Assemblies of men their prophecying as it should seem like the Sibyls with their hair dishevel'd and without their veils unbecoming the modesty of their Sex How does the Apostle provide to remedy these Inconveniences but by obliging all to a strict dependence on their Superiours by obliging the Prophets not to speak but in order not to use their gifts but for edification not to use them indecorously to submit to the Judges of their Prophecies by restraining the women universally from all publick exercise of their gifts a plain sign that the Spirit who gave those gifts did not thereby exempt any who had them from their due Subordinations much less did thereby give them the governing power of their Ecclesiastical Assemblies as our Brethren would fain persuade us This also was the great occasion of that Schism which was the subject of S. Clement's Epistle to the Corinthians and that not many years after this former had been written to them by S. Paul The gifted Brethren did then also assume and raised a Sedition against the ordinary Presbyters of that Church and are again taught their duty of Obedience Humility and Subjection through the whole current of that Epistle How could that be if their very gifts had made them Presbyters when acknowledged as they are not here denied This very pretence therefore was particularly and expresly disowned by those very Precedents to which our Brethren do so eagerly appeal ACCORDINGLY they never find any of those Officers to whom Succession is at present pretended made immediately by God but by the intervention of men notwithstanding that there were then Gifts of the Spirit requisite to qualifie men for those offices There were the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 reckon'd among the gifts of the Spirit which fitted men for the offices of Bishops and Presbyters There was also the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with other gifts fitting men for the offices of Deacons Yet who sees not this express difference between these and those extraordinary Officers that these never so much as pretended to be immediately from God without the mediation of Men What great Argument had it been for S. Paul to prove his Apostleship by that he was not of Men or by Men if this were the ordinary case in the ordinary Governours and Officers of the Church if all that men did was onely a recognition of their gifts and a solemn reception of their Authority which was as requisite for Apostles as ordinary Bishops and Deacons Where do we find any of these ordinary Officers made but there is express mention of Men who laid on their hands and performed the Ceremony and that by a distinct Imposition of Hands from that whereby they then usually received the Holy Ghost immediately after their Baptism And the words used concerning it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are the same by which the giving of Authority even in Secular Offices where Authority is confessedly given is usually expressed according to the custom of that Age. S. Timothy is said to have his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of S. Paul is said to have it given him among other things by the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What can be more clear than these words if they be understood of Ordination And who are more forward to understand them so than our Brethren when they are concerned to produce Precedents of Ordinations by Presbyters But I confess I am not my self very confident of that Exposition The thing is clear enough from this new Imposition of hands which was used on this occasion of ordaining the ordinary Officers of the Church but not of the extraordinary When S. Matthias was chosen Apostle into the place of Judas no more was done than onely to know God's pleasure concerning it according to that ordinary way of Divination usual in such cases by Lots When that was known there was no further act of Men no Imposition of hands onely he was added to complete the number of the Twelve Apostles That more was observed in ordinary Ordinations why was it but to shew that the Influence of humane acts was greater in them BESIDES the very Ceremony of Imposition of hands was generally designed to communicate some of those supernatural gifts wherewith they were themselves endued So it was in their casting out of Devils and their curing the sick and particularly so it was in their giving the Holy Ghost And indeed what other gift is imaginable that was ordinarily necessary for ordained persons Themselves cannot think it could be dispossessing or healing c. What could it therefore be but the Holy Ghost himself And what gifts could be then thought necessary for making ordinary Officers but such as are ordinary and perpetual as the Offices themselves If therefore the Holy Ghost was given this was according to the Jews an investing them with power where he was given particularly with such a design So it was in the case of Saul and David and of the Apostles themselves And what other design is conceivable in giving the Holy Ghost to them who were supposed already to have received him before in their Baptism and that Imposition of hands which then usually accompanied their Baptism And if the Holy Ghost were given in Ordination then plainly they had not all their gifts antecedently to their Ordination as our Brethren conceive particularly not those which immediately intituled them to Ecclesiastical Power If these Gifts of the Holy Ghost which immediately intituled them to Power were given them by the ministry of Men then certainly the Power it self was not given them immediately by God but by humane ministry And therefore their antecedent gifts which they judged of by the gift of discerning of Spirits did not immediately give them the power THE great Prejudice that possesses our Brethren against this power being thus given by the ministry of men is that conceiving it to result from the gift of the Holy Ghost they think it dishonourable to the Holy Ghost to say that he is given by men But how can they deny those plain Evidences of Scripture wherein he was so frequently given by the Apostles Will not their Conjectures reach them as well as our Ecclesiastical Officers now Were not they men of the like frail sinful nature as ours are now But if they would indeed consider how he does it what is there more dishonourable in this than in the whole management of the Incarnation Why may not God the Father and Son whose Gift undoubtedly he is give him by covenant as well as otherwise Why may not himself do so too Supposing them willing to take this way of disposing of him what can hinder them from deputing men to represent them in the solemnities of such a covenant to be
