An Apology for the Discipline of the Ancient Church, Part 2 · Section 3

An Apology for the Discipline of the Ancient Church · Part 2 · Section 3

p. 70SECT. III. The words of the Letter.

The ſecond degree of the Combinational Churches corruption was the Cathedral Churches generation, which did preſume to alter and elevate the places and appellations of the Teacher, Paſtour, Ruler, and Deacon, unto thoſe unſcripture-like titles of Lord-Biſhop, Dean, Chancellor, Surrogate & Arch-Deacon, who ventur'd to uſurp the power of excommunication againſt the Members and Miniſters of many Congregations in their Synods and Councils, contrary to what was practic'd in that Orthodoxe pattern, Acts 15.24. which is laid down and left as well for the imitation as information of after-ages; whoſe work it was by Scripture-proofs to confute ſoul ſubverting poſitions, and to confirme Chriſtian doctrines, without uſing any manner of authority to cenſure any mans perſon, being that that is the expreſſe priviledge of the Presbyterial Church, 1 Cor. 5.4, 5. & 2 Theſ. 3.15. The babe-age of which uſurpation is made mention of, as newly appearing in the world by what was exerciſed by Alexander of Alexandria againſt Euſebius of Nicomedia, as well as againſt Arius in the reigne of Conſtantius and Conſtance the ſonnes of Conſtantine the Emperour, as it is to be ſeen in Socrat. Schol. Lib. 1. c. 3. compared with the 32 cap. lib. 2. and Evagr. lib. 1. cap. 6.

p. 71Reply.

That I may return you a full anſwer, I muſt take aſunder into propoſitions what you here deliver. You ſay,

1. The Combinational Churches corruption was the Cathedral Churches generation.

2. The corruption was by changing the places and appellations of Teachers, &c. into the titles of Lord Biſhop, Dean, Chancellour, Arch-Deacon.

3. That they ventured to uſurp the power of excommunication in their Synods and Councils.

4. That this was contrary to the Orthodox pattern, Acts 15.

5. Authority to cenſure any mans perſon is the expreſſe priviledge of the Presbyterial Church, 1 Cor. 5.4, 5. 2 Theſ. 3.15.

6. Alexander ab Alexandria, began this againſt Arrius and Euſebius of Nicomedia, ſo that it was an uſurpation, and a new age in the Church.

1. Propoſition. That the Combinational Churches corruption, was the Cathedral Churches generation.

IT is a rule in Philoſophy,Non entis non ſunt accidentia. that corruptio is mutatio entis ab eſſe ad non eſſe tale. That which is corrupted then muſt have an entity, for elſe it can never be corrupted. Now your Combinational Church in the time you ſpeak of was a non en…, there was no ſuch thing, and then it could not be corrupted, nor any other Church riſe from that corruption.

Which ſhall further appear, if we ſhall diſtinguiſh of the terme Cathedral, which I hinted at firſt; for as among Logical notions there be termini primi, and à primo orti, ſo alſo it is in this; the word Cathedral being taken in a primitive and in a derivative ſenſe. If you take it in the prime ſenſe, it denotes unto us thoſe places or chief Cities where the Apoſtles for ſome time, or Apoſtolical men by their appointment took up their reſidence for converſion of the people, and reglement of the Church; hence it is, that we ſo often read of in the fathers Cathedra Jacobi, which was at Jeruſalem; Cathedra Petri, which was for ſeven years at Antioch; after at Alexandria; and laſt of all, Cathedra Apoſtolorum Petri & Pauli at Rome. In thoſe Churches where they ſtaid for any long time and preach'd, and planted Religion, which were commonly the Metropolis of that Province or Country, as Epheſus, Corinth, Philippi, at their departure, they left a Biſhop with a Presbytery to govern, and thence theſe Churches were call'd Eccleſiae Cathedrales. This is the prime importance of the word. But p. 72after as Chriſtianity was extended, and Biſhops were ſeated and erected in divers Dioceſſes they began to build Churches, in which at firſt the Biſhop and the Presbyters did reſide, who were to over-ſee the Dioceſſe; and becauſe of their reſidence in this place, the Church in imitation of the Apoſtles Chairs, was call'd the Cathedral Church. Neither was this Cathedral ſo new,Euſeb. l. 2. c. 17. as moſt men ſuppoſe. For I ſhall not ſtick to call the foreign in Egypt mentioned by Euſebius out of Philo the Jew a Cathedral; it will ſeem ſo to any man, that ſhall adviſedly read that Chapter; for he writes of their government, of them to whom the Eccleſiaſtical Liturgies are committed; Of their Deaconſhips, of the preſidency of Biſhops, placed above all. To which, that of Palladius will give much light; for he ſaith,Palladius in Hiſtor. Lauſiaca. that in this foreign there were eight Presbyters, and that ſo long as the chief over them liv'd, none of the reſt might foreign. Here the Scriptures were read, prayers continued, Hymnes and Canticles in every kind of Meeter ſung to God, penances tranſacted, foreign, upon the old Sabbath and every Lords day. I cannot conceive but this might be a Cathedral, even in this laſt ſenſe. I ſhall inſtance in another which was old,Euſeb. l. 3. c. 23. even in Saint John's time the Apoſtle. He commended the young man to the chief of all the Biſhops, (can any man think he was leſſe than a Metropolitane?) the man prov'd deboiſt, ran from the Church and became a thief. At his return, John demanded of the Biſhop his charge; the Biſhop ſobbing and ſighing ſaid, he is dead, dead to God, for he is become wicked and pernicious, and to be ſhort a Thief; for he keeps this Mountain over againſt this Church together with his aſſociates; 'tis more then probable this was a Material Church; for how elſe could the hill be over againſt it? and preſently it is ſaid, that the Apoſtle haſtened out of the Church. Now I judge it to be Cathedral, becauſe he that was the chief of the Biſhops had his reſidence in it. Let it be alſo conſidered what Euſebius writes in his tenth book,Euſeb. l. 10. c. 2. cap. 2. that in the beginning of Conſtantines reign, that the Temples were again from the foundations erected to an unmeaſurable height, and received greater beauty than ever they enjoy'd before their deſtruction. They were then before, and were but now again erected. And we of all other have leaſt reaſon to doubt of this, ſince Joſeph of Arimathea erected a Church at Glaſtenbury, as the beſt of our Hiſtorians record,Gildas, Spilman, Cambden. and Spilman hath in picture given us the extent and faſhion, and materials of it. After, divers other Cathedral Churches were erected in this Iſland by King Lucius, if there be any truth in our Records, at Landaff, at London, at Cheſter, &c. as you may read in Ephraim, Pagetts Chriſtianography, part 3. page 1, &c.

