derive not from Christ but from the Secular Magistrate Now when the Magistrate is Christian it is necessary that the limits of each Bishops Jurisdiction be determined by him but were the Magistrate Heathen the Church had that power to prescribe the limits of each Bishop as we see they did in the first 300. years after Christ and we find no Christian all that time ever question them And the reason is evident because Christ that left the Bishops the Successors of the Apostles Governours of the Church could not but give them sufficient Power to do all things which was necessary to the peace increase and aedification of the Church which certainly the appointing of limits for each Bishop to act in must necessary conduce But in the third place I understand not how our Animadvertor agrees with himself when he tells us the King may conferr the management of Ecclesiastical affairs upon Lay Men calls the Episcopal power undue Dignity and Praelation of his inferiour Officers and yet some few lines before says his judgement is much for the Order of Bishops If he be for the Order of Bishops he must believe they have a power from Christ which no earthly man can either give or take from them but I believe he mistook himself or else he would not use such uncharitable Epithetes of their whole Order in calling it undue Dignity and as some Antichristian There is nothing more in these words but what before is answered His third Reason against this Union is worst still Because it will be found none hath been greater Enemies to the undoubted Soveraignty of Princes than some Bishops have been Ergo Episcopacy and Monarchy are not necessarily united I would in answer to this desire our Animadvert or to name me any sort of Men that are necessary to a Monarchy and let him examine himself whether this Argument is not against them There are by Historians esteemed two Foundations of Monarchy Nobility or Arms and have not many Noble-men which should be support of Monarchies been the ruin of them Witnesse the Barons Warrs what necessities were several of our Kings brought into by them And how often do we read in story of Armies deposing one Prince and setting up another So that this Argument is as strong against any sort of Men that a Monarchy makes use of as against Bishops But now to use Argumentum ad hominem for I confesse I cannot esteem our Animadvertor a friend to Bishops though he sayes he is since he useth no civiler language to one of them than to say the Pope is his Father Is that party that call the Dignity of Bishops Antichristian less Enemies to Soveraign Power than some Bishops have been I believe whosoever shall read the Ecclesiastical History of Scotland written by Archbishop Spostwood or shall but hear an impartial Relation of the Barbarous and unchristian usage of our present King when he was there will be soon convinced there never were a Generation of Clergy so Antimonarchical as that Nation hath produced amongst the Presbyterian party I think now I have sufficiently overthrown his Arguments against the Union of Monarchy and Episcopacy It still remains as firm as before Yet I would not be mistaken 't is possible a Monarchy may subsist without Episcopacy for we may fancy all people so peaceable and just as that a Nation may subsist without Laws But that Axiom doth mean that Episcopacy is necessary to the well-being of a Monarchy not simply to the being of it that the Church under a Monarchy can no wayes be prudently governed but by Bishops nor the King can no way have that influence over the inferiour Clergy as by the Bishops I speak here only in reference to the State But as to the Church Bishops are an Order so necessary that I doubt it will puzle our Animadvertor or any person whatsoever to prove any Ordination but by their hands lawful in any case whatsoever His second Exception against this Reverend Prelate is that he is the sole Pastor of all the Congregations in his Diocese I could hardly believe our Animadvertor wanted Ingenuity before For where doth my Lord Worcester say he is the sole Pastor of all the Congregations in his Diocese The Bishops words are these For it is the Bishop of Worcester and not Mr. Baxter that is Pastor of Kederminster as well as of all other Parochial Churches in that Diocese For there is much difference between my Lord Bishop's saying he is the Pastor and the sole Pastor for the Bishop is the Overseer and chief Pastor not only of all the Congregations but of all the Pastors in his Diocese and Mr. Baxter was not by any right present Pastor there and had no relation at all to that Parochial Church as in his third Excep I shall make appear So that this angry confirmation of the Justice of his Exception falls to the ground But let us follow him If this be defensible 't is only by those Arguments which are commonly alleged to maintain the Popes Supremacy over all Churches whatsoever For since a Bishop can no other way discharge his duty herein but by providing Substitutes what hinders but that the Bishop of Rome may oversee a