my Preface if he had thought himself obliged to speak to Answers in his Confutations But does he not know that this very same Objection was made use of by the Heathens against Christianity and by the Romanists against the Reformation that if either Christianity or Protestancy were the onely true way to Salvation exclusively to others then much the greater number of Mankind or Christians must have been out of the true way of Salvation And can he deny that the matter of fact was true that there was indeed a time when Heathens were more numerous than Christians and Romanists than Protestants Will he therefore grant that Christianity and Protestancy were not the onely ordinary true means of Salvation I know he will be far from saying so But yet he is not sensible how much himself is more concerned in the Consequence of this Discourse than I am He that in his Diocesan Ordination must have promised Canonical Obedience to his Ordinary cannot renounce our Diocesan Communion as Diocesan without some charge of sin greater than the sin of breaking his Promise of Canonical Obedience And if this sin agree to Diocesan Communion as Diocesan then certainly it must be not onely a single act of sin but a state of sin and such a state of sin as all will acknowledge destructive of Salvation so agreeing to Diocesan Communion as Diocesan it must agree to all Diocesan Communion whatsoever And if all Diocesan Communion as Diocesan be destructive of Salvation how much more uncharitable will he prove than I if to maintain principles from whence consequences will follow which will prove hurtful to faulty persons must be thought uncharitable How few are those Protestants that want Episcopal Ordination who can alone seem chargeable with the consequences of my Discourse in comparison of the whole Greek and Latin Churches and those other Forein Protestants also as well as those of our own Dominions which will be concerned in the consequences of his I might here declame as tragically as he does and retort a great part of his own Discourse upon himself if I were desirous to take advantage of this Topick against him not so much to prove his Doctrine false as to expose it as odious If he will say that he has notwithstanding charitable thoughts concerning the persons of many who differ from him in principles of their own nature destructive of Salvation Abate his affection to his party which makes him as his matter requires speak inconsistently and I think I shall allow as much candour and charity to the persons of Dissenters as he can rationally and with any consistency with any even his own principles § IX IF therefore it be granted that these consequences are no just argument to prove the principles false from which they follow it will then follow further that in order to the confutation of my principles he ought not to content himself with deducing these consequences without more distinct application to the principles themselves it will follow that even the odium of such consequences is irrational and sinful and therefore not at all regardable in conscience whatever it may in prudence No truly conscientious persons can be offended at just consequences from principles whose truth is not proved questionable especially where positive reasons have been produced for them And therefore whoever are so must for that very reason at least in this particular be presumed not to act conscienciously or consequently to be regardable on account of conscience It will follow that till he do answer more distinctly to my principles the very unkindness of the application will be rather his than mine For till he weaken the proof of my principles I shall have reason in all equity to presume them true And if he draw Inferences unfavourable to them from unconvicted principles it will be he not I that must be responsible at least for the application If therefore he will not make them less concerned than it is their Interest to be in case of real danger let him first secure them from the danger by a conviction of my principles which when he does he will have me as well as them indebted to him for the Obligation Till he do so certainly plain dealing and a fair warning is the most real office of Friendship that can be shewn in case of danger I wish I may by this intimation prevail with whosoever shall hereafter trouble themselves to answer me not to satisfie themselves with invidious clamours and evasions of a direct Answer to my principles A direct Answer would better become them as Lovers and Enquirers of truth rather than Votaries to a Party would more tend to the satisfaction of conscientious Dissenters would afford a better subject for useful information § X As for particulars there are onely two that I can know of in which indifferent Friends do think me concerned One is that he says and says it more than once that the Generality of our Saxon Bishops derive their Succession from Aidan and Finan who says he were no Bishops as Bede and others fully testifie So that he says The denying the validity of the Ordination by Presbyters shaketh the Succession of the Episcopal Church of England and proveth it on that supposition interrupted I know not how it becomes him who himself pretends Episcopal Ordination to discover his Forefathers nakedness if it had been true that is here suggested But not to expostulate with him concerning the unkindness herein shewed to his Ordainers what benefit can he do his own cause by this Objection Would it follow that his Brethren have Succession because we had fail'd of it Would it follow that Succession is not necessary because none could justifie their Claims by it Would it follow that the Right of Ordination must in course be escheated to the Presbyteries or the People or the Magistracy in case no Right could now be made out by Derivation from the Apostles If Succession be still necessary for the validity of Orders as it may be notwithstanding this Argument till he answer the Arguments produced to prove it necessary all that he can expect by using such Arguments as these will be not to satisfie us but to prove us as faulty as themselves not to quiet the consciences of those who should be afraid of Sacrilegious Ordinances but onely to make them despair of ever being quieted And therefore this is an Answer if at all fit to be insisted on yet not till he had attempted a more particular Answer But God be praised we have no need to be concerned for this Objection Bede is so far from denying Aidan and Finan to have been Bishops as that he expresly affirms the contrary Oswald King of Northumberland sent to the Elders of the Scots for a Bishop Antistes is the word in Bede's Latine and Biscop in the Saxon of Alfred Accordingly he receives Pontificem Aidanum as the Latine or Biscop as it is again in the Saxon. When
