he has power which he had though he knew it not antecedently to their Declaration or to hinder him of the exercise of that power which he has and may know that he has independently on their Declaration and therefore can be onely to judge for themselves in order to their own acceptance So that if they refuse him that cannot in conscience hinder him from either finding or proselyting others that will accept him And in the mean time he may exercise that power where he can and exercise it to the full extent of it as far as himself conceives it to extend because he must on these principles be supposed to have it and to know he has it whether they accept of it or not § XII I KNOW some things are suggested in this way of Management which are not actually observed by Mr. Baxter nor Mr. Humfrey nor any other that I know of that has undertaken this Hypothesis and I believe some things which when they see how consequentially they destroy all Ecclesiastical Order and Government themselves will then perhaps be willing to disown But I am confident nothing has been added but what has been for the advantage of the Argument and what is consequential and agreeable to the main Hypothesis and for that they must whether they will or no be responsible till they are pleased to disown the Hypothesis to which it is consequent Certainly it is much more defensible than the bare Simile's of the Husbands power over the Wife or of the power conveyed by an Original Charter to all succeeding Posterity 'T is true indeed that no compacts of the Wife with the Husband can diminish that Right which was never given him by any Compact of hers for that very reason because God never left her at her liberty whether she should be subject or no but onely to chuse the person to whom she was in particular to pay Subjection But certainly my Reasoning will hold if Ecclesiastical Power be properly given by the Mediation of those Ecclesiastical Persons who minister in the Act of Ordination And that it is not properly given by them is onely begged by that Similitude but proved onely by the Hypothesis now mentioned But as for Charters the Instance is very unhappy to their purpose They cannot I believe give an Instance in any Humane Charters where bare qualifications though acknowledged and acknowledged by them who have power to invest them in office are thought sufficient to invest them without some further act of them who have power to invest them They cannot give an Instance where the Acts of such acknowledgedly qualified but not invested persons are thought valid in Law or the Acts of persons lawfully invested though confessedly less qualified are not thought valid a plain sign that their Investiture does properly confer such power They cannot give an Instance of any power settled by Charter where upon a faileur of all who are by the Charter impowered to dispose of Offices that power must devolve to those who are not by the Charter impowered on foresight of such a case to dispose of them and where such a Charter is not thought in Law to fail by becoming unpracticable till the supreme unaccountable Power be pleased again to interpose concerning it which is the very case impugned by me in the Nonconformists They cannot give an Instance of any Humane Charter that ever allows any person impowered to extend his own power by a private exposition of the Charter against the sense of all the visible supreme Powers of the Society and not onely to challenge it on such an account but to practice it also or that does ratifie such practice when attempted or that does not look on it as invalid as well as irregular Yet this is also their Case who arrogate this power of ordaining others against the sense and permission of all their supreme visible Governours § XIII BESIDES many things are taken for granted very confidently in this Hypothesis which they will find extremely difficult to prove when they are put to it Where can they find such a Charter for the power of Presbyters in the Scriptures as they speak of Where can they find their power described in any professed Constitution concerning it They may indeed some actual practises of Presbyters there but will they call that a Charter Will they make all actual practises obligatory for ever and unalterable by the prudence of succeeding Ages Are not many actual practises grounded on circumstances Are not many of those circumstances obnoxious to great mutability Are not ordinary Governours the competent Judges of their actual change If any practises be grounded on unalterable reasons it will be by those reasons that they must become unalterable not from their being barely actual practices not from their being barely historically mentioned in the Scriptures And what is that reason that makes such a just proportion of power immutably due to the Office of Presbyters Yet when all is done it is not reason but writing that makes a Charter Where do they find men plead Charters in humane affairs upon so weak pretences to them And where is it that reason is admitted to prove the right of an actual practice of power Reason does indeed prove it fit that men should have that power given them which is reasonable Does it therefore follow that they actually have that power which it is reasonable they should have If they actually have it not given them by those who had power to give it them that is sufficient to prove their practice of it an Usurpation and utterly invalid as to all intents and purposes of Law But for matter of fact I do not see but that this supposition concerning the inseparable connexion of the power of Ordination with the office of a Presbyter will rather ruine than advance their Cause as I have accordingly retorted it in my former Book Since it is certain that this power of ordaining others was not given to the first dividing Presbyters it will follow plainly that they were not made Presbyters at all if the power of Ordination be essential to the office of a Presbyter And then their succession will fail as well on account of their want of true Presbyters as of their Presbyters wanting the power of Ordination § XIV BUT neither did I onely overthrow their succession on account of their first Ministers not receiving this power of Ordaining others from the Bishops who ordained them but from the invalidity of that act by which they derived their Orders to their Successors supposing they had indeed received a power of Ordination Supposing they had it yet they could not exercise it but in lawful Assemblies which none but the Bishops as Presidents of the Presbyteries had power to indict nor yet even there supposing all Presbyters equal could they carry it but by plurality of suffrages And therefore the generality of their later Ordinations being performed by single over-voted persons without the consent of the
I believe you cannot produce a precedent of that age where the word is taken for the other Clergie so that there are onely two other Senses that I can think of reducible to this purpose either for the Laity and that your self I believe will not think intelligible here that the power of remitting sins by Baptism or otherwise does agree to them or for the complex of both the Laity and the Body of the Clergie in contradistinction to the Bishop And to this his proof of the power of remitting sins given to the Apostles being also given to the Church in this contradistinct sense must have been impertinently urged from its being given to the Apostles seeing that the Church in the Apostles time must have been as contradistinct from the Apostles as the later Churches from their respective Bishops By the word Churches therefore are onely meant Orthodox Societies including Bishops as well as other members whence it will follow that the Church is onely therefore said to have this power because the Bishops have it and therefore that no Ecclesiastical Member can have it independently on them 3. Therefore that by the word Bishops to whom this power of remitting sins is given to which all other Ecclesiastical Power is consequent Presbyters are not included will appear probable if you consider 1. That though the word Presbyter and Sacerdos be attributed to Bishops properly so called yet at least in that age I believe you will hardly find that a simple Presbyter is called Episcopus Blondell himself I think will not furnish you with an Instance And 2. That these Bishops are such as are called Successors of the Apostles And that by these Successors of the Apostles single persons are understood in the language of that age appears in that when they prove Succession from the Apostles they do it by catalogues of single persons as those in Irenaeus Tertullian c. and that Bishops in the confined sense are so frequently said to be Successors of the Apostles which is not said of simple Presbyters See S. Cyprian ep 42 65 69. and the Author de Aleatoribus with many others usually produced in the Disputes concerning Episcopacy AND then for the sense of S. Cyprian he was as resolute in vindicating his own right as condescending in his practice He it is that asserts the unaccountableness of the Episcopal Office to any under God that makes the Church in the Bishop as well as the Bishop in the Church that charges the contempt of the Bishop as the original of all Schism and Heresie and parallels it with the Sin of Corah Dathan and Abiram that spares not even Presbyters themselves when presuming to act without his order but puts them in mind of his being their Superiour and charges them with rebellion when they took that liberty you desire of acting arbitrarily and independently Instances of all these kinds might have been produced if I were not afraid of being too tedeous These things may at present suffice to shew that the liberty you desire of admitting or rejecting whom you please from your own flock is not more unreasonable than dissonant from the practice of those Ages for which you profess a reverence Nor do I understand your design in the use of that liberty you desire If it be that you would have those whom you think unworthy of your flock excluded from your cure that is as improper as if a Physician should desire to be excused from visiting those who are most dangerously though not desperately sick Certainly the contrary would rather follow that as they need most so they should have most of your care It is our Saviours own saying that the whole need not a physician but the sick that is at least not comparatively and generally his greatest pains and favours were extended to those who had least deserved them Nor is their unwillingness to deal with you in affairs of this nature a sufficient reason to exempt them from your Cure for this unwillingness it self is a most considerable ingredient in their distemper and that which makes them most truly pitiable and it would be as great a piece of inhumanity for the spiritual as the corporal Physician to desert them on that pretence I am sure very different from the behaviour of Christ and his Apostles who found the World generally as much prejudiced against and unwilling to hear them concerning affairs of that nature as you can with any probability presume concerning a Christian Auditory If your meaning be not to be excused from the use of all other good means for their recovery but onely from admitting them to the blessed Sacrament which ought to be the privilege of such as are already deserving I pray consider 1. Whether though you deny them to be Christians yet their very Baptism and exterior profession of Christianity be not at least sufficient to entitle them to exterior privileges if on their own peril they will venture on them and that Sacramental privileges are but exteriour They are invited to the marriage feast and none may exclude them if they come though it is at their own hazard if they presume to do so without the marriage garment And 2. That this does at least hold till they be convicted and censured by their due Superiour and you know it is questioned whether you as a private Presbyter ought to have that power But 3. That you have a power of suspending refractory persons till you acquaint the Bishop and with him you have that power of convincing and persuading which seems as much as your self desire so that even upon this account you have no reason to complain MY second Argument was from experience even in Ecclesiasticals to which you answer that It 's hard then to know any thing and that you dispute all this while as if the question were Whether men in England speak English that therefore if you herein erre you profess your self incurable and allow me to despair of you If I had disputed from present experience in England I should have confessed your Answer proper that I had endeavour'd to conquer your sense and experience as you elsewhere express it But I wonder how you could understand me so considering that our present want of discipline was the reason of my desire of its revival whence you took the occasion of these Disputes My meaning was that in the primitive times when Bishops were indeed laborious and conscientious and were willing and desirous to do what they could do experience shewed that discipline was actually maintained under such a Diocesan Government and therefore I concluded that the multitude of persons governed was not the reason of our present neglects And what is it that is scrupled in this Discourse or need put you to those unequal resolutions of being uncurable Is it whether the number of Christians in Dioceses were equal then with what we have now This was proved in my former Letter Or that the
gifts and disposes of these gifts immediately has never impowered men to confer these gifts but onely to examine and declare them which Declaration does not make but find them qualified and consequently impowered before any humane interposition 3. That even in the Apostles times these gifts and qualifications were not ordinarily given in Ordination but supposed to be antecedent to it as appears from that gift of Prophecy and discerning of Spirits by which they were enabled to judge who were fit to be ordained which must have related to gifts and qualifications not given by the Apostles but by God immediately And that if any gifts and qualifications were super added in the very act of Ordination yet they were extraordinary and therefore not to be expected by Successors especially not at this distance of the Age we live in 4. That these gifts being given by God immediately and this power being thus necessarily consequent to these gifts even the designation of the particular person is from God as well as the investing him with the power So that all that the interposition of men can do in this matter cannot be to give any power to the person to be ordained that he had not before but onely to judge of it in order to acceptance as to its exercise The judgment of the person himself will be necessary in order to his own acceptance The judgment of the Senior Pastors not in order to the investing them by Ordination by delivery with the power as Mr. Baxter speaks inconsistently with his own Principles who acknowledges no power given by the act of Ordination for I am willing to consider his Cause free from the inconveniences of his management but either as they are the ordinary Representatives of the people in accepting and such as are first to propose whatsoever is to be proposed to the people even in affairs wherein their suffrages are not ultimately concluded by their Representatives or as at least the Solemnities of Acceptance are to be transacted by them The judgment of the people also as they are the Objects of his Ministry and as they are supposed on that account to have the original right of Acceptance 5. That the way to know what persons are by God invested with power and with what power they are invested is by the Scriptures There he is supposed to have described the gifts and qualifications which when Pastors and People find in any man they must be supposed to be obliged to accept him And there he is supposed to have described that power which himself gives by giving him such gifts and qualifications 6. That this power being thus given by God immediately without any humane interposition in the giving it but onely in the accepting it consequently the extent of this power must be known by enquiring not into the mind of the Accepters but of the giver of it and the mind of God the giver is to be known onely in the Scriptures 7. That the extent of this power being thus to be gathered from the Scriptures as private persons are not obliged to think their Governours Expositions truest but may with reason and conscience differ from them there being nothing requisite for the understanding of the Scriptures that is capable of being known by the Clergie which learned Laicks are not as capable of knowing also so private persons may believe themselves invested with a power from the Scriptures which their Superiours neither gave them nor believe to be the sense of such Scriptures either that themselves ought to give it as authorized by God to do so or that God will himself give it immediately 8. That persons authorized have not onely power to believe what they take to be the sense of the Scriptures though different from the sense of ordinary Ecclesiastical Governours but also to practise their different sense at least so far as their Authority extends And therefore if a Bishop or his whole Presbytery whether in irregular or regular Assemblies do deny a Presbyter any part of his Office which indeed they never gave him neither by any invalid nor on these principles by any valid act of theirs he may notwithstanding use and exercise it as given him by God immediately 9. That every person for himself as he is as capable of understanding those Scriptures which describe the extent of the power as any others though Superiours but yet is more conscious to himself of his own integrity in using means to the best of his abilities and following his own convictions than any others so for the gifts and qualifications which by this Hypothesis confer an immediate title to the Office he can much better judge than any others because they are things more within his own cognizance than they can be of any others So that in order to his own practice he must on these principles be obliged in reason and conscience and prudence more to rely on his own judgment than on that of any others 10. That this power being immediately from God he is to presume that what God did once give that he intends still to give till he declares his pleasure to the contrary This Observation will both make Scripture-precedent which is the utmost they can pretend concerning the power of Church Officers described in Scripture as in a Charter an Argument now and will excuse them from the extreme difficult task to which their ordinary management does oblige them of proving it obligatory on other principles For grant it never so mutable in its own nature yet even mutable Determinations oblige till the Legislators pleasure be known for an actual change But supposing this power to have been immediately from God without any so much as interposition of men supposing therefore as has been shewed on these principles that it must appear to us by an express word of God such as may seem express to us without humane Authority even in the exposition of it supposing that no such express word of God is ever to be expected for the future it will follow that what is left determined any way in the Scripture must for ever be as secure from an actual change as if it had been of its own nature immutable But if the power it self be given by men then if they will prove it immutable by the men who give it they must endeavour to prove it either from the nature of the thing or the continuance of the same reason and circumstances of its first institution or some express command of God in Scripture that they should not actually change it which yet would not prove an invalidity but onely an irregularity in their doings supposing the power not to come from God immediately but by their mediation which would be much more difficult for them to prove than than they are aware of Whence it will further follow 11. That all that others can do whether Bishops or Presbyters or People cannot be either to give any power or to inform any person that