Million of Churches as the Bishop of Worcester 500 This illustration I think was purposely chosen to fling dirt in this Bishops face that the World might suppose Prelacy Popery go hand in hand as their Covenant joyns them But we must allow Ill words from those that write little Reason This is grounded absolutely upon a false Hypothesis for here it must be supposed that every Bishops chief work is to feed his people where his work is to govern to see that the inferiour Clergy over his Diocese do their duty teach therein sound Doctrine And this work as it is more honourable so it is far more labourious Neither is there the least correspondence between 500. and a Million of Parishes because the account of the one may easily be done the other is impossible Besides 't is quite a different thing the Popes claim and our Bishops for the Pope claims to be Universal Bishop the only Successor of the Apostles and that Christ hath left him sole Governour of the Church and that all other Bishops derive their power solely from him whereas our Church teacheth according to the Opinion of the antient Fathers as were it necessary I could shew you that the Power of each Bishop is alike and as to their Precincts and Jurisdiction the Governours of the Chuch under persecution appointed more or fewer according as the place required and ever since what alterations have been made in their limits have been done by Civil Magistrates to whose care it belongs as Governours of the Church to see that each Bishop performs his duty But let us follow him to his Proofs letting alone his unnecessary parenthesis his first is Act. 10.28 when Paul sent for the Elders of the Church at Ephesus he bids
for certainly a Bishop is no more to silence another and that for no better reason but because his fellow Minister is desirous to Preach the Gospel without a new Licence is an abuse of Dominion I desire the Reader first to mark his Parenthesis wherein he that said before he was for the Order of Bishops now tells us that a Bishop is no more than a single Presbyter Secondly he is impartial in saying that the Bishop did silence him because he did Preach without License for this is one of the Bishops Reasons he that reads the Letter will find many more But thirdly he contradicts himself when he sayes the silencing Mr. Baxter was an abuse of Dominion when he confesseth before that for moral and notoriously vitious misdemeanors he may do it And whether M. Baxter be not much guilty I am loath for his sake further to enquire But fourthly and lastly allowing all he saith to be true which I have proved false that the Bishop did abuse his Dominion in silencing Mr. Baxter doth this prove that what the Bishop saith that Mr. Baxter came not in by the Door is a trifling with Scripture when nothing is more sure than that he that comes by violence into anothers profession is a Thief and Robber by the Law of God and man And this is all worth answering in his third Exception 4. His fourth Exception is this How consistent with the Civil Peace for I omit your Parenthesis since it is nothing but railing is the Bishops distinction between the Act of Indempnity and Oblivion when he tells us that the King by it onely pardoned the Corporal punishment but the Church had not nor ought not to forgive the scandal till honorable amends were made by Confession and Recantation And now the Reader may perfectly understand what our Animadvertor is I confesse I ever found his party very unwilling to Recant their former miscarriages I wish to God many were not ready to Justifie what they have done But till this day was ever there any Christian thought that the Church had not power over their Members to hinder them from any benefit by her Communion unlesse they gave satisfaction for their publique offence and scandal What was the reason the primitive Christians underwent those severe penances as the ancient Fathers and several Councils mention the first 300. years if they believed not the Church had the power of Censuring Nay doth not his own party use them where ever they have had any power witness the frequent Excommunications in Scotland But I understand not what he means by saying the Bishop makes the Church distinct from the State in coercive Jurisdiction I know no coercive Jurisdiction the Church pretends to for certainly to shut people out of her communion is not a coercive power to deny the benefit of her communion to notorious Sinners till they recant and give satisfaction the Church ever did before the Magistrate was Christian and the Poenitentes then that stood at the Church porch bewailing their sins and begging the Churches prayers did give satisfaction and recant before ever there was the least shew of coercive power in her And therefore what this Reverend Prelate saith is most true that the King did but pardon the guilt or obligation to punishment 't is Christ's Deputies the Church must have satisfaction for the scandal and offence And this is so little inconsistent with the Civil peace that nothing can conduce more