this Bishop was come he has an Episcopal Seâ— provided for him so Bede most expresly Veniente igitur ad se EPISCOPO Rex lâ—cum Sedis EPISCOPALIS in Insula Lindisfarnensi ubi ipse petebat tribuit Again Monachus ipse EPISCOPUS Aidanus He elsewhere tells us the very time when he was made Bishop accepto gradu EPISCOPATUS quo tempore eidem Monasterio Segenius Abbas Presbyter praefecit Where the Saxon also gives him the Title of Bishop though it omits the particularizing of the time when he received it He therefore also gives an account of the reason why his Monastery pitch'd on him particularly as a person fit for that Imployment He tells us that thereupon they judged him dignum Episcopatu that accordingly illum Ordinantes ad praedicandum miserunt Again he is called Reverendissimus Antistes Biscop in the Saxon and praefatus Episcopus The same Title is very frequently given him cap. 14 15 16 17. l. 4. 23 27. l. 5. 23. so frequently as that I do not know whether it be worth while to transcribe each particular Instance and the Time of his Bishoprick distinctly noted So also in his Epitome at the Year DCLI Aidanus Episcopus defunctus est So extremely little occasion he had of even mistaking in this matter from Bede himself Nor could he have much greater from those others to whom he refers us who must have taken what they had from Bede if they had any Authority The Saxon Chronicon transcribes the very words of Bede's Epitome and at the same Year The like Agreement there is in those who took from him at a greater distance Turgotus Simeon Dunelmensis Malmesburiensis Huntington c. if any be yet further curious Nor is Bede and his Transcribers less clear in the case of Finan Bede is most express Immediately after the death of Aidan he subjoyns Successit verò ei in Episcopatum Finan ipse illo ab Hii Scotorum insulâ ac Monasterio destinatus ac tempore non pauco in EPISCOPATU permansit Concerning the Baptism of Peada Son of Pendan King of the Middle Angles and the Mercians Baptizatus est ergo à Finano Episcopo Duma also mentioned by Mr. Baxter was sent as Bishop of that new Colony of Christians ordinatus à Finano EPISCOPO Sigbercht King of the East Saxons was baptized by the same Finan Baptizatus est à Finano EPISCOPO And when Cedd a holy person was invited by Sigbercht for the Conversion of his People he took occasion to make a visit at Lindisfarn the Seat of the Northumbrian Bishops propter colloquium Finani EPISCOPI where he was made Bishop by Finan vocatis ad se in Ministerium Ordinationis aliis duobus EPISCOPIS Qui accepto gradu Episcopatûs rediit ad provinciam majore autoritate coeptum opus explens fecit per loca Ecclesias Presbyteros Diaconos ordinavit c. We see here how punctual Observers of the Canons these Scotish Bishops were notwithstanding our Adversaries would fain persuade us that themselves were ordained by Presbyters because the Monks of the Isle of Hii though Bishops were subject to their Abbot though onely a Presbyter as to the Rules of their Monastick Discipline for the sake of their first Founder Columba who never exceeded the Order of Presbyter But Mr. Baxter would do well to let us know what use they could have had of Bishops at all if it were not to perform some office for which no Superiority of their Presbyter Abbot in the Monastery could qualifie them without Bishops And what either then or ever was taken for so unseparable a Right of Episcopacy as Ordination If therefore they were willing their Presbyter Abbot should for the sake of Columba have all the Honour of which a Presbyter was capable and yet thought it necessary to have Bishops also for their Ordinations is not this a plain Conviction that they thought this Office of Ordination not performable by single Presbyters And how had it been an unusual Order as Bede expresly says it was that Presbyters if such onely had been meant by the name of Bishops should have been subject to the Abbot who was also a Presbyter But to fancy that the Offices of Bishops and Presbyters were confounded in those later Ages of which we are discoursing whatever they were in the Apostles is indeed a fancy so extravagant as Mr. Baxter could hardly have been guilty of if he had been either so ingenuous or skilful in Church History as he would fain persuade us But so far were those ancient Scots from invading this Right of Episcopacy that as to Ordination they strictly observed even our present Canons Three Bishops were at the Consecration of a Bishop who when he was thus consecrated and not before had that greater Authority of ordaining Presbyters and Deacons which it hence appears was not allowed to any under Bishops But to return from whence I have digressed Finan and Aidan are both of them expresly said again to have been Bishops and not onely so but the Cathedral Church of Finan is mentioned again by Bede Interim Aidano EPISCOPO de hac vita sublato Finan pro illo gradum EPISCOPATUS à Scotis ordinatus ac missus acceperat qui in insula Landisfarnensi fecit Ecclesiam EPISCOPALI Sedi congruam Again concerning the Dispute between Wilfred and Coleman Facta est autem haec quaestio Anno Dominicae Incarnationis DCLXIV qui fuit annus Oswi Regis XII EPISCOPATUS autem Scotorum quem gesserunt in provincia Anglorum annus XXX siquidem Aidanus XVII annis Finan X Coleman III EPISCOPATUM tenuere Yet after all it is very well known that our English Succession even in the Kingdom of Northumberland was not derived down to us from Coleman the last of those Scotish Bishops but from Wilfrede a Saxon who succeeded him I wish he would not write such things of such consequence and so often with such confidence without once consulting his Authors As for his other Authors he would oblige us to tell us who they are that could know any thing concerning those times but what they must have from Bede as well as we § XI The other particular is that which does indeed look most like reasoning and principles of any thing that is said by him in his whole Book And I shall endeavour to shew him all the fair dealing I can in representing what he says to the best advantage The Summ therefore of what he says seems most conveniently reducible to these Propositions 1. That the power of the Ministry is grounded on the gifts and qualifications of the person immediately so that whoever has those gifts and qualifications has thereby an essential right to the power and he that bestows those gifts does thereby bestow the power and they who cannot bestow them cannot consequently dispose of the power 2. That God alone has the disposal of these