greater part of those Presbyteries of which they were originally Members and out of lawful Assemblies must on these accounts be not onely irregular but invalid too Here therefore no Presbyters were at all made and therefore it is in vain to talk of Charters to prove the power of legal Presbyters when these are not the persons of whom those Charters speak and whose power they are conceived to describe And the same is applicable also to the Commonalty Neither can they exert any power of which they might otherwise have been capable but by majority of Votes and in regular Assemblies If they do it is Null by the fundamental principles even of Democratical Government This therefore will destroy the validity of their second Ordinations though their first had been valid will null all their Ordinations in the state of Separation though the Orders received by them in the Churches Communion had been as valid and valid to as great purposes as they can pretend to prove by any Charters These are Arguments not that I know of insisted on by Jansenius not answered by Voet or Mr. Baxter not I believe thought of or considered either by them or by any others of our Adversaries that have most accurarely managed their cause and will hold if they were as succesful as themselves desire in answering the others The Hypothesis therefore thus managed is that which alone it is their Interest to stand by And if this prove nothing or nothing to their purpose we shall have no reason to be very solicitous for any thing else that is pretended by them § XV I HAVE said several things in answer to this same Argument as urged by Mr. Humfrey a person of much more candour and judgment and elaborate thoughtfulness than Mr. Baxter I am unwilling to repeat any thing there said more than I needs must though he has served it as he uses to do Answers passed them all by without any notice taken of them Yet he is the person who has the confidence to complain of being forced to repetitions What I shall now say shall rather be with a prospect on the Argument it self and with reference to some worthy Brethren of our own Communion than on account of any new Obligation I can think my self under from any thing new observed by Mr. Baxter First therefore I shall onely desire at present that what has been said Chap. XXII of my former Book be onely understood on supposition that Ecclesiastical Power is not conferred immediately by God but mediately by the interposition of the Ordainers And on that supposition I cannot conceive what reason there can be to question it Who can doubt but that supposing Ecclesiastical Power to be properly their gift it must be conveyed to others by virtue of some compact of theirs whose gift it is as all other gifts are to which any one else can pretend a legal right Who can doubt but the legal validity of all such Conveyances depends upon that which the Law presumes to be the intention of the Giver Who can doubt but that the Law presumes every one to mean that which he ought to mean Who can doubt but that in all like cases of legal judicature that is still presumed to be the sense of the Law which is the sense of all the visible Makers and Executioners of Laws no legal appeal being ever admitted to Powers future or invisible Who can doubt that if the Laws be competent Judges in any case they are most so in such cases wherein publick not private Right is concerned such as is that of Ecclesiastical Power which is the subject of our present Dispute Who can doubt but the visible Powers of any Communion must judge that all Ordainers ought to mean to give that Power which by the principles of their Communion is thought proper for the Office to which the person is ordained and to mean to withhold that which by the principles of their Communion is thought unlawful to be given to that Office Who can doubt but where it was thought Heresie to believe that Bishops and Presbyters had the same power there it must also have been thought unlawful to give it them Who can doubt but that where the Power of Ordination was taken for the peculiar prerogative of the Bishop there it must have been thought unlawful to give this particular branch of power of simple Presbyters If all these suppositions agree with the matter of fact in that Age wherein these separations were first made I cannot possibly conceive how that power of ordaining others on which the validity of the present Sacraments and Ordinances of our several Sects do at present depend could have been conveyed to the first Presbyters of the several Parties by any gift of those Bishops and Presbyteries who first ordained them So that if they will pretend at all to have it they must necessarily bethink themselves of some other Hypothesis such as this by which they might have it antecedently to and independently on the gift of the Ordainers § XVI 2. THEREFORE I desire it may be observed further that this Hypothesis is not agreeable to the notions or practices of any Party whatsoever that owns any such thing as Ecclesiastical Power for the suppression of Heresie or the prevention of Schism but onely for Enthusiasts who utterly deprive the Church of any such power or of being a political Society I do not say but that it may follow from some principles expresly owned by them as particularly from that principle so much received among the Sects that it is dishonourable to think that the Holy Ghost can be given by any means of Humane Ministry though of his own Appointment for the giving of the Holy Ghost was in the Jewish Theocracy the exact Method of investing any with power but onely that it is not agreeable to their notions and practices concerning Government For all that hold any such thing as Government must unless they will make it perfectly useless own a power of restraining particular persons from Innovation I mean which may in conscience oblige such persons how different soever from the sentiments of their Superiours yet even in conscience to forbear Divisions in the same Churches or erecting new ones in opposition to those which are already established But this cannot be maintained by this Hypothesis For where all that others can do can neither hinder a private person from Authority nor from knowing that he has it not even from such a knowledge as may suffice in conscience to justifie his acting pursuantly to that Authority There it is plain he is under no obligation to forbear drawing parties after him if he can As for the Interest others have in admitting him for their Minister that signifies nothing to this purpose It onely secures that they shall not be drawn away without their own consent And for that what use is there of Government If he can persuade and seduce them he will have the consent of
still remaining Subjects not Princes notwithstanding whatsoever Deputation that does not make them absolute and unaccountable and unobnoxious to the care and cognizance of the Supreme The Application to our present case is easily made For when I mentioned the Delegation of the Bishops power to particular Parochians I onely meant such a subordinate power for governing their respective Parishes as Viceroys and Lieutenants have under Secular Monarchs for the Government of particular Provinces but this subordinate power is so far from being the proper work of a Bishop as such as that it would make him no Bishop to suppose it in him at all That therefore which is proper to a Bishop as such that is the power of compelling the Parochians to the performance of their duties is not communicated to any Parochian and when it has been communicated to any simple Presbyters it has been counted as great an effeminacy and betraying of their power as the like case in Seculars was reputed in the Secular Princes now mentioned For this was the occasion of the Abolition of the Co-episcopi about the ninth Century that the Bishops made use of them as pretences for their own sloth in the performance of their own duties If therefore any thing of this kind have crept in in the later ages I will not defend it but onely shall desire you to remember that it is not pertinent to your design of making all Presbyters as such without any such particular deputation equal with them and that your Arguments if they proved any thing are more directly levelled against Diocesan Episcopacy as such without any such abusive deputation § XV BUT this at present may suffice to shew that that power which is by the Bishops permitted to Parish Ministers does not make them Bishops nor make them who are so properly unnecessary which methinks your self might easily have understood if you had but reflected on what your self know concerning its practice among us without such dilemmatical uncertainties which would make one think you a stranger to it The other member of your dilemma you do not prosecute whether because you forgot it or that you thought it of it self sufficiently evident I know not I suppose your Argument would have been that if the power delegated by the Bishop to the inferiour Clergy were none of his own then he could not delegate it seeing that none can justly dispose of that which is not his own To this the Answer is easie from the parallel power of Princes already insisted on that this power is the Bishops the same way as that of inferiour Magistrates is the supreme Prince's not to be executed by his own person but by others obnoxious to his election and censures which is sufficient to shew that the disposal of it is his though not the Execution § XVI YOUR sixth Answer which you call your chief one is that which I before observed to be a Concession of all that I pretended to prove that a Bishop with inferiour Church-rulers can govern a scope as large as a Diocese But when in application of it to our purpose you ask Whether it follows that our Church-Monarch can oversee them all himself without any Suboverseers or rule them by Gods Word on the Conscience without any Subrulers I wonder that you should seem so to forget the practice of our Ministers of ruling our Parishes as Subrulers under the Bishop It may be your meaning is that our Parish Ministers were not allowed a part in the Supreme Government of their Churches as if that were sufficient to deny the name of proper Church-rulers But you might have remembred 1. That my desire was that the Bishops as in S. Cyprians time so now would more communicate their affairs of any considerable importance with their Presbytery And 2. That even according to the Rubricks of our Church the Parish Minister or Curate is allowed the power not onely of dissuading which yet is all that is allowed the Church by several of our Nonconforming Brethren but also of hindering notorious ill livers and uncharitable persons from the Communion onely with a provision that they signifie such their proceedings to the Ordinary within fourteen days at the furthest which was no more than necessary for keeping them to the notion of Sub not principal Rulers This quick and easie dispatch in case of the Ministers concurrence would make one wonder at your complaints concerning the dilatory proceedings of the Ecclesiastical Courts in this affair if the Clergy could be persuaded to be unanimous and vigorous in the performance of their duty And 3. As it is plain that there are many Subrulers under Princes who are not of their Privy Council so you cannot therefore conclude the Parish Ministers not to be Subrulers under the Bishop even now because all great affairs are not originally transacted by their Council Nay 4. Your self confess Legislation it self to be communicated to the inferiour Clergy in the Lower House in Convocations when they make Canons which are Church-Laws And this which is one of the highest acts of Government being communicated to them can you yet complain of their exclusion from Government WHEN I described the Ecclesiastical Monarchy I spoke of to be such as does appropriate the decretory power of Government to it communicating onely the executive to others you bid me hold to that What your meaning is thereby I do not know for neither do you seem to persuade me to hold to it as truth seeing you afterwards seem to dislike it Nor can I think that you would have me to hold to an error that you might have advantage of disputing against me What you except against a mere Executioner's being no Governour might easily have been prevented if you had considered that the word mere was none of mine and that the executive power was by me opposed to that which is decretory that is which is absolute and unaccountable to any Superiour on earth at least within such limits Which as it may include much more power than that which your self call more than executive that of reproving exhorting convincing c. So that decretory in this sense can agree to a subject I believe your selfe will hardly affirm And indeed if you had been pleased to follow the analogy in the civil power where I do not find you so scrupulous in Ecclesiastical you would more clearly have understood my meaning and its unconcernedness in your Exceptions For in civils at least the decretory power from whence all Laws and Rules of proceeding are originally borrowed and to which all appeals in case of difficulty in their sense or partiality of inferiour Judges are finally resolved will I believe be owned by your self as proper to the supreme Magistrate And how will you call that power of the Subject as such that is as depending hereon by a more proper name than that of executive though it may withall include something decretory in affairs of inferiour concernment which though decretory
