 1 p. 54. And it is as well known that Diocess did often Signifie a Parish or people of a Parish; neither do I contend about the word Altar, supposing the Dr. meaneth, places where the Lords Supper was Celebrated. Both Origen and Arnobius affirm that 200 years after Christ, the Christians were blamed by the Heathens, because they had no Altars; the name of Altar was not used in the Church till the Third Century, and not then neither, but figuratively: But the Dr. loveth to speak of Ancient things in his Modern Dialect, borrowed from the more corrupted times of the Church.

Sect. 4. For his Observation it self, I shall not contend about it, tho' I think he will hardly answer what is said against it, No Evid. for Diocess, p. 15. For it maketh nothing against what I hold, unless he prove that the Bishop had the sole Power, or had jurisdiction over the Presbyters in that District which he calleth a Diocess. What he saith that seemeth to be Argumentative to this purpose, I shall mind, and no more: The multitude and distance of places that he instanceth (tho' all were true, the contrary of which the forecited Author maketh appear) will not prove Superiority of power in one Man; neither Augustine's care for Neighbouring Places that wanted Ministers, either to provide Ministers for them, or to Baptize them, or do other Church Acts for them in their need. This proveth neither Extension, nor Solitude of Power; far less doth Cyprian's nameing Provincia nostra, in which were many Bishops, prove him to have been a Metropolitan; the Empire was divided into Provinces. If a Minister in England should say there are many Ministers in our Country, it will not prove that they were under his Charge. Vuler mentioneth Cresceus who had 120 Bishops under him; the Dr. should have proved that he had sole jurisdiction over them, and all their Churches, or that he could act any thing in Church matters without them; and so that he was more than president in their meeting, when they came together about the Affairs of the Church. These are the Goodly Arguments p. 177from Antiquity, by which Men think to wreath on our Necks the Yoak of Domination.

Sect. 5. He bringeth another proof for his Diocesan Bishop, Sect. 20. from Athanasius his having charge over the Church of Alexandira; and these of Maraeotis. And 1. Epiphamus saith, that Athanasius did often visit Neighbour Churches, especially those of Maraeotis. Ans. So have many Presbyterian Ministers done to Neighbouring Parishes that were destitute, and yet never pretended to Episcopal Power over them; That this was an Act of Charity, not of Episcopal Authority appeareth, because Epiphamus calleth them Neighbour Churches, not a part of Athanasiu's Church, and that he mentioneth other Neighbour Churches besides these of Maraeotis, which Athanasius saith were subject to him. Next, Athanasius saith Maraeotis is a region belonging to Alexandria, which never had neither Bishop nor Suffragan in it, but all the Churches there are immediately subject to the Bishop of Alexandria; but every Presbyter is fixed in his particular Village. Ans. Maraeotis or M…ria, as Ptolomy calleth it, is a Lake not far from Alexandria now called Lago …; I suppose Athanasius means the Country about that Lake, which it seems had then few Churches, and Christians, and therefore it was very fit they should Associate for Discipline, with these of Alexandria, being very near to it; their Subjection to the Bishop of Alexandria doth not prove his sole jurisdiction over them, but only that they were so by the Association of Presbyters, of which the Bishop of Alexandria was Moderator. Subj…cton to a Bishop in our days signifieth to be under his Jurisdiction by himself, because men have set up such Bishops; but it cannot be made to signifie the same in the Dialect of these times, unless it were Aliunde proved that they were such Bishops, which is not done by such an Argument as this; wherefore I deny the Drs, third Consequence that he draweth from this passage, p. 254. to wit, That these were under the mediate inspection of the Bishop of Alexandria, so that the whole Government belongeth to him. There is not the lest shadow of reason for such an inference; his disputation that followeth about the Christians of Alexandria meet…ng in Diverse Assemblies, I meddle not with, it is nothing against us, whether it we…e so or otherwise.