what is for the benefit of the Society whose government he has undertaken as it is impossible that he should not act well and wisely But who does ever think it fit that private persons should have a right to pardon or retain Offences committed against the Government without a particular express gift Who thinks it fit that they should have a right to pass a pardon under the Broad Seal and in due solemnities of Law for no other reason but onely because they are qualified for it Who thinks such Pardons valid or thinks it just and reasonable that they should be so How is it possible that Government should ever be maintained if the right of it be resolved into pleas so capable of being made use of by false pretenders and so little notorious to Subjects that are so highly concern'd in it How can Government be maintained where Inferiours may pardon what their Superiours condemn where Rebels may justifie or pardon their own Rebellions by as good a title as they who are actually possessed of the Supreme Government as they may certainly do if Inferiours as well as Superiours derive their Authority from God immediately where pretended Expositions of Charters against the sense of all the present visible Governours of a Society must be thought to give men an authority here in this Life which how falsly so ever pretended must yet by this means be rendered uncapable of conviction till the day of judgment For what can in the consequence more necessarily invest men with authority than this power of pardoning or punishing offences committed against the publick THUS unreasonable it is to believe that bare qualifications do invest any with actual power What can they now pretend further but an authority sufficient to countervail and silence all these contrary Reasonings I repeat not now what I have elsewhere proved that some reasons are such as to be greater Evidence than any other authority whatsoever I insist not on what might have been said to shew that the reasons now produced are of that sort But alas how little do they produce to prove this from authority which yet is the foundation of all their consequential reasonings How much less to prove their sense to be the sense of Scripture than what has been produced to prove the contrary to be the sense of God They observe that God is said to have given some Apostles some Pastors c. as if their very gifts had made them so But where do they find that God ever gave Bishops Presbyters and Deacons Will they not allow some difference between the extraordinary offices there spoken of and the ordinary ones of which we are at present disputing Will they not allow a difference in this very matter of their gifts Whither do they reason so confidently from those extraordinaries to these ordinaries Those extraordinary offices seem indeed to have been made neither of man nor by man but by God himself immediately and possibly by the degrees of their inspiration received their several denominations of that kind respectively Thus S. Paul proves his Apostleship which it seems was then called in question by his Rival false Apostles among other Arguments by that especially that he was made so before he had ever seen any of the Apostles and when he did see them that they received him on equal terms and added nothing to him above what he had received before And what men could pretend to give that Supreme Dignity of the Apostolical Office who were not themselves Apostles The like might have been observed concerning others of those extraordinary offices And I have before conjectured that according to these extraordinary gifts so they performed the several Offices of their Ecclesiastical Assemblies So I understand the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Cor. 14. 16. to which the Amen was in course replied by him who answered among the people as it was answered in the Office of the Eucharist in the time of S. Justin Martyr And can they desire any more Yet even then there was this dependence on the ordinary Officers of the Church that even these extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost were generally not given but by that Imposition of hands which usually followed after their Baptism that even then their deviating from the Spirit of those from whom they had received the Spirit in that office at least of confirmation was a presumption against those who first deviated from their predecessors so S. Paul proves his own Orthodoxy from his agreement with those who were in Christ before him though he had not received his Doctrine from them and he generally presupposes this Principle in his Disputes against the disorderly Prophets That there were manifestations of the Spirit signs of the Apostleships the gifts of discerning of the Spirits and Judges of the Spirits for the satisfaction of others not onely to judge in order to their own reception as our Brethren would have it but to judge so as that they were not to be presumed to have the Spirit at all who could not abide their Judgments if after their rejection they presumed to exercise any such gifts in the state of Separation If they will plead these extraordinary gifts themselves let them grant the continuance of the like gifts in their Superiours and we shall be at least secure from any Schismatical Consequences of such pretensions But if they will alone challenge this continuance to themselves let them consider how unequal dealing this is let them consider how different from their pretended Veneration of Apostolical Precedents when they separate those gifts now which then were made mutually useful by their conjunction how different this is from the Judgment of the Apostles themselves and consequently of God by whom the Apostles were more particularly inspir'd in what they did relating to these extraordinaries who did not it seems think these pretences to extraordinaries safe without these remedies from the gifts of others and particularly of Superiours Several of these things were already suggested and proved and will be more particularly in my Second Part if it please God to encourage me to go on with it by which this whole Reasoning is overthrown which is drawn from these Apostolical Precedents even in extraordinaries AS for those other precedents of their ordinary establishments for Succession when these extraordinary gifts or evidences of them should fail which are in truth the onely precedents which are pleadable as arguments in our present times there is so extremely little in favour of such pretences as would make one wonder how considering persons could fall into such mistakes The Inconveniences and Schisms resulting from those very pretences to extraordinaries were observed and particularly provided for even in those Apostolical Ages Such were the Prophets speaking many of them at once their using the gift of Tongues in the Ecclesiastical Offices without an Interpreter the Prophetesses using their Gifts in promiseuous