be severe for the good of the Commonwealth than it is for a Chirurgeon to cut off a gangreened member for the preservation of its owners life And such is the design of the Church who is not for using even her spiritual coercions which onely belong to her but onely on such persons on whom her rational inducements have proved desperate and succesless BUT notwithstanding your former contrary intimations you say You desire no force nor Church power but not to take these 1. for Christians 2. for your special Christian flock 1. who are no Christians 2. who themselves refuse it But this power you desire here is more than that which alone was allowed by you to Bishops of reproving exhorting instructing and declaring persons fitness or unfitness for communion by their penitence or impenitence For what if your people believe those penitent whom you think impenitent or on the contrary What if they be not satisfied with your Declarations or resolved not to observe them What if at least the greater part which is always predominant in popular Governments be not of your opinion Would you think your self obliged in such a case to make your peoples opinion or your own the rule of your practice in receiving or rejecting persons from your communion If you follow your people then you are as capable of being imposed on against your will for receiving such persons for Christians and for part of your Christian flock who are no Christians and who themselves refuse it by them as you are now by the Bishop And it does not appear that the greater part of your flock especially if such as you describe whereof whole Parishes have been presented by the Churchwardens are likely to stand with you in opposition to your Bishop And if they stand for him against you you can have no reason to obtrude your own judgment and complain according to this principle But if notwithstanding their dissent from you you yet resolve to follow your own judgment in receiving or rejecting according to your own thoughts of the penitence or impenitence of the person obnoxious to your Discipline then you will indeed be so far from desiring no Church power as that you would desire more than you seem willing to grant the Bishops which is onely declarative And then if you may as a Governour impose on the people why may not the Bishop as your Governour impose on you Indeed there can be no such thing as Government without such an Imposition as you speak of For the reason of all Government is the inequality of mens Judgment in their own causes and the inconvenience of deciding their differences by force which is many times the greatest on the unjust side The design therefore of all Government is to entrust a third person or society supposed impartial to the litigant parties with a power sufficient to compel either of them to submit to her decision For seeing it is not ordinarily to be expected that differences should be decided by a persuasion of both parties of the equity of decisions but that both parties will frequently prove tenacious of their own Opinions therefore it is necessary that the guilty whatever he be who will seldom believe his own condemnation just be imposed on and such an Imposition being thus thought necessary common prudence will suggest that it is much more equal and secure for the party imposed on that he be imposed on by the common arbitrator of their differences than by his partially affected adversary And accordingly where there is no need of imposition there is none of government and the seat of government is finally resolved on them who have this power of imposing their own sentiments on others so that to deny Ministers this power over the people or the Bishops over the Ministers is to make neither the one nor the other properly Governours Besides the power of Excommunication and Absolution which you seem to mean in this your complaint that the independent use of them is not communicated to the Ministers are so incommunicably proper to the supreme governour who as having the power of a Society must also have that of admitting to and rejecting members from it as that it were impossible for him to give an account of his charge if others may admit and reject at pleasure without dependence on him So that to complain of being imposed on in this kind is indeed in effect to complain of the Bishops superiority over you And if this reason were of any force it would proceed as much against the Presbyterian government as the Episcopal for even among them the Minister may as well be over-voted and consequently overruled by the Classes as with us by the Bishops So inseparable this power of imposing on Parish Ministers is found from Government as that is indeed admitted by all them who own a Government superiour to single Parishes BUT I pray quo jure do you challenge this Parochial power of Excommunication and Absolution independent on your Ordinaries I shall at present give you leave to say not because that I think you can prove it but because I am unwilling at present to dispute it that Presbyters were not onely counsellors but coordinate governours with the Bishop But how can you shew the least likelyhood that the Bishop had not at least a negative vote among them That as he could not do any thing without their suffrages so they were able to conclude any thing without his Much less are you able to prove that every particular Presbyter singly taken ever had within his own Jurisdiction the power of determining so momentous a thing as Ecclesiastical censures Whereever you find any Presidents over Presbyteries in the Scriptures whether Apostles or Evangelists or Angels you cannot find any Precedent of any thing carried by the major vote against the consent of the President as at least one of the prevailing number And for the Ignatian Episcopacy and so downwards to S. Cyprian which you seem to approve it is very plain that all the power of Presbyters was dependent on the Bishop Thus Ignatius in his genuine uninterpolated Epistle to the Ephesians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And that that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the Communion of the Bishop appears from the sequel whence he concludes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whence you may easily guess what he would have thought of Presbyters communicating in opposition to the Bishop that even such Communions being without the altar must needs have been destitute of the bread of God To the same purpose also the same blessed Martyr advises even Presbyters not to despise the youth of Damas the Bishop of the Magnesians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 translated appositely to the sense of this place familiariter uti seems to argue a greater distance than you would I believe think consistent with the parity you are so desirous of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 observe I pray again
dependence of such a place on such a City from whence they were borrowed And now I pray what an such a Town walled incorporated and having Jurisdiction not onely over Suburbs but a proportion of the Villages and Towns adjacent by special Imperial Charters want of our modern notion of a City even as contradistinct to our Market Towns AND that the Government of the Church was proportioned to that of the State is so commonly observed by learned Men as that I cannot think it necessary to be tedeous in proving it And that in this very particular of the subjection of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the City Bishop appears from the 17th Canon of this same Council where it is not onely for this but all other affairs of a like nature established as a general Rule very probably occasioned by the forementioned Controversie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And though we had no express Testimony yet the multitude of the Clergy requisite for the Government of their ordinary 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a whole Presbytery in the City besides the Deacons and the other inferiour Orders there and others in the Country subject to the Chorepiscopus or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and all subject to the City Bishop do plainly shew that the Bishops Jurisdiction if not as large as now was at least much larger than our ordinary Market Towns which usually have but one Parish and are therefore thought sufficiently governable by an ordinary single Presbyters And this form of governing Cities was so universal as that your Assertion to the contrary is not credible even in Africa or any other place where Bishops or Cities are observed to have been most frequent or numerous But if it had indeed been otherwise in some singular places yet it is plain that the general rate of Cities among the Ancients was equal to ours Whence it will follow that the Dioceses generally designed were such as ours are now though in some particular more anomalous Instances they were it may be as small as you would have them Whence two things will follow very apposite to my design 1. That the Judgment of those Ages themselves were certainly more for us than you seeing their judgment is onely to be concluded from their general rules not from their particular anomalous practices And 2. that the case of discipline must have been the same with them as us For the general observation of discipline cannot be effected by singular but general practices and designs Whence it will be easie to infer that if discipline was then generally observed then it is observable under a Diocesan Government in the sense we are now disputing concerning it For such I have proved to have been generally practised then and if it was observed then you can give no disparity why it may not be so now if Governours would be equally industrious YOUR intimation concerning to Bishops you would have in your Parâ—chial Dioceses that their office must be to drive men from sin and not to it and to silence Blasphemers and not faithful Preachers of the Gospel as if our Bishops were guilty of the contrary is methinks very sharp and uncharitable We are all agreed you as well as we that this is our Diocesan Bishops office Our onely difference is that you conceive their actual practice to be otherwise But I pray consider seriously what good meaning you can have herein if your desire had been granted Is it that the Bishop must not do that which himself thinks to be driving men to sin You cannot but know that they pretend and how can you know that they do not really believe their prosecutions of Dissenters to be not a driving them to sin but from it from disobedience to that which they think lawful Ecclesiastical Government and from those Separations which themselves judge Schismatical and from the defence and malice of unlawful Oaths And certainly what they think to be Disobedience and Schism and the maintaining of unlawful Oaths your self 〈◊〉 blame them if they believe them 〈◊〉 〈…〉 And the Preachers silenced by 〈…〉 not by them thought faithful 〈…〉 of the Gospel at least not in the 〈◊〉 of their silencing but â—â—eachers of 〈…〉 and Founders and Fomenters of parties to the great weakning of the common Interest of the Gospel And can you think it faulty in them to be zealous against them whom they conceive to be such enemies to the Gospel at least while they think them so and profess themselves unable to find any reason to think otherwise Or do you mean that the Bishop must not drive to that which the Criminal will pretend to be a sin or prosecute that which he calls faithful Preaching of the Gospel If so you had dealt more plainly to have denied the Bishop any power at all to drive men from sin or silence Blasphemers than to grant him it and yet to make it useless and unpracticable as it must needs be if he must not practise it till the Sinner or Blasphemers confess themselves so for how rarely do you find real Criminals plead guilty at the Bar Besides that by this means the most innocent if any must onely suffer and the most dangerous must generally escape For they who confess their crime must generally be presumed penitent and they who are so are almost innocent if we may believe the Tragedian but he who denies his guilt aggravates it by the disingenuity of his Apologie Besides he who confesses himself a Sinner or a Blasphemer is onely chargeable with a personal guilt but he who denies sins and blasphemies to be sins sins more heinously not onely sinning himself but teaching others to do so too Nor is the multitude onely more considerable that is drawn aside by this later sort of disingenuous sinners but the quality of the persons seduced and the greatness of their danger is much more considerable than in those who are prejudiced by the former For none are likely to be seduc'd by professed debauchees but such as are ill-inclined themselves But they who are deceived by them who teach ill principles not onely defending sins ad excusing them but pretending them to be duties are usually such who are of the best lives and the most innocent meaning whose Errors are like to be authenticated by their personal authority and reputation And those who acknowledge their sins are more easily recoverable their own consciences being ready upon any occasion to joyn with external conviction whensoever offered to them but they who mistake their sins for the service of God do both alienate their minds from conviction by laying out their zeal against hearing or impartial considering that which they look on as a temptation and in the event resolve their conviction into an issue of more difficult proof For it is generally more easie even to the meanest most popular capacity to prove a matter of fact than a matter of right how unquestionable soever Certainly you would your self acknowledge him to be
in private and occasional Assemblies Presbyters were permitted to do it by leave of the Bishop without any prejudice to the Unity of the Church which was signified by the Unity of their Altar I will not mention the instances hereof in the Acts of the Martyrs which are not so secure to be trusted Ignatius and Tertullian are very clear to this purpose in the places already produced Now this account being given how notwithstanding the multitude of Communicants and though the Sacrament were the greatest obligation to meet in publick Assemblies yet much greater numbers than our Parishes might have been supplied conveniently enough from one President and one Altar it will be easie to give an account of other things For as for preaching which is now more insisted on as a reason of Church Assemblies than the Sacraments though certainly very differently from the sense of those Ages First you cannot prove that to have been so appropriated to the Bishop as that ordinary Presbyters were excluded from it All that can be pretended to this purpose is that the Exhortation with the Communion Office was then generally in the presence of the Bishop and that in his presence it was not usual for Presbyters to preach for this is the onely thing that was thought so strange in preaching of Origen before Theophilus and S. Augustine before Valerius that it was done in the presence of their Bishops and that the power of Ecclesiastical Assemblies upon what pretence soever preaching as well as other Offices was appropriated to the Bishops But 1. All private visitations and conferences which were much better suited to the exigencies of those times might undoubtedly be performed by single Presbyters and these being performed with that diligence as they were then would in a great measure supersede the necessity of publick Sermons And 2. Even for those publick preachings which had no relation to the Communion Office where that one Altar was concerned might have been ordinarily permitted them by the Bishop And 3. Even those which were connected with that Office might yet by the Bishops leave have been permitted in places distinct from the one Altar as well as the Communion it self YOUR instance of St. Patrick founding 365 Churches for I onely take notice of the more probable number and ordaining in them 365 Bishops and under them 3000 Presbyters does not methinks seem any thing to your purpose You say Here is no more Bishops than Churches I believe you meant the contrary that there were no more Churches than Bishops for this is onely to your design of having as many Bishops as Churches that is in your notion of the word as Parishes And you know though we pretend many Parish Churches may be subject to one Bishop Yet we are far from saying that there ought to be many Bishops in one Parish But admitting there were in S. Patrick's time no more Churches than Bishops yet how can it follow thence that there were no more Parishes or that the word Church in those Ages used without any restrictive Particle must signifie that onely which were equivalent to our present Parishes For you know that we do not pretend that there ought to be any more liberty for a Bishop to hold plurality of Dioceses than for a Minister to have plurality of Parishes though I will not defend all practices in both particulars so that if the word Church imply that which is Diocesan as most probably it did according to the sense of those times then we do not think there ought to be more Churches than Bishops Indeed I confess the Dioceses of those times must have been for scope of Land as much less as the number 365 is greater than 21 or thereabouts which is our number now But it is withall most clear 1. That as small as they were they were yet greater than Parishes there being about nine Presbyters to a Bishop as your self observe For your own notion of a Parish containing no more than are capable of being governed by a single person where nine persons were thought necessary there must be supposed nine times that proportion that is nine Parishes And then if you think your self obliged to abstain from that Communion where Discipline is impossible and think it impossible where the Bishop undertakes the government of any more than he is able to give an account of by his own personal care you must have conceived your self obliged as much to separate from Diocesan Communion quà Diocesan then as now and therefore should not plead those Dioceses as precedents But 2. Your own principles will warrant the enlargment of your Dioceses now for if Bishops might in the primitive times take the charge of whole Cities not because the Cities were small or the Inhabitants few but because they who owned Episcopal Authority that is Christians were so then I may say our present Dioceses may be very much inlarged since the divisions of Christians For whereas then they were all unanimous the case is otherwise how when Papists and Scots and other Non-conformists being deduced of all Sects and Opinions those onely are accounted that own our present Episcopal Authority would be so few comparatively so that you see that by Separation upon account of the too great extent of our Dioceses the inconvenience is not remedied but confirmed in consequence of your own Principles But 3. What inconvenience soever may indeed be in things of this nature is to be judged as well as reformed by the Governours whose proper care it is not to be remedied by worse such as are the undutifulness and separations of private persons from their Superiours on that account I CONFIRMED this by Argument from experience from an instance of Rome which though so great in Cornelius his time as to need the Services of above 1000 Clergie was yet at the same time under the Government of one onely Bishop To this you answer 1. That this was above 250 years after Christs Birth But this is not the question how soon it was but whether it was not when discipline was severely enough observed For from hence it follows that experience has then shewn that discipline was sufficiently reconcilable with a Diocesan Government and therefore may be so now if Governours would be equally industrious And that discipline was then observed I believe you will not deny You answer 2. That you never took all the impotent persons poor and widows in the Church to be Clergie-men and Clergie-women I shall not dispute the propriety of my expression not but that I know that the word has indeed been used in a very large sense so as to comprehend most persons relating to the Church and possibly all there enumerated both because I do not conceive the thing material to my present purpose which is onely to shew the numerousness of the Church from the multitude of Presbyters whom you will not deny to be properly Clergie-men and because I confess I too much trusted my memory in
