the very worst character and mark of the highest hypocrisie a piece of Pharisaisme all over that strains at a Gnat when it swallows a Camel and I cannot avoid having at least a contempt of those kind of thoughts and a compassion for those who fill their Heads with them CHAP. III. An inference concerning Ordination The Point of Succession more largely debated Our English Bishops have no Jurisdiction nor their Canons any power but what is derived from the Civil Magistrates who has now left us to our Liberty in the case of Conformity reflections upon Mr. Norris his charge of Schisme continued I Will now venture to leave this point as sufficiently proved that Bishops have no Power or Jurisdiction given them by the Law of God but what Presbyters have as well as they I have been the larger upon it because it goes a great way in deciding the whole controversie and would save me all farther Labour about the cases of Ordination and Succession As to Ordination if Presbyters be the same with Scripture Bishops the Orders conferred by them must needs be valid for as Monsieur Claude says 't is a right that cannot be taken away from them by Humane Rules it is true indeed there may be such a prudent Order agreed upon for the due management of this work as may make it irregular to ordain without a President but such agreements cannot make the action null for my part I never knew any Ordination amongst Diffenters but there was a Moderator chosen who was chiefly concerned in the conduct of it and such a Moderator wants nothing of the Primitive Bishop And if there be some Antient Canons that say the Presbyters shall not ordain without the Bishop Concil Carth. 3 4. C. 22. so there are others that say the Bishop shall not ordain without the Presbyters and by requiring Presbyters to join in this office it is certain they have the power otherwise their laying on of hands would be a meer nullity The truth is neither a single Bishop nor a single Presbyter can regularly Ordain it ought to be done by a Classis and in that case there must be some President to avoid confusion and that is the general practice amongst us and therefore our Ordinations are not only valid but regular too Bishop Carleton in his Treatise of Jurisdiction saith P. 7. The Power of Order by all Writers that ever I could see even of the Church of Rome is understood to be immediately from Christ given to all Bishops and Priests alike by their Consecration And it is very considerable what Dr. Bernard mentions concerning Arch-bishop Usher's Opinion in this case The Judgment of the late A. B. of Armagh p. 134 135. wherein we have this Historical passage That in 1609 when the Scotch Bishops were to be consecrated by the Bishops of London Ely and Bath a question was moved by Dr. Andrews Bishop of Ely whether they must not first be ordained Presbyters as having received no ordination from a Bishop the Arch-bishop of Canterbury Dr. Bancroft who was present maintained That there was no necessity for it seeing where Bishops could not be had Ordination by Presbyters must be esteemed lawful otherwise it might be doubted whether there were any lawful vocation in most of the Reformed Churches this was applauded by the other Bishops and Ely acquiesced in it c. It was too great a hardship therefore that our Bishops put upon the poor banished Ministers of the French Churches in requiring them to be re-ordained which in the sence of the imposers was a renouncing the validity of their former Ordination and it is very remarkable that some of those that were most zealous in that severe usage of those poor Refugees and would admit none to be Ministers that did not submit to them in it are since divested of their Episcopal power themselves and have now time to consider whether to allow the Ordinations of the Roman Churches and reject those of the Reformed was not to use Monsieur Claudes words a piece of Pharisaisme all over that strains at a Gnat and swallows a Camel And for the pretended Succession if our Presbyters which have Ministerial Ordination and I know no other be really Bishops by the Laws and Language of Scripture We are in the Line still as the Vindicator speaks if such a Line there be though we look upon it as a most wretched piece of confidence and madness to make the Essence of the Ministry and Church depend upon a thing so lubricous and uncertain But that we may if it be possible lead this Man out of his foolish conceit about the necessity of an un-interrupted Line of Succession from the Apostles let us but state the case according to his own assertions and perhaps when it is rightly put it will not require much arguing His opinion in this matter take in these three points 1. Arch-Rebel p. 2 3. He affirms that the Bishops receive their Spiritual Jurisdiction from the Apostles by the Line of Succession this Succession he makes the foundation of their Title and Power 2. From hence he infers that he is no true Bishop who is not ordained by another Bishop and so upwards in a continued line of Episcopal Ordination to the Apostles themselves Arch-Rebel p. 3. so that if a Man could shew a Spiritual Pedigree in a Line of Episcopacy for a thousand years yet if so long ago there was failure he is but a Lay Impostor And 3. That those Churches or what you 'll please to call them that are not under the Government of such Bishops Reply p. 18. as are possess 't of their Authority by such a Line are out of the Communion of the Catholick Church have no Ministry no Sacraments no Salvation The first of these that Bishops have their power from the Apostles as being their Successors P. 20. will certainly infer that they could never be possessed of it till the Apostles were dead unless we can suppose that they were degraded or voluntarily resigned this the Vindicator has deservedly exposed To be the Apostles Successors in Apostolical power the Apostles still living and in Plenitude of Power is a very great Mystery and something like the honest Vicar of N's Prayer for King Charles the II. that he might outlive all his Successors What has the Gentleman to reply to this He puts on a marvellous grave aspect and charges the Vindicator with Scoffing at Timothy and Titus but this is a poor shift of his own when he has rendred himself ridiculous to turn it off to Timothy and Titus I do not believe there is any such Affinity or Line of Succession betwixt those blessed Evangelists and this Gentleman but a man may venture to expose the folly of the latter and still preserve a due Veneration for the former He confesses it was a piece of Ignorance to pray that the King might out-live all his Successors and why then is not he as
of the Essence of the Power but only requisite to the due exercise of it So it is not of the Essence of the Investiture that it be performed by Ministers but other competent Judges may do it where they cannot be had or will not do it upon lawful Terms This Case of Ordination has been very weil argued by the excellent Mr. Baxter of whom England was not worthy in his Disputations of Church Government and because I do not know that any one has directly assaulted him in it I would refer this Gentleman to it where he will find it illustrated thus If the Soveraign Power make a Law that there shall be Physicians Licensed by a Colledge of Physicians to Practise in this Common Wealth and describe the Persons that shall be so Licensed This plainly first concludeth that such Persons shall be Physicians but secondly de ordine that they shall be thus Licensed So that if the Colledge should License a Company of utterly insufficient men and murtherers that seek mens death or should refuse to License the Persons qualified according to Law they may themselves be punished and the qualified Persons may act as authorised by that which bindeth quoad materiam and is by the Colledge not by them frustrate quoad Ordinem So it is in this Case in hand This is a rational account of the matter and such as may give all Christians full satisfaction in the Truth of their Churches Ministry and Ordinances without flying up into the Clouds and inventing the Mysteries of an uninterrupted Succession indelible Characters and such like stuff What has this Gentleman to Object against it why He tells us no man can preach unless he be sent and no man can send him but he that is Authorized for that purpose If he means by this that no man ought to Preach but those that are Ordained and this he must mean if he speaks to the purpose the Constant Practice of his own Church Confutes him which allows men to preach several times before Ordination that their Qualifications may appear and they may acquire a Title but if no man can lawfully Preach till he be Ordained they ought not to allow this upon any account whatsoever not so much as to make experiment of their Abilities I would ask this Gentleman when your Candidates Preach before Ordination is there no Possibility that their Preaching may do good to the hearers and should they not in Preaching principally intend their Edification If not 'tis taking the Name of God in vain but if they may do good and should make that their chief aim in those Sermons then the Gentleman must find out some other sence for that Text he mentions which has been already explained in the first Chapter of this Treatise He thinks Ordainers are obliged to follow the Example of Christ who when he sent out his Apostles Mat. 28.18 recites his own Commission All Vower is given to me in Heaven and in Earth Go therefore as my Father sent me so I send you But it is the highest piece of Arrogance in the World to pretend to the same Power that Christ had in this matter He had Power to institute the Office and give the Authority of the Ministry Men have only the Power of Investiture as the Bishops in Crowning our Kings and as Christ never made these Words of his the set form of Ordination so ' tis-too bold for any Bishop how great soever to apply them to himself in that Office That which follows Review p. 52 about appointing Embassadors for Almighty God without his Order is already in substance answered if by appointing Embassadors he means giving the Commission and Power neither Lay-men nor Clergy-men must presume to do it if he means investing them that God has chosen with the Ceremonies of Ordination 't is fit that the Ministers should do it if they may be had or will do it on lawful Terms but if not better it were omitted than that the Embassy of Reconciliation should not be delivered to the World I suppose their unordained Candidates bring such an Embassy to their hearers I am sure they should do so and if they do then we have Embassadours without an appointment in his Sence of the Word The Cases of Necessity which the Vindicator mentioned are such as may happen and to neglect the publick Worship of God in expectation of a Gift of Miracles which I suppose he means by the reviving of the Charismata would be a profane Omission He thinks to ridicule us out of it by putting the Case concerning a company of Women cast upon an Island c. Well what if a man should