whether he be of a good repute or at least not scandalous with his Parishioners than for a Minister not onely to inform him self of those Quaere's concerning each of his flock whether they discharge their calling justly and conscienciously and what means may be used for their recovery in case of their default who are not so easily to be cast out of the Ministers care by Excommunication as scandalous Ministers are out of the Bishops by deprivation Besides his catechizings of the ignorant and his admonitions of the knowing and his resolutions of perplexed consciences and his awaiting fit opportunities and circumstances for rendering his persuasions more prevalent are most expensive of time and yet are not so absolutely necessary to be critically observed in Government where the publick Service may be promoted by other Instruments if persuasions prove unsuccesful as in private discourses where the personal advantage of the party concerned is principally intended § VIII BUT then if you would be pleased to consider further how few Parishes are so little peopled as to consist onely of 400 and how few Dioceses consist of so many Ministers that have proper and distinct Cures how that usually the most eminent men for Parts and Action are or should be chosen Bishops many of them upon personal regards able to perform the work of many ordinary Ministers and may well be presumed extraordinary considering the great advantage for choice from the disproportion of their number so few Bishops being to be chosen out of so many Ministers If you would consider further how untrue it is that the dispensation of discipline even as it is practised is managed by the Bishop alone who has his inferiour Officers for preparing things for his cognizance besides the direction of learned Lawyers for his assistance in point of counsel which is the main reason that may be pretended for proving the Government of many better than that which is Monarchical and for counsel in this kind the Clergie themselves are not qualified as Clergie-men but as Lawyers but would have much more of this assistance according to my Book where I have professed my self desirous that the Bishops would more communicate the great Affairs of Government with their Clergie which I confess I think more agreeable to the primitive Form If I say you had considered these things you would find Discipline much more practicable under a Diocesan than a Secular Monarchy And I wish you would consider whether your Arguments will not proceed with the same force I do not say onely against those numerous Parishes of 30000 or 50000 persons which is a greater number than I believe are in some of our Irish Dioceses especially if onely Protestants be accounted and yet you do not pretend a duty of separating from the communion of such Parishes as you do from our communion as Diocesan though certainly a Bishop with a multitude of Clergie more subject to him than ordinary Curates are to their principal Parsons is much more able for the Government of a Diocese than an ordinary Minister wanting such advantages is for the Government of such a Parish but against Provincial and National Classes also For it is as impossible for every particular Elder of even a Provincial Class which were often of larger extent than our Dioceses to inform himself particularly of every person and cause to be brought before him so as to be able to judge distinctly of their merit as for a Diocesan Bishop And I can perceive nothing that may with any plausibility be pretended there that may not with as much force be urged here § IX IF it be pretended that there is a multitude who have their distinct Governments in their respective precincts mutually independent on each other some of whom by advantage of their neighbourhood may have opportunity of informing themselves particularly of every cause belonging to their Jurisdiction The same may be pretended here the same number of Clergie being imployed under a Diocesan as under a Classical Government But it is withall clear that a much greater number of them will even in such Classes prove incapable of that advantage of personal information who yet would not be denied their decisive vote on the testimony of others And in all Polyarchical Governments the suffrages of the major part is as decretory as that of a single person in that which is Monarchical so that still the Government is managed without particular information If their multitude be urged for the security of their counsel that is had also here especially in the Hypothesis defended by me where Presbyters are joyned in Government with the Bishops But with this advantage in our case that the same security of counsel is here joyned with expediteness in its decision and execution and security from equal suffrages the want of which do oftentimes more prejudice polyarchical Societies than the security of their counsels do avail them And it is plainly as impossible if not more for any Class which can onely be convened occasionally to execute its own Decrees without Delegation as for the Bishop § X YOUR answers for shewing the disparity betwixt Civil and Ecclesiastical Government as many of them as are true for all are not do onely prove a disparity on other accounts which is not denied but not such a one as may hinder the governableness of the same multitude by an Ecclesiastical and that in foro exteriori which is the onely question I am concerned in at present which is acknowledged governable by a Secular Magistrate You have neither any thing of reason nor of any positive revelation of God which might make such a multitude less governable by reason of some liberties restrained in the Church but allowed in the Commonwealth Your 1. is that the standing of the Magistrates office is by the Law of Nature which therefore alloweth variety and mutations of inferiour Orders as there is cause But the standing of the Clergy is by supernatural institution our Book of Ordination telling us that there are three Orders c. Whence you conclude that men may not alter them or make more of the same kind The force of this Answer as far as I can apprehend it seems to consist in these two things 1. That the government of a Diocese cannot be administred without more than three Orders for those three you seem to allow from the Book of Ordination and 2. That it is not in the power of the Church to institute new Orders besides the three already established though it be in the power of the State to innovate as they please by reason of the disparity by you mentioned The former is so manifestly false as that if ever Discipline were observed ever since the government of the Church was Diocesan which is hard to deny since it has been Diocesan as far as Ecclesiastical History can inform us it was under these three Orders Nay the Presbyterians pretend their Classical Discipline to be maintainable by one Order