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
concerning the Reasons of Nonconformity mentioned in Mr. Baxter's Letter § 5. Contents of Letter II. Introduction § 1. Quest 1. Whether the Bishop be bound to discharge his whole duty in his own person Or Whether he may not take in the assistances of others That he may granted by Mr. Baxter Quest 2. waved by me § 2. Mr. Baxter's reasons do as solidly disprove a possibility of Secular Discipline under a Secular Monarch of a Precinct as large as a Diocese as of Diocesan Discipline § 3. Secular Monarchs as well responsible for the miscarriage of particular Subjects as Bishops and their charge is as great The Persons Crimes and Laws belonging to the care of the Secular Governour more numerous than they which belong to the Ecclesiastical § 4 5. So are the necessities to be provided for by the Secular Governour § 6 7 8. An Objection prevented § 9. Mr. Baxter's first answer refuted The Government of a Diocese may be administred without any more than three Orders § 10. The Church may for prudential reasons constitute new Officers though not Orders § 11. Mr. Baxter's second answer refuted Personal Capacity as requisite in a Prince as in a Bishop § 12. An Objection prevented § 13. Mr. Baxter's third fourth and fifth answers refuted § 14 15. His sixth answer rejected § 16. What I mean when I make the decretory power of Government proper to the Supreme and the Executive onely to be communicated to inferiour Governours § 17. The decretory power of Government does not necessarily include personal or particular Exploration § 18 19. His seventh answer considered Good men need Government as well as others Their mistakes more dangerous to Government than the mistakes of others § 20. Mr. Baxter's Objection in favour of me His first answer refuted § 21. His second answer refuted Declaration is no act of power § 22. The unbecomingness of Doctrines so disparaging to Ecclesiastical Authority to Mr. Baxter as a Curer of Church-divisions § 23. The first Reformers at length sensible of the necessity of Church Authority to Peace and Discipline § 24. Mr. Baxter's uncandid character of a Prelatick Christian § 25. The use of external coercion in Religion is not to make men onely dissemblers § 26 27 28. No Discipline to be expected without a coercive power somewhere § 29. The liberty desired by Mr. Baxter inconsistent with the Principles of the Ignatian Episcopacy so much recommended by himself on other occasions § 30. Inconsistent with the discipline of the Church described by Tertullian and Firmilian § 31. Inconsistent with that of S. Cyprian No reason why Mr. Baxter should desire to disown them from being parts of his Cure who do not observe Rules of Discipline § 32. My second Argument for the Possibility of Diocesan Discipline from the actual experience of former times § 33. The notion of a Church for no more than are capable of personal inspection of a single Presbyter not proved to be of Divine Institution from Acts 14. 23. § 34 35. His second and third answer refuted The distribution of particular Cures to particular Presbyters from whence it comes to pass that one Diocese includes many such Societies as are fitted for personal Communion is more convenient than their governing the same multitudes in common Very probably as ancient as they had settled places of Meeting How ancient in the Churches of Rome and Alexandria § 36. How vigorous notwithstanding discipline was at that very time at Alexandria § 37. His fourth answer refuted § 38. His fifth answer refuted § 39. His sixth answer refuted § 40. His seventh answer refuted The ancient Cities of the Roman Empire that had single Bishops more generally as great and populous as now § 41 42. The Ecclesiastical Government of those Cities proportioned to the Civil § 43. Whether our Diocesan Office be a driving men to sin § 44 45 46. His eighth answer refuted Great Cities then had great numbers of Christians Instanced in the Churches of Hierusalem Samaria Antioch Antiochia Pisidiae Thessalonica Beroea Ephesus § 47. These were Churches in all likelyhood designed by the Apostles themselves as precedents for others The multitudes of Christians every where in the Roman Empire in the time of Tertullian § 48. Instances of other Churches very numerous besides Rome and Alexandria Neocaesarea Carthage The passage of S. Cyprian concerning his Contribution explained § 49 50. The ancient numerousness of Christians proved from Pliny § 51. The possibility of their meeting in the same Assemblies § 52. Several ways how greater numbers might communicate from the same Altar than could ordinarily meet in the same Assemblies § 53. S. Patrick's Dioceses not equivalent to our modern Parishes § 54. My Argument from the numerousness of the Church of Rome in the time of Cornelius His answers refuted § 55. His endeavours to give an account how the Clergie then might have been numerous though their People had been few § 56. His first five answered § 57. His sixth § 58. His seventh § 59. His eighth § 60. His ninth § 61. His tenth § 62. No Instance of Mr. Baxter's notion of a Church of a Society under the Cure of one single Priest but onely in those two Churches of Rome and Alexandria so much disowned in this very matter by himself § 63. Ulphilas Bishop of the whole Nation of the Goths Whether an Arrian § 64. Frumentius Bishop of the Indians and Moses of the Arabians The Christians of both more numerous than our single Parishes § 65. His first answer refuted § 66. His second answer refuted § 67. A Conclusory Exhortation § 68. Contents of Letter III. Reasons of delaying this Answer § 1. Endeavours to prevent his displeasure § 2. Advices then against some Intimations of his of publishing our Letters § 3. My unwillingness to differ from him in any thing tolerable § 4. The Charge of SCHISM briefly stated against them § 5. A pathetical Application of all that had been said to Mr. Baxter § 6. ERRATA PAge 4. Line 9. after Baxter read has p. 12. l. ult dele Parenthesin p. 14. l. 27. tell p. 16. l 9. dele rather p. 17. l. 7. actual p. 42. marg Separat proved Schismat p. 59. l. 28. dele the note of Interrogation p. 60. l. 24. whither r. why then l. 26. officers marg Proleg p. 67. l. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 76. l. 4. were p. 86. at the last Break I onely note Sect. XXXII p. 100. l. 27. difformity p. 102. l. 9. dele are touched p. 103. l. 11. prophaneness l. 18. l. 23. after Presbyters a Colon. p. 108. l. 6. knew p. 130. l. 9. kind Whole p. 145. l. 18 19. blot out of the Text Dr. Stilling fleet 's and put in the margin Dr. Stilling fleet 's Irenic p. 179. l. 17. either is actually p. 187. l. ult change the Parenthesis into a Comma p. 199. l. 9. believe it p. 201. l. 6. strangness p. 202. l. 16.
not been impleaded in those Disputes concerning the necessity of Succession Such a one would make a Conclusion odious where he could not disprove it as false would endeavour to raise the affections of his Readers where he despaired of prevailing on their Judgments would traduce the person of his Adversary where he had no hopes of obtaining his cause Such a one would be as confident as he is in general charges of Absurdities Contradictions and Wordiness c. but would withall be as cautious as he is of mentioning any particulars of such Charges Such a one would refer an Adversary to Books written before for Answers to Arguments not so much as treated of in those Books would with great boldness impose on Readers ignorant of those matters that all had been already answered there and that the onely reason why no more is answered now is onely to avoid Repetitions so that unless a new question be produced as well as a new argument there shall never want an excuse for want of a new Answer I wonder how Mr. Baxter can pretend to have answered what I have said concerning the sin against the Holy Ghost or the sin unto death or the Sacraments which yet I see are so displeasing to him or even the way of deriving their Succession from their first Separation what I have said concerning the opinion of the Schoolmen that Bishops and Presbyters differ onely in degree to shew how unsufficient that is for justifying their present Succession what I have said concerning this way of resolving the Dispute not into ancient Learning but more modern Histories of their Succession what concerning their derivation of Power from any valid act even of the Presbyteries themselves c. Should I say things so notoriously false with such confidence I confess I could not tell how to excuse my self from his uncivil Epithete of Audaciousness Such a one would slight the question that pinched him how momentous soever it might prove in its consequences and divert to others though of no use yet more capable of odium and of a popular talent of raising passion And has not Mr. Baxter who cannot find leisure to answer these Arguments wherein the Orders of his Brethren and their Sacraments and the whole comfort of their Communion are generally concerned shewn that he has a great deal of leisure to rake Church History to asperse the dead and blaspheme the living Rulers of his people for condemning Heresies when yet the generality of his Brethren themselves do not pretend to differ from us in any thing which even we call Heresie To what end is all this but to make a noise at a distance to divert us from the real debate Such a one would cavil as he does about words What can I think it else but cavil when he pretends himself so extremely ignorant in the meaning of the Terms of our Dispute When he who has lived all his Life in England and has received his Orders from a Bishop of the Church of England is yet to learn what we in England in our Disputes with his Party mean by the name of Bishop nay even by that of the Church of England If he thought himself in earnest as ignorant as he pretends why would he meddle in Disputes where he does not understand the Terms If he knows better things what charity can excuse him from the charge of Insincerity Though persons may yet causes cannot aequivocate There is but one sense of all Terms which causes oblige men to mean and that every one ought to know who pretends to skill in causes Other senses I did not think my self obliged to take notice of in Terms of notorious signification till I found some occasion for it from the misunderstandings of my Adversaries But there is one thing that looks most like an Argument of Self-conviction which though it has been taken up by persons of worse design than he yet does withall run through the Reasoning of several of the later Books of Mr. Baxter that is that our Clergie must alone be responsible for all the scandals that any Clergie who never had any affinity with ours but that of their common office were ever guilty of What is this but in effect to acknowledge that ours are the onely real Clergie What is it but to acknowledge the conclusiveness of those Arguments which have been used by me to disprove the Title of their Ministers to the Office of real Clergie-men If they thought their own to be Clergie-men why will they not be as obnoxious to all the scandals they can rake of Clergie-men out of the Histories of Sixteen hundred Years as ours I wish I could by this Suggestion make them sensible of the disingenuity they shew in this way of Reasoning and of the mischief they do themselves and the common cause of Christianity It is strange if Mr. Baxter can ever expect to revive Parochial Discipline by such means as these of ruining Diocesan Can he ever expect to prevail with those irreligious Laicks who are on this occasion so ready to make use of this misguided zeal of his Brethren not as more orthodox than others but as a popular party to submit themselves to the Censures of his Parochial Ministers when he teaches them to despise an Authority so much more venerable than theirs on all the accounts which Mankind owns for just reasons of veneration Can he in earnest hope than an upstart Authority of Innovators too late to have their Scandals traced through any distant Histories can procure reverence with them who are told such vile things of those who upon the first division were found possessed of an Authority so much more received by a peaceable as well as a just prescription Can he expect that he can preserve that Authority in Inferiours which he endeavours to ruine in their Superiours Can he think to preserve it in those whom it seems himself dares not own for Clergie-men whilest he teaches them to asperse the very name as well as the authority of Clergie-men Can he think to preserve it in those who have no other but extraordinary ways of pretending to a Divine Authority or to pretend Charters expounded by themselves in their own favour when he teaches them to undervalue an Authority derived by all the ways by which it is reasonable to expect an Authority should be derived at such a distance Can he expect in the age we live in that the great ones will ever be induced to pay respect to the inferiour Clergie who are so unknown to our Laws when they are taught to deny it to those who have as good a Title even to legal honours as themselves Mr. Baxter may possibly ruine us if God should grant him the curse of a success on his present Endeavours but I cannot for my life conceive how he can settle us or really reform our lives or restore Discipline on such Principles as these True Latitudinarianism does onely
in respect of their Inferiours is yet onely executive in relation to the sense and design of their Supreme to which they are even in such cases confined for my part I do not understand If I knew what were more either indeed expressive of my meaning or likely to be understood so by you though indeed less proper I would rather have used it than have given you occasion to leave my sense and onely to dispute the impropriety of my expressions BUT you pretend your Arguments to prove the Bishop uncapable even of the judicial work by which I suppose you mean the same that I called decretory because the exploration is part of that which you seem to imply to be neither fit to be entrusted with others nor yet possible to be managed by the Bishop in his own person in so large a circuit as a Diocese This Argument also would have been found false if applied to the Secular Power For by the same reason you may prove that a Prince cannot govern a Diocese because he cannot explore every particular crime committed within his Jurisdiction which according to you he must do in his own person if he be a Judge Consider I pray whether what you would answer in defence of the power of Princes which may not be as plausibly urged in behalf of Bishops Would you not say that there is a twofold judicial power such as determines Laws and general rules of proceeding and such as does apply them to particular facts and that the former is that onely which reserved as the prerogative of the supreme power the later onely which is that alone which alone includes exploration particular and personal is communicated to inferiour Officers And you might have descerned that the former onely was that which I called decretory and which was by me appropriated to our Supreme Ecclesiastical Monarch which you see does not necessarily include exploration And even concerning that exploration which is requisite for pronouncing Sentence in our ordinary Secular Tribunals you might have answered in behalf of Princes that it is not necessary that it be so minute and exact as might be had from a personal acquaintance with the person and observation of his humour and behaviour in the course of his life but for the Judges information that is thought sufficient which is publick and juridical upon the testimonies of honest persons who have known the person and his fact for upon these Evidences our ordinary Judges do generally proceed in sentencing such as they never saw or knew before Nor is it onely usual in practice but in reason it is thought abundantly sufficient And I pray what may be the disparity that may make this just in our Secular and unjust in our Ecclesiastical proceedings Is it that the credit of the witnesses may as well be suspected as partial or mistaken even where no grounds do appear sufficiently convictive of such a suspicion as the persons themselves Or is it that there have been frequent Experiences of their deceiving such as have relied on their Testimony And are not these difficulties as great in secular causes where yet they are not thought considerable For humane affairs are not capable of demonstrations but proceed generally on onely moral certainty oftentimes onely on probabilities which are therefore after the utmost humane diligence acknowledged fallible Yet it is thought prudent to rely even on such proofs where the publick advantage by the decision of such causes is more considerable than the prejudice that may redound to the person concerned by a particular mistake when such proof is the best that the matter is capable of or that can be had and that its failings are more rare and unusual And the same Reasons are as cogent for the like proceedings in Ecclesiastical Courts Or is it that some crimes are so secret as that they cannot be juridically discovered with such Evidence as may satisfie a prudent person without personal and particular information But you may remember that all crimes do not come under the cognizance of publick discipline