Now take the Cathedral in which of theſe acceptions you pleaſe, your aſſertion cannot have any truth in it. Not in the firſt; for then you make the Apoſtles the authours of this corruption, ſince they were the erectors of theſe Cathedrals; not in the laſt, becauſe they were erected after the Apoſtolical patterne. The plain truth is, that the corruption of the Combinational was not in the erection of either, becauſe the combinational never was before either. What was it precedent to Saint James his Cathedra in Jeruſalem? p. 73I marvail when it ſhould begin? His was then ſet up before the Apoſtles departed to preach to the whole world, and under him it is not poſſible to conceive the Church could be Combinational;Acts 1. & 2. Acts 4.41. Acts 4.4. Acts 5.14. Acts 6.1.Acts 1Acts 4:41Acts 4:4Acts 5:14Acts 6:1 for upon neceſſity in that Church at that time there muſt be more than one Congregation; for from 120. to 3120. to theſe were added 5000. which makes 8120. and yet more multitudes of men and women were added, and ſtill the number of diſciples were multiplied. And out of doubt the increaſe ſtaid not here, God adding to the Church dayly ſuch as ſhould be ſaved. That ſo many thouſands ſhould meet together in any houſe to performe their Chriſtian duties was impoſſible; they muſt be divided into ſeveral Congregations, Had theſe been Combinational, then Saint James had been by the Apoſtles made Biſhop of Jeruſalem to little purpoſe; for he could nor muſt not have taken the over-ſight but of one of them, the reſt had been out of his juriſdiction, which I ſuppoſe no wiſe man will ever think, ſince the Apoſtles no queſtion had the ſame charity, and would have the ſame care of the reſt, as of that one, and then would have ſet up as many chaires as there had been Congregations. But of ſuch we hear not, of this one we do, which is a ſufficient evidence to me, that all the Chriſtians of that City at leaſt, if not of all Paleſtine, were under his juriſdiction, and ſubject to his Cathedra. Out of which it will neceſſarily follow, That the Cathedral Church was the prime inſtitution, not the Combinational, and that therefore the Combinational Churches corruption, was not the Cathedrals generation, but rather the contrary, which we have lived to ſee, that the Combinationals generation, is the Cathedrals corruption.

And what I have ſaid in particular of the Church of Jeruſalem, is as true of all other Churches the Apoſtles planted, and in others planted by their patterne, Antioch, Corinth, Atheus, Rome, &c. for the ſame reaſon holds in all theſe Cities where the multitudes of beleevers grew ſo numerous; one Congregation could not hold them. I aske now, had the Apoſtles, put caſe Peter or Paul there preſent, had they juriſdiction over them all, or had they not? If they had, then the Combination and Independency of Churches is at an end in the Primitive Church. If they had not, I wonder they ſhould ſtay for divers years in one place, having no more to do, than to ſuperviſe one ſingle Congregation; beſides, that then there muſt be as many as there were Paſtours in thoſe Churches of equal power in their ſeveral Churches with the Apoſtles, which he that can beleeve, may digeſt any thing.

Epheſus was a great City,Rev. 2.3.Rev 2:3 and had in it thoſe who took upon them to ſay they were Apoſtles, the Angel (be it Biſhop or Colledge of Presbyters) is commended for trying them, and finding them lyers; if they were not of his own Congregation, what had the Angel to do to try them? if your Tenet be true, he deſerves no commendation at all, but rather reproof for being foreign. But that they were, is more than ever you can prove. I am apt to beleeve, that if it had been ſo, the Epiſtle had not been directed to the Angel of the Church of Epheſus, but to the Angel of ſuch or ſuch a Congregation in Epheſus. Verſe 24.And the like may be ſaid of the Churches p. 74of Pergamos and Thyatyra, Verſe 18.the laſt being reproved for ſuffering the woman Jezabel, calling her ſelf a Propheteſſe to teach and ſeduce. For if the Angel had not power over all the Congregations of that City, ſay that this Jezabel had taught in another Combinational Church, which is very poſſible, and not in his, the anſwer had been eaſie, Jezabel is out of my reach, out of my juriſdiction, and therefore you have nothing againſt me for her miſdemeanour.

This that I have ſaid deſtroyes clearly the ſubject of your Propoſition, the Combinational Church, and that being gone, what you affirme of it will fall of it ſelf. I ſhall therefore hereafter deſire you to lay your foundation deeper, before you go about to build, or to ſpeak more properly, to deſtroy any thing upon ſuch a groundleſſe ſuppoſition, which you and I have reaſon to ſuſpect, were it onelyonly but for this, that all the Churches of the Chriſtian world, Eaſt, Weſt, North, South, for theſe 1600 years and more have been of another conſtitution. Were it Rome alone, I ſhould ſuſpect; but when all are otherwiſe, none Combinational, no not thoſe who ſcarce ever heard of Rome, and all Cathedral, I cannot be perſwaded that the love of Chriſt hath been ſo cold to his Catholique Church, to ſuffer this Cathedral corruption as you call it ſo long, ſo univerſally to over-ſpread her face. It ſeemes to me contrary to his promiſe, behold, I am with you to the end of the world. And ſo I end what I had to ſay to this Propoſition. I now come to the next, in which you tell us, what this corruption was, viz.

Propoſition. 2. A preſumption to alter and to elevate the places and appellations of the Teacher, Paſtour, Ruler, and Deacon, into thoſe unſcripture-like Titles of Lord-biſhop, Deane, Chancellour, Arch-deacon.

TO this I in the firſt place ſhall returne you the words of Zanchy. Quid quod in Eccleſis etiam Proteſtantium non deſunt reipſa Epiſcopi & Archiepiſcopi? Zanchy append. de fide Aphoriſm. 11.quos mutatis bonis Gracis nominibus, in male Latina convertimus; vocant ſuperintendentes & generales ſuperintendentes. Sed ubi etiam neque illa vetera bona Graeca, neque haec nova malè Latina nomina obtinent, ibi tamen ſolent eſſe aliqui primarii, penes quos eſt authoritas. De nominibus ergo fuerit controverſia, verum eum de rebus convenit, quid de nominibus altercamur? This firſt.

2. Next to your Diſtribution I ſay, that perhaps by Teachers and Paſtors you may intend two ſorts of Miniſters in the Church; for ſo I know ſome diſtinguiſh, that Paſtours in Saint Paul were ſuch as had not onelyonly the office to preach the Word and adminiſter the Sacraments, but had alſo the Church and care of ſouls committed to them; Teachers, thoſe who laboured in the Doctrine, but received no charge of Sacraments or ſouls. Some make the Teachers to be publike profeſſors of Divinity, and Governours of Eccleſiaſtical p. 75Schooles; but Paſtours, to be the Miniſters of particular Congregations, which I will not deny but it may be true; but I ſhall remember you that four of the Fathers, Jerome, Auſtin, Chryſoſtome, Theodoret, were unacquainted with the nicetie; for they thought the Apoſtle expreſſ'd what belong'd to the Paſtoral office under two names, that the Paſtour was to be Doctour, to remember he muſt labour in doctrine, as well as foreign, which often ſignifies to rule. And then your third word Rulers will come under that notion alſo, and ſo Teachers, Paſtours and Rulers will not denote three diſtinct ſorts of Church Officers, which I have ſome reaſon to think you aime at, but one and the ſame man qualified both to teach and to rule. At Geneva, Calvin and Beza were made both Paſtours and Readers of Divinity, being men ſo able to diſcharge both; and yet no man did ſay, that they did not content themſelves with their paſtoral votation, or alledge againſt them, He that teacheth on teaching, or he that exhorteth on exhortation. For as I have often told you, and have proved, Lay-Ruling Elders, except you mean Arbitratours, there were never any in the Primitive Church.

The laſt word you uſe is Deacon.Hieron. ad Evagrium. Epiph. lib. 1. Tom. 1. de adventu Chriſti in carnem. And under that name are properly comprehended thoſe who by the firſt inſtitution were onelyonly menſarum & viduarum Miniſtri: who if we beleeve Epiphanius, were choſe out of the ſeventy; of which, two of them did preach. Stephen and Philip, they were more than Deacons, they were Evangeliſts, and ſo Philip is ſtiled. But he that ſhall heedfully conſider Saint Pauls precepts, and the conditions required by him in thoſe that ſhould be Deacons; would eaſily collect, that their Office was not onelyonly a charge to look to the poor, but that they were to attend the ſacred ſervices and Aſſemblies, and even to be a ſtep to the Miniſtry of the word.