say that the best qualified Sister among them might be chosen by the rest as the Abbesss to be most constantly employed in Prayer and Exhortation till better help could be had were not the Iberians Converted by a Captive Maid Russin l. 1. c. 10. and was it not the constant Custom of the Church of England till the Hampton Court Conference to permit Women to Baptize Children in Case of Necessity and how zealously did the Bishops endeavour to defend the lawfulness of it at that time The Bishop of London affirmed the words of the Common-Prayer-Book intended a Permission of Private Persons to baptize in such Cases and said it was agreeable to the Practice of the Primitive Church alledging the great numbers that were Baptized Acts 2. Which it was improbable the Apostles alone could do and added that some Fathers were of the same Opinion Fuller Cent. 17. l. 10. p. 9. and when the King opposed it the Bishop of Winchester replied that to deny Private Persons to Baptize in Case of necessity were to Cross all Antiquity and the Common Practice of the Church it being a Rule agreed on by Divines that the Minister is not of the Essence of the Sacrament Their great Ecclesiastical Polititian Mr. Hooker sets himself to prove that Baptism by any man in Case of Necessity is valid Eccles Pol. p. 320. and says it was the Voice of the whole World heretofore and elsewhere That God hath committed the Ministry of Baptism unto special men it is for Orders sake in the Church not that their Authority might add any force to the Sacrament Now is it not the most unaccountable perverseness in the World to make Episcopal Ordination so indispensibly necessary when the most solemn acts of the Ministry the Application of the Seals are allowed by themselves to those that have no Ordination at all yea to a Sister whether welll qualified or no in which they have quite out-done us no such thing being ever practised in the Presbyterian Churches He endeavours to prove the necessity of such Ordination from the Case of the Abyssines who were contented to be without those Ordinances which are to be dispensed by Priests till the return of Frumentius from Alexandria but pray what Ordinances are those that are to be dispensed by Priests only I thought
time a power of installing them themselves when it cannot be done otherwise since naturally that which we have a right to do by another we have a right to do by our selves Nay what if not onely Monsieur Claude but Monsieur Dodwell too that speaking head of our high-flown Clergy acknowledges such a right in particular Societies of chusing and investing their Officers No matter whether it be reconcileable with the other parts of his Scheme or no Dodwel Separat of Churches p. 102. P. 52. In his Separation of Churches he speaks to this purpose The Church with whom God has made the Covenant is a Body Politick though not a Civil one and God has designed all persons to enter into this Society It is sufficient for my purpose that the Ecclesiastical Power be no otherwise from God than that is of every supream Civil Magistrate it is not usual for Kings to be invested into their Offices by other Kings but by their Subjects yet when they are invested that doth not in the least prejudice the absoluteness of their Monarchy where the Fundamental Constitutions of the respective places allow it to them much less doth it give any power over them to the persons by whom they are invested If the power of Episcopacy be Divine all that men can do in the case is onely to determine the person not to confine his power no act can be presumed to be the act of the whole Body P. 509. but what has passed them in their publick Assemblies in which Body is the Right of Government As nothing but the Society it self can make a valid conveyance of its right so it is not conceivable how the Society can do it by any thing but its own Act And when ever a person is invested into the Supream Power P. 522. and the Society over which he is placed is independant on other Societies such a person can never be placed in his power if not by them who must after be his subjects unless by his Predecessor which no Society can depend upon for a constant Rule of Succession I am apt to think this must have been the way of making Bishops at first how absolute soever I conceive them to be when they are once made This seems best to agree with the absoluteness of particular Churches P. 523. before they had by compact united themselves under Metropolitans and Exarchs into Provincial and Diocesan Churches And this seems to have been fitted for the frequent persecutions of those earlier Ages when every Church was able to secure its own succession without depending on the uncertain opportunities of the meeting of the Bishops of the whole Province And the alteration of this practice the giving the Bishops of the Province an interest in the choice of every particular Colleague seems not to have been so much for want of power in the particular Churches to do it as for the security of compacts that they might be certain of such a Colleague as would observe them It is probable that it was in imitation of the Philosophers Successions that these Ecclesiastical Successions were framed and when the Philosophers failed to nominate their own Successors the Election was in the Schools These are his words and they are too plain to need a Comment If every particular Church had Originally a power within it self to chuse and invest its Bishop and the concurrence of other Bishops herein was not for want of Power in that particular Church but only for securing the agreement of Bishops amongst themselves We have done with the necessity of a continued Line of Episcopal Ordinations and there may be true mission without it quod erat probandum But 2dly Should we grant that there is a necessity of an uninterrupted Line and that this as he learnedly speaks is a sufficient proof that there is such a Line yet it must be considered this necessity will onely prove that there must be some Bishops and Churches that are in the Line but it will not prove that they are all so nor that it is the case of those amongst us for though we may suppose that God has had a true Ministry in all Ages and will have that will not demonstrate that he hath such in England and therefore to prove the Ministry of the English Churches true he must have some better Evidence than the necessity of such a Line which will onely prove it is somewhere not that it is amongst us and it is but small satisfaction to us to know that there is a true Ministry some where in the World but no man in the World can tell where it is By this Gentlemans way of reasoning the Papists pretend to prove the Infallibility of their Church first they suppose the necessity of an Infallible Judge and then take it for granted that this Judge is to be found amongst them and truly Arcades ambo The Vindicator put a question to him and we should be glad of a better answer than he has yet thought fit to give us He desired T. W. to tell him whether this Line of Succession might be continued in a Schismatical Church for if by Schism Men and Societies are cut off from the Catholick Church as this Man affirms such Schismatical Churches are indeed no Churches no parts of the Universal Church and so cannot be the Subjects of the Apostolical Power and if this Power cannot be derived through a Schismatical Church then must he grant either that the Church of England has not this Power or that the Papal Churches through which it runs are not Schismatical and if they be not his own Church must be so in separating from them for he holds separation to be utterly unlawful unless it be from a Schismatical Church His answer to this such as it is you have in the 23 page of his reply in these words I cannot understand his Logick in this if by Schism Men and Societies are cut off from the Universal Church then such Schismatical Churches are no Churches But is not the consequence as plain as can be if Schism cut Men and Societies off from the Universal Church then such Schismatical Societies are no Churches Can they be Churches and yet cut off from the Universal Church Can they be cut off by Schism and still united to it He that does not understand the Logick of this does not understand the Logick of Common Sense but has he nothing farther to reply Yes he says Churches they are though Schismatical while they retain the Apostolical Succession But the Question is whether Schismatical Churches can retain the Apostolical Succession Since by Schism he says they are cut off from the Catholick Church and so Unchurched these things will require a second reading and a more direct reply and that I may provoke him to do it I shall lay the case before him in these three points 1. If any Schismatical Societies may still remain Churches then Schism as such does not cut Men and
Societies off from the Unity of the Catholick Church and then the whole thread of his discourse is spoiled which every where makes Schism to be Separation from the Communion of the Catholick Church out of which he says truly there is no true Ministry nor Sacrament 2. If all Schismatical Societies are Unchurched then either they lose the Apostolical Succession and Power or else there may be Apostolical Power where there is no Church And it would be very strange to find a Power to Ordain and to Administer Sacraments in Societies where there can be no Ministry nor Sacraments Church Power without a Church a Right to Gevern the Church by Apostolical Succession and yet no Right to the Church or any of its Priviledges The power which is an adjunct without the Church which is its Subject These are mysteries which I am no more worthy to understand than that of Transubstantiation 3. If the Papal Churches through which this Power is conveyed be not Schismatical then he makes the Founders of his own Church so for he says There 's no way of holding Communion with the Universal Church Arch-Rebel p. 6. but by holding Communion with the Particular Churches we live amongst if they be not Schismatical Instead of speaking plainly to these things he asks us whether Re-ordination of those that come over from the Church of Rome to the Reformed was ever required We answer No and can give a good reason for it upon our Principles but it will be hard to do so upon his We do not think the validity of the Ministry depends upon such Line nor do we believe that either Schism or Heresie as such do utterly destroy their Church state indeed a renunciation of any of the fundamental Articles of our Faith would do it but every heresie will not We believe the Church of Rome to be both Schismatical and Heretical but do not therefore say their Church state is utterly lost though greatly corrupted for then it would be hard to allow their Ordinations especially if we thought Ordination so necessary and that the Validity thereof depended upon the Administrators as this Gentleman affirms Therefore where he says the Vindicator attempts to unchurch the Church of England because our Bishops derive their consecration