but onely such as are great and notorious concerning which this cannot be pretended And as Governours have thought it just and prudent in some criminal causes to proceed on conjectures and presumptions which themselves confess harsh in some instances as judging it fitter that some few Innocents should suffer some prejudice rather than that many guilty should escape so in others where the probabilities are more frequently fallible they have rejected them as conceiving it more just that some few Nocents should escape rather that many Innocents should suffer Besides that where this publick Evidence does not appear the crime cannot be so scandalous nor consequently can the Church in such a case be so nearly concerned for its punishment INDEED in some attempts it has been found that persons have used much more liberty in private for venting and propagating scandalous Reports than when their oath has been required for publick service by which means they have at once made the crime very scandalous and yet rescued the criminal from justice But then the blame of such impunity is not to be imputed to the negligence of such a Judge but the prevarication of such witnesses and therefore will not be pertinent to our purpose And then for other less or less notorious Crimes the private power of exhorting reproving c. which you call more than executive and is no more denied a Minister in his own Parish under a Diocesan than any other Form of government may and must prove sufficient because no other is either convenient or possible Or is it that the penitence of the criminal which is requisite to his absolution which is equally an act of power as that of censure cannot be so certainly known by this publick Juridical Evidence This besides that it may be as plausibly objected in Secular Causes where personal penitence at least that which is judged so is as much required to absolution from secular penalties and where these Juridical Evidences are perfectly as fallible will not appear so difficult as it may seem if it be considered what kind of penitence is requisite for this Ecclesiastical Absolution 1. Not a universal penitence for all sins but onely those which he had been before censured for 2. These not secret but publick and notorious For none but these can be scandalous and none but scandalous sins do fall under publick Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction And 3. Not real penitence even for these themselves but onely so far as it may be signified to the satisfaction of a prudent person by exteriour indications And 4. These exteriour indications not private but publick such as publick confession of the sin and asking forgiveness for it and giving publick satisfaction to the injured party and the Church and her scandalized enemies and all circumstantiated with such pregnant evidences of sincerity as may be thought sufficient probabilities of it in the judgment of equal prudent persons
for that season but unprovided for a Storm so certainly a Magistrate ought to be prepar'd and qualified with abilities for governing a criminal and unquiet people even then when he lies under the actual obligation for exercising them especially considering it as a case so very ordinary and so probably to be expected If therefore a Bishop may not undertake the charge of a Diocese because impossible to be performed by him I may as well by the same points of reason conclude that a Magistrate may not take that of a Province or Kingdom even when in the good humour you suppose them because he must not in prudence venture on that unless he be prepared for them when vicious which you suppose impossible and therefore unfit to be engaged on And 5. You do not propose the case with any equality for if you would do so you should not compare a Prince governing a regular people and a Bishop with an irregular scandalous Diocese but have supposed the Subjects in both cases regular or in both irregular And if you will needs suppose in favour of the Prince that his Subjects are as little criminal in his Courts as you have found them where you have been acquainted to shew the possibility of his governing such a people though in a large precinct why can you not suppose in favour of the Bishop that the Subjects of his Diocese behave themselves as innocently in reference to crimes obnoxious to the publick cognizance of his Courts Is it either because that even persons so supposed equally innocent in relation to the charges of both Courts are yet more difficultly governable by an Ecclesiastical than a Secular Magistrate This is not as much as pretended I am confident not as much as plausibly proved in your present Discourse Or is it that the Supposition it self in relation to Ecclesiastical crimes is more difficult it being more rare and improbable to find a people innocent in crimes of publick Ecclesiastical than Secular cognizance If this later be your meaning I doubt neither of the reasons intimated by you will maintain you in it Not that of your own experience for I believe you would have found those good persons of your acquaintance as little troublesom to the Bishops as the King's Courts as little guilty of incestuous Marriages forging Wills and Testaments Simony c. as of any acts of secular injustice And as for the other concerning our propensity to actual deduced from the original sin you have not as yet proved this propensity greater to Ecclesiastical than Secular crimes But it is rather probable that as the crimes cognoscible in the Ecclesiastical Courts are generally more heinous so they are more easily avoidable If you have any inclination to think so for preventing it I pray remember what I have already intimated that they are not all sorts of sins against God that are cognoscible in the Bishops Courts but onely such as are great and scandalous and notorious And then consider whether it be not as easie to suppose a people innocent of great and scandalous and notorious sins against God and Religion as of injustice towards Men. For this indeed will be the true state of the question 2. Therefore it will not be so easily proved that the crimes cognoscible in the Secular Courts are so few in comparison of those that are Ecclesiastical This I have already proved before and am not willing to repeat what I have there said At present methinks your own Concessions if closely reflected on would have prevented your pretending otherwise For besides that those multitudes of persons guilty of crimes obnoxious to the Bishops Courts which I have said every impenitent sinner is not and have given my reason why I said so are I doubt guilty of many more civil crimes for which I shall onely appeal to your own experience I pray consider how many of the crimes cognoscible in the Bishops Courts are originally civil as those concerning Marriages Wills and Testaments Tithes c. which are mere arbitrary concessions of Princes in favour of the Church as protected by them And the rest that are not yet come under the Princes cognizance as the Churches Canons are made Laws of the Common-wealth and her Censures are seconded by coercive secular penalties imposed by the Prince on such as have proved refractory against her Spiritual Authority Upon which account it is impossible but that the Secular causes must needs prove more numerous as including all Ecclesiasticals and many proper to themselves besides So that this Disparity is every way unconvictive of your purpose For if you mean those persons who are so innocent of secular crimes to be different from those who are supposed so very guilty of Ecclesiasticals then there can be no just disparity pretended because there is indeed no equal comparison But if you mean the same persons in both cases then the Disparity cannot be pretended true because the Supposition is false BUT you object in favour of me That the Parish-priest is to reprove exhort and convince sinners first till he prove them impenitent and that he is to instruct the Ignorant Infidels and Hereticks which must needs considerably lessen the number of criminals who onely in case of their convicted impenitency in the use of these means should be further impleaded in that severer way of proceeding in the Bishops Courts To this you answer 1. That this is more than an executive power If it be so I do not know any that denies it you so that you have no reason that I know of to complain on that account None hinders you from reproving exhorting convincing and instructing whom you please especially such as are intrusted to you as Members of your cure But I am sure this is not more than that executive power which I said was communicated to the inferiour Clergie in opposition to that which I called decretory reserved to our Ecclesiastical Monarch for I believe you will not call this power of reproving exhorting c. decretory I believe you meant a power merely executive But you may remember that that was neither my word nor meaning nor do I for my part think this power mentioned by you to be more than that which were merely executive My reason you will suddenly understand SECONDLY therefore you answer That you desire no more at all from Bishops or any If so you need not desire it for none denies it you But you say You know no other Episcopal power over the people but thus personally to convince men and to declare to the congregation upon proof the fitness or unfitness of men for their communion by penitence or impenitence If you know no other power than this you know none at all For this power of convincing men will as well agree to the meanest Laick who has reason on his side as the greatest Bishop seeing either of them may convince if furnished with such reason but neither can without it And yet
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
Bishop then challenged the same power over the Presbytery as now This I have but lately proved Or that discipline was then maintained This I do not find that you deny Nay certainly your self thought discipline maintainable under it when you professed your self ready to yield to such an Episcopacy Or that what was then performed by the same Government is still performable if men would be the same The admission of this would not oblige you to question your self or experience Nor indeed is any thing of this kind concerning antiquity as notorious to you as what men do at present in England FOR proving the great multitudes then subject to Diocesan Discipline I said That the greatness of no City was thought sufficient to multiply Bishops To this you answer 1. That Gods Institution was that every Church have a Bishop for which you quote Acts 14. 23. c. But 1. The place you refer me to has no mention of a Divine Institution for Apostolical practice is not a sufficient proof of that and this is all which is so much as intimated in this place 2. It does not as much as mention the word Bishop but that of Presbyter And though the words were granted to have been then confounded yet you know they were so afterwards when the things were certainly distinct And therefore you cannot conclude from the word Presbyter that a Bishop was meant especially in the sense wherein it was afterwards appropriated Nor 3. Is it evident that by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is meant a single Presbyter in every particular Church as in a Parish but it may as well be meant of Presbyteries as Presbyters And when afterwards the Presidency of a single Monarch was introduced no Churches and Presbyteries but such as had Bishops and were Diocesan in the sense we now understand the word And if they were Presbyteries you cannot hence disprove the presidency of one over the rest as we find it soon after practised Nor 4. Is it evident that by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must needs be meant a Parish as it concerns you to believe For the word Church is as applicable to great as small Societies and the great ones may as well be called one in their kind though they be capable of a further subdivision into many Churches of smaller denomination Thus the Catholick Church is called one in the Constantinopolitan Creed though consisting of many national and the Church of England but one national Church though consisting of two Provincial and the Province of Canterbury but one Provincial Church though consisting of several Diocesan and every Diocese but one Diocesan Church though consisting of several Parishes And even in the Scripture there are several notions of the word of different proportions There are the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and there are the two or three gathered in the name of Christ which from the coherence and the Jewish notions of Assemblies seem to make up a Church and accordingly Tertullian calls an Assembly of two or three a Church though consisting onely of Laicks And yet these Churches are so little serviceable to your purpose as that I believe you would not be for confining a private Presbyter to so small a cure I am sure they are much beneath those populous Parishes which you do not seem to disapprove Supposing therefore I should grant you that every distinct Church should have a distinct Bishop yet how will you prove with the least plausibility that this Church must be understood of a Parochial one that the multitude of Bishops may answer that of Parishes Especially considering that the notion of the word for a Parochial Church will not be so easily deduced from Scripture as that for a Diocese For thus much the Independents I think do prove sufficiently that a whole Church in those times did generally meet in one place but they fail in proving distinction of Churches in Cities though never so great and populous which two put together do plainly amount to our notion not of a Parochial but Diocesan Church there appearing no footsteps in those times of any Subdivisions allotted to particular Presbyters Besides if we may believe the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here parallel with those 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Tit. l. 5. as in all likelyhood they are then a Church will be that which will extend to the Liberties of a whole City And because you find no mention of distinct Presbyters for Villages recommended to Titus's care it seems very probable that they were sufficiently provided for by those of the City and therefore that they had some dependence on them That the name of Churches was attributed first to Cities see proved by the Excellent Dr. Stilling fleet Iren. p. 2. c. 7. § 2 4. FOR that the Apostles did take care even for Villages we have the express Testimony of S. Clemens Romanus that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if these words be understood as commonly they are But I confess it does not seem to me so clear that by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here is understood those Country Villages which are obnoxious to the Jurisdiction of the City but rather Regiones as it is translated not as Rome and Constantinople were divided into their Regiones answerable to our Wards but as it may in a larger sense signifie whole Provinces under which many Cities might be comprehended my Reasons I would give if I were not unwilling to digress much less am I satisfied with Blondell's Conjecture who conceives it to relate to the Chorepiscopi and thence concludes that they were not originally subject to the City Bishop For though 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were indeed taken in the sense he is concerned it should be yet there is no necessity that it should be referred to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as if distinct Bishops had been imposed over them from those of the Cities to which they were related but may conveniently enough be joyned with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to signifie their preaching in the Villages as well as Cities and their election of fit persons from both for Bishops and Deacons to be disposed of where they thought convenient However it were it seems very probable that the Apostles as they planted Christianity first in Cities so they seemed to have settled the Government there first and as they generally left the Villages to be converted by excursions from the Cities so it seems most credible that the influences of the Government must have followed that of the propagation of their Doctrine Certainly the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 mentioned by Ignatius in his Inscription of his Epistle to the Romans over which the Church of Rome is said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cannot in the narrowest exposition choose but include a Precinct as large as our ordinary Dioceses But 5. Supposing all had been as you would have them that it had been enjoyned by the Apostles that every Parochial Church should have a distinct Bishop yet how can you