I ſhall therefore willingly admit of the diſtinction, that there were in the Primitive Church two ſorts of Deacons. One of the firſt inſtitution, who were to have a care of the poor; and of a ſecond kinde deputed by the Church, who were to attend on the Church; give unto eve y one preſent of the ſanctified bread and wine, to command the people ſilence, attention,Concil. Ancyr. Can. 2. Cypr. lib. 3. Epiſt. 9. …uſt. Apol. 2. Ignat. ad Heronem. and devotion; all which may be collected out of the Council of Ancyra, Cyprian, Juſtin Martyr, and Ignatius, who mentions his own Deac Heron at Antioch, and Stephen to be the Deacon to Saint James at Jeruſalem.

Thus much it was neceſſary to premiſe before we joyn'd iſſue; now you charge us with preſumption in removing the Landmarks, that we have altered the places and appellations, by bringing in of new names, unſcripture-like titles: So belike it is not lawful to uſe any titles of honour or command, but ſuch as are uſed in Scripture. The Jewes then belike offended, when they uſed theſe unſcripture-like titles of Reſchignim, Tſadikim, Chaſidim, and ſo after the captivity they divided the people. The Reſchagnim, were the foreign the wicked; the Tſadikim, their foreign their juſt men; the Chaſidim, their foreign or foreign their good and holy men. And yet Saint Paul ſerves himſelf of this diſtinction; for queſtionleſſe he alludes p. 76to it,Rom. 5.6, 7.Rom 5:6Rom 5:7 amplifying the great love of Chriſt dying for us. Scarcely for a righteous man will one dye, yet peradventure for a good man, ſome would even dare to dye; the gradation is this. Some peradventure would dye for one of the Chaſidim the good men, ſcarcely for one of the Tſadikim, for the juſt or righteous men; But for Reſchagnim or ungodly, none would dye; In this then appeared the love of Chriſt, that when we were Reſchagnim ungodly ſinners, Chriſt dyed for us. A man is a Ruler of an Army, and he ſhall not call ſome Majors, ſome Colonells, ſome Centurions, Pentacurions, Decurions, &c. becauſe theſe are unſcripture-like titles. Nomen is rei notamen, invented it was to denote the thing, neither do I know which way it is poſſible to underſtand and diſtinguiſh but by names; vox being rei & conceptuum ſignum; and therefore muſt neceſſarily be admitted, if we will not confound our ſelves in the underſtanding of things. But now to the names you mention, Lord-Biſhop, Dean, Chancellour, Surrogate, Arch-Deacon. The end of two of theſe, I finde in Scripture, Biſhop and Deacon; but you'll ſay the ſyllables, Lord and Arch, are unſcripture-like. I muſt confeſſe, that I finde not Lord before Biſhop in the Scripture, nor Arch before Deacon; but this will not prove that we have altered the places and appellations: for what place have we altered either of Biſhops or Deacons, by calling one Lord-Biſhop, or the other Arch-Deacon? Still the place and office is the ſame; for the Lord-Biſhop hath no other power than he had at firſt, which is poteſtas clavium; nor the Arch-Deacon any more than he had, to be oculus Epiſcopi, and ſee that all be well adminiſtred that concerns the poor, and ſervice of the Church. To be offended with a title is to pick ſtraws, eſpecially when the ſubſtance is obſerved.

For how have we alter'd the places, when we have yet in our Church Biſhops, who are Paſtours, Teachers, and beſides theſe publick Profeſſours of Divinity, Doctours, Catechizers, whom Saint Paul, ſaith Saint Ambroſe, meant by Teachers, ſuch as were in the Churches of Alexandria, Clemens, Pantonus, Origen, Hicroclas. As for thoſe other three appellations, Dean, Chancellour, Surrogate, no Scripture can be brought for them, nor needs it, it being lawful, no queſtion, to give fit names to things, though no text can be produced; otherwiſe your parties were to ſeek, who call him who is to preſide in a Synod by the name of a Proloquutor, and thoſe that govern in your Combinational Churches Lay-Elders; and are not theſe unſcripture-like? for I finde no ſuch titles in the Scriptures.

As for the name of Deane, it is ancient, and it ſignifies no more than that Presbyter who was the chief in any Collegiate Church, and was to have a care that the Statutes of the Church were obſerved, being like the the Principal Warden or Preſident of a College, and you may as well be offended with any of theſe Appellations as with this, with which yet it is evident many of your party are well pleaſed, for they enjoy it, and the honour and profits, notwithſtanding the names are not found in Scripture. And ſhould any man lay this objection againſt any of them, I dare ſay he would p. 77anſwer him with a ſmile. I am confident he would, who being a prime man among you, at this day enjoyeth a Deanery, and doubtleſſe hugs himſelf, applaudít ſibi ipſi domi; Aha, I am warme, I have been at the fire. That you like the name nere the worſe it was fetcht from the Militia. The Romane ſouldiers were when drawn to their winter quarters to lodge by companies, and ſo many as lodged together, being commonly ten, were called Contubernales, the chief over them was called Decenus, or decurio, Hadrian. Junius.being praeſes manipuli, dexinier en guerre Gall, or the Corporal from the Italian word Caporale, or Spaniſh, Corporal. We in Enlgliſh Corporal: and from hence it was borrowed and brought into the Church, that the chief of the Capitulum ſhould be called Decan, which I think is Arch-Presbyter.

3. I come now to your other two diſlik'd Appellations, Chancellours and Surrogates. That the Biſhop was at firſt the chief Judge in his Church I have before proved, and then no dought he might appoint his ſubordinate Officials. This being a confeſſed rule in the Law, that when any cauſe is committed to any man, he is alſo conceived to receive full authority in all matters belonging to that cauſe. When the Emperours became Chriſtian, they judged it equal and pious to reſerve ſome cauſes to be tried in the Chriſtian Court, in which they conſtituted the Biſhop to be the Judge. Theſe cauſes were properly called Eccleſiaſtical, ſuch as were Blaſphemy, Apoſtacy, Hereſies, Schiſmes, Orders, Admiſſions, inſtitution of Clerks,Cooks Reports fol. 8. Rites of Matrimony, Probates of Wills, Divorces, and ſuch like. To give audience to theſe, the Biſhop otherwiſe imployed, could not alway be preſent; and yet there was no reaſon that for his abſence juſtice ſhould not take its courſe. And in ſome of theſe had he been preſent, great skill in Civil Lawes is requiſite, that they be ended aright. This gave occaſion to the Biſhop to appoint his Chancellour and Surrogate. A Chancellour (who had his name à Cancellis within which he was to ſit) a man brought up in the Civil Lawes, and therefore fit to decide ſuch cauſes that did depend upon thoſe Lawes, who being at firſt a meere Lay-man, and therefore having no power of Exommunication, therefore the Biſhop thought fit to adjoyne a Surrogate to him, that in caſe that high cenſure were to be paſſed, this man being in Orders, and therefore inveſted with power, actu primo, and by Commiſſion with the Biſhops power actu ſecundo ſub Epiſcopo rogatus, being demanded, and an Officer under the Biſhop,Actu primo. might pronounce the Sentence. This was the original of their names and power. Now prudential neceſſity firſt inſtituted them, and prudence where Epiſcopal power is of force continues them. If a Superiour ſhall be pleaſed to revoke ſome of theſe cauſes, which were by him made of Eccleſiaſtical cognizance, and cauſe the litigants to take their trial at Common or Civil Law,Vide the book of Order of Excommunication in Scotl. & Hiſt. of Scot Amon 2. pag. 46. then in the Church I confeſſe there will be no uſe of the Chancellour. And if the reſt ſhall be tried by the Biſhop and his Presbytery, as they were at firſt, neither will there need much a Surrogate. But now if that rule of the Presbytery ſhould prove to be true, who do challenge cogniſance of all cauſes whatſoever, which are ſins directly, or by reduction, then they have power, if not to nullifie, yet to give liberty to play, all Courts and Judicatories p. 78beſides their own, and muſt bring in thither Sollicitours, Atturneys, Counſellours, Procters, &c. which will be as un-Scripture-like names as Chancellours and Surrogates.