Sect. 6. The last proof that he bringeth, is out of Theodoret, which he saith, is plain enough of it self to shew the great extent of Diocesan Powe…; he saith, he had the p…storal charge of 800. (he p. 178should have said 80) Churches, and that so many Parishes were in his Diocess. The Dr. insulteth much on this Testimony, but without cause; for 1. Theodoret lived in the fifth century, and we deny not but by that time Episcopal Ambition had in some places encroached on the Government instituted by Christ, and which had been kept more intire in former Ages. 2. It is much suspected by learned Men, that Theodorets Epistles are not genuine, and the Dr. doth not deny that Hereticks had feigned Epistles in Theodorets name, as Leontius saith, which doth darogate much from the credit of these that cannot be well proved to be true. 3. Theodoret doth not say that he had the Pastoral charge of these Churches, but that he had been Pastor in them; the former Expression looketh like a sole power in him, and therefore the Dr. thought fit so to vary the phrase; the other hinteth no more power then is consistant with a party, every Minister being a Pastor in the Churches to whose Association he belongeth. 4. But whatever be in that, this sheweth the extent of Theodorets Power, as to place or bounds, but doth not prove that he alone exercised that power, and therefore is no proof of a Diocesan Bishop.

Sect. 7. Before I proceed, I shall return to examine the Doctor's Allegations for Diocesan Power, p. 230. which I above referred to this place. He asserteth, That the Presbyters and whole Church were under the particular Care and Government of Cyprian: This Assertion is too big for the Proofs that he bringeth for it; to wit, That Cyprian reproveth some of the Presbyters for receiving Penitents without consulting him, and complaineth of the Affront done to his Place, as Bishop, and dischargeth the like to be done for the future. Lucian saith, that the Martyrs had agreed that the Lapsed should be received on Repentance; but their Cause was to be heard before the Bishop, and several Passages to this purpose. To all which, I. A. by denying the Consequence; Cyprian as I cited above, did not take on him to receive the Lapsed without the Presbyters: Will it thence follow that he had no Power at all? But it was solely in them; even so, that the Presbyters (especially that some of them, as the Dr. himself states the Case) might not do it without Cyprian, doth not prove that the Presbyters, and whole Church, were under his Government. It amounteth to no more but this, that in a Presbytery regularly constituted, especially, where they have devolved the Power of calling, and presiding in their Meetings on a fixed, and constant Moderator, it is very irregular that a part p. 179should meet about Discipline, without the rest, and particularly, without Consulting him whom they have so chosen. Beside, I will not deny but Cyprian sheweth too much Zeal in this Cause, and might possibly attempt to stretch his Power a little too far, as afterward many did: He was a holy and meek Man, but such may be a little too high. To this same purpose are his other Citations of Moses and Maximus, commending Cyprian for not being wanting to his Office. Cyprian's Epistle to the Clergy of Carthage, that the Dr. citeth, sheweth there were Disorders committed in the Matter of receiving the Lapsed; in that not only some Presbyters took it on them, without a regular Meeting of the whole, but even Deacons medled with it, which was out of their way. His Citation of the Roman Clergy commending the Martyrs for not taking on them the Discipline of the Church, is wholly out of the way; for none ever supposed that every Martyr had Church-Power. That they delayed some parts of Discipline till they had a new Bishop, proveth as little as the rest; for it is fit one should moderate in their Meetings, and Custom had obtained that he should be fixed in that Office, which was not from the beginning. Cyprians appointing some to visit, when he could not do it by reason of Persecution, neither is a precedent for our Bishops doing their Work by Delegates when they are at ease; nor doth it prove that these did any thing without the Presbyters; that Cyprian citeth tu es Petrus; and whatsoever you shall bind, &c. was to very good purpose, when some Martyrs invaded the Discipline of the Church; and i proveth, that as Christ gave the power of the Keys to Peter, and the rest of the Apostles, not to the People; so he had given it to Cyprian and the rest of the Presbyters, not to the Martyrs. It had been well if tu es Petrus had never been more abused. He saith indeed, that the Church hath ever been governed by Bishops, but the Dr. must prove that he meaneth, by Bishops alone, as they are distinct and separate from the other Presbyters: The rest that followeth, that the Bishop is to govern, and give Account to God, that he is in the place of Christ; that a Church is a People united to a Bishop, do all agree very well, either with a Congregational Bishop, or Minister; or a Presbyterian Moderator, acting in parity with other Presbyters; and yet these are the Herculean Arguments from Antiquity, that men make such a noise with.