Presbyters succeeding in order to the Episcopacy was in Alexandria where it seems observed as a special custom practised from the Apostles time to Heraclas who was Scholar to Origen as S. Hierom and Eutychius say it was and there ceased at S. Hierom seems to intimate then it would be very probable that this subdivision into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was introduced at least before that time of Heraclas because some reliques of that practice remained even in Arius his time whose place as Presbyter of Baucalis is made next to the Bishop So Gelasius Cyricenus speaking concerning Alexander 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Whence also the relation in Nicephorus Calistus of the quarrel of Arius with one Baucalus being the first and second Presbyters of that Church of Alexandria which is given as an occasion of his Heresie a story very probably raised by occasion of his mistaking Baucalis the name of his Parish for the name of a Man who is made second because Arius was known to be the first For this Precedeny of Arius is no way probable to have been because of his longer standing in his office of Presbytery seeing Alexander is said expresly to have given him it who was the first that made him Presbyter for he was onely made Deacon by Achillas the Predecessor of Alexander Now Alexander himself is by Baronius thought to have succeeded Achillas in the Year 311 and if he be mistaken seems rather to erre in placing him too soon after Peter and the difference betwixt him and Arius arose about the Year 315 not above four years after too small a time to make him in course the senior Presbyter This Precedency therefore seems to be upon account of his Parish which at the first distribution had in all probability been allotted to that Presbyter who had been senior in due course of standing which therefore seems to have been introduced whilest that seniority was observed that is at least before the time of Heraclas AND how long before Heraclas his time this distinction might have been introduced you cannot tell yet I believe you will hardly say I am sure much more hardly prove that discipline failed there in the time of Heraclas or for a long time after After Heraclas how much the Church of Alexandria and himself particularly suffered for Christianity you have fully related by his Successor Dionysius in Eusebius in the time of Decius and Valerian and how severe they were in their Fasts appears from the Canonical Epistle of that same Dionysius to Basilides besides his other penitential Treatise now lost What the Alexandrians also suffered in the most bloudy Persecution of Dioclesian you may find in the same Eusebius and particularly in Thebais which by the Nicene Canon establishing the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we find to have been influenced by the Alexandrian Discipline the number of Martyrs was so great as to denominate a famous Epocha which those Countries observe to this day called the Annus Martyrum or Dioclesiani Which severity is by so much the more remarkable because it followed an intervall of rest which usually corrupts that discipline which is onely voluntary and unseconded by good Laws I need not mention the Martyrdom of their Bishop S. Peter in this Persecution his very severe Canonical Epistle is sufficient to shew how rigorous discipline was then practised when in the heigth of persecution such severe Penances against lapsed persons were not judged unseasonable to be exercised on such persons over whom they had no coercive power but the obligation of the Penitents conscience I might have proceeded to have shewn the same severity still maintained in that City which you so particularly reflect on as unworthy to be made a precedent during the Prelacy of Alexander and the great Athanasius from the great Elogies given to those excellent Prelates by the Fathers and the courage shewn by them in ejecting and keeping out Arius and the very slight Exceptions urged by the Arians their Enemies against them especially in the several Synods convened in the cause of Athanasius But for evincing the general severity of the Lives of Christians that memorable Example of their great diligence in providing for those who had been formerly their severest Persecutors in the great Plague and Famine which immediately followed the Persecution of Dioclesian and venturing many of their own lives in the service when they had been deserted by their nearest Friends may be an illustrious evidence Besides the Controversie betwixt S. Pet. of Alexandria and Meletius the occasion of the Meletian Schism shews how generally the Alexandrians were affected to discipline For when S. Pet. though severe enough against lapsed persons as appears by his forementioned Epistle yet thought it a necessary Indulgence to admit Penitents to Communion during the Persecution even Priests as well as others that they might be the better animated to new occasions of sufferings Meletius opposed it and was followed by much the greater part of the Clergie Nor ought you to conclude that the like subdivision was not introduced into other Churches because we have no Records attesting it to have been so seeing there is so little extant of the Histories of those earlier Centuries much less any thing so minute and particular in describing the Customs of particular Churches as that it would be safe to argue negatively from their omission of a custom to conclude that there was none For my design it is sufficient that the ancient Dioceses had as many Presbyters besides other Clergie requisite to rule them in conjunction with the Bishop as are now thought sufficient since their distribution into particular Parishes besides the Chorepiscopi and the Clergie under them all subject to the Government of the City Bishop Which is enough to shew that the charge of a Diocese was as great then as now and much beyond what you would have it the abilities of a particular person without Parochial Subrulers 4. YOU say At Antioch the third Patriarchate Ignatius professeth that every Church had one Altar and one Bishop with his Presbyters and Deacons Fellow-servants If you mean every Church at Antioch as if that or any other City in that time had more than one Bishop presiding over a Presbytery that is more than you will find in Ignatius or any Authentick Writer of that time But if you mean at Antioch as a Patriarchate that is within that circuit which was afterwards subject to the Bishop of Antioch as a Patriarch including the whole Oriental Diocese there were many Cities that had in them but one Altar with one Bishop and his Clergie that I have already granted probable but have withall shewn how little it will advantage your Cause or prejudice mine and I am not desirous to trouble you with Repetition The name of Fellow-servants I doubt you misunderstand it is indeed true if related to God that persons of all Orders in the Church are his Fellow-servants but if you
were unable to earn a livelyhood for themselves according to S. Pauls Rule already mentioned Consider 2. That even of those impotent poor none were to be charged on the Church that had believing Friends able to maintain them according to another Rule of the same S. Paul 1 Tim. 5. 4 8. by which means none were likely to have been maintained by the Church but such as might have been starved if they had not been so relieved Now considering that according to Captain Graunts Calculation of 229250 in London not above 51 were starved which he reckons as the 4000th part but with too great latitude for it is indeed the 4495th part besides a Fraction of 5 or thereabouts if his Numbers be rightly printed let 1500 be multiplied by 4495 and the summ will be 6742500 or if it be multiplied by his own proportion of 4000 it will amount to 6000000 a summ too great for the City And by all deductions that may be made for the unkindness of some Christian Friends and of most Heathen that would leave many destitute of their help for no other reason than their being Christians and of others that were maintained by the Church not for want of callings but of lawful ones as the Stage-player in S. Cyprian and the remisness of some Officers of those many entrusted in this affair who either might have not used their utmost diligence in informing themselves of the poverty and helplesness of the persons admitted by them or might have failed of the success and being misinformed after all humane diligence and have had persons sufficient either in themselves or by help of their Friends obtruded on them or all other failings imaginable for I confess moral affairs are not to be estimated by Mathematical measures yet it will be hard after all to bring the summ so low as 460000 which Captain Graunt conceives to be the whole number of Inhabitants in London much more to reduce it to the limits of the greatest Parish mentioned by you But 2. If you had indeed computed right and the number had been no greater than of one of those great Parishes you speak of yet why should not the numbers of people here mentioned be thought sufficient for a Diocese even in our modern sense For I doubt there are no Cities in the Kings Dominions that have Episcopal Sees that have 50000 Inhabitants except London Ours of Dublin which is thought by most that have seen it to be second to London for greatness and populousness is by a Bill of Mortality and an account of the Poll-money sent to Captain Graunt estimated to contain onely 30000 or thereabouts though I can hardly believe that to be our full number according to which estimation the Parishes you speak of will exceed us by two thirds more and so I believe they will equal our whole Diocese for I believe the rest of it put together can hardly exceed the proportion of two third parts to the City And can you think the same number in a Parish governable by the single unassisted abilities of a single Parish Minister and not think it so by a Bishop seconded by his Presbytery Dignitaries and Parochial Curates Or if the case of preserving discipline be harder in such a Parish than such a Diocese as certainly upon the accounts now mentioned it needs must be then I pray consider what equality is it to communicate with our Parishes indiscriminately such great ones themselves not being excepted and yet to separate as indiscriminately from our Diocesan Communion even of such as exceed not those greater Parishes in the numbers of their people though they do in numbers of their Governours And if you think that as many may meet in one place as may make up our ordinary present Dioceses as you must do if they may be conveniently included in a Parish then how can you conclude the less populousness of the ancient than our modern Dioceses from that very Topick of their meeting in one place For my part I verily believe that it is by accident not designedly that those Parishes have so vastly exceeded their ordinary proportion merely from the encrease of the trade of the City in those parts which were more thinly inhabited when the Parishes were first distributed as you may easily conjecture from the disproportion some of them exceeding other Parishes in your City an hundredfold as is observed by Captain Graunt which is more than there are Parishes in some of our Dioceses and from the disproportion of their ancient Churches when they were designed Parishes with their present multitudes and their equality with those other Parish Churches whose present Parishioners are so extremely unequal and that these vast Parishes are generally in the Suburbs where the City was very likely to encrease And therefore seeing the greatness of those Parishes seem never yet to have been approved though they were not yet amended you cannot thence conjecture what has certainly appeared false as to matter of fact that the Roman Christians were no more than one Parish under the personal and immediate care of their Bishop 10. You say When none were Christians but persecuted Voluntiers they were the holiest and best of men and you have tried that 600 such make less work for discipline than 10 of the Rabble that are driven into our Churches and choose them rather than the Gaol Upon account of which conceived disparity I presume your meaning is to conclude that one Bishop might rule a greater number than now and therefore though Diocesan Churches might indeed have been rulable by one Bishop then yet we are not thence to conclude that it may be so now But I have already shewn that Government must not be proportioned onely to the good humours of men but must be able to prevent and reform those lapses to which men easily and naturally degenerate and therefore that there must have been the same power in Governours then as now though there was not the same necessity of its actual exercise And that the Bishops power was not onely over orderly Converts but over lapsed criminals who had then more temptations to fall and being so to behave themselves refractorily against the discipline of their Church when their lapses were countenanced than now when they are discouraged by the Civil Magistrate and over the Heathens who were to be converted and severely disciplined for the trial of their veracity and securing them from a relapse And if you find it so hard a matter now to persuade such as know their duty and acknowledge their reasonableness and have a reverence of such persuaders and persuasions instilled in them by the principles of their Christian Education to the practice of what they cannot deny themselves obliged to certainly the difficulty of reclaiming Heathens must have been much greater who were as debauched in their lives as ours now and less disposed for correction in all the regards now mentioned than vicious Christians nay contrarily prejudiced not onely
so but onely that you think our differences unworthy that the Churches peace should be broken for them so you cannot conclude that Ulphilas was an Arian because he communicated with such as were but onely that he thought the Controversies too trivial Nor can you blame him for thinking them trivial seeing he was persuaded they were nothing but words Nor is such his communion the least intimation of his deserting the Catholick Doctrine seeing he embraced them no further than he conceived them not to differ from what he had formerly believed Nor need you think it so strange in Ulphilas for I verily believe that there were very many more in Constantine's time especially who did not seem to condemn or desert the Catholick Doctrine but were unwilling to separate Communion for any unscriptural expression whatsoever where they conceived the sense secure and did as much censure the Arian Forms of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the Catholick 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of being unscriptural So that their whole design seems to have been that persons agreeing in things might not disagree about words which I believe you will not disapprove To my other instance of a National at least much greater than Parochial Church under one Bishop that of the Indians not the Persians as you mistake both converted and governed by Frumentius you say It is easie to gather by the History how few of them were then converted If you mean that they were so few that they might conveniently resort to one place of meeting which we mean by a Parish the contrary is so manifest from the places as I believe you would not have said otherwise if you had been pleased to have consulted them Socrates plainly mentions one 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 founded before Frumentius was consecrated their Bishop by S. Athanasius but after his return to them with Episcopal power he as plainly says that he founded many more Sozomen says that he did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Plural Number Theodoret that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which appears also from Ruffinus who had the relation from Aedesius himself who was the Companion of Frumentius To my third instance of Moses all that you answer is that its likely he had as few among the Arabians there being no mention in the History of any thing to persuade us that he had many Churches under him that you remember Sozomen's words concerning him are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theodoret is indeed indefinite but yet his words are such as imply a very considerable multitude 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For if they had been but few who were converted by him it is not likely that the expressions would have been so unlimited having before spoken of the whole Nation who had desired him by their Princess Maria. AFTER these instances of great numbers under the Jurisdiction of single Bishops I at length applied them to my purpose observing that they were so many yet discipline was not dissolved To this you answer 1. That in all this I leave out a matter of chief consideration viz. That all the Presbyters then were Assistants in discipline and had a true Church Government which now they have not If you mean such Government as you count true in respect of their Parishioners this you know is not denied them they have a power of executing their Ordinaries commands among them and to discharge their own office though with dependence on the Bishop which is as much as is consistent with an Ecclesiastical Monarchick Government and is an assistance sufficient to enable an Ecclesiastical as well as a Secular Monarch to preserve discipline If such as is true in respect of the Government in general even this they have in the lower houses of our Convocations So that all that you can complain of among us as dissonant from the primitive example is that they are not indeed assistant at their Bishops counsels in every particular act of discipline This you may remember I wished reformed but as it is I cannot conceive it so extremely prejudicial to discipline as to excuse the want of it under a Diocesan Government For even among us the Bishop or he who represents him though for my part I could wish that he would act personally without such Representatives does not give sentence in particular acts of discipline without counsel and that counsel qualified with such requisites as would make Presbyters fit to assist in it that is skill in the Canon Laws and prudence in Government so that their being also ordained persons would onely prove an advantage of decorum not of material influence on Government Certainly unless Clergiemen were better skilled in these things than I doubt they are commonly their onely being Clergiemen would not so conveniently fit them for service in this kind if wanting those other more essential qualifications as their having them though wanting Orders So that of the two evils which follow their disunion in the same persons this seems to be the less But if you think no assistance sufficient but such as may make them independent on their Bishop that I have proved as far from the practice of those earlier ages as of the present 2. YOU say It 's strange that we that have eyes and ears must be sent to the Persians you mean the Indians and ancient History to know whether one Bishop can hear and try and admonish so many thousands at once as we see by experience are those objects of discipline which the Scripture describeth and when we see that it is not done But all this need not have been thought so strange if you had remembred the true state of the question that it was not whether discipline were actually maintained by our Diocesan Government but whether it could not possibly be maintained under it and that it does no way follow that it cannot because it is not That although this argument ab actu ad potentiam negativè which is yours do not hold yet mine which proceeds affirmatively will That discipline has actually been maintained under a Diocesan Government therefore it is still possible to be maintained under it That for concluding this possibility it is not requisite that it must be maintained in all times and places but it is sufficient that it was in any and that sure may be proved as well by ancient and exotick Histories as by those which are modern and of our own Country And for shewing the possibility I have already proved that so many thousands may as well be disciplined by one Ecclesiastical as one Secular Monarch That of those many thousand objects of discipline you conceive described in the Scripture many are onely Objects of private cognizance which is not denied to ordinary Parish Ministers That they who are of publick are not so extremely numerous or if they were they may be dealt with as in Seculars some punished in terrorem and others equally