Cinod. de off. Eccl. Joannes Epiſ. Citri in reſpon ad cabaſil. Naz. Teſtam.4. The fourth Appellation that offends you, is the Arch-Deacon, who was a very ancient officer in the Church, and of great eſteeme in the Greek Church. Neither was he choſen to that place by the Patriarch, but came to it by ſeniority; the name then gave him no power, but onelyonly this prerogative to be chief of the Deacons of the Church, as if you would ſay of the eldeſt ſtanding. In the Church of England he was more than a Deacon, for he was a Presbyter, and his office was to be preſent at all ordinations, to enquire into the life, the manners, the abilities, and ſufficiency of him who was to be ordained, and either to reject him if he ſaw occaſion, or to preſent him to the Biſhop to be ordained, to induct into any Benefice that man who was inſtituted by the Biſhop, to have the care of the houſes of God were kept decent, and in good repair: laſtly, to take account of all who had to do with the poors money. And this laſt was it which gave him the name of the chief Deacon;Ambr. lib. 1. de off. c. 41. Prudentius. for when the charity of the Church was great, and ample gifts were beſtowed to the relief of the poorer Chriſtians, the Church ſtock was ample, (as appears by Lawrence the Martyr, who was Deacon to Sixtus Biſhop of Rome martyred under Valerian) This being committed to the Deacons care, that no fraud might be committed, as it hapned too oft in money-matters, the Church thought fit to ſet one of the Deacons over the reſt, who might call them to account, as ours were to do the Church-wardens and Overſeers of the poor, to whom they gave the name of the Arch-Deacon.

Now ſpeak impartially, what harme was in all this? What that may offend you? Deacon cannot, and Arch ſhould not, ſince you know it ſignifies no more but chief or prime, as in theſe words foreign, Patriarch. And that you may carry ſome affection, or at leaſt not a loathing to it, I pray call to memory, that a worthy Martyr of our Church John Philpot adjudged to the fire, and burnt in Queen Maryes dayes,Fox Martyrol. An. 1553. primo Mariae. reſigned up his ſoul in the flames, being then Arch-Deacon of Wincheſter. And that with him Maſter Cheiny and Maſter Elmour that refuſed to ſubſcribe to the doctrine of Tranſubſtantiation in the Convocation-houſe, were both Arch-Deacons.

5. But now I return back again to that Appellation Lord-Biſhop, at which ſo many have ſtumbled and been ſcandalized; that others before you have done it, I have reaſon to attribute to envie & an evil eye, but in you I ſhal onelyonly impute it to inconſideration.Gen. 24. 1 Kings 18. 2 Kings 2. 2 Kings 4. 2 Kings 8.Gen 241 Kgs 182 Kgs 22 Kgs 42 Kgs 8 For you are mighty in the Scriptures, and therefore might have known that the Hebrew Adoni, or the Greek foreign, or the Latine Dominus, which in the Spaniſh is Don, in the French Sciur, in Engliſh Sir, is onelyonly a name of civility, courteſie, reſpect, reverence. By this Rebecca calls Abrahams ſervant, Drink my Lord. By this Obadiah the Prophet, Art thou my Lord Elijah? By this the children of the Prophets, the inhabitants of Hiericho, the Sunamite, and Hazael, the Prophet Eliſha. By this, Mary the Gardner, foreign, Lord, or Sir, if thou have p. 79taken him hence; with this civil reſpect the Greeks accoſt Philip, John 20.15. John 12.21. 1 Pet. 3.6.John 20:15John 12:211 Pet 3:6foreign, Sir, we would ſee Jeſus. In all which places, the word imports onelyonly a courteous and reſpectful compellation. And St. Peter commends the woman that ſhall with this name endear her husband, propoſing the example of Sarah that obeyed Abraham, and call'd him Lord.

To a Biſhop double honour, reſpect, reverence is due; for he is compriſed under the name of father in the Commandment, and whom we muſt honour in heart and deed, why not in words? ſhall the lips neglect, whom the heart regards, eſpecially when the tongue is the interpreter of the minde within? And what do we more, when we call a Biſhop Lord, 'tis but reſpect, honour, reverence, that we then tender unto him. And if Rebeccah ſignified to a ſervant; if Obadiah and Hazael to a Prophet; if Mary to a Gardner; if Helleniſts to Philip; if an obedient wife to a Mechanick, a hard-handed Artiſan, may atteſt her reverential regard, by this word Lord authorized in Scripture: why ſhould the ſame word be called an unſcripture-like compellation, when affix'd before the name of thoſe, who are by their place and office to be the lights of the Chriſtian world, and really endued with power for the regiment of the Catholick Church? Had they yet aſſumed this name, and faſtned it upon themſelves, there had been ſome exception to be laid againſt it. For 'tis but reaſon, he who exalts himſelf, ſhould be abaſed; but they were others, and thoſe no mean ones, that thought them worthy of this honourable title. To omit other Kingdomes, the Princes of this Nation, who were the fountains of honour, thought it fit that no Lawes ſhould paſſe for the government of the Nation, to which they gave not their vote; and for that end, call'd them to their Parliaments, by the ſame Writ that they call'd other Lords. And I am certain, before ſome mens heat had corrupted good manners, it was the guiſe of Chriſtendome, not to ſpeak of Biſhops, fine praefatione honoris, in particular this honour. I ſhall give you an inſtance or two. The inſcription of a letter to Julius Biſhop of Rome from ſome of his brethren,Sozomen. lib. 3. cap. 23. Nazianz. ad Greg. Nyſſen. Theodoret. lib. 5. c. 9. is foreign. Let no man ſpeak untruths of me, foreign, ſaith Gregory Nazianzene. And the Synodical book of the Council of Conſtantinople, is inſcribed Dominis Reverendiſſimis, ac piiſſimis fratribus ac Collegis Damaſo, Ambroſio, &c. and they were Biſhops. I ſpare more teſtimonies; theſe may ſuffice that the title Lord-Biſhop was not new, nor invented in this Land. Yet that thoſe, who were honoured among us might bear this title without any derogation to Scripture; even by Scripture teſtimonies I have ſaid enough.