from Rome he utterly mistakes himself the Vindicator spoke ad hominem and only shewed him what would be the consequence of his own arguing He tells us It is the Judgement of all Reformed Divines that formal Schism can never invalidate the power of formal and regular Ordination But if those Reformed Divines thought as be that formal Schism utterly excludes out of the Catholick Church they must needs acknowledge that where there is formal Schism there can be no such things as regular Ordination and 't is strange this Gentleman that makes Schism such an unchurching thing shall talk of a regular Ordination in a formal Schism one would think the regularity would have been spoiled if the Essence thereof should happily escape Dr. Sherlock Vindic. of Prot. Princ. p. 107 108. And yet some of our Doctor make this the very reason why the Dissenters Ordinations are Null because they ordain in a Schism granting that in case of necessity they may do it But as to the Reformed Divines if they allow the Ordination of Schismaticks to be valid it is either because they think the validity of the Orders does not depend upon the quallfications of the person conferring there or that Schism does not necessarily exclude a Person or People out of the Communion of the Catholick Church and here lies this Gentlemans Error he would tack the candid conclusion of the Reformed formed Churches to the unmerciful Premises of his own but they will by no means comport This Notion of the Necessity of an uninterrupted Line of Succession for the conveyance of Power like Water by Pipes and Conduits the Vindicator made bold to call a Whimsie which has exceedingly raised the Gentlemans Spleen A Whimsie says he that 's some Phantastick device or the Creature of an unst able unsettled Brain which being applied to Prelates that bear the Authority of Christ can be no less than Blasphemy But the Vindicator never charged this Whimsie upon the Prelates the greatest part of whom I dare say will not thank this man for hanging their Authority upon so slender a thread 't is his own Whimsie and so silly a one that we will never charge it on any that do not expresly own it and yet if a Man should venture to say of some Prelates that they are unstable and their Brains unsettled as namely the late Bishops of Oxford and Ely c. I know not how it can be proved Blasphemy nor will any man call it so that has not made an Idol of the Mitre or the Head that wears it unless these clamours proceed from the same Principle with those of the Ephesians who were as tender of their Diana as these men are of the Hierarchy and this Image of Succession that dropt down from Jupiter After all we have said against the Necessity of such a Line yet if this Gentleman or any for him will clear it we will have as much Benefit by it as himself having largely proved that Presbyters are the same with Bishops by the Law of God and therefore our Ordinations are as valid as theirs but we will never so far betray the Honour of the Church nor the Peace of mens Consciences as to make all depend upon that which is impossible to be proved and certainly if it be a thing of that consequence this Gentleman makes it the proof should be as strong and clear as that of the most essential Doctrines of our Religion and to say as Mr. Dodwel is forced at last that a Presumptive Title may serve is to unsay all and to confess that it is not the reality of such a Line on which the Power depends but the strong Conceit and Presumption of men which is the worst Basis that Episcopacy has ever yet been fixed upon 2. The second thing in our Plea is That the whole Jurisdiction of our English Bishops and the Power of their Canons is derived from the Civil Magistrate and Laws of the Land And this I think will follow from the former if this Prelatical Power be not from the Laws of God it must be from the Laws of the Land Here I expect some will reply Datur tertium there is the Jus Ecclesiasticum resulting from the Customs and Canons of the Church by which Bishops formerly laid claim to this Power even when there was no Christian Magistrate but this will be soon answered For 1. This Jus Ecclesiasticum has not the proper nature of a Law nor does it oblige by virtue of strict Authority we are not bound in Conscience by the Canons of Ancient Foreign Churches any farther than the matter of them brings the stamp of Scripture along with it Grot. de Impsum Potestat p. 168. The
not spoken in any such Humour Men of Tender Consciences though under a mistake will conciliate veneration from others The worst I wish them is that God would shew them the evil of their former impositions upon the Consciences of their poor despised Brethren But that which induces me to mention it is I find the Defenders of the Hierarchy confidently assert that there can be but one Bishop in one Church at the same time therefore if the former be not divested of their power I see not how the present Incumbents can have any by their own Rule and so their Ordinations would be Null if the others be still valid The present Bishop of Worcester in his debate with Mr. Clarkson says it was the Inviolable Rule of the Church to have but one Bishop in a City and Church at once and Dr. Morrice labours hard to conquer Mr. Clarksons objection against it which was Def. of the Ans to Dr. St. p. 19. That Alexander was made Bishop of Jerusalem whilst Narcissus lived He says Narcissus took Alexander into the participation of the charge but foreseeing that Mr. C. would reply then here were two Bishops jointly governing one Church contrary to Dr. St's inviolable Rule he adds Alexander was the Bishop Narcissus retained but the Name and Title onely that is was but a Titular not a real Bishop and it seems that was his part of the Charge to have onely the Title and no Charge at all Now whether T.W. thinks the late Bishops are the Titular and the present the Real or on the contrary we will not oblige him to declare onely we guess at his Sentiments by his calling the Late Arch-Bishop the Ruler of Gods People above half a year after he was deprived Perhaps this Gentleman will satisfie himself with saying the late Prelates have the power still but are restrained from the exercise of it But that would be to confront the Act of Parliament which says expressly they are deprived of their Office and distinguishes betwixt being suspended from the exercise of their Office and being deprived of the Office it self if they did not take the Oaths before the first of August 1689. Primo Guliel Mariae they were suspended from the Execution of their Office for six Months and if then they still refused They shall be ipso facto deprived and are hereby judged to be deprived of their Offices Benefices Dignities and Promotions Ecclesiastical What is it then that the Civil Magistrate may not do in the making of an English Prelate I know it will be said he cannot consecrate him and it is the Consecration that gives the Episcopal power but to this I have two things to return 1. According to their own Practice Episcopal Jurisdiction is exercised by persons never so consecrated as by Presbyters and Lay-Chancellors in the cases before mentioned and they have Authority given them to exercise that Jurisdiction and that not by Deputation from the Bishop but by Legal Constitution and what is the Office of a Bishop but Authority to do the work of a Bishop 2. Since the whole Being of Episcopal power is founded upon their Consecration it is very reasonable to demand from them a plain Rule in Scripture for this Consecration of Bishops as distinct from the Ordination of Presbyters If they chuse this Foot to fix their Divine Right upon it is necessary a clear Scripture Canon should be produced for it but it is most certain they may turn over all the Leaves of their Bible all the Days of their Life before they can find any such thing And as the Scripture is altogether silent as to the difference betwixt the Ordination of a Presbyter and Consecration of a Bishop 1 Tit. nay in the Rule for Ordination makes them the same so this Ceremony of Consecration has not been at all times and all cases thought necessary Repertor Canon p. 49. or practised in the making of Bishops Godolphin tells us that antiently according to the Canon Law and where the Popes Spiritual Power and Authority was in force Bishops were not so much by Election as Postulation Sum. Rosel postulat tit si ques Pan. 2. p. 106. and in that case the Elected was a Bishop presently without Confirmation or Consecration onely by the assent of the Superiour And I have recited already the judgment of Mr. Dodwell that every particular Church had a Power to invest its Bishop and that the calling in the assistance of other Bishops was not for want of a right in themselves to do it I hope these Gentlemen will be more cautious how they lay the whole weight of Episcopal Authority upon Consecration which it seems might sometimes be omitted lest thereby they break their Line and the neck of their cause together Upon the whole matter I think it is clear enough that the English Prelaty is a meer Creature of the Civil Magistrate who may make every Parson of a Parish a Bishop if he pleases their whole power as distinct from Presbyters being founded upon the Laws of the Land by the Statute 25 Hen. VIII 19. it is declared That none of the Clergy shall from thenceforth presume to attempt alleadge claim or put in ure any Constitutions or Ordinances Provincial or any other Canons Nor shall Enact Promulge or Execute any such Canons Constitutions or Ordinances Provincial by whatsoever name or names they shall be called in their Convocations in time coming which shall always be assembled by the Authority of the Kings Writt unless the same Clergy may have the Kings most Royal Assent so to do upon pain of being Fined and Imprisoned at the King's will I need not say how severely the Canons of 40 were damned by the House of Commons where it was resolved That the Clergy in a Synod or Convocation Supplement oâ— Bakers Chron. p. 476. hath no power to make Canons Constitutions or Laws Ecclesiastical to bind either Laity or Clergy without a Parliament and that the Canons are against the Fundamental Laws of this Realm against the King's Prerogative Property of the Subjects Rights of Parliament and tend to Faction and Sedition And the Act of Uniformity has not left the Bishops power to add or change one Ceremony without the Consent of Parliament 4. Lastly We plead that the Civil Power has now left us to our Liberty in the case of Conformity and therefore we are not guilty of Disobedience to Authority in what we do I know it will presently be replied That the Act of Liberty only frees Dissenters from the Penalty of the Law not from the Precept of it and there is a sharp thing written it seems by Mr. Norris to prove that the only Change made by the Toleration as he calls it is that the Penal part of the Law is for the present laid aside Charge of Schism continued as for the Preceptive part that stands where it did and obliges under sin though not under Civil Penalty