guilty permitted to escape without any great charge of partiality than what is ordinarily thought equitable in great multitudes by secular persons And that of those which remain it is not so requisite that all be tried at once and that one must hinder the procedure against the other But after all this you say We have talked but of a Phantasm for it is not one Bishop but one Layman a Chancellour that useth this decretory power of the Keys c. and that the Bishop rarely meddleth with it Still you forget that I did in my former Letter expresly decline this Controversie and intimated that our present question was not concerning the decorum of the person but the possibility of discipline under him and sure you will not deny that a Laymans abilities for Government may be as great as a Clergie-mans whence it will follow that discipline may as well be preserved under him that our question was concerning Diocesan Government as such that is as including under it the Cures of several Presbyters to which this office of Laychancellour is accidental The business of the Covenant I am unwilling to engage in because I do not know whether it can be done conveniently without offence Your Explication of my Information concerning the words consent to the use c. in the Act for Uniformity I verily believe to be true both because you say it and because it doth not deny but onely give a further account of some passages not mentioned by my worthy Author and because the word use is omitted in the Form it self though mentioned immediately before What the Reasons were that were urged by the House of Commons for proving them intolerable I know not nor have been informed by you yet I could conjecture several that were very apposite and expedient notwithstanding they might not intend to oblige to an internal assent in case exteriour peaceable acquiescency as it is usually understood by Conformists themselves and that they did not intend to exclude peaceable Conformists though otherwise not satisfied of the expedience of every single Imposition seems very credible because there is not the least intimation of so rigid an exposition as that is which is mentioned by you That you must never endeavour any alteration no not by a request or word All that is desired is that you would not while you are a private person endeavour any further than by request and words as indeed you cannot lawfully and justly do without encroaching on the offices of others which cannot be excused by the conceived justice of your cause That you would give leave when all is done to the persons requested by you to judge of the reasonableness of your requests not obliging them to act by yours but their own consciences which when all is done must be the measure of their own proceedings That in case of their dissent from you you neither raise parties against them nor encourage them that do by communicating with them That you would in such a case not easily conclude the error to be in your Superiours considering that your self are at least as fallible as they or if you did indeed think the cause so evident as might justly warrant your dissent as I confess thet there are some degrees of evidence to private persons sufficient to countervail any authority whatsoever yet that you would use no other means for prevailing against the conceived prejudices of Governours than such as would become the modesty of a private person powerful persuasions and hearty prayers That even in such cases they would give active obedience in things not sinful and passive in such as were This behaviour would salve the difficulties on both sides would both preserve the peace of the Church and the peace of a Dissenters conscience if invincibly persuaded would minister more comfort to him and satisfie him of his own sincerity in designing the glory of God when there were less suspicions of any ends of his own and his sufferings for the peace of the Church would be as glorious and rewardable if we may believe S. Cyprian as if they were for the faith of the Church IF I had been dealing with a person less zealous and industrious for this peace than you have approved your self by publick Monuments it had here been seasonable to have conjured you by all that is or can be dear to a Lover of God or of the honour of Religion by all your sacred or civil Interests by your respects either to the Church or Country of your birth and education which are not more prejudiced by any thing than our Ecclesiastical Divisions that you would be pleased to lay out those great Talents of Parts and Interest in the Peoples Affections wherewith God has so abundantly enriched you on the reconciliation of the people with themselves and with their Governours I am confident you would find that a more effectual course of promoting discipline for which you are so zealous than the unsettlement of the present and forcible Establishment of another Form of Government as much maligned as this when it has prevailed and has attempted the execution of discipline That you would consider it as your greatest security to be inquisitor and wary in a cause of so dangerous consequence if you should prove mistaken and your greatest honour to yield to truth and to relinquish any opinions how long maintained or how dear soever when they shall appear to be erroneous That you would be pleased in order thereunto to consider impartially what I confess has here been weakly represented not as an adversary to my cause but as a diligent enquirer after truth where ever it may be found as our most serious common interest That therefore you would excuse my failings in the impropriety of words and correct those that may be found in the disadvantage of my management and consider all not according to the unskilfulness of my proposal but the nature strength and evidence of the Arguments themselves as discoverable in order to your own satisfaction by your own more discerning judgment That you would beware of precipitancy in resolving and of tenaciousness in maintaining unsufficiently grounded resolutions in a question of so great consequence for catholick peace These I say and the like Topicks might have been urged and insisted on to another that had been less skilful or sincere but to you I believe it is sufficient to have intimated them rather as warnings what you may avoid than as instructions in what you need to be informed I shall therefore recommend the whole success to God who has often manifested strength out of the mouths of babes and sucklings and to your own ingenuous and pious industry and favourable judgment in an affair so nearly concerning the Churches peace and the good of Souls for which you are deservedly so zealous and conclude onely desiring the continuance of your prayers if I have already impetrated any portion in them for Trin. Coll. near Dublin
For the reason produced by you seems to proceed from the nature of Government in general and therefore must proceed with the same force in Seculars as Ecclesiasticals there being no ingredient peculiarly relating to Religion much less to Christianity which might alter the case or argue a disparity For certainly Princes as well as Bishops are responsible for the miscarriage of their particular Subjects as far as they may be prevented by their moral diligence and yet you will not thence conclude that every particular must come under his immediate personal care and cognizance nor is it proved that the Bishop is otherwise obliged to such a care upon peculiar respects Besides that it is plainly against experience even in Ecclesiasticals for as it hath fallen out in some places where there were many Cities that the Bishops were proportionably multiplied as in Africa and Ireland so that it was not upon account of the impossibility of the managing the charge of much greater multitudes than the Inhabitants of those small Cities appears in that even in the very same places the greatness of no City was thought sufficient for multiplying the Bishops though it was for the inferiour Clergie I need not tell you how great Rome was in Decius his time under Cornelius and how full of Christians which required the united endeavours of 1000 Clergie as appears from the said Cornelius his Epistle to Fabius of Antioch in Eusebius yet was one Bishop thought sufficient for all nay the erecting another Altar in the same Church was thought to be formal Schism as appears from the Controversies betwixt Cornelius and Novatian and S. Cyprian and Felicissimus The same also might have been shewn in several other Cities exceeding numerous and abounding with Christians as Antioch Alexandria and Carthage c. which even in those earlier Ages when Discipline was at the greatest rigour were yet governed by single Bishops Nay whole Nations were sometimes governed by one onely as the Goths by Ulphilas and the Indians by Aedesius and the Arabians by Moses which is an Argument insisted on by some Presbyterians for shewing the probability of Ordinations by mere Presbyters Yet are there no Complaints of dissolution of Discipline in such places upon account of the greatness of their charge Which to me seem sufficient Convictions that the multitude of persons governed is not the reason of our present Neglects in that particular § IV WHEN I said that Ignatius his Epistles were question'd by the Presbyterians I never said nor intended it concerning all for I know of Vedelius his Apology for them much less did I lay it particularly to your charge so that if you had here forborn assuming to your self what was spoken of others many of whose Opinions I am confident you will not undertake to justifie there had been no occasion of this Exception That other Presbyterians and those by far the greatest number have denied them cannot be questioned § V AS for the Reasons of Nonconformity alleaged by you and your Brethren of the Savoy Conference in 1660 if I might without offence presume to interpose my own thoughts they are as followeth For the approving not onely submitting to such things as you disliked and that by an oath I am sure there are many Conformists themselves that understand no more to have been intended by the Church but an exterior submission not an internal approbation of the particulars And particularly I have been informed by a Letter from a very worthy credible person who pretends to have had it from the Bishop himself that Bishop Sanderson who was a Member of your Conference interposed those words in the Act of Parliament where it is required that Ministers declare their unfeigned assent and consent to the use of all things in the Book of Common Prayer c. designedly that this Objection might be prevented The new Article of Faith inserted in our Rubrick I do not know nor can I now get the Book that past betwixt you at the Conference to know what you mean That Lay-chancellors were disused and that the Bishops did more consult their Presbyteries I could for my own part heartily wish But I cannot think these abuses momentous enough to warrant Schism and I know your self are for bearing with some things things that are not so well rather than the Church of God should be divided for them In brief I do not understand any of the six Particulars mentioned as the reasons that keep you off though you do indeed disapprove them both because you do not undertake to determine what they might be to others but onely what they are to persons of your mind though I confess this might be understood as a modest declining to judge of others and because you conceive piety the most likely means to unite us which could not be if we imposed any thing on you against your Consciences So that the onely one that may be presumed to have been thought sufficient by you to this purpose seems to have been another which because you intimate somewhat obscurely I do not know whether you would be willing that it should be taken notice of But however I suppose that it self does onely deprive us of your Clerical not your Laical Communion God give us all to discern the things that belong unto peace As for other Questions we may easily a wait our Lords pleasure who when he comes shall tell us all things and in the mean time preserve charity and be wise unto sobriety I hope Sir you will excuse my freedom and let me know whether I may in any thing be serviceable to you and above all things reserve a portion in your Prayers for Trin. Col. near Dublin Your unfeigned Wellwisher HENRY DODWELL LETTER II. The Contents Introduction § 1. Quest. 1. Whether the Bishop be bound to discharge his whole duty in his own person Or Whether he may not take in the assistance of others That he may granted by Mr. Baxter Quest. 2. waved by me § 2. Mr. Baxter's reasons do as solidly disprove a possibility of Secular Discipline under a Secular Monarch of a Precinct as large as a Diocese as of Diocesan Discipline § 3. Secular Monarchs as well responsible for the miscarriage of particular Subjects as Bishops and their charge is as great The Persons Crimes and Laws belonging to the care of the Secular Governour more numerous than they which belong to the Ecclesiastical § 4 5. So are the necessities to be provided for by the Secular Governour § 6 7 8. An Objection prevented § 9. Mr. Baxter's first answer refuted The Government of a Diocese may be administred without any more than three Orders § 10. The Church may for prudential reasons constitute new Officers though not Orders § 11. Mr. Baxter's second answer refuted Personal Capacity as requisite in a Prince as in a Bishop § 12. An Objection prevented § 13. Mr. Baxter's third fourth and fifth answers refuted § 14 15. His sixth answer rejected §
16. What I mean when I make the decretory power of Government proper to the Supreme and the executive onely to be communicated to inferiour Governours § 17. The decretory power of Government does not necessarily include personal or particular Exploration § 18 19. His seventh answer considered Good men need Government as well as others Their mistakes more dangerous to Government than the mistakes of others § 20. Mr. Baxter's Objection in favour of me His first answer refuted § 21. His second answer refuted Declaration is no act of power § 22. The unbecomingness of Doctrines so disparaging to Ecclesiastical Authority to Mr. Baxter as a Curer of Church-divisions § 23. The first Reformers at length sensible of the necessity of Church Authority to Peace and Discipline § 24. Mr. Baxter's uncandid character of a Prelatick Christian § 25. The use of external coercion in Religion is not to make men onely dissemblers § 26 27 28. No Discipline to be expected without a coercive power somewhere § 29. The liberty desired by Mr. Baxter inconsistent with the principles of the Ignatian Episcopacy so much recommended by himself on other occasions § 30. Inconsistent with the Discipline of the Church described by Tertullian and Firmilian § 31. Inconsistent with that of S. Cyprian No reason why Mr. Baxter should desire to disown them from being parts of his Cure who do not observe Rules of Discipline § 32. My second Argument for the Possibility of Diocesan Discipline from the actual experience of former times § 33. The notion of a Church for no more than are capable of the personal inspection of a single Presbyter not proved to be of Divine Institution from Acts 14. 