Sect. 8. I now proceed with the Dr. to the third Thing, that he had undertaken; to wit, to prove, That such an Episcopacy as is practised p. 180here, and was so in the Primitive Church, (this Last he supposeth that he hath proved) is no devisi…g a new species of Churches, nor repugnant to any Institution of Christ. To prove which, Sect. 11. he bringeth some of Mr. B's Concessions, which I neither yield, nor will vindicate. He bringeth also some Arguments of Mr. B's to prove that the ordinary governing part of the Apostolick Office was setled in all Ages: Wherefore, I must, for a little, leave the Dr. and Answer these Arguments of Mr. B's: But first, I take notice, that it is a Mistake in the Dr. and Mr. B. too, to call the governing part of the Apostle's Office ordinary: For 1. That is, to suppose the Thing in question; to wit, that it was continued in the Church; that they governed, and preached, is true; but that Officers that after were imployed in governing, or preaching, can claim that power as succeeding to the Apostles in any part of their Office; and without other warrant we deny. The Apostles governed, and preached by another Commission from Christ, than men now do; and that both, as to the manner of it, the one being immediate, the other mediate; and as to the matter of it, their Commission warranted them to do many Acts in governing, and preaching, that others have no power to do, as giving Authoritative rules to all Churches where they came; ordaining, and censureing every where, going up and down to Preach every where, without a call from any Church, without being fixed any where; this power no Man can now pretend to: Wherefore I say, that Min…sters Te…ch and Rule the Church not by vertue of Apostolick Office, or any part of it committed to them, but by vertue of ano…her Office, distinct from that of the Apostles which they receive by their Ordination. 2. It is evident that the Apostles governing Power was not ordinary, because there was an ordinary governing Power in the Church even in the Apostles times, distinct from that of the Apostles, and exercised by other Men; tho' in subordination to the Apostles governing Power. The Presbytery did then Ordain, they did also Excommunicate, as was above shewed, and the Apostles directed them so to do; and sometimes concurred with them, and sometimes they acted without them.

Sect. 9. Let us now hear Mr. Bs. Arguments, 1. We read (sai…h he, Christ direct. pt. 3. Question, 56. p. 831.) Of the s…l…ng of that form (viz. general Officers as well as particular) but we never read of any Absolution, Discharge, or Cessation of the Institution. Ans. 1. If this Argument have any force, it will pr…ve the continuance p. 181of all the extraordinary Offices that ever were in the Church, Prophets, Evangelists, Workers of Miracles, &c. For we read not that ever they were discharged. Ans. 2. It is enough to Abolish and Discharge that Institution, that this Office was setled in the persons of some Men, immediately by Jesus Christ himself; and after their decease, He neither put others in their room immediately by himself, nor gave the Church any hint that such a thing should be done; but instead of that, he hath given sufficient direction for propogating other Officers in the Church in all Ages. Argument 2. If we affirm a Cessation without proof, we seem to accuse God of Mutabillity, as setling one form of Government for one Age only, and no longer. Ans. I hope Mr. B. will not say that a change in Gods Works, yea, or Institutions, doth argue mutability in God, are not all the Old Testament Institutions now changed? Were not Prophets, Evangelists, Men gifted with divers tongues, &c. His Institutions, and yet now ceased, and no other proof can be given for their Cessation then what we give for the ceasing of Apostles. Neither do we say they are ceased without proof, that they were by immediate Commission from God; that that now cannot be pretended to, and that the Lord hath hinted no other way of continuing such an Office in his House, nor that it should be continued, is abundant proof of this Cessation. Argument 3. We leave room for audacious Wits, accordingly to question other Gospel Institutions, as Pastors, Sacraments, &c. and to say that they were but for an Age. Ans. There is not the least shew of reason for this: for their Gospel Institutions have more abiding Warrant then Immediate Commission given by Christ to some to Administer them. Argument. 4. It was General Officers that Christ promised to be with to the end of the World, Ma…h. 28. 20. Ans. 1. If this Argument prove any thing, it proveth too much; to wit, that only General Officers have that promise which I hope Mr. B. will not say. Ans. 2. It was spoken to General Officers, but the promise is not made to them alone, but to all that should be Imployed in the work of Teaching, and Baptizing. And these being particularly here mentioned, will prove that there shall be Teachers and Baptizers to the end of the World; but not that there shall be General Officers, as the Metropolitans, &c. that Mr. B. dreameth of to the end of the World.