about the Year 420. first made Deacon and afterward Priest by his Abbot Paphnutius who was but a Presbyter and all the Schoolmen are not on the Gentlemans side for some of them say that Presbyters by the Popes Dispensation may without the concurrence of a Bishop ordain Deacons He Points at some Canons that forbid Presbyters to Ordain and say every Bishop must be Ordained by three Bishops at least but he that argues from their Canons to their Practice is a meer Sophister as appears by the Concession of Bellarmine just now mentioned and he may as well say no Bishop ever obtained the Promotion Con. Carth. 4. c. 23. by Simony or never Ordiained without his Presbyters for there are Canons against these things as well as the former and he may proceed and say that no Bishops were ever Ignorant Drunken Tit. 1.7 8. Unclean or Quarrelsome because by very Authentick Canons such are declared uncapable of the Office His forty seventh and three following Pages are all built upon a mistake which this Gentleman as well as T. W. fell into I know not how as if the Vindicator ever denied the Validity of the Ordination of Schismaticks whereas he only argues from his Adversaries Assertion that by Schism Men and Societies are utterly cut off from the Catholick Church and have no place nor Interest therein and then I am sure it will follow that they cannot be the Subjects of Apostolical Power which can never be found out of the Visible Church I hope it has been sufficiently proved in this Treatise that this is the just Conclusion from such premises and to talk of a remaining Character that includes the Power of Ordination in those that are utterly cut off from the Church is perfect gibberish and if this Gentleman thinks fit to answer what has been already said to it we shall willingly discourse him further about it In the fiftieth Page he speaks like himself We believe with St. Jerom that the Power of Ordination belongs only to the Bishop and your Ordinations made by Presbyters are void and null and we take you for no more but Lay Intruders We are not much concerned what this Gentleman believes of us nor what he takes us for but he should have been just to St. Jerom though he may think 't is no matter whether he be so to us or no it would be very strange if St. Jerom should say any such thing as he pretends and we should have been glad to have seen the Passage cited if he refers to that Quid enim facit Episcopus excepta Ordinatione quod non facit Presbyter that has been sufficiently explained in these Papers already to intend not any distinct Power that Bishops had by the Law of God but what the Custom and Practice of the Churches at that time had reserved unto them He tells us Review p. 50 51. of some nice Enquiries that have been made into our Mission and that they suspect many of our first Apostles from whom we derive our Orders were never Ordained and supposes the Vindicator had not met with this Observation And it may be he has not and therefore 't is ten to One but it is false for if it were true the Dissenters were much more like to know it than such as he with all his nice Enquiries and Suspicions He wonders the Vindicator should lose so many pages against this Line of Succession which if it would do no good would certainly do no harm Ay but it would do the greatest harm in the World to the Interest of the Church and Christianity to make the Salvation of men depend upon such a Line and that 's the Notion the Vindicator spends some pages upon and he cannot do a better Office to the Church or Protestant Religion than to expose it and if that be not done effectually already by my Consent either he or some Body else shall spend as many pages more upon it We come now to the Vindicators account of Ordination viz. That it is a publick Approbation of Ministerial Abilities by competent Judges This says the Gentleman is such a way of making Clergy men as never was heard of before will a publick Aprobation of a mans Abilities invest him in his Office will a Testimonial from the Inns of Court make a man a Judge without a Commission from the King Now here he confounds Commission and Investiture together as if they were the same thing which 't is certain they are not The Commission always goes before the Investiture and 't is that which gives the Power and the Investiture is only necessary to the regular Exercise of that Power which is given by the Commission If this Gentleman would have the World believe that it is the Bishops that give a Minister his Commission and Ministerial Power as the King gives the Judge his Authority he sets up Episcopacy in the Throne of Christ and is condemned by the Reformed Churches it is Christ alone who grants the Commission in the great Charter of the Gospel wherein he has declared that he will have a standing Ministry and tells us what the Ministerial Qualifications are and has promised to work them by his Spirit in Men in Order thereunto all the Ordainers do is designare personam to Point out the Person that has those Qualifications and this publick Designation with the mans own Dedication of himself to the Work is the Investiture and sets the man apart to the regular Exercise of that Power which Christ by his Charter without and those Qualifications within has given unto him The Case is something like to that of making a Person Mayor of a Corporation the People or Burgesses have the Power of choosing and the Recorder or Steward the Power of Swearing him and yet none of these confer the Authority but only design the Person who receives his Power from the Prince alone by the Charter of the place as his Instrument It is the great command of God to his Church that the Gospel be Preached Religion Propagated Churches Gathered and Governed and Sacraments Administred He has not named the Persons that are to do this but he has described them by their Qualifications and Persons so qualified if they find also a promptitude to undertake the Work which I suppose is that which the Church of England means when she enquires of the Candidates whether they be moved by the Holy Ghost to undertake that Office are to seek for a regular Investiture and the Ordainers are commanded to invest them by a solemn Approbation that is declaring that they find in them those Qualifications by which the Gospel describes a true Minister of Christ We grant that this Investiture is most regularly performed by the Ministers and should not ordinarily be without them which seems to be grounded on this Reason for all Gods commands are highly rational the Ministers are ordinarily to be thought the most competent Judges but as the Investiture it self is not
this Gentleman had made Preaching the Gospel of Reconciliation one of them I am sure for that end he press'd that Text How can they preach except they be sent Does he mean the Sacraments why the Fathers of his own Church tell him all Antiquity allows the Baptism of Private Persons in Case of necessity and why not the other Sacrament too the Words of Tertullian are well known offers tingis he argues from that Text He hath made us Kings and Priests unto God and to his Father It is the Authority of the Church that hath put a difference between the Clergy and the Laity Tert. de Corona Militis de Baptism p. 602.603 Laices etiam jus est Sufficiat in necessitatibus and which hath established this sacred honour for the Body of the Clergy this is so true that where there is no Clergy-man to be had thou dost Celebrate thou dost Baptize and thou art to thy self a Priest now where there are three there is a Church though they be Laicks for every one lives by his own Faith and God is no respecter of Persons If therefore these Abyssines deprived themselves so long of the Sacraments they were needlesly scrupulous Ruffinus tells us that when Frumentius by the Providence of God was advanced to some Power in the Realm during the Kings Minority he carefully sought out such as were Christians among the Roman Merchants and exhorted them to meet together and pray which they did and when the Indians came amongst them they instructed them in the Christian Faith and all this was done before he took his Journey to Alexandria and tho' Valesius will needs be so nice as to distiuguish betwixt Oratories and Churches and betwixt Preaching and instructing I yet here was the great End of Churches and Bishops and Sermons happily attained viz. The Conversion and Instruction of Poor Souls a greater Seal of Mission than that of working Miracles wherewith 't is said Frumentius returned The Gentleman 's other instances prove no more but that in the sence of those times it was very desireable to have Ministerial Ordination and that they rather chose to be at a great deal of pains than to want it but it is not the desireableness but the necessity of it that the Vindicator denied and the Church of England you see will stand by him in it Nor was it his design to ridicule the Ceremony of laying on of Hands But that foolish conceit that by such contact there is a transition of power from one to another in a continued Line The Presbyterians themselves always use that Apostolical rite in their Ordinations tho' they do not think it necessary to the conveyance of Authority He charges the Vindicator with want of Sence or Integrity in reporting the Notion of a Patriarchal Right to Soveraignty But if he can explain that Notion any better 't would have been a very obliging thing to have done it I must confess I am as dull as the Vindicator in understanding it and cannot imagine how that Patriarchal Right should exist any where but in the Line of the Eldest Family in the World For if at any time you set up a Younger Brother it must be upon some other Title not the Patriarchal but either the express Nomination of God or Election or Conquest or the like But to claim the Regal Power by Patriarchal Right without pretending at least to the Line of Primogeniture is a thing I despair of ever understanding That this Patriarchal Right was ascribed to our Kings in the Late Reigns is too well known and will not be so easily forgotten by the Nation as it is denied by those that then filled Mens Ears with it E. of W. a Noble Peer pretty well known to T. W. once publickly Animadverted upon this Doctrine and the Authors of it and observed that such a right could be but in one Person in the World at once and no Person in the World could tell who that was What he mentions p. 56. concerning the Decency of Ceremonies has been obviated in the former part and there he may learn from the Bishops and Doctors of the Church of England that the Worship of God is never the better performed for them and therefore never the more decently and Bishop Sanderson condemns him for a Superstitious Fop that thinks otherwise this case is therefore adjudged already See the Review p. 57. If the Motion he makes of allowing the Bishops to be judges of Decency is to be so understood as that whatever the Clergy in Convocation Judge Fit and Decent must presently be submitted to and that the Pastors of Particular Churches