I am not ignorant that there be two places of Scripture produced, as if they were a prohibition to this title, Luke 22.25. 1. Pet. 5.3. foreign, & foreign. But he that ſhall conſiderately weigh both places, will never be able to inferre any ſuch concluſion For let it be thought on, what was the occaſion of our Saviours words; Zebedees wife comes and petitions for her ſonnes, that one might ſit at the right, another on the left hand in his Kingdome; which out of a Jewiſh opinion they then p. 80thought muſt be earthly and temporal. At this ambition of the two brethren the Diſciples murmured; they thought they had deſerved as well as mother Zebedees children, and knew no reaſon why they ſhould be preferr'd before them. To ſtill this contention our Saviour tells them, that this his Kingdome was not to be like that of the world, in that the Kings of the Nations, foreign dominantur, ſo Junius, ſo Beza tranſlates it, do domineere, rule and govern with a high hand, in potentia gladii, or as it is in Saint Matthew, Mat. 20.25.Matt 20:25foreign, and foreign, do pro arbitrio exerciſe dominion, and exerciſe authority over them; but with you it ſhall not be ſo; You no ſuch Lords as they are, uſe no ſuch domineering power as they do. A power you are to have, but not like theirs; your's is to be ſpiritual, their's temporal: their power they uſe with pride, rigour, ſometimes tyranny, and againſt the good of their ſubjects; for it is foreign in the genitive caſe (and the Scholiaſt upon Nazianzene obſerves,Scholiaſt. Nazianz. in foreign. that foreign in any compound Verb with a genitive caſe, ſignifies againſt) But your power muſt not be ſo uſed, vos non ſic; It muſt be with mildneſſe, meekneſſe, humility; he who is to be foreign among you, let him be your ſervant. It is not the word, it is the ambitious ſeeking of a temporal principality, as an affix of the Apoſtolate, that Chriſt interdicted his Diſciples.Bern. lib. 10. de Conſider. Forma Apoſtolica haec est, Dominatio interdicitur, indicitur Ministratio. Dominatio is forbid, is therefore the word Dominus? were this ſo, a temporal Lord muſt go without his title of honour, as well as the Lord-Biſhop; for the dominion they uſe may poſſibly be more rigorous, arbitrary, Lordly, tyrannical, than ever was that of the Biſhop. Well, however they uſe it, who can help it? with them it muſt not be ſo, though they have and may be allow'd in civility to be foreign, yet they never were allowed to be foreign, tyrannous, rigorous Lords; Saint Peters words are clear againſt that, foreign; the Apoſtle would not that any ſuperiour ſhould lord it over or againſt Gods inheritance. That ſervice, that humility, that meekneſſe, which our Saviour preſcribes his Apoſtles, is againſt that: and who ſo ſhall make uſe of the text to any other purpoſe, goes about to finde in it, that which our bleſſed Saviour never intended; he may as ſoon fetch gold out of a pibble.

One thing yet doth amaze me, that thoſe men ſhould be ſo much ſtartled at a civil title, who yet make uſe of the power even in the moſt rigid conſtruction. They who firſt preſt it againſt Biſhops, were the Anabaptiſts of Germany; nothing was ſo frequently in their mouths, as the Kings of the Nations, but theſe at length had Conſuls and Kings of their own erection among themſelves. To them ſucceeded the Presbyterian conſiſtory, and ſo eager they are for this government, that they call their Diſcipline the Kingdome of Chriſt, the Tabernacle which God hath appointed; and where this Eccleſiaſtical Synod is not erected,Browne in a Treatiſe againſt one Barrow. they ſay that Gods Ordinance is not performed; the office of Chriſt as he is King, is not acknowledged; and in this Kingdome who were like to bear moſt ſway? are they not the Ruling Elders? This Brown, not I, calls a Lordly Diſcipline; and ſaith, that inſtead of ſome Lord-Biſhops in name, we ſhould have a thouſand p. 81Lordly Tyrants indeed, which now do diſdain the name; for, ſaith he, if you could but once get up the names of Elders and Presbyters, what miſchief, cruelty and pride would not ſtream from that name? with much more to that purpoſe. At laſt we feel into whoſe hands the power is come, and this I may be bold to ſay, that the loyns of the Lord-Biſhops were not ſo heavy as have been the little fingers of ſuch of your Paſtours, who have declin'd the name. I liſt not to grate your eares with this harſh muſick; but lay your hand upon your heart, and ſay, whether the Maſters of your Congregations be not the men foreign. God is my witneſſe, and you partly know that I never was guilty of the ſmoothing of any mans pride, of favouring of any mans rigorous domineering. Of honour I alwayes thought him moſt worthy, who I ſaw did leaſt affect it; affectation of honour, and deſire of ſuperiority, I know, our Saviour prohibits; and on the contrary, humility, lowlineſſe and meekneſſe is that which he commands▪ And yet I ſee no reaſon why it ſhould grieve any godly minde to hear a Biſhop call'd by that name, with which Saint Peter will'd every woman to call her husband, and Mary Magdalen call'd him who had but a ſpade in his hand. They are not titles that can ſwell any man, who hath not pride in his heart, and that may leven as much and puffe up him, that puffs at this title, and bears other names, as he that was once call'd Lord Biſhop. And ſo much of the titles you except againſt; I come now to what you lay to their charge

Propoſition. 3. Who ventured to uſurp the power of excommunication in their Synods and Councils.

WHO is a Relative, and it hath ſo many Antecedents, that I know not whether you referre it to all the fore-going titles, or to ſome in particular. To all you ſhould not, for the Dean intermedled not with excommunications; the Chancellour de facto did; but ſhould not; ſo I grant you that was an uſurpation, and complain'd on; and preach'd down by me, as well as decryed by you. The Surrogate and Arch-Deacon did; but then it was not jure nativo, but delegato; for their commiſſion they had from the Biſhops: I ſhall therefore more willingly conceive your thoughts reflect upon them, and eſpecially becauſe you mention Synods and Councils, which they alone at firſt had power to aſſemble. But then to affirme that it was an uſurped power in them to excommunicate in Synods and Councils, ſeems to me a Paradox. For I ſhall here ask, whether the Biſhops being not aſſembled in Synods or Councils had power to excommunicate or no? If you ſay they had, then it will ſeem ſtrange that meeting in Synods and Councils they ſhould loſe this power. This is as if you ſhould ſay, that Corporations meeting in Council ſhould loſe the power, which every ſingle Alderman had before he came thither, or the people their rights p. 82and priviledges when aſſembled in Parliament, which they had before; Vis unita ſortior; and certainly what power any man hath to act ſingly and by himſelf, when he meets with other Commiſſioners aſſociated in that power, he works more vigorouſly, and his act is of the greater authority. But if you ſhall ſay, that the Biſhops had no power of excommunication, nor then, nor before, nor in Council, nor out of it, you plainly contradict the Scriptures, which I ſhall evidence unto you, by examining the Commiſſion given the Apoſtles and their practice; and what is true of the Apoſtles, will be as true of the Biſhops: for I have before proved unto you, they were their Succeſſors, and by them ſetled in ſome Churches, And the ordinary power which was given to the Apoſtles was given to them; for otherwiſe Chriſts promiſe cannot be verifyed, behold, I am with you, ſignanter, to the end of the world.

John 20.John 20The Commiſſion is extant. As my Father ſent me, ſo ſend I you; and then preſently breathing on them, he addes, Receive the Holy Ghoſt. Whoſe ſinnes ye remit, they are remitted; whoſe ſinnes ye retain, they are retained: Cyril. lib. 12. in Joan. cap. 55. Cyprian. de unit. Eccleſiae. & Epiſt. 73. ad Julian.which words are underſtood by all the Ancient Doctours of authority, as though he ſaid that with the ſame power and authority my Father ſent me into the world to gather and govern my Church, I do alſo ſend you, that is, with all ſpiritual power neceſſary to your office and charge. Now I ask, whether the Apoſtles muſt be aſſembled in Council or not, when they were to execute this authority? if you ſay they muſt, then you grant the queſtion; for then the ſentence of excommunication may be paſſed in a Synod or Council. If you ſhould ſay they could not, then a ſingle Apoſtle could not excommunicate, which I yet never heard affirmed; all granting, that they were pares poteſtate, except the Papiſt, who will have all Epiſcopal power and authority originally inveſted in Saint Peter, and from him derived to others. But this I conceive you will not ſay neither, when I finde St. Paul aſſuming this power to himſelf.2 Cor. 13.10.2 Cor 13:10 Therefore I write theſe things being abſent; leſt being preſent, I ſhould uſe ſharpneſſe according to the power the Lord hath given me. What can be more plain? power given by the Lord to me, a ſingle Apoſtle; and therefore he tells them that heretofore had ſinned, Ver. 2.and to all other, that if he came again he would not ſpare, ſpare to lay his rod upon them. For in the firſt Epiſtle, he propoſeth ſuch a thing to them, and wills them to conſider of it; quid vult is? what will you? 1 Cor. 4.21.1 Cor 4:21ſhall I come unto you with a rod, or in love, or in the Spirit of meekneſſe? as who ſhould ſay, chooſe which you will. Compare this with 2 Cor. 10.4, 8, 9, 10, 11. verſes, and you will eaſily conclude that a ſingle Apoſtle had authority enough to lay his rod upon a ſcandalous contumacious offender. This for the power, now to the practice.