Sect. 10. The Dr. to improve these Arguments of Mr. B…. to his purpose, joineth with him the consent of the Ages, succeeding p. 182the Apostles that the Apostles did leave successors in the care of Government of the Churches. Aus. Who doubteth of that; but the question is, to whom did the Apostles commit this care? we say to the Pastors in Common, he saith to Diocesan Bishops, this we deny that it can be proved, either from any Writing or Deed of the Apostles, or from the consent of the Ages next after them; that the Bishops were looked on as succeeding to the Appostles in the Government of Churches; we deny not (tho' we deny that they had that Office, or any part of it) but then the question is, whether they alone who in the 2. or 3. Century began to get the name of Bishops appropriate to them, had that Government by themselves, or in Common with the rest of the Presbyters, unless the Dr. prove the former, he speaketh not to the point. None hath better proved the contrary of what is here held by the Dr. then he himself, Iren. p. 308. to wit, That not Bishops alone, but all Presbyters succeeded to the Apostles, and that by Testimonies out of Cyprian, Ierom, and Ignatius.

Sect. 11. He undertaketh to prove that the English Episcopacy doth not take away the whole Power of Presbyters, as some alledge: And that therefore it maketh no new Species of Government from what Christ Instituted, or was read in the Ancient Church. We do not alledge that it taketh away the whole power of Presbyters, for that were to reduce them into the same order with the rest of the people; but we say it usurpeth an undue power over them, that neither Christ nor the Primitive Church ever allowed, in taking out of their hand that power of Governing the Church that they have equal with the Bishop; and in other things to be observed in our progess. In order to makeing out what he alledgeth, he proposeth two things to be enquired into, Sect. 12. First, What power is left to Presbyters in our Church. 2. What Authority the Bishops have …ver them. For the first, he asserteth their power in reference to the whole body of the Church, and that because they have a place in the convocation, where rules of Discipline, Articles of Doctrine, and forms of Service are determined. How small a matter this is (tho' the Dr. aggravateth it) I do with him appeal to any Man of understanding who is unbyassed, and who knoweth the constitution of an English Convocation; it consisteth of two Houses, in the upper House are only Bishops, and let the lower House never so unanimously vote for a thing, they can reject it; that is, 25 Men who by the Laws of the Gospel, have no more power then p. 183any other 25 of near 9000 (so many Churchs are reckoned in England) take to themselves as much power as all these. Then for the lower House of the Convocation, it is made up of Presbyters indeed, as the Dr. saith; but many, if not most of them, such as by no Law of Christ have more power to sit there than any others have, as Deans, Arch-deacons, and other Cathedral Officers; here also the Presbyters are bereaved of that party of power that is their due; besides that few of the inferior Presbyters are admitted, often not above two or four in a Diocess. If then their power be not swallowed up by the Bishops, and their Creatures in the Convocation, let any judge: He next proveth the power by the hand that they have in Ordination, or giving Orders, as he calleth it, to wit, That by the Rules of this Church; four Presbyters are to asist the Bishop, and are to examine the persons to be ordained (or the Bishop in their presence) and to join the Imposition of hands. Here also their power is swallowed up, for all the rest have equal power with these four, yea, with the Bishop himself, which is wholly taken out of their hands, and managed at the Bishops pleasure, who chuseth these four, beside, that this is really, if ever practised, the person is usually examined, or said to be so by the Bishops Chaplain, and the Bishop layeth his hands on him.