alone for Deaconship they make onely a kind of civil office for disposing of the alms of the Church So sufficient they account the Subordination of particular persons singly considered to the same persons as considered collectively in an Assembly without any distinction of Orders for Government And why the President of these Presbyteries though not of a distinct Order as most of the Schoolmen and many of the Episcopal Authors maintain especially those of the old Prelatists as your self have elsewhere observed may not upon the same terms maintain Discipline for my part I cannot understand The ground I believe of your mistake is that in the administration of our Prelatick Episcopacy you have observed some other Officers of prudential Ecclesiastical Constitution which are intrusted with Jurisdiction as Deans Archdeacons Vicars General Lay-chancellors c. which you mistake for Orders because they have different duties in the subordination of the policy of the Church But 1. I do not doubt but that you know better than I can tell you that even Diocesan Government as Diocesan may and has been actually administred without them in the primitive times Some of them being of civil constitution for administring the power of the Prince in the exteriour government of the Church as he is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that I may use the language of Constantine the Great and all of them of prudential use onely convenient not simply necessary even in the opinion of them that use them And 2. You cannot pretend that the addition of new Officers though possibly unlawful upon other accounts yet should make the Discipline of a populous precinct less but rather more maintainable For certainly in such a case the multitude of Officers is an advantage And let me intreat you to remember that this is the real question not Whether Diocesan Government be constituted by God but Whether Discipline be maintainable under it But 3. Suppose it as inconvenient as you please even for the maintainance of Discipline which I am not willing at present to digress to nay even unlawful to be introduced by Governours yet how can it be proved that it is lawful for Subjects to undertake its Reformation without and against the consent of Governours And how can they be excused even in such a case for refusing passive obedience for separating from them and joyning with Parties formed in opposition to them Which seems to be your case in separating from our Communion as Diocesan and communicating with such who have cast off their obedience and united themselves in a communion opposite to their original Superiours And 4. You may be pleased to consider that as we do not call all these prudential Offices Orders so there is no reason why we should do so in the Ecclesiastical notion of the word For not now to make use of that distinction betwixt Order and Jurisdiction which is generally followed by the Ancient and Modern Popish Schoolmen that Order is circa corpus Christi mysticum and Jurisdiction circa corpus Christi verum according whereunto these offices will differ in Jurisdiction not in Order It is plain that every rank of men in Ecclesiastical Assemblies are not by the Presbyterians themselves accounted distinct Orders as Scribes Moderators Lay-Elders c. But onely such as by a distinct solemn consecration have a distinct power given them for the dispensation of divine graces not to be deprived or repealed as to its original right though it may be restrained as to its actual execution In which sense it is plain that these Offices neither are nor suppose a distinction of Orders § XI BUT then for the second proposition supposed in your Answers That the Church has not power of constituting new Orders though I doubt not you understand what Conclusion may be inferred from the Doctrine of that ingenious person who has professedly disproved Dr. Stillingfleet's all divine unalterable right of any certain form of Church-government because I confess my self not to be of his mind yet if you mean by Orders all deputation even of Ecclesiastical persons to particular offices executive of their general power then I think you have no way disproved prudential Innovations in that kind Nay I doubt not but that it were easie to instance in all other Sects as well as the Presbyterians that have any face of Government unscriptural Officers The Scripture has not used the word and therefore cannot be pretended to have condemned Nor has the Church ever understood it in this sense when she has owned but three or two Holy Orders But if by Orders you mean the limited sense of the Church of that word then I confess they are not multipliable by the Church but conceive I have shewn the no-necessity of it in our Prelatick Diocesan Government § XII YOUR second disparity is That Kingly Power requireth not ad dispositionem materiae such persnal ability as the pastoral office doth That a child may be a King and that it may serve turn if he be but the Head of Power and give others commission to do all the rest of the governing work But it is not so with a Judge a Physician an Orator or a Bishop who is not subjectum capax of the essence of the office without personal aptitude This seems to me a plain mistake even in the judgment of those Nations which are governed by an hereditary Monarchy who do not suffer their Princes whilest children to intermeddle I do not say in the executive which belongs not to them as absolute Princes but in the decretory parts of their Government which is their Royalty but oblige them to perform all by Regents and Protectors till themselves come to the years of personal aptitude in the mean time reserving them onely the honour without the power of a King And this sense of the necessity of personal abilities as it appears from the Scripture which accounts those Nations miserable that are under such Princes and the nature of the Office it self which is as chargable with the miscarriages of their Subjects as Ecclesiasticks as is excellently discoursed by Socrates in Xenophon so the avoiding such defects in regard of personal Incapacity seems to be the reason of all those Nations who have made their Government elective and even of those which are hereditary who have excluded persons notoriously incapable or at least so judged by them as Fools in all places Women in France and even such as are judged fit in regard of natural endowments till they come to be so personally That children therefore are any where permitted the honour of Kings is not because that they think them sufficiently qualified or that they think it convenient to stand to the hazardous contingency of their future qualifications but that it is accounted a less evil so to be assured of their person than to expose themselves to the danger of Civil Wars and Seditions on that account if it were managed by popular election And accordingly those Nations