or People how mean or half-witted soever must not make use of their discerning faculty this I confess is one way to end controversies by tying us all up to the Inspirations of the Canonical Tribe and this is that some of them have been long aiming at but surely 't is too far of the day to impose at this rate upon English Men. The Survey or endeavours to justifie their Excommunications by the old pretence of contempt and malice but these Men ought to be very certain that it is Malice and not real Scruple of Conscience against which they so severely proceed And they have no power to impose those things upon Men which they know thousands are dissatisfied in and they themselves acknowledge render their Duties not a whit more pleasing and acceptable to God That scandalous and disorderly Persons are to be disciplin'd according to the demerit of their Actions and Behaviour No Church or sober Christian that I know of will deny but that persons of Orthodox Judgment and Sober Conversation should be Excommunicated Fined Imprisoned Banished and Ruined because they dare not comply with such things as have been imposed in England is a practice not to be justified by any Rule in our Bibles or President in the Reformed Churches but is indeed contrary to Humanity it self To what he says about the Greek Churches p. 59. it is sufficient to reply If the procession of the Spirit from the Father and the Son be not an Article of Faith we desire to have a rule to distinguish what is de fide and what not in those Creeds But if it and the Greek Churches object against it then T. W. has excluded them unless he will say that ours is not the true Athanasian Creed and if it be not why must it be put into the Liturgy and Subscribed and Assented to under that denomination He endeavours to help his Alderman out about the same Table and tells us he meant something else by it than the same Table in Specie but since he has not told us what that more is we may suppose he wanted a handsome Salvo for he durst not say it must be the same numerically and it would be hard to find any thing betwixt those two kinds of Identity He tells us To have the same Prayers is to join with the Church
where we live in its Holy Devotions and so do Dissenters join with the Churches where they live which are as true Churches and their Devotions as Holy as if they were more large and splendid for any thing that yet appears to the contrary In the 60th Page he acknowledges that to have the Government of many Congregations is not essential to a Bishop nor to have Presbyters under him for Milles the Martyr had no Christian in his Diocess But it is Ordination that makes a Bishop If therefore our Ministers have all the Ordination that is necessary to a Bishop by the Word of God they are Bishops though they be but Pastors of single Congregations and now if this Gentleman cannot prove by plain Scripture that a Bishop must have a distinct Ordination from that of a Presbyter Ambrose in 1 Tim 3. Episcopi Presbyteri una Ordinatio est uterque enim est sacerdos to advance him into a Superior Office he has lost the Cause and here we hold it and expect plain and direct evidence to this very point when ever the Reviewing humour returns upon him And if the Pastors of single Congregations have all that is essential to Bishops then our Diocesans are a new Species of Bishops which St. Cyprian disowned in his Prefatory speech to the Council of Carthage And indeed it is liable to very just prejudices for when Bishops have taken away from the Pastors of Particular Churches these Rights and Powers which God hath given them and engrossed all to themselves and their Diocess is become too large for their Personal Inspection and Administration they are forced to set up Officers of humane institution to exercise those powers under them which they have ravished from Gospel Ministers that by numerous Dependencies and large Revenues they may gain that pre-eminence which some Men began betimes to contend for See Mr. Baxters treatise of Episcopacy never yet answered There is nothing more plainly shews these Mens contempt of Antiquity when it speaks not on their side than denying the Peoples power of Election Rational Defence p. 3. Sect. 6. p. 197. which is confirmed unto them by the Canons of divers Councils and Ample Testimony of the Fathers as Dr. Rule has proved And though we will not say such consent is essential to the Ministerial Power yet it is certainly necessary to the Pastoral Relation for the Bishops and Ministers could have no certain cure in such places where the Civil Magistrate does not interpose but by the Peoples consent This Gentleman tells us the consent of the Ministers and People of the Diocess is not necessary but it is left wholly to the discretion of the Church and I wonder what that Church is to whose discretion this is referr'd when the Ministers and People are left out will he say it is in the Power of the Bishops of other Diocesses to impose a Bishop upon any without the consent of Minister and People And must we by the Church understand the Bishops alone without Ministers and People as if they had nothing to do in those matters that are left to the Churches Discretion This lets us see what these Men drive at and how gladly they would enslave the whole World to the humours of a few and those not always the wisest or best of Men. That the Nomination of our English Bishops is vested in the King is very pleasing to Dissenters especially under the Government of one so Wise and Good as ours is But then we must say the Power they receive from the King and Laws is not properly Spiritual Power And we are willing to own them as having Humane Authority over us circa Sacra by the appointment of our Governours as far as by Law we are under their Jurisdiction And certainly many of them are too wise to pretend to any more since our Laws expresly condemn such pretensions as has been already proved by the very Letter of the Law in that case The Gentleman tells us The Vindicator shewed his Abilities in mentioning Ignatius who advises the Bishop to hold frequent assemblies and to enquire after all by their names not despising the Men Servants or Maid Servants and he would fain shew his Abilities in enervating so plain evidence and would impose upon us a great many Negatives and Peradventures which we must help him to prove We must prove That those Assemblies met only in one place that they were no more than ordinary Congregations that the Bishop had no body to assist him in the remoter parts of his charge that no man else acquainted him with the frailties and misdemeanours of particular These and a great many more such Negatives we must prove which we are no way obliged to do we insist upon the plain words of Ignatius and he must prove his peradventures himself or we shall take no notice of them The Author of the Enquiry into the Constitution c. of the Primitive Churches offers to prove that these Diocesses were no larger in the number of Church Members than our present Parishes But whether that be so or no I will not be positive For it is manifest enough the first step towards Prelacy was committing the Government of the Church to one which before was managed by several in common the next was to make that Church as large and great as could be By keeping new formed Congregations under their Jurisdiction and we have early instances of such Incroachments These Men take the Liberty of making words signifie any thing that serves their present purpose If Ireneus say the Presbyters are the Successors of the Apostles there Presbyter must signifie Bishop for fear of spoiling the Plea of Succession Review p. 65 66. If Tertullian say they never receive the Eucharist from any but the Presidents there President must not signifie the Bishop but the Presbyter for it seems in a Bench of Presbyters they are all Presidents though there be a Bishop in Cathedra amongst them Such Men will never be at a loss for something to say Though the Vindicator trusting perhaps to his memory mentioned the Sacrament of the Eucharist instead of Baptism yet it amounts to the same thing for if the Bishop was to take the Confessions of all that were to be Baptised his Diocess could not be of the same Model with ours which such a thing would be altogether impracticable This Gentleman wonders the Vindicator should be so nice in the Notion of Succession p. 19. And afterwards so loose as to make it no more but conformity to the Apostles Model in Government and Worship but the wonder will cease when he considers that in the former place he took Succession in the Sence T. W. used it as that which gives the Bishops their Title to Apostolical Power and here he takes it in the true Sence wherein the Fathers use it whose words will never prove that the Apostles left them their Apostolical Power but onely that ordinary Pastoral
the World see his Talent in Controversie he should have taken up the true Question as it was laid before him VVhat is that which the Scripture calls Schism and should have proved in all those Instances where mention is made of it that there was not only Alienation of Affection but diversity of Communion and when he had done this it had been time enough to have boasted that he had answered Mr. H's Enquiry till then his Labour is impertinent and his Triumphs ridiculous But instead of observing this Proper and Necessary Method which by all the Laws of Argument he was bound to he ranges from the Point and Chimes upon those decantate terms Church Unity Communion Obedience Succession c. and is wonderfully pleased with the melodious Sound of words he does not understand for though he should from these Topicks prove the Practice of Dissenters to be sinful yet he cannot prove it to be that Sin which in Scripture is called Schism unless he can discover in it that Uncharitableness and want of Christian Affection which is the very thing called by that Name in sacred Writ This would be sufficient for the Defence of Mr. H's Enquiry without ever entring upon the Lawfulness or Fault of Nonconformity but since the Valiant Man has challenged us into that Field of Argument we have gone along with him into it and endeavoured to justifie our Practice not only from the Crime of Schism but any other of which it has been accused and how far we have succeeded in this Affair is with all possible respect referred to the Censure of the Learned and Moderate of both Perswasions The grand Impertinencies exposed in the Gentleman's first Paper he has endeavoured to defend in the latter but through the Common Misfortune of a Man that meddles with what he does not understand he is more bewildred and confounded than before and indeed of all things that ever set up for a Defence of so Learned a Party as the Episcopal I never saw any thing comparable to this for Stile and Argument unless it were the famous Works of Mrs. Eleanor James to which this Gentleman's Reply bears such a marvellous resemblance that a man would almost conclude it to be the issue of some Friendly Conference betwixt our