Sect. 12. Next he telleth us what power Presbyters have in their particular Charges, p. 267. which he leaveth us to gather from 3 topicks. The Epistle that is read at the Ordination of a Presbyter, to wit, Act. 20. or 1 Tim. 3. What an impertinency (saith the Dr.) had both these been, if the Presbyters power had been swallowed up by the Bishop. A goodly Argument, some think it a great Impertinency, and Boldness too, in the face of these Scriptures to make a distinction, as to any part of Church Power, between a Presbyter and a Bishop. His next topick is, the Bishops Exhortation at the Ordination, where he telleth them of the dignity of the Office, and greatness of the Charge, calleth them Pastors, that they are to Teach, Premonish and Feed, and provide for the Lords Family, &c. This indeed implyeth their Preaching Power, but there is not a word of Ruling Power, which the Lord joyned with it, but the Bishops do separate them; and for all this saying over their cold …esson at the Solemnity, the Bishops will not suffer the Presbyter to Preach by vertue of this Ordination without License; so that their Ruleing Power is taken away, and their Preaching Power restraine… at the Bishops pleasure. This is a crossing of Christs Institution, p. 184who made them equal; neither is it any more wonder that the Bishops practice should cross his own Exhortation, then that he should cross the Scripture, read on that occasion. His third Topick, is the ordained Persons Oath, to mi…ister Word and Sacraments, and Discipline, as this Realm hath received the same. Here Discipline is pro forma mentioned; but the following words shew the meaning, for this Realm hath not received Christ's Discipline to be exercised by the Officers, into whose hands he put it, but the Dr. acknowledgeth little less then I say, when he saith, That the general care of Government and Discipline is committed to the Bishop; I hope the Reader will by this time see, that the Presbyters in the Church of England, have not all that power left to them that Christ gave to his Ministers; and therefore the English Episcopacy is another kind of Church Government, than that which Christ Instituted, or the purer primitive times knew.

Sect. 13. The other thing he proposeth, is, Sect. 13. to shew what Authority the Bishop hath by his Consecration, which he placeth in Government, Ordination, and Censures; and he saith, the Church of England did believe that Bishops did succeed the Apostles in these parts of their Office. This I deny not, but the Dr. should have proved that the Church of England had ground to believe so. Mr. Bs. concession will not oblige us to be of the same mind; that she did believe so, I am not convinced from what he bringeth in proof of it, but the contrary I have proved above, wherefore I shall take no further notice of this Section except to examine his notion, p. 269. on which he seemeth to value himself very highly; it is that in the Apostles times they managed the Government of the Church themselves, and therefore there was no Bishop, but Bish…ps, and Presbyters were one; but as the Apostles went off, Bishops came to be setled in the several Churchs, whom the Apostles setled some sooner, some later; if which (saith he) we have an incontrouleable evidence in Timothy and Titus. And by this he would reconcile the different Testimonies of Antiquity, the Succession of Bishops from the Apostles time being hereby secured, for which Irenaeus, Tertullian and Cyprian stand, and with this consisteth all that Jerom, and Epiphemus say of the different settlement of Churches at first; to all this I repone these few things. 1. Is is most false that the Apostles managed Church Government by themselves while they lived; the contrary I have proved, as to Ordination, and Excommunication in Corint…, and Th…ssal…ni…a, that these were in the Hands of ordinary p. 185Officers, tho superintended by the Apostles. 2. That they setled Bishops any where, either in their own time, or left order for it to be done after their decease, is also false. The incontroullable evidence of it that the Dr. talketh of is asserted duro ore; for he knoweth it is controulled beyond what he or any man can refute, to wit, that Tim. and Tit. were no Diocesan Bishops is proved by our Writers; and all the Arguments that are brought for their being such, fully answered. This confidence without Argument is unbecoming so learned a Man, he hinteth an Argument for his Assertion, to wit, that the care of Government was a distinct thing from the Office of an Evangelist. This we deny, the Office of an Evangelist was to Teach, or Govern by a deputation from the Apostles; he saith, Th…ir removes do not invalidate this, because while the Apostles lived there were no fixed Bishops, or but few: I wish he had instanced in one, He confesseth by this Tim. and Tit. were not such, and for unfixed Bishops, we read of none such either in Scripture, or Antiquity, 3. Neither can this reconcile the Testimonies of Antiquity as he would have it; for it doth not answer what Jerom, Augustine, Chrisostom, and others say of the Divine institution of parity; neither is it true that Irenaeus, Tertulian, and Cyprian are for Diocesan Bishops.