the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 reverence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hence it appears that Presbyters as well as others are concerned in this his Exhortation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so much disputed of the youthfulness of their Bishops person not the novelty of the Institution of his Order for it was that youthfulness which they were likely to take advantage of which is the notion of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 You see here that even Presbyters are not to take advantage even of a youthful Bishop either for presuming on too much familiarity with him or denying him the reverence due to his Order though in a youthful person That they are to yield to him or rather to Jesus Christ whose person is represented by him and sure you would not think much to be imposed on by Jesus Christ That this duty is to be paid without all hypocrisie to the Bishop for Gods sake whom it is impossible to deceive That hearkning to him for that is the notion of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which in the Hellenistick style then in use is the same with obedience is part of that And that the disrespect to him in any of these duties redounds to the dishonour of God for whose sake he is to be honoured And now I pray consider how you can reconcile herewith your desired liberty of excommunicating without his privity or consent Immediately after he blames them who give their Bishop the honour of an empty name and yet do all things without his privity and expresly censures them as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 men of no good consciences 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Where besides the coherence formerly noted it is plain that even Presbyters also are included because he speaks of Assemblies which could not be celebrated without some act of priestly power And if such Assemblies be not according to the command nor the rules of good conscience how your proceedings without the consent or privity of your Bishop can be excusable I do not understand In the Epistle ad Trallian after having enjoyned respect to all the three Orders he concludes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whence you may easily conclude his thoughts concerning such Assemblies which are maintained without one of them that is of Episcopacy as they must needs be who take upon them to act independently on their Bishop So in the Epistle to the Philadelphians he says expresly that as many as are on Gods part and Jesus Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by which you may see what he would have thought of those who should have joyned with any Presbyter exercising an Authority different from and independent on that of the Bishop Nay he confidently charges them not as from his own private sense but inspiration and those extraordinary 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 had not as yet failed in his time 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and after teaches that God gives remission of sin to them that are penitent onely on that condition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which if it be so how can the Absolutions of Presbyters attempted without the consent of their Bishop be valid But what can be more clear against your Independency of Parish Ministers in the exercise of discipline than that excellent passage in the Epistle to the Smyrnaeans 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And a little after 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So again 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 You see how expresly all persons Presbyters themselves not excepted are forbidden to meddle in Ecclesiasticals without order from the Bishop You see what Ecclesiasticals he means by his enumeration of the particulars not onely Baptism and the Feasts of Love but the very Eucharist You see how clearly he disowns the validity of that Eucharist which is not received either from the Bishop himself or some person authorized by him Which both may serve to let you see that even Presbyters themselves are included seeing your self do not allow the power of admitting to communion Laicks or Deacons though authorized and that the power you seem to challenge of communicating whom you please without the Bishops Licence is again censured as invalid as a dishonour of God nay as a service of the Devil which would have been thought harsh and passionate expressions if the Age he lived in before the starting of our modern Controversies had not put him beyond any just or probable suspicions of partiality I HAVE the rather insisted on the Testimony of this blessed Martyr because you seem to seem to have been willing to have condescended to the Ignation Episcopacy and were therefore concerned because in my Catalogue of the ancient Writers I said Ignatius was decretory against the Presbyterians I might have descended lower because you said you would have yield to the Episcopacy practised in S. Cyprians time to shew that this liberty you desire of admitting to or excluding from your flock whom you please was not even in those Ages allowed to bare Presbyters At present I shall onely note a passage or two because I am desirous of hastening Baptism therefore which has always been thought to require less power than the Lords Supper was not in Tertullians time permitted to Deacons nor Priests themselves without the Authority of their Bishop These are his words Dandi quidem viz. Baptismi habet jus summus sacerdos qui est Episcopus Dehinc Presbyteri Diaconi non tamen sine Episcopi authoritate propter Ecclesiae honorem Quo salvo salva pax est c. Exactly herein agreeing with Ignatius And the same seems to have been the sense and practice of the Asiatick Churches in the time of Firmilian who though indeed he mention the majores natu praesides under which word according to the use of that Age I confess Presbyters may be included as having the power of Baptizing Imposition of hands in reconciling penitents especially and of Ordination which we do not deny them yet he seems to intimate their dependence on the Bishop in the administration of that power which properly belonged to them which is all that we desire For thus he afterwards expresly asserts the power of remission of sins either in Baptism or Absolution of Penitents as appears from the occasion of the Dispute concerning the validity of both among the Hereticks to have been given to the Apostles Ecclesiis quas illi à Christo missi constituerunt EPISCOPIS qui eis dinatione vicariâ successerunt Where it is to be observed 1. That no exclusive particle be expressed yet it must necessarily be understood from the whole design of his Discourse which is to exclude the Baptism of Hereticks from being remissive of sins because the power of remitting sins is not granted to them which would not follow unless all which had that power conferred on them had been adequatly enumerated by him And 2. That by the Churches here mentioned cannot be understood a Society contradistinct from the Bishops For