Citizen and that renowned Heroine I wonder why he should be so much disturbed that the Vindicator has concealed his Name especially when he did not think fit to discover his own for T. W. Citizen of Chester is a Cypher so general as remits us to conjecture and common fame and leaves him room to escape if any such danger should happen as he portends concerning his adversary but what great matter is it who is meant by T. W. or what that mans name is that has adventured to encounter him it is not names but things that we have to examine and yet by his little contemptible menaces it is very apparent that he would gladly betake himself to their former way of Confuting Dissenters as that which was always found to be the most easie and effectual He Triumphs in the Effects of his former Paper one of which was few believed but that it was done by some Clergy-man who had prevailed with him to Print it in his Name That is to say they thought it beyond the longth of T. W. to write such a Book a shrewd sign that his Neighbours have no great Opinion of his Abilities if they thought such stuff was above him but as his Name is capable of giving little Reputation to another mans work so I dare say no Clergy man in Chester will grudge him the Honour of his own He would not be thought to have acted beneath himself in his Reply and therefore he magnifies the Stature of his Adversary and transforms the Vindicator into a Ship and by all means it must be one of the first Rate that was chosen to Attack and Fire all its Guns at his mighty Self so happy a thing it is to have Gazetts and News Letters always at hand where a man can never fail of being furnished with Admirable Metaphors but if we must needs speak in such Bombardick Language though the Vindicator was size enough for the Service assigned him yet there was no need of chusing a Man of War of the first Rate to engage a disabled Frigat Venus arta Mari. whose Mast and Tackling had suffered miserably in some hot Sea-fights heretofore But 't is no part of my design to vye with him in his Bantering Dialect I shall therefore apply my self in good earnest to the matter in Hand and in the Remainder of this Preface defend some lesser Passages in the Vindication which this Gentleman either does not understand or will not seem to do so and afterwards proceed to the more material parts of the Controversie In his first Paper he pretends to tell us of the Origination and first Existence of the Church which he dates only from the time of Pentecost mentioned Acts 2. The Vindicator thought there was Reason to find fault with that Account of the Matter not only because it excludes the Angels which but a few Lines before this Gentleman had told us were members of the Church but especially because it shuts out the Jewish Church as it stood in Old Testament Times but he has a Salvo ready such as it is and he that can content himself with such a one will never be at want for 〈…〉 â—oes The Church was never called Catholick before that 〈◊〉 â—ost the Wall of Partition not being broken down But if I mistake not he promised to shew us when the Church had its first Existence not when it acquired a new Title it 's an odd way of arguing The Church was first called Catholick at Pentecost therefore it had its first Existence then a miserable Consequence and yet as good as the Antecedent for it is not true that the Church was called Catholick at that time nor do we find it once so called in all the Scripture that I know of and the Wall of Partition was broken down at Christs Death when the Vail of the Temple was rent in sunder and if in spight of all Reason the Existence of a Church must needs commence with its acquest of a new Title he must still fix his Epocha much lower and yet I know not why the Name Catholick may not if men please be attributed to the Jewish Church which was before its Apostacy the whole and the true Visible Church of God upon Earth The Vindicator told him nothing could be proved from the bare Name of Bishops in Scripture-times to favour our English Prelacy till the Power of those Bishops the Extent of their Dioceses the Quality of their Under-Officers the Modes of their Worship and Terms of Communion be proved to be the same with ours or liable to the same Exceptions To this the Gentleman replies I cannot understand this last Sentence or liable to the same Exceptions unless he would make
the Primitive Church liable to the same Exceptions But I hope we are not to be blamed for the dullness of his understanding The Expression is Plain and Pertinent He knows very well what Exceptions we make against the Power of our English Prelates c. Now if he can prove that the same Objections lye against the Primitive Episcopacy he shews thereby that they are frivolous and unjust and throws them out of doors as militating against Scripture Bishops as well as ours one would have thought the meanest Citizen in Chester might have understood this but it will never be better when men take upon them to be Authors in spight of Nature and Education He condemns the Vindicator as having no regard to Ecclesiastical Antiquity for speaking of Scripture Rules before they were written this lets us see What Mercy we may expect from him when we stand in need of it We will endeavour therefore to be as little beholden to him as we can and as to this matter a few Words will evince that his Reflection is very unjust In his former Paper Arch-Rebel p. 2. speaking of the Progress of the Gospel and planting the seven Asian Churches in St. Johns time he adds Though there was a Multiplication of Churches yet no Variation here the Vindicator enquired What does he mean in saying there was no Variation Was there no variety at all in any Circumstance of Worshop that 's gratis dictum if he means there was no Variation from Scripture Rules though we are afraid that will scarce hold yet we wish it had been so still Now it seems the Vindicators Errour was he spoke of Scripture Rules in the Apostolical Age and they were not then written No That 's something strange were not the Gospels and Epistles writ by Evangelists and Apostles during the time of their Lives No Legend that ever I heard of tells us of their rising from the dead and writing to the Churches And if they writ their Epistles containing Rules for Divine Worship why may not those be called Scripture Rules What if they were not Collected as soon as they were writ were they not therefore both Scripture and Authoritative And yet very Learned Men think the Canon of Scripture was collected in St. Johns time and that this awful Sanction If any shall add to these things God will add unto him the Plagues that are written in this Book c. Refers not only to the Apocalypse but to the whole Canon and stands like the Cherub with a flaming Sword to Guard the Tree of Life and if this Gentleman be for Scripture Rules that were not written in the Time of the Apostles I despair of ever coming to an agreement with him And it is certain there is a very material difference betwixt us about the Rule and Standard of Controversie which must be first adjusted before we can well proceed any further for if we take different Measures we shall certainly give a very different account Mr. H. desirous to find out the true Notion of Schism takes for his Rule all those places in the New Testament where that Word is found This the Gentleman is offended at and tells him If he had enquired into the ninth Article of the Apostles Creed then he had found out the true Standard of this Controversie And the Vindicator thought there was more Reason to be offended with him for declining the sufficiency of the Scripture as the standard of Faith and Practice this he censured as an affront to Scripture and common Sense too for when the Authority of that Creed depends solely upon its agreement with Scripture how senceless a thing is it to make that a truer Standard than Scripture whose Truth and meaning is to be derived purely from it What defence now will the Citizen make As good as he can afford no doubt He charges the Vindicator with saying that an Article of Faith is an affront to Scripture and Common Sence which is as false as any thing in the World we appeal to the Readers Eyes and desire no other favour but that he Read true To bring himself off he acknowledges That the Scripture indeed is the truest touch-stone of Sin and Duty but he adds whoever he be that expounds the Holy Scripture in Contradiction to an Article of the Creed must needs err and we are assured of the Errour by that Article it contradicts Should we grant this to be good Sence and Divinity yet it will not serve his turn for then he should not have accused Mr. H. of taking a wrong Standard but have proved that he made an Erroneous Application of the true One to his Case which are two different things a man may take a true measure and yet mistake in measuring a thing by it but to tell him in the former Paper of not finding out the true standard and to think to come off in this by blaming his Exposition of it is a very sorry shift which his Ignorance or Inadvertency has forced him upon And yet we must not let him go without further Examination about this matter for it is certain he is fallen into a most dangerous Errour making the Compilers of the Apostolical and Nicene Creeds the Infallible Interpreters of Scripture for so he tells us Reply p. 11. We come to be infallibly assured that the Socinian Interpretation of Scripture against the Divinity of Christ is False because it contradicts that Article I believe in Jesus the onely begotten Son of God and that in the Nicene Creed God of God very God of very God being of one Substance with the Father This is an Opinion which his own Spiritual Guides are obliged to chastize him for being so contrary to the avowed Principles of all Protestant Churches and to what our Learned Doctors have worthily asserted in their late Writings against the Papists to which I refer him for his better Information amongst others let him consult the Ingenious Dr. Sherlock in his Preservative against Popery where having declared that the Protestants abide by that Part 1st P. 49. which they see plainly proved out of Scripture bids us put this Question How shall we know what is the true sense of Scriptures and proposes three ways either by an Infallible Interpreter or the unanimous Consent of the Fathers or by such humane means as are used to find out the sense of other Books He rejects the Pretensions of an Infallible Interpreter and disapproves of the Rule of Expounding Scripture by the Consent of the Fathers and concludes there is no way left but to expound it as we do other Writings by considering the Signification and Propriety of Words and Phrases the Scope and Context of the Place the Reason of things the Analogy between the Old and New Testament and the like Our Citizen has found out that Infallible Interpreter which the Learned Doctor was ignorant of He is infallibly assured of the Divinity of Christ because the Compilers of the Apostolical and