to it to have men sensible of their miscarriages recant and give publick satisfaction will be our best means to prevent others from sinning so again I pray God the unwillingness of many to repent here although the King hath pardoned them their corporal punishment doth not oblige them to a worse hereafter And thus I have answered his fourth Exception For as to the justifying this power in the Church 't is not my work here to do it and till the Animadvertor hath answered Dr. Hammonds Discourse of the power of the Keys that power he must as well as I believe in the Church I have only shewed it very consistent with the Civil peace 5. His fist Exception is this It is bold and impious when he affirms that if to command an Act which by accident may prove an occasion of sin be sinful then God cannot command any thing I understand not at all the Impiety in this Proposition for the Bishop understands not this of Gods extraordinary commands for God may by a new command dispence with his own Law as in commanding Abram to offer Isaac which had been murder had it not been done by Gods command and Abram's intention had been murderous and sinful but of his ordinary and common commands Neither can it be any more Impiety to say God cannot command any thing than to say God cannot sin if Mr. Baxter's position be true and though God by his Almighty power may sometimes and upon extraordinary occasions dispense with his own Law yet it may be piously enough said God cannot command the breach of his own Law because it must be necessarily understood in his ordinary way of Dispensations 6. His sixth Animadversion is That in Divinity 't is false and dangerous to affirm That an offence unto which a disproportionable penalty is annexed is not to be measured by the quality of the Act considered in it self but by the mischievous consequences of it This he takes great exception against but answers not the Bishops Reasons for it But let us see what his Arguments are against it His first is to shorten his long Expressions That for not submitting to trivial Ceremonies to debar one first from Christian and then from Civil communion is not justified by Scripture or Primitive Practice This Argument first is particular and that is no way argumentative for though all he should say were true yet it would amount to no more but to make one Exception against this Rule and that would rather confirm than weaken it 2. His Argument is perfectly begging the Question if he means that for such forbearance they ought not to be forbid the Sacrament because the penalty is disproportionable But 3. did neither the Scripture nor Primitive practice justify it yet if it did not condemn it were there not the least pretence in either for the practice of it if it were totally silent in it there is enough to perswade the Church to do that which is for the benefit of the whole But as his Reason is weak against this Position so it is false in it self for it is much a less inconvenience to debar one from the Sacrament for not kneeling than to break the peace of the Church by dividing from it by infusing into a multitude which at all times is ready to embrace any novelty principles of distrusting the commands of their lawful Pastors and if our Animadvertor did but look into the practice of the Primiviue Church he would find scarce any offence was looked upon with a worse
Eye than Schism and separation was and that they were more fatal to the Church than the hottest Persecution I need not give Examples for it he knows enough already As for the Texts of Scripture that are produced for it since they are nothing more but what every Nonconformist produceth for not conformity and have been so sufficiently answered by the Writers of our party I omit to answer them and the rather because the Reason against this Exception runs us in this Dispute not the Position it self 7. The seventh Animadversion is against that Chain of consequences which the Bishop produceth From diversity grows dislike from dislike Enmity from Enmity Opposition and from Opposition first Schism and separation in the Church and then Faction and Sedition in the State and I would we had not found it so by our own experience c. These are my Lord Bishops words and this he calls a Rope of Sand having first told us that for proof of this he virulently instances in our unhappy times I shall not here tell our Animadvertor that if he would have looked abroad he might find other instances besides this of England but let us examine his reasons why this is a Rope of Sand. His first is because nothing is so clear That there hath been nay ought to be Diversities in external forms without any dislike at all as to the person of another And his reason is because the Apostles that Preached to the Circumcision gave the right hand of fellowship unto the Apostles of the Gentiles although their outward Rites in publique worship were far more different than ours in Engl. In answer to this I say first That his instance of the Apostles is not at all the same for though the