23. § 34 35. His second and third answer refuted The distribution of particular Cures to particular Presbyters from whence it comes to pass that one Diocese includes many such Societies as are fitted for personal Communion is more convenient than their governing the same multitudes in common Very probably as ancient as they had settled places of Meeting How ancient in the Churches of Rome and Alexandria § 36. How vigorous notwithstanding Discipline was at that very time at Alexandria § 37. His fourth answer refuted § 38. His fifth answer refuted § 39. His sixth answer refuted § 40. His seventh answer refuted The ancient Cities of the Roman Empire that had single Bishops were generally as great and populous as now § 41 42. The Ecclesiastical Government of those Cities proportioned to the Civil § 43. Whether our Diocesans Office be a driving men to sin § 44 45 46. His eighth answer refuted Great Cities then had great numbers of Christians Instanced in the Churches of Hierusalem Samaria Antioch Antiochia Pisidiae Thessalonica Beroea Ephesus § 47. These were Churches in all likelyhood designed by the Apostles themselves as precedents for others The multitudes of Christians every where in the Roman Empire in the time of Tertullian § 48. Instances of other Churches very numerous besides Rome and Alexandria Neocaesarea Carthage The passage of S. Cyprian concerning his Contribution explained § 49 50. The ancient numerousness of Christians proved from Pliny § 51. The possibility of their meeting in the same Assemblies § 52. Several ways how greater numbers might communicate from the same Altar than could ordinarily meet in the same Assemblies § 53. S. Patrick's Dioceses not equivalent to our modern Parishes § 54. My Argument from the numerousness of the Church of Rome in the time of Cornelius His answers refuted § 55. His endeavours to give an account how the Clergie then might have been numerous though their people had been few § 56. His first five answered § 57. His sixth § 58. His seventh § 59. His eighth § 60. His ninth § 61. His tenth § 62. No Instance of Mr. Baxter's notion of a Church of a Society under the Cure of one single Priest but onely in those two Churches of Rome and Alexandria so much disowned in this very matter by himself § 63. Ulphilas Bishop of the whole Nation of the Goths Whether an Arrian § 64. Frumentius Bishop of the Indians and Moses of the Arabians The Christians of both more numerous than our single Parishes § 65. His first answer refuted § 56. His second answer refuted § 67. A Conclusory Exhortation § 68. Reverend Sir § I AS I have before expressed my sorrow for dealing in such a Controversie that divides Communion with a person of your piety and candour and from whom I am so unwilling to differ upon any tolerable terms so I am withall glad that we can still maintain an unpassionate way of debating it which for my part I conceive not onely most Christian but most useful and succesful It is onely with this design that I am willing to continue it wherein I hope you will not be displeased at me for venturing on that Liberty your self are pleased to take and which I hope through Gods gracious assistance I shall never abuse For my meaning is as much as is possible to abstain from all things personal and to insist onely on the way proposed by S. Augustine to Maximinus Ut res cum re causa cum causa ratio cum ratione decertet And here it selfe I shall endeavour to avoid the multitude of unnecessary controversâ—es that we may be more accurate in the discussion of such as shall remain § II THE principal controversie of your Letter is concerning the possibility of reviving Ecclesiastical Discipline under a Diocesan Episcopacy Where I am glad to find that the Dispute seems rather derived from your forgetfulness of your own Concessions and mine than any real difference of our Opinions when clearly and candidly explained For I can perceive onely two things questioned betwixt us through your Letter 1. Whether the Bishop be obliged in his own person to a particular care of all the Souls contained within his Jurisdiction or whether he may not assume Assistents and Coadjutors dependent on himself over whom he is to exercise the Office of a Bishop that is an Overseer not to take the whole burden on himself but to oblige them to the performance of their duty and to punish their Delinquencies 2. Whether supposing this Delegation lawful Lay-Chancellors be fit to be entrusted with it The former you seem to have yielded when you say If this had been all our Dispute whether a Patriarch or Archbishop can rule 1000 Churches by 1000 inferiour Bishops or Church-rulers I had said something Which is indeed the onely thing asserted by me in my Proofs and the very Case in practice no Bishop undertaking the particular Cure of a whole Diocese without the assistance of his particular respective Parochians When therefore you ask Whether it follows that our Church-Monarch can oversee all himself without any Suboverseers or rule them by Gods Word on the conscience without any Subrulers Sure you cannot mean that this is the Practice of our Diocesans And if your design be to assert that every
sure you will not say that the meanest Laick has any power over him whom he may thus convince at least not coherently to your own principles who in opposition to our Lay-chancellours make Jurisdiction inseparable from Orders So also if the power of Excommunication be no more than declaring a person unfit for the communion of the congregation as being impenitent and Absolution be a declaration of his fitness for such communion as a penitent then every prosecutor of a criminal every witness produced against him every prudent skilful Canonist every Laick that is sufficiently informed of the sense of the Law and matter of fact may as well excommunicate as the Bishop or the Presbytery For every such skilful person may know the fitness or unfitness of such a person for communion and knowing it may declare his knowledge with the reasons of it and upon such declaration the people may if they pleafe do as he would have them either communicate with or separate from such a person For indeed no declaration of it self formally and precisely understood is obligatory but as it is a promulgation of that which antecedently has a just obligative power In actu primo yet is not in actu secundo obligatory quoad nos till we know it As though the King and Parliament have a power of making Laws and therefore what has passed all their Votes in the first moment when it has done so is immediately a Law yet it is not in actu secundo obligatory on the Subject so as that its violation by him does incur the annexed penalty till it be legally promulged Yet so it is on the contray that this legal promulgation it self that is such a promulgation as is performed by the person authorized by Law with all the requisite circumstances cannot make any thing really obligatory that has not formerly been decreed by the Legislative Power Unless therefore there be in the Church a power antecedent to such declaration the declaration can make none seeing every one may declare his own sense as well as the Governour and declaration does onely make that obligatory quoad nos which was so in se antecedently I did not before charge you with any of those pernicious Doctrines to Church Authority taxed in my Preface and am sorry now you give me so just occasion to do it It may be I may misunderstand you and shall be very glad to acknowledge my mistake when you shall call it one AND I beseech you who have so publickly professed your self a Friend to publick peace and an Enemy to Church-divisions to consider whether those disparaging Doctrines concerning the power of the Church be not Seminaries of infinite and eternal Schisms For if the Church have no other power but persuasive and declarative then he who either actually persuaded of the equity of her particular impositions or at least pretends it may freely remonstrate against them and refuse obedience to them and cannot be restrained frm seditious behaviour by Excommunication unless at least the greater part of Communicants be satisfied and profess themselves to be so that it is their duty not in obedience to their Superiours but on account of the particular reasonableness of the thing to withdraw themselves from his communion And even then it self if he can persuade a few to his Party he may upon these principles without any scruple of conscience erect a new communion for himself For indeed what can hinder him when government which is the principle of unity in all Societies is thus deprived of all other awe of conscience to oblige him to obedience distinct from his particular satisfaction of the reasonableness of the things or of any coercive means of his restraint be his cause never so bad and his dissatisfaction never so onely pretended And when the unity of the Catholick Church is thus made to depend on so hazardous and rarely-contingent a condition as the persuasion of its many thousand members of infinite interests and capacities of the reasonableness of every particular indifferent or probable Constitution who can ever secure it for so long a time as the Government of the Church was designed for by him who first did constitute it I know for prevention of these inconveniences you would have Governours cautious in determining any thing but what is clear and necessary And for my part I wish it so too that for matters of belief it not being in Subjects minds to believe what they please they would determine nothing but what were very evident and even for matters indifferent that they would neither determine more of them than were needful nor such of them as were not convenient in the circumstances and suitable to the dispositions of the age of their determination nor be too tenacious in maintaining them when their inconveniences should be found greater than their advantage Though I confess withall that it were in prudence much safer to make any such change by their own free Election than to seem necessitated to it by mutinous and seditious Remonstrances of their Subjects such a compliance being of greater consequential prejudice to government and consequently to Ecclesiastical Unity than a maintainance of a thing indifferent though inconvenient But withall you know that Unanimity even in things indifferent much more in matters of Faith is in general and indefinitely necessary though not particularly determined in the Scripture that this unanimous observance of things of such a nature is not morally possible by the particular conviction of every Subject of their fitness that therefore there is no security for their unanimous observance but that of authority and no authority so proper as that which is Ecclesiastical that when it is so imposed it is an instance of obedience to the authority imposing that being so whatever it may be in its own nature it cannot still remain indifferent as to its use seeing it is not indifferent whether Subjects ought to be obedient to their lawful Sovereigns And therefore methinks it would become you in healing Church-divisions to take a care of preserving as well the Prerogatives of Governours as the Christian Liberty of Subjects seeing extremes on both sides are alike prejudicial to Ecclesiastical Unity Indeed I confess many of our first Reformers not to have been so cautions herein as the Interest of the Church would have required who feeling themselves oppressed by a Tyrannical Ecclesiastical Power and being extremely exasperated by their violent and rigorous proceedings were almost onely sollicitous about Negatives never satisfying themselves with any reasonable retrenchments of such exorbitancies onely shewing how far Ecclesiastical Power might not presume but not how far it might proceed And they were then the more excusable for not proceeding to such positives because the ends of such Ecclesiastical Power the preserrvation of unity both in faith and practice were then more easily attainable without the Interposition of the exercise of such a power For their first zeal against the common Adversary will
the Province and having actually made enquiry after the Christians in their persecutions of them I BELIEVE the great reason that inclines you to believe the paucity of Christians in those times is that in great and popular Cities they were able to communicate at one Altar upon which account you conceive them to have been no more than what may assemble in our ordinary Parochial Congregations But you might as well have concluded whole Cities indeed nay whole Nations to have no more people in them than our ordinary Parochial Assemblies You know every clean Male in Jewry was to appear before God at the two solemn Feasts of Easter and of Tabernacles whose numbers computed by Cestius Gallus amounted to a number sure too great for a Parish and the number in Jerusalem when besieged by Titus taken there upon occasion of Easter is a plain Argument of the vastness of their religious Assemblies Nor was it onely proper to the Jews thus to confederate and unite their Commonwealth by their Conventions on account of Religion to partake of the same Altar but the same Policy was observed among the Heathens The Assemblies of whole Cities are so ordinary that it were but pedantick to give instances of them For those of Nations you may observe the Athenian Panathenaicks the Olympick Solemnities which were of all Greece and then the Panionia of the Asiatick Iones not now to mention those of the Barbarians Nor were onely Sacrifices common to these vast Assemblies from the same Altar which is more easily intelligible but speeches also were made to numbers much greater than our Parochial Assemblies which I believe you will think the greater difficulty how the Bishop who you say then was the principal if not the onely Preacher should be heard in a Multitude proportionable to a populous City Yet is this so far from being incredible as that it was in those Ages frequently practised I will not instance in places of special contrivance as that at the Roman Rostra the Theatres and Amphitheatres where many thousands sometimes 100000 or more have heard with convenience And yet it is very probable that these publick places of religious Assemblies were contrived with conveniency for that purpose Nay it is certain that the Jews had their Suggesta and Cathedrae raised on high for that end Nor shall I mention the Orations of Generals to their Armies who had the like advantages It is very clear that upon occasions not so solemn nor prepared great Routs of tumultuous people wanting heads to whom a particular address might have been confined have yet been spoken to I will not again instance in the Speeches of Petronius and King Agrippa to the generality of the Jewish Nation of which we are discoursing Scripture Examples though purely historical I find most easily admitted by you and therefore I am the rather willing to insist on them Rehoboam speaks to all Israel 1 Kings 12. 1 13 16 20. So Jehoiada makes a covenant with all the people of the Land 2 Kings 11. 17 18 20. Our Saviour preaches his Sermon on the Mount to great multitudes from several places S. Matth. 4. 25. v. 1. And several other places to 4000 at one time and 5000 at another though in wildernesses by which we may guess how much greater his Auditories were in populous Cities The Town Clerk of the Ephesians to the whole City Acts 19. 29 35. S. Paul to all the City of Jerusalem Acts 21. 30 36 39 40. And by the multitudes converted by single Sermons of the Apostles you may easily conjecture the vastness of their Auditories Which will be the rather credible when it is considered that the principal preaching of the first Propagators of Christianity was generally in places of greatest frequent such as the Temple or Synagogues or Streets or or Schools or Market-places Thus you see that it will not follow that the number of Christians must have been few if they assembled in one place for the Word and Sacraments and if the Bishop alone had preached BUT neither supposition is so very certain at least not so general as you seem to believe it For preaching we see that while the extraordinary 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of prophecy lasted under which preaching was comprehended as well as prayer which by the way is observable against them who allow studied Sermons and yet complain of the Spirit 's being quenched if their prayers be other than extemporary several Prophets met and officiated in their Synaxes 1 Cor. 14. 29 30 31. so far was it then from being confined to any person Bishop or other to preach to the people And even afterwards we find preaching not always performed by the Bishop though I am apt indeed to think it was ordinarily The Catechists were usually Presbyters and Origen though a Presbyter yet preached before Bishops But for the times of persecution wherein they could not meet so numerously in one Assembly yet other provisions might have been made agreeably enough to the Principles of those Ages for supplying the necessities of much greater than parochial multitudes Such was that of reserving the species which I believe was a shift found out in times of persecution when every particular person could not get any opportunity of frequenting the Synaxes as often as he was desirous to communicate which was then daily it being the first meat they tasted This reservation is clear from S. Cyprian de laps the Author De Spectaculis among his works Tert. l. 11. and Ux. Dionys Alex. ep ad Fab. Antioch in Euseb S. Iren. to Pope Victor Now by this means very great multitudes might frequently communicate though their Synaxes were rarely and thinly celebrated that they might not give their Governours any just offence by their numerousness For by Pliny's Epistle to Trajan it appears that they did upon this account utterly forbear their feasts of charity upon his putting of the Law De Hetaeriis in force and in all probability yielded as far as lawfully they conceived they might in the Eucharist it self A second shift was that of sending the Sacraments by the Deacons to those that were absent So S. Justin Martyr expresly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And again 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And who knows whether the breaking of bread 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or from house to house as we read it Acts 11. 46. if it be meant of the Sacrament and not rather of their feasts of love may not allude to this custom I shall not now dispute it but onely observe that this practice though not grounded on this Text yet certainly used in those times might from the same Altar have communicated much greater multitudes than are contained in our ordinary Parishes But there was also a third Expedient for these numerous Communions that though indeed the Roman Altar where the blessed Sacrament was ordinarily and solemnly administred were onely one even in those populous Cities and that in the power of the Bishop yet