Nicene Creeds have so Interpreted Scripture but what if one should ask him How he is sure the Doctrines of the Creed are true Expositions of Scripture Either he must fall into the Circle or resolve his Faith into the Infallibility of the Church and Compilers of those Creeds and therein he turns his back upon the Church of England and all the Reformed in one of the Principal and most Important Points of Controversie the Resolution of Faith I will not suppose him so ignorant as to think that the Apostles were the Authors of that Creed that goes under their Name Bishop Pearson and Dr. Towerson will tell him the contrary and by the Confession of all Protestants These Creeds are but summary Collections of the most principal Doctrines of Faith put into that form by Fallible Men and are to be received no further and on no other account than as they are Consonant to the Word of God and therefore were never intended as a Standard or Rule of Faith or as an infallible Interpreter of that which is so I wonder how this Gentleman would have been infallibly assured of the Divinity of Christ if he had lived before these Symbols were extant I wonder how he is infallibly assured of the true sence of these Creeds I doubt he wants one Creed to give an Infallible Interpretation of another and so ad Infinitum but if he say the sence of these Creeds is very plain and obvious to any ordinary Capacity so is the Scripture too in all Fundamental Points and is sufficient Assurance of the Truth of them without the joint Security of Ancient Creeds and Churches Whether these odd Opinions are to be imputed to his inconsiderateness of which every Page affords us instances enough or rather to the Happy Illuminations of his great Rabbi Mr. Dodwell I will not determine but the latter is not improbable if we compare it with what that Amphibious Gentleman writes Separation of Churches p. 542. That the Power actually received by Ordained Ministers must not be measured by the true Sence of Scriptures but by that wherein the Ordainers understood them c. Many other Effata of the like Nature have proceeded from that great Oracle which would scarcely have been encouraged or so much as suffered in any Reformed Church besides our own but it was sufficient to make these things passable that they were levelled at the Dissenters and sent them all headlong into the Pit I think it may not be amiss to defend the Vindicator from the Imputation of Malice against the late Arch-Bishop of Canterbury which this Gentleman very unfairly suggests the Passage aimed at is this To say that Bishops Vindic. p. 18. which are stated Pastors in an Organical Church are the Apostles Successors in their Apostolical Power is destructive to their own Notion of Church Government and would give the Bishop of Rome as great Power in England as the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury when there is any All the Malice lies in this little Parenthesis when there is any and here the Citizen clamours upon him for reviling Gods High Priest Reply p. 18. and speaking evil of the Ruler of his People What Apology will the Vindicator now make Truely if it was my own Case I would desire no better than that of St. Paul under the same Accusation I wist not Brethren that he was the High Priest The late Arch-Bishop had been deprived by Law above half a Year before that Vindication was writ and the Metropolitane See was vacant a considerable time after this was Printed and yet it was a malicious Reviling of the Ruler of Gods People to say there was none I will not drive this too far I hope he can give a better Reason for calling the Deprived Prelate the Ruler of Gods People than I can for him If he was the Ruler still What becomes of the Authority of those that deprived him It had been more becoming this Gentleman to have answered that Argument wherein this Parenthesis had its Place than by falling foul upon so Innocent an Expression to expose those thoughts which Prudence would have concealed I know not of any thing else in his Reply that needs to be taken notice of but what will fall under the General Heads of this following Treatise wherein I have attempted at least to prove that our Congregations are not Schismatical or Unlawful though many of our Ministers were not Ordained by Diocesan Bishops though the Places we meet in be distinct from the Parish Churches and the Mode of our Worship in some things different from theirs And because I find the most Learned of our Adversaries condemn our Present Practice 1. As Inconsistent with Catholick Unity and Communion 2. As Guilty of Disobedience to Superiours Civil and Spiritual 3. And of Scandalous Indecencies and a Breach of good Rules and Order I shall examine the matter as carefully as I can under all these Particulars heartily Praying that whatever Censures I bring upon my self the Interests of Truth and Peace may be promoted ERRATA PAge 6. l. 38. r. retain'd p. 16. l. 13. r. consciousness p. 20. margent r. August p. 33. l. 38. r. Diaboli instinctu p. 37. l. 15. p. 38. l. 12. for rite r. right p. 117. l. 17. for Ananias r. Anianus Several lesser faults will occur which are referr'd to the Reader 's Candor and Emendation A Defence of the Vindication c. CHAP. 1. The true Notion of Catholick Unity distinguished into Political and Moral A Regular Ministry not Essential to this Unity The Judgment of the Fathers and others IT is the observation of an Ingenious Gentleman that the World has never been without some extraordinary word to fill mens mouths and furnish out Pamphlets and by which the Sentiments of men have been for the most part more absolutely governed than by the true reason of things for Reason concludes nothing without disquisition but the other like a kind of spell captivates and determines mens thoughts many times beyond the Relief of the most rational and convincing Arguments Amongst all the Charms of this nature which take place as the Interests and Designs of Parties or posture of Publick Affairs vary and direct I know of none that has been more unmercifully tortured and forced to speak things never intended by it than this of Unity It has been the Motto and Device of every Ascendant Party in the Militant Church to frighten the weak and timorous and chastise the more resolute opposers of Spiritual Usurpation and Tyranny The Papists for the good Service it has done them have preferr'd it to be the Seventh Note of their Church according to the Order in which their great Cardinal has marshall'd them and under the Umbrage thereof have raised the greatest Feuds and Divisions that ever infested the Christian World In their most bloody Persecutions barbarous and funest Tragedies they have still pretended to act by the Commission of Catholick Unity to advance her Interests
and endeavour an Universal Compliance with it and are distinguished hereby from all that reject this Law and set up any other in opposition to it This Faith likewise Unites them in One Baptism not that they all agree in the External Wasâ—â—â—â— and Modes of Administration but in that which the Apostle Peter makes to 〈◊〉 Substance of it not the putting away of the filth of the flesh but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of a good Conscience towards God 1 Pet. 2.21 when a Mans Conscience returns a consenting Answer to the Gospel Proposals and by a solemn Self-dedication becomes Sacred to God he has then the Substance of that Ordinance This is the True Catholick Unity described in the 4th of Ephes 5 6. There is one Body and one Spirit even as you are called in one Hope of your Calling one Lord one Faith one Baptism one God and the Father of all who is above all and through all and in you all 2. The Moral Unity by which the Members are knit one to another is that of Love This is the Unity of the Spirit which is to be held in the bond of Peace and will always flow from the other by a kind of Spiritual Sympathy and Sensation but it must be acknowledged this admits of various degrees and is subject to sinful Declensions Emulation Passion Interest Misunderstanding of Persons and Things may very much weaken the Bond of Amity but it must be habitually in every True Christian and he that has no brotherly kindness for those that appear to him True Believers can never know that he has passed from Death to Life Mistakes and Weakness may create Jealousie and too great Distances even amongst great and good Men. Paul and Barnabas from different apprehensions about the management of their Work proceed to a parting one from another And too many Brethren that have all the same Father and are all bound for the same home cannot forbear falling out by the way The Corruption of Nature both fullies mens Graces that they do not shine forth so clearly as otherwise they would and also darkens their sight that they cannot so well discern the Virtues of each other and where the Eye is dim and the Object clouded too no wonder if misapprehensions and uncharitable surmises arise and men mistake one another for Enemies and fall a quarrelling when perhaps a true Light would let them see they are all Friends But certainly as far as Believers understand one another they have Christian Affection one for another and if they knew more of the Truth of each others Christianity their Mutual Love would be greatly encreased And a shyness in some tempers and unwillingness to converse more freely and often together keep up mens prejudices and hinder their desired Union and yet they have still a fervent Love for the Church in general though their Affections be misplaced as to particular persons This Brotherly-kindness where it is prevalent will oblige the Members to have the same care one for another not envying but rejoycing at each others Heath Beauty and Improvement it would make them sensible of each others use ulness and service they would not think any part superfluous or tye it up from performing its duty towards the good of the whole the Eye would not say to the Hand I have no need of thee This would not permit them to reproach and despise each other for their blemishes and deformities but oblige them to cover the same with the greatest candour and civility and to bestow more abundant honour upon those parts that may be thought less honourable This is that great Law of Love which the King of the Church has given to all his Disciples as the Bond of Peace amongst themselves and the great Characteristick by which they shall be distinguished from others John 13.35 By this shall all men know that they are Christ's Disciples if they love one another Where the Soul is wholly destitute of this all pretences of Love to God or Faith in Christ are false and vain 1 John 4.20 For he that loves not his Brother whom he has seen how can he love God whom he has not seen And true Faith will work by Love I know this Account of Catholick Unity as consisting in Faith and Love will not meet with general approbation Many will reject it as to spiritual who have placed their hopes of Salvation in being of such a Party and in a Zealous Observation of the Rites and Ceremonies of