casually taken up in the Church of Rome but upon some such designed account may very probably be conjectured because we find it observed in S. Laurence his time who being Archdeacon of Rome is called Primus è septem viris qui stant ad aram proximi c. by Prudentius And you will accordingly find constantly in the Author of the Pontifical the number of Deacons ordained by every Bishop of Rome to be less than of Presbyters and this comparative paucity of Deacons in respect of Presbyters was accounted by S. Hierom an occasion of the Deacons presumption in his Epist 85. ad Euagr. And if the form of Christs appearing in the Revelations be taken from the Bishops sitting in the Church as if I be not mistaken the most learned and judicious Mr. Thorndike thinks it is then as the 24 Elders may allude to the Christian Presbyteries derived from the lesser Sanhedrims of the Jews consisting of 24 so the seven ministring Spirits may in conformity to the septenary number of Angels so famous among the Jews as Mr. Mede proves professedly which are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the Apostle Heb. 1. allude to the septenary number of Deacons which were always attending on the Bishop in a readiness to execute his commands as the Angels are supposed by the Jews to do on God himself Nor need you wonder that so small a number of Deacons might be conceived sufficient to answer so great a proportion of Presbyters considering that their special Office was to distribute the Alms of the Church to such as were maintained on publick charity and to attend more immediately on the Bishops person as ordinary Executioners of his commands For I believe you will never find that they performed any service to Presbyters acting separately from their Bishop And certainly for distribution of Alms and personal attendance on the Bishop as small a number as seven might be sufficient in a great City 6. You say That many then were Presbyters that used not to preach but for privater oversight and as the Bishops Assessors This though for my part I conceive it very true seems strange to me to proceed from a person of your principles who usually teach publick preaching in Ecclesiastical Assemblies to be the indispensible duty of every particular Gospel Minister by which name they include if they do not onely mean Priests But supposing it true as I believe it was that there were several Priests who did not preach yet will not this diminish the multitude of Parishes as you seem to conceive For I believe you cannot prove that publick preaching was then accounted an ordinary parochial imployment And though it were not yet there were others equivalent sufficient to take up the time and pains bestowed on it now with equal edification such were visiting communicating exhorting persuading resolving cases of conscience and satisfying themselves concerning the lives of penitents for discerning who were fit or unfit for their communion all those Offices which were performed out of their publick Synaxes and all that were performed in them besides preaching that is their ordinary prayers their hymni antelucani their reading of the Scriptures their catechizings their general Exhortations pro re nata not designed and solemn their collections and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So that though there had not been so many Preachers in our modern notion of the word yet there might have been as many Parochial Priests as Titles or Parishes 7. YOU say That the poorer sort most commonly received the Gospel If your meaning herein be to conclude that the 1500 poor were the most considerable part of Believers that you might conclude the whole number of Converts to have been small you should have remembered what poor they were such as were maintained on the publick charity that is such as were not onely poor but impotent unable to get their livings otherwise And sure you cannot but think that the multitude of other Believers upon whose charity they were maintained especially if poor themselves though able to earn a livelyhood as you seem to suppose must have been great especially considering the other expenses of their charity on the Clergie on the Martyrs and Confessors on their hospitality to strangers c. all which may be sufficient presumptions that these 1500 poor did not in any probability bear any considerable proportion to the multitudes of the Roman Church by whom they were maintained And I believe in few Cities in our Kings Dominions if any will be found so great a number of poor who by reason of impotency are thought by the Magistrates fit objects of the publick charity even in these our Ages wherein all are supposed Professors of Christianity 8. You say That none of these but the 46 Presbyters had any power in the discipline If you mean a decretory power in the sense I have explained it then I think I have proved that the 45 Presbyters themselves had it not but the Bishop alone But you can thence no more conclude the paucity of Believers in one of the Dioceses of those times than in any one of ours now when it is plain that the Bishop himself has monopolized it as your self complain But if you mean an executive or even a consultory power of giving consent or advice in affairs of discipline to be decreed by the Bishop that was so far from being confined to the Presbyters as that it was communicated to the Deacons nay to the common people themselves This might easily have been cleared from Cornelius his Contemporary S. Cyprian from whom we have the clearest account of the discipline of that Age if I had not been unwilling to be more tedeous than needs I must and because upon reflection I believe your self will acknowledge it and because it is usually undertaken by Presbyterian but especially Independent Authors Indeed there were some privileges of the Presbyters that they onely sate in the Bishops presence as S. Hierom tells us besides other distinctions in Synaxes But it is sufficient for my purpose that the execution of discipline which is the main thing which necessarily requires plurality was managed by all and that for counsel here was a number exceeding the Councils of several Princes of Dominions larger than any Dioceses But 9. You say That by all this reckoning the whole Church maintained not besides the Officers near 1000 poor we may probably conjecture that the whole Church of that Bish was not bigger than some one London Parish Stepney S. Giles Cripplegate where are about 50000 Souls But 1. You are mistaken in your account For 1. The number of the poor besides the Officers were not near 1000 onely but 1500 for the Officers are not included in that number as you suppose 2. That number of poor maintained on the publick charity does imply a greater number than you suppose For consider 1. That no poor were reckoned in that number but such as