According to this power Saint Paul exerciſed judgment, and gave ſentence in a certain grievous caſe of inceſt among the ſaid Corinthians, in theſe words. I abſent in body, but preſent in ſpirit; have judged already, as though I were preſent concerning him that hath done this deed; in the name of our Lord Jeſus Chriſt when ye are gathered together, 1 Cor. 5.3, 4, 51 Cor 5:31 Cor 5:41 Cor 5:5and my ſpirit with the power of our Lord Jeſus Chriſt, to deliver ſuch a one to p. 83Satan. Who I pray was it that cenſured this man? was it not the Apoſtle himſelf? If I underſtand foreign, ego judicavi, it muſt be ſo. And the ſame Apoſtle writing to his Scholar Timothy, makes mention of another ſentence by him pronounced againſt Hymenaeus and Alexander, two ſeditious and heretical men; whom ſaith he, I have delivered, ego tradidi, 1 Tim. 1.2…1 Tim 1:2to Satan: i. e. excommunicated, and cut off from the Church of God, that they may learn not to blaſpheme. What ſhould I tell you that the learned draw the words of Saint Peter to Simon Magus to this purpoſe?Acts 8.21.Acts 8:21 Thou haſt no part nor lot in this matter. That Diotrephes caſt ſome out of the Church, it was his fault; but for this, Saint John when he came, Joh. Ep. 3.10.threatens to remember his deeds; i. e. as all Expoſitors agree, by his Apoſtolical power to proceed againſt him.

From the Apoſtles I deſcend lower. Firſt, to the Angels of the Churches, who were commended for not bearing with them that were evil; and for trying them who ſaid they were Apoſtles,Revel. 2.2.6.20. 1 Tim. 5.19, 20 21, 22. Tit. 3.10.Rev 2:2Rev 2:6Rev 2:201 Tim 5:191 Tim 5:20Titus 3:10 but found upon tryal lyars: and again, blamed when they neglected their duties. They were neither worthy of praiſe, nor yet blame-worthy, had they not had authority in their hands. Timothy is commanded to do the like at Epheſus, Titus at Crete.

Yea, but perhaps it may be replyed, theſe directions were not given to Timothy and Titus as ſingle Biſhops, but as chief of a Presbytery: well then, the concluſion will hence eaſily follow, that a Biſhop with his Preſbytery may excommunicate. If ſo, then I pray tell me, what uſurpation it can be for Biſhops aſſembled in a Synod or Council to do the like? They being chief cannot want that authority which the Presbytery hath; and why then ſhould they not uſe it? From an inferiour to a ſuperiour power, the argument follows ſtrongly. The Juſtices may puniſh ſuch or ſuch a Malefactour, much more the Judges, but much more the Superiour that empowred them. The reaſon is the ſame; The Biſhop with the Presbytery may caſt a ſcandalous perſon out of the Church, therefore much more the Biſhops themſelves aſſembled in Councils, becauſe among them there is a ſubordination. And what a leſſer power may do, that a higher may, which is empowred to that end. Thus have I wreſtled with your aſſertion, and foil'd it. I come next to grapple with your reaſon, and if that prove to be weak, your affirmation will fall of it ſelf. You ſay,

Propoſition 4. That this was contrary to what was practiſed in the Orthodox pattern, Acts 15.24. which was laid down and left as well for the imitation as information of after-ages.

FIrſt, I thank you, that you grant this Synod to be a pattern for after-ages to imitate, and be informed by. For firſt, then we have from this a ſufficient authority to call Synods and Councils. Secondly, a pattern p. 84to imitate in making Decrees, that it be by way of deliberation, declaration and deciſion.Act. 15. ver. 7.Acts 15:7 For the acts of this Council which the Presbyters and brethren uſed, were diſputative, or in genere deliberativo; they diſputed; Saint Peters act was declarative; and when there had been much diſputing,Verſe 12. Ver. 19. Peter roſe up and ſaid, &c. and the like was that of Barnabas and Paul. But Saint James his act was deciſive, wherefore foreign, I judge or give ſentence. Thirdly, There ought to be a Preſident in a Council, who is to moderate the whole action, and to pronounce the ſentence. Fourthly, That the Synodical decrees materially and Eccleſiaſtically are obligatory,Ver. 22.23. Acts 16.4. Acts 21.25.Acts 16:4Acts 21:25 and tye the abſent, as this did the Churches of Syria, Cilicia, yea, and all the Churches of the Gentiles, who had no Commiſſioners in that Synod, as well as thoſe of Jeruſalem and Antioch. Fifthly, that the chief man of a Council is, that you ſay, by Scripture-proof to confute ſoul-ſubverting poſitions, and to confirme Chriſtian doctrines, as it was in this. But this was not the ſole end; for another there was; viz. to caſt out of the Church, Diſturbers and Hereticks, as I ſhall by and by make good unto you: and ſo your poſition of uſurpation in Biſhops of the rod will not prove true.

But this you ſay, was contrary to the orthodox pattern; how ſo I pray? if a contrariety, then it muſt be oppoſite, and I have never yet heard, that ſubordinate ends come under any ſpecies of oppoſition. A man bindes his ſon Prentice, his end is, that he learn and be skilful in his profeſſion, but yet he hath a farther reach, which is, that he may get a livelyhood; the firſt he intends leſſe principally, the laſt chiefly; and can a man ſay now, that theſe two ends are contrary, or thwart one the other, when indeed they are but ſubſervient the one to the other? and the like is to be ſaid of all intermediate ends. For that rule of the Civilians is moſt true, finis principalis non tollit acceſſorium; to apply this, the chief end of the Apoſtolical Synod was to confute falſe poſitions, and eſtabliſh the truth; ſuppoſe now, that they had there pronounced an Anathema againſt thoſe Jewiſh Chriſtians, who would be ſtill zealous for circumciſion and the obſervation of Moſes Law after the publication of their decree, had this been contrary and oppoſite to their firſt and prime intent? you cannot ſay it. Neither is it then contrary, when a company of Biſhops meet in a Synod or Council to illuſtrate and hold forth the truth, and condemn hereſies, that they paſſe alſo a cenſure upon the Hereticks. I can finde no contrariety or oppoſition in this. Yea, but you'll ſay, here's no pattern for it. Neither is it neceſſary; it ſufficeth that here is a pattern ſet to compaſſe the chief end of all Councils; as for the acceſſories they may be regulated by prudence. A Prince calls a Parliament; in it there be good Laws eſtabliſhed for the peace of his Territories, and not one delinquent puniſhed or cenſured. Muſt this particular Seſſion be ſuch an abſolute pattern to all following Parliaments, that ſhall onelyonly make good Laws, and never call to queſtion, or paſſe ſentence upon any offender? I hope you will not ſay ſo; neither can you ſay it in this caſe. For I find the Apoſtles ſingly, as I have proved, and out of Council to have done it; and therefore I doubt not, that if being in p. 85Council aſſembled they had done it, it had been no errour. Yea, but this you'll ſay could not be done. For it follows,

Propoſition 5. To cenſure any mans perſon, is the expreſſe priviledge of the Presbyterial Church, 1 Cor. 5.4, 5. 2 Theſ. 3.15.