Churches of the Circumcision and Churches of the Gentiles were oftentimes in one and the same place yet they were of different Communions and this difference did arise not upon indifferent things but upon things absolutely necessary For the Churches of the Circumsion did follow Gods positive Command which as yet they were not convinced were to be buried with Christ so that the question between them was not concerning the use of external Rites but whether Gods Command that injoyned them to the Jews were still in force or no Secondly I believe our Animadvertor himself doth not count Circumcision an external Rite but something more since it was an Ordinance of Initiation into the Church of God and was backed with so severe a penalty that the Male that was not Circumcised the eighth day was to be cut off from the people But thirdly though the case be not the same yet what animosities and heart burnings did this difference cause amongst the Christians was it not the cause of the Council held at Hierusalem Act. 15. did it not make St. Paul withstand Peter to the face 2 Gal. 11. and how many divisions in after ages did this difference produce as particularly the keeping of Easter on the Jewish day of Passeover by the Eastern Church to name no more so it appears evidently the Church was never free from animosities till the Jewish Rites were quite laid aside and the whole Church became Christian that is followed one and the same Rites I say not this I would not be mistaken that the whole Chuch universal ought to follow one Rite but I say 't is necessary to the peace of the Church that every particular National Church follow one and the same Rites His 2. Reason for his Animadversion is because the State may be preserved without the least reference to the Church And this I suppose he directs particulary against the last words of my L. Bishops chain of consequences first Schism in the Church then sedition in the State And truly no man can think this an ill inference that considers the Doctrine of taking up Arms for Religion that considers this hath not been only generally taught but by most of their party believed as a great truth But his Argument herein is faulty to for though the State did subsist without any reference to the Christian Church did it not produce most horrible Murthers and blood sheddings of the most loyallest of its Subjects neither is the Reason good because a Heathen State was preserved without reference to the Christian Church therefore a Christian may without reference to a Christian Church for these States had still a Church though not of Gods which their Laws and Constitutions had reference to and without which 't was impossible to have kept Government in that order But lastly though 't is possible a State may be preserved without reference to the Church can it prudently be done and is it likely to hold long since Religion hath upon many people a greater force than any Law I am sure since the World was Christian there was never such an Example His third Argument is because Unity doth not depend upon Uniformity but upon Charity And of this he gives no Reason but his ipse dixit unless giving the Bishop ill words be a Reason I hope our Animadvertor can distinguish between Unity amongst Individuals and Unity with a whole body for though the first consists in Charity and candid forbearance this latter can only visibly consist in Uniformity and can only appear in every person then joynly assembled using one and the same Rite The heart no man can see and I believe let men never so well agree in their hearts that only which makes this agreement visible is their observing one and the same Rite openly And so I have answered this Reason also if it may be so called To follow him his eighth Animadversion is Whether as to the Matter of Fact the French Protestants do enjoyn standing and the Lutherans kneeling This he believes not upon the Bishops saying so but he hath more reason to believe it than the contrary since the practice of all those places do testify it for it is hardly possible to believe that people are more willing to obey the Church without Laws to back her than with Laws unto which a penalty is annexed Our Animadvertor here falls from this matter of Fact and disputes concerning the Jure of prescribing such Laws Now that is quite from the business here in hand this Reverend Prelate urgeth it as a good Argument that our Church may enjoyn Rites and Ceremonies as well as the French Dutch and Lutheran he should shew Reasons why our Church may not do it as well as others do But he runs into another Dispute unto which I will not follow him since all this and stronger Objections are every where answered by our Writers who have undertaken to handle this Controversy as Mr. Hooker the late Lord Bishop of Durham and others 9. His last Animadversion is an accusation of the Bishop of Uncharitableness because he sayes Crimine ab uno Disce omnes as if he did revile all the Presbyterian party by reason of Mr. Baxter I will repeat you the Bishops words You