Sect. 14. The Dr. proceedeth now, Sect. 14. to the third thing that he had undertaken to prove, p. 244, to wit, that the restraint of Discipline in our Parochial Churchs doth not overthrow their Constitution. In this I shall not oppose him, and therefore I shall only consider this matter as a grievance, and consider what he saith in Justification of it, and not as a ground of Separation, and shall pass over what he saith, that is of that tendency. He saith Presbyters have power in admission to the Lords Supper, because none are to be admitted, but such as are confirmed, or be ready and desirous to be confi…med, and Presbyters are judges in that, because they are to send a list of the Names of the persons to be Confirmed to the Bishop, who is to confirm them; and this, he saith, would (if rightly observed) keep as much purity in that Ordinance as is pretended to in the separate Congregations. Ans. This is a poor fence for the Table of the Lord, for if one be ready to be confirmed, the Presbyter cannot keep him back, tho' he was not listed by the Presbyter, nor Confirmed by the Bistop; and we know many of the worst of men are ready for it: Again, when one is Confirmed by the Presbyters consent, if he prove never so profane or careless, the Presbyter cannot debar him; the Bishops Confirmation admiteth him, let him do what he will. I p. 186hope Separate Meetings will not admit every one to the Lords Table that is a Church Member, when they fall into gross Sins. 2. It is no good way of defending the Presbyters Power in manageing of Christs Ordinances, to say that his Testimonie is to be taken about admitting persons to an Ordinance that Christ never instituted; to wit, Confirmation. 3. This is no great evidence of Church Authority in the Presbyter that his Testimony is taken by the Bishop in order to Admission; it is the Bishop not the Presbyter that Authoritatively admitteth. 4. It is an odd way of Admission to Gods Ordinances, not precedented in Scripture, nor purer Antiquity, that one man should judge of the fitness of a person to be admitted, and another should admitt him; the Bishop must act implicitly, and the Presbyter is only his informer, where this way of Discipline had its use we know; the Dr. hath yet said nothing to vindicate the power that Christ gave to his Ministers, or to justifie the Discipline of the Church of England.