PRiviledges and Prerogatives are tender things; and it behoves thoſe who ſtand for them, to produce infallible Records, leſt it appear their claim be louder than their right. A Corporation ſtruggles hard for a priviledge, fees a Lawyer to plead their Charter; he picks out ſome weak words in it that may look that way; at laſt the Judge tells him, that he hath betrayed his Clients cauſe, for the words in the Charter carry no ſuch meaning. The like I muſt ſay to you; A priviledge you plead, for your Corps the Presbyterial Church; the evidence you give for it, is out of Gods great Charter, 1 Cor. 5. 2 Theſ. 3. Now if you had ſtudied to betray your caſe, you could not I believe have lighted upon two more weake evidences.

For doth Saint Paul aſſert a priviledge of the Presbyterial Church in that place of the Corinths, where he makes himſelf the Judge; where he paſſeth cenſure himſelf? foreign, I have decreed or judged? he asketh not their conſents, he prayeth not their aid, he referreth not the matter to their liking; I have ſaith he, already determined, afore he wrote, and before they read that part of his Epiſtle. And what to do? to joyne with them, to deliver this treſpaſſer to Satan! No ſaith he, I have already decreed to deliver him. By what means? what, by their power and priviledge? not ſo, but by the power of our Lord Jeſus Chriſt. Then for ought we can finde in this place, the Apoſtle though abſent, decreed to do the deed himſelf, by the power of Chriſt, and not by the conſent and help of the Corinthians. Certainly had this been a Priviledge of the Presbyterial Church, Saint Paul would never have invaded it; what an Apoſtle guilty of ſuch preſumption, ſuch uſurpation?

Yea, but the ſentence was to be pronounced by them. When ye are gathered together in my Spirit, i. e. my power, my authority, then deliver. True, they were bound to do it; but by what right? their own, or the Apoſtles? by his certainly, for it is In my ſpirit. So all their power is delegate, not native; 'tis derivative, not primitive; declarative, not judiciary, and conſequently from this place no priviledge of the Presbyterial Church to cenſure any mans perſon can be deduced. But rather the quite contrary, in that the Apoſtle a ſingle perſon judged and decreed without them.

I ſhall mind you what may well be concluded hence, which is, that the cenſure ſhould not be paſt in a corner, but in a full Aſſembly, becauſe the Apoſtle ſaith, When ye are gathered together; and if you ſhall complaine that it was otherwiſe, I ſhall not ſtick to confeſſe that your complaint is juſt, p. 86and I have and ſhall ever joyn with you in it.

But I ſhall adde what ſtrength I can to your plea out of this chapter. Some may ſay the authority was in the Presbyterial Church, becauſe the Apoſtle reprehends them, verſe 2. that they had not paſt cenſures on the peccant. Ye are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he that hath done this deed may be taken from you. That I may give light to this dark place; A cuſtome was uſed in the Church, when any was to be excommunicated, to joyn in mourning. This duty the Corinthians had neglected, and he reproves them for it; they were puffed up in an opinion of their own deeper wiſdome, they joyned not in mourning; they complained not to Chriſt or his Apoſtle, that a Cenſure might paſſe on ſuch a one. This was their fault; for a courſe they ſhould have taken, that ſuch a one ſhould be taken away. But by whom? that's the queſtion; Not by them to be ſure. For Taken away from you, implies that it is by the power of another, not by their act; for no man can take any thing from himſelf. He may put it away, not take it; the expreſſion had been veen very imperfect if this had been the meaning. And ſo for you nothing can be included hence.

But again, it may be objected, verſe 7. Purge ye out the old leaven. And again, verſe 12. Do ye not judge theſe who are within? where purging and judging is laid upon vos, and is therefore a Church-priviledge.

I anſwer, that vos is no way excluſive of the Apoſtles power, but rather includes it; for ſure he may judge them that are within the Church, and doth it, verſe 3. Vos then hath reference to this third verſe. Vos you gathered together in my Spirit, do you purge out the old leaven? do you judge thoſe who are within? You to whom the Keys are given, you to whom I have delegated, my power, being of the Presbytery, not the Layity; do you judge and purge. This is the clear intent of the Apoſtle, and ſo hath been given by all ancient Interpreters. Whence it will follow, that a Presbyterial priviledge to excommunicate can have no footing in this chapter.

As for that other place, 2 Theſſ. 3.15. it gives no countenance at all to the Presbyterial Church for Cenſure. For the Apoſtle gives order onelyonly about a diſorderly perſon, that he might be ſignified to him by a letter, that if occaſion required he might be cenſured; yea, in expreſſe termes forbids them to Cenſure him.Matth. 18.17.Matt 18:17 For he ſaith, Count him not as an enemy, that is, as an Heathen. (for ſo the word enemy probably ſignifies, Rom. 11.28. Epheſ. 2.16.) I muſt confeſſe ingenuouſly unto you, if I would pick out an argument againſt the Presbyterial priviledge to cenſure, I would make choiſe of this place; for to what purpoſe would the Apoſtle have this unruly man noted by a letter, if they had power to proceed againſt him? Now why nor they nor the Church of Corinth had not power without the Apoſtle to Cenſure, I have given you an account before, and need not here repeat it.

You ſee you muſt produce ſtronger evidence for your priviledge than hitherto you have done, before I can yield it. And I am confident that better you cannot bring forth. Since the power of Cenſures muſt be neceſſarily p. 87in ſome hands, I ſhall leave them in theirs that they have beene for ſixteen hundred years; Primarily in Biſhops by commiſſion and delegation in Presbyters, and therefore much more in both aſſembled in Councils, ſo that it cannot be any preſumption or uſurpation of power, if in them they uſe their authority to cenſure any mans perſon; of which you aſſign the time to be Anno Dom. 320. or thereabout when

Propoſition 6. Alexander Patriarch of Alexandria began this uſurpation against Arius and Euſebius Biſhop of Nicomedia in the reigne of Conſtantius and Conſtance.

JF there were no more to be ſaid for it, yet this were Antiquity ſufficient, that it was uſed in the Church before the Nicene Council about 1300. years ago. This would be thought on.

2. Next I could wiſh that you were better verſed in the Records of the Church, the hiſtories of thoſe firſt times, and acts and proceedings of Councils; for then I am perſwaded you would never have pointed out Conſtantines dayes for the babe-age of that uſurpation; for clear it is, that there then was no more done, but what was ordered to be done, and was done before. Read but the Apoſtolical Canons,Apoſt. Can. 3.6, 7, 8, 12, 29. and in moſt of them you ſhall meet with theſe phraſes, Si quis Epiſcopus, Presbyter, Diaconus, Laicus, &c. be found guilty of ſuch or ſuch an offence, deponatur, excommunicetur, dejiciatur, eijciatur, abjiciatur, communione privetur, damnetur, ab Eccleſia penitus abſcindatur. Again, in the Council of Ancyra order is taken that ſome be deprived of the Sacrament for three, ſome for four,Conc. Ancyr. c. 4, 6, 8. ſome for five, ſome for fifteen years, ſome a longer time, all which ſpace they ſhould be reckoned among the penitents;Baſil. Can. 58.77. to which order thoſe two Canons in Baſil give great light, foreign. And again, Can. 77. foreign.Zozomen. lib. 7. cap. 17. For theſe were the four Claſſes of the Penitents in the Primitive Church. And it is evident that they charged the execution of theſe Canons upon the Biſhops, firſt becauſe they had power, that to thoſe, who by humility, and teares, and patience,Zonaras in Explic. Can. 12. Conc. Nic. Alcimus Epiſt. 16. Conc. Nic. Can. 5. Conc. Antioch. cap. 20. and almſ-deeds did demonſtrate their converſion to be ſincere and unfeined, to remit the ſeverity of the Canon. So Alcimus to Victorius the Biſhop. Authoritatis veſtrae eſt, errantium compunctione perſpectâ, ſeveritatis ordinem temperare. And ſecondly, becauſe they ordained that in every Province twice ever year there ſhould be a Synod, that all the Biſhops of the Province meeting together might in common examine ſuch queſtions as are occurrent in every place, and particularly to enquire, ſi forte aliqua indignatione, aut contentione, aut qualibet commotione ſui Epiſcopi, excommunicati quidam ſint.