that Communion in which they are these are too sensless to be argued with That can suppose the Son of God would be incarnate and crucified only to teach men a particular kind of dress and fashionable gestures and a form of words c. whilst their Souls are under the dominion of sin and they have not learned to live soberly righteously and godly in an Evil World Many will censure it as too narrow excluding from the Church all formal and insincere pretenders to Christianity but I suppose when we understand one another we shall not much differ about this it is certain in Foro Dei none but true Disciples are true Church-Members but in Foro Ecclesiae all that seem to be so must be so accounted When we say such a one is a Member of the Visible Church we mean he is visibly a Member of the Church that is he appears so to us and we are obliged to think so of him till he discovers the contrary but whether he be really so or no God only knows And most will condemn this Notion as too large and general including even those that have not a Regular Ministry amongst them nor are joyned to any particular Congregation duly organized And here indeed the main difficulty we have to encounter is about the Unity of the Ministry and how far that is essential to the Unity of the Catholick Church And I freely grant every True Member of the Church of Christ will give great deference to the Ministerial Office and whoever they be that will presume to ridicule the Function and despise its just Powers cannot in reason be thought to have the Faith and Charity of the Gospel But there must be a great difference made betwixt contemning the Ministry and questioning the Rights of this or that particular person to the Office or scrupling the Term oâ— Made of his Administrations or preferring another before him whose Qualifications and Conduct are more answerable to the great Ends of that Office But though I do verily believe it is essential to Catholick Church Unity that every Member love and honour the Ministerial Function yet I dare by no means affirm it to be equally necessary that every Person be under the Conduct of a Regular and duely called Ministry this indeed is requisite to the flourishing State of the Church and all are obliged to pray for it and endeavour it in their several Spheres of Activity but it is not absolutely Necessary to the Being of the
of the Land 3. That the Civil Powers have left us to our Liberty in the case of Conformity and therefore we are guilty of no Disobedience to them The first Position concerning the Identity of Power in Bishops and Presbyters has been often and warmly debated and we can scarce touch it so gently but it will be resented as an high affront it is accounted a Plea to their Jurisdiction which in all Courts has an ungrateful sound and must expect to be over-ruled if powerful Interest and loud Menaces can do it and yet it seems so clear in it self both from Scripture Fathers and Protestant Divines our own Reformers not excepted that were it not for the sake of the Silver Shrines we cannot suppose it would have been a Controversie at this day in any of the Reformed Churches For Scripture Proof the Point being Negative the Evidence that is but Negative must be allowed sufficient The Word of God no where asserts that Bishops are a Superior Order to Presbyters therefore they are not so by that Law Those that say they are must produce that Rule which makes them so If no such Rule appears the matter is fully concluded against them This being a Question concerning a very great Power extending to a great number of Persons and producing great Effects a matter of great distinction and dependencies ought to have clear and positive Warrant and Commission from the Word of God Meer Names and Titles Suppositions and fine Probabilities will not all make a Foundation strong enough to bear the weight of a Structure so high and towering as our English Prelacy It is far short of Demonstration to say the Bishops are the Apostles Successors and therefore a higher Order than Presbyters For if they mean that they have the same Power that the Apostles had and in the same degree it will distort their own Scheme of Government and will not only give them power over Presbyters but over Bishops too for such power the Apostles had and it will give every Bishop an Universal Power over all the Churches in the World If it be said they are only the Apostles Successors in some part of their power the answer is obvious so are Presbyters too and we must enquire in what parts and degrees of power do they succeed them And why do not Presbyters succeed them in the same powers And where shall we find any chapter or verse in our Bibles that thus divide the power and give some men the power of Doctrine and others that of Displine and Orders where is the discrimination We find it very plain in Dr. Cosins's Table â—ot so in those of the Apostles Nor is it any more to our satisfaction to say that Timothy and Titus were Bishops of Ephesus and Crete for the Question is not whether there were Bishops in Scripture times but whether those Bishops had any power that the Presbyters had not and if they had whether it belongs to them as Bishops or on some other account St. Peter was a Presbyter and had Authority over Bishops must we therefore argue that Presbyters had power over Bishops Timothy had Authority to command Bishops too and joined with Paul in Writing a Canonical Epistle to the Bishops and Deacons of Philippi will it therefore follow that one Bishop has Authority over another And what did Timothy and Titus that Presbyters might not do if they had the same qualifications They ordained Elders and how does it appear that they did not do it as being Elders themselves and that they had not the assistance of others And may not Presbyters do so too Perhaps it will be said no for they have not the Episcopal Power but that is the very thing in question and must be proved and not taken for granted if God has laid no injunction upon them to the contrary men cannot do it 'T is an odd way of reasoning Titus was left to ordain Elders in Crete therefore he was a Bishop for none but Bishops can Ordain how do you prove that Why because Titus was a Bishop and he alone did Ordain if this be not a Circular Precarious and Trifling way of arguing nothing in the World deserves that name But indeed the many removes which Timothy and Titus made is argument enough that they were not the fixed Pastors of particular Churches no question wherever they came they were employed in the same work which they did at Ephesus and why Titus by being sent into Dalmatia did not become the Bishop of the Churches there as well as by being lest in Creet the Bishop of the Cretians I see no reason he was sent to the one he was left in the other and doubtless in both his work was to set in order the things that were wanting and this was his business every where and would as well entitle him the Bishop of any other place as of Creet The argument from the Angels of the Churches is as dark and inconclusive as the former those messages sent to the Churches were delivered by Vision and in the style and phrase of Vision a singular term is often to be understood collectively as by the false Prophet A. B. Usher understands the Roman Clergy and there are many words in those Epistles that favour this Interpretation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. and there is not one word in all that Book intimating that those Angels were single persons much less such as had any power above Presbyters And those that grant them to be single persons will tell us the most that can be inferr'd is a President or Moderator of a Presbytery which is allowed by those that are wholly dissatisfied with Diocesan Prelacy The Gentleman pas ses very lightly over all these difficulties and in a strain of carelessness and confidence natural to him tells us It is evident that the Government of the Church by Episcopacy was of Apostolical Institution for that Timothy was made Bishop of Ephesus and Titus of Creet as is plain by St. Pauls Epistles to them both that the seven Churches of Asia which received the Christian Faith had each a Bishop is evident by the Title St. John gives them in his Letters to them This is the Gentlemans proof of the Divine right of our English Prelacy this is that mighty evidence and demonstration he so often refers to in his Pamphlet saying I have proved I have shewed c. But if it was so plain from St. Pauls Epistles that Timothy and Titus were Bishops why did he not tell us what words those are which make it so very plain Indeed the Postscripts to those Epistles expresly call them Bishops of Ephesus and Creet but does he need to be told that the Postscripts are no part of Canonical Scripture nor joined with the Epistles for several hundred years after Christ Theodoret being the first that mentions them only as part of his own Commentary and yet he has not the word Bishop in them Nor any body else till
Cause cannot stand without it for as the first variation from Apostolical Practice was the setting up of one above the rest of the Presbyters in a particular Church and calling him Bishop so the next was the keeping of new Congregations in dependancy upon that which was the first Church and though I will not say such dependances are in all Cases unlawful yet they are ordinarily dangerous and can never be proved necessary God has no where tied up a new formed Congregation from endeavouring to have a Bishop and Altar of their own and if this cannot be had with the good Will and Consent of that Elder Church and Bishop who had been instrumental in the Conversion of this new Colony they may no doubt do it without them if general Edification require it Thus I have briefly examined our Gentlemans Antiquities what Advantage he or his Cause has received by them he has now leisure to consider Let us see whether the Primitive Fathers are no more favourable to us than they have been to him And I would lay down this as a just remark upon these proofs out of Antiquity That one Passage which expresly tells us what kind of Superiority Bishops had in Primitive times over Presbyters and how they came by it is of more value in this Controversie than a score that barely mention that Superiority the one speaks directly to the Question the other not we acknowledge those whom the Fathers call Bishops had some kind of Superiority over those called Presbyters and it is a vain thing for Persons to sweat and toil in proving that which we never deny but will grant them at the first demand but the Controversie turning upon this very hinge whether it was a Superiority of Order by Divine Institution those Ancients that speak purposely to this Point are the most proper Evidences in this cause St. Hierom speaks as directly to the Question as 't is possible for one to do he positively asserts and largely proves that Bishops and Presbyters are the same Ad Evagrium Manifestissime comprobatur eundem esse Episcopum Presbyterum and citeth for that purpose Acts 20.28 Phil. 