Sect. 15. Next, Sect. 15. He speaketh of the Presbytes power in rejecting these for scandal that have been Church Members, and sheweth out of the Rubrick before the Communion, that the Parochial Ministers may advertise a scandalous sinner not to come to the Lords Table till he repent and amend, and if he continue obstinate, …e may repel him from the Communion, yet so as within fourteen days he give account to the Ordinary. Ans. This is far from amounting to the power that Christ gave to his Minsters, for 1. By what Law of Christ is the Presbyter accountable to the Bishop, more then the Bishop is accountable to him? Christ made them equal. 2. I see no reason why a Presbyter by himself should have power to debar any, it should be done by Presbyters in Common; the New Testament knoweth no such thing as Excommunication, either greater or lesser by a single person, except it were by an Apostle. But our Bishops think they have such a plenitude of power, that they may delegate as much of it as they please to any other person. 3. I see the Dr. is at a stand, what sort of censure this Act of the Parochial Ministers is, it is not the greater Excommunication; and he confesseth p. 277. that it is not the lesser Excommunication used in this Church. I deny it not to be a Church censure, but it is not such as argueth that Power of Discipline in the inflicter of it, that Christ hath given to all his Ministers, to be exercised by them in Common. The Dr. infereth p. 278. from the power of the Presbyter, that our Church doth not deprive them of all the necessary and p. 187Essential parts of Church Discipline. But if it deprive them of any such part in which they may not medle, it taketh away that power that Christ hath given them; it is a fine Apology for Episcopal Vsurpation, that they suffer a Presbyter as their delegate, and as he will be accountable to them to do some Acts that they themselves cannot attend; whereas Christ gave no more power to a Bishop, than to any of the Presbyters.

Sect. 16. Mr. B. objecteth to the Dr. that it is Actionable by Law, if a Parish Minister admonish a person by name, not censured by the ord…nary; to which the Dr. hath two sorry answers. 1. What need publick Admonition by name? Doth the nature of Church Discipline lie in that? It is enough it be done privately, and sheweth that Augustine bid people examine themselves, and abstain if they saw cause; and the same Augustine saith, that Church Discipline may be forborn in some cases in a true Church. To this I reply, 1. How will the Dr. reconcile this with what he citeth out of the Rubrick; will private dealing with the offender amount to repelling of him from the Communion? 2. Discipline is a publick and Authoritative Act; and another thing then, private dealing with a person, the Apostle calleth it a rebuking before all, 1 Tim. 5. 20. And it differeth from Preaching, in that by Discipline reproofs are applyed to the person, in Preaching they are in more general Terms: Now how this should be without publick nameing the Man, I know not. 3. Who doubteth that Augustine did well in what the Dr. alledgeth; it must be our practice when Discipline is most strictly exercis…d, because Discipline cannot reach the secret sins of Men: But Augustine never thought that therefore Discipline was not to be publickly, and personally inflicted on Offenders; and sure Discipline may in some cases be forborn, hic & num, without fault, a…d where it is f…ul…ily forborn, it doth nullifie the being of a Church; yet it must not always be forborn. His 2. answer is, If a restraint be laid on Ministers by Law, whether the Minister ought to admonish publickly, and debar in that Case? Reply; why doth the Dr. make the Rubrick, and the Law thus to clash, especially seeing the Common Prayers and its Rubri…k are setled by Law? And he doth by this fairly yield, that by the constitution of the Church of England now Established by Law, a Parish Minister hath no power to keep back any from the Lords Table that hath a mind to come. Why then hath he taken so much pains to prove they can do something, and at last conclude that this same thing is just nothing, parturiunt montes.

p. 188Sect. 17. He frameth an objection to himself, Sect. 16. that the neglects, and abuse of Discipline among us, are too great to be justified, and too notorious to be concealed. To this he hath several Answers. The 1. is, That the question is, whether this destroyeth the being of Parochial Churches; this I pass, for I think it doth not. The 2. is, It is easier to complain of this, or separate, then find out a way to remedy it. We propose the Scripture remedy; to wit, to put it into the hands of the Pastors of the Church in Common. The 3. is, That ther… is not that necessity of Church Discipline, as in the primitive times, the Christian Magistrate taking care to punish scandalous offenders, and so to vindicate the honour of the Church: And to confirm this, he citeth a passage of King Charles the First to the same purpose. Thus the Drs. zeal for Episcopacy is swallowed up in the Gulf of Erastianism; to what purpose doth he cite Cyprians Tu…es petrus, and why hath he pleaded so much for Episcopacy, even out of these Fathers that lived under Christian Emperors, as Augustine, Theodoret, &c. if Church Discipline be at the Magistrates disposal. But I see Men will say any thing foreign; let the Dr. answer what our Divines have written against Erastus, and his followers, proving that the Church and Republick, are distinct Societies, tho made up of the same Persons; that Christ hath a visible Mediatory Kingdom in the World; that the Rules, Laws, Punishments, and immediate ends of Church-State are different. Let him no more tell us of the Church of England, but of the Civil Laws of England; as that which the Ordinances of Christ are to be dispensed, and ordered by. I shall not digress to refute this Assertion; but Men will be apt to think that this principle doth foully reflect upon Christ, and his Apostles, who gave all their directions about Chruch Affairs, to Church-men, and not to the Magistrate.