p. 88This was the Church Ordinance, ſet before the time you ſpeak of, which clearly makes againſt you, and now I ſhall ſhew you de facto, what was done, before that time too. In Aſia there was held ſundry Synods about the time of the Emperour Commodus, Euſeb. l. 5. c. 16, 19.in which Montanus was excommunicated, and his Hereſie condemned. Victor about the ſame time held a Synod at Rome, and excommunicated all the Eaſterne Biſhops about the celebration of Eaſter,Euſeb. l. 6.23, 24, 25. which Act of his, though unjuſt, yet it ſhewes the judgment of thoſe times, that ſuch a thing upon a juſt occaſion he might do, and that it was no uſurpation in a Biſhop with his Council to cenſure any mans perſon. Again, under the Emperour Decius there was a Synod gathered together at Rome of 60.Euſeb. l. 6. c. 43. Biſhops, beſides many Miniſters nd Deacons, whither alſo there came many Paſtours of other Provinces, where by uniforme conſent of all it was decreed, that Novatus together with ſuch as ſwelled, and conſented to his unnatural opinion repugnant to brotherly love, ſhould be excommuicated, and baniſhed the Church. And the ſame was confirmed by another Synod held at Antioch by Elenus, Firmilian, Yheoctiſtus. I paſſe by here the ſeveral Cenſures paſſed in the Synod held at Carthage upon the Lapſi and Thurificati, as may be ſeen in very many Epiſtles of Cyprian. To give light to this, there is not any example more evident, than the Synod of Antioch held about ſixty years before the Council of Nice, where Paulus Samoſatenus, the Biſhop of Antioch was depoſed, and condemned for Hereſie.Euſeb. l. 7. c. 30 The Epiſtle then written by the Biſhops, Presbyters, &c. to Dionyſius Biſhop of Rome, and Maximus Biſhop of Alexandria, &c. is yet extant, wherein they write thus. Wherefore neceſſity conſtraining us ſo to do: we excommunicated the ſworn adverſary of God, viz. Paulus Samoſatenus, and placed Donneus in his roome, &c. Farther yet there was a Council of 320.Caranza. Platina. Tom. 1. Conc. apud Binnium. Biſhops called together at Sinueſſa in Italy, where Marcellinus Biſhop of Rome was condemnatus, & anathematizatus accepit Maranatha. And all theſe inſtances I am able to give you before that yo name, ſo that there it cannot be true which you ſay, that the babe-age of this uſurpation is made mention of as newly appearing in the world by what was exerciſed by Alexander of Alexandria againſt Euſebius of Nicomedia as well as againſt Arius in the reign of Conſtantius and Conſtance, &c. In relation of which ſtory, you are not exact enough neither. For I read not of any power that Alexander uſurped over Euſebius, nor any Cenſure he paſſed upon him; he wrote indeed a letter to the brethren of the Churches, that they ſhould beware of Euſebius and his Arianiſme, becauſe he was the patron and ringleader of the Apoſtates; in his letter he ſharply reproved him, but he cenſured him not, neither indeed could he, becauſe he belonged to the juriſdſction of another Patriarch. But touching Arius and his adherents, he ſummoned together a Council of many Biſhops, and deprived him and ſuch as favoured his opinion; Achillas, Aeithales, Carpomes a ſecond Arius, &c. of the Prieſtly order. And this he might do, for they were under the juriſdiction of the Church of Alexandria. But the Hereſie being not ſo extinct, and matters growing by the contenders to greater heat, Conſtantine thought good to call the Nicene Council, where the queſtion was debated, the Creed called p. 89the Nicene compoſed, the clauſe of one ſubſtance ratified, and the 318. Biſhops, except five, ſubſcribed unto it, viz. Euſebius, Theognis, Maris, Theonas, Secundus. Theſe derided the clauſe,Socrates lib. 1. cap. 8. and would not ſubſcribe to the depoſition of Arius. For which cauſe the Council accurſed Arius and all his adherents, and forbade him Alexandria. Moreover by the Emperours Edict, Arius, Euſebius, Theognis, were baniſhed.cap. 14. But Euſebius and Theognis recanted. All this was done in the reigne of Conſtantine; while he was alive it was that Alexander firſt, then the Council proceeded againſt Arius and his adherents;cap. 38. and under Conſtantine it was that that Arch-heretique came to that miſerable end. Yea, and Alexander himſelf died alſo, and Athanaſius was choſen Biſhop in his ſtead before Conſtantine died.cap. 15. So that it cannot be poſſibly true which you ſay, that Alexander of Alexandria did exerciſe or uſurpe authority againſt Arius in the reigne of Conſtantius and Conſtance, for while their father lived they were not Emperours.Socrat. l. 2. c. 32 Well as you intimate and direct me, I turne to the ſecond book of Socrates, cap. 82. but in the Gree. 40. and 41. chap. but there I finde no mention of Alexander nor Arius. A Council at Seleucia we there read of called in Conſtantius's time, and that there was hot diſputes betwixt the Arians and the Orthodox, but at laſt the Orthodox prevailed, depoſed Acacius the Arian, and his complices; and excommunicated divers others, among which was Euſebius; Socrates lib. …. cap. 2. lib. 1. cap, 23. 29. graec.whether it was he of Nicomedia or no, it appears not; but in all probability it is the ſame man, becauſe after his recantation he relapſed to his Arianiſme, and was one of the perſecutors of Athanaſius. However this makes againſt you; for here we finde ſome Biſhops depoſed, others excommunicated by a Council. But this by the way. In the laſt place you ſend me to Evagrius; lib. 1. cap. 6. but to ſeek for what, I know not; for I pray look again, and you ſhall not finde any thing of Alexander, Arius, Evagr. lib. 1. cap. 6.or Euſebius, no nor their names in that chapter, 'tis wholly of another matter, and nothing to your purpoſe, and therefore I paſſe it by, and ſet it for a cypher.

But were your opinion true, that it were uſurpation for Biſhops aſſembled in a Council to cenſure any mans perſon; conſider I pray what an aſperſion you lay upon the firſt four general Councils, who have been hitherto received with ſo much veneration by the whole Church of God. For in every one of theſe we finde the Hereſies, and the Heretiques cenſured. In that of Nice, Arius and Arianiſme; in that of Conſtantinople, Eunomius, Arius, Macedonius, Photinus, Apollinarius, and their Hereſies; in that of Epheſus, Neſtorius, and Neſtorianiſme: in that of Chalced…n, Dioſcorus, Eutyches, Caranza in his Council.and Eutychianiſme. I verily beleeve theſe grave Fathers, the flower then of the Chriſtian world, renowned for piety, honoured for learning and integrity, would never have ventured to have paſſed ſo dreadful a Cenſure upon any mans perſon, had they not been verily perſwaded that from the Word of God, they had a ſufficient warrant to authorize them unto it. I ſhall ſhut up this point, when I have told you that it ſeemes to me very unreaſonable that a few met together (as in a Congregational Church, they cannot be many) ſhould have a priviledge to do that, which the Catholique Church p. 90aſſembled in a general Council ſhould not be able to do: or if they did, ſhould be noted with the black Character of uſurpation or preſumption; and ſo much of this. I come next to that corruption, which you ſay was brought upon your Combinational or Presbyterial Church by the Parochial. Of which, your words are theſe that follow.