Sict. 18. His Fourth Answer, is, that Excommunication by Protestant Divines, is not left to a Parochial Church; I do not plead for that; but against putting it into the Hand of one Man. Neither will it hence follow, a Parish Minister and his Elders may exercise no Discipline: The Protestant Divines abroad are not of that mi…d. It is false, That among us a Minister (I mean with his Elders) can only admonish, not repel from the Lords Supper. Why, (saith he) may not our Ministers be obliged to certifie …he Bishop, as well as theirs to certifie the Presbytery. Ans. Because Christ gave no power to a Bishop above other Presbyters; and Discipline in the Apostolick and Primitive p. 189Church, was exercised by a single person. If the Dr's principle be true; I think it is fitter to certifie the Justice of Peace, than either of both. What he saith of the Affrican Churches, is answered above. Let him prove that a Bishop by himself exercised discipline in them. The Bishop is often named as the Speaker in the Presbytery, by the declining of him, is meant declining of them. The Inconveniences that he allegeth, by putting Excommunication into the Hands of a single Congregation; we shun by a prudent reserving of that dreadful Ordinance, to a meeting of Pastors. But if it were done by the meanest Congregational Elder-ship, it could hardly be so ill managed, and made so ridiculous and contemptible, as it is now in the Hands of Bishops, or rather their Servants, in England. It is well known how solemn, and terrible it is, as practiced (which is seldom) in Presbyterian Churches; and how it hath tamed some stout-hearted Sinners, without a Capias or Magistratical power to back it. I wonder why the Dr. should use such Arguments, as he doth against Parochial Discipline; to wit, That there are no certain Rules to proceed by; no Determination what faults deserve Excommunication; no method of Tryal; no security against false …itnesses; no limitation of Causes; no liberty of Appeals, besides multitudes of other Inconveniences. Sure this Author thinketh the Bible of little use to the Church, without a Book of Canons; such reflections on the Word of God, are very unbecoming; a part of which is written on purpose to teach Ministers, how to behave themselves in the House of God, 1 Tim. 3. 15. I hope the Dr's more sober thoughts will satisfie him in all these; and therefore I shall give no more particular Answer. But he might have considered, if the Bishop have directions for all these in the Bible (and if he have not, his Will must be his Law) why may not the Classical and Congregational Presbytery, respective take the help of them. He thinketh a Parochial Court of Judicature (so he is pleased to speak in the Episcopal Stile) would prove more Tyranical, than any Bishops Court. It may be so, if managed by bad men; but if they keep within the Rules they profess to go by, it will seem Tyrannical to none but stubborn Sinners, whose galled Necks cannot bear Christ's Yoke, And it could never be so grievous to Mens Persons and Estates, as the Bishops Courts; for these we medle not with. His fifth Answer I say nothing against.

Sect. 19. He hath yet a further Apology for the want of Parochial Discipline; even supposing every one left to their own Consciences, as to their fitness for the Communion; he saith, 1. The p. 190greatest offenders abstain of themselves; and they that come are usually the most devou…. 2. If Debauched Persons come, it is upon some awakening of Conscience. Then both which nothing can be said more contrary to common experience. 3. He saith, This doth not defile right Communicants: That is true; and therefore it is no cause of Separation; but it is the Churches fault, and should be amended. 5. and 6. Some Presbyterian Churches, and the Church of Constantinople were for a Time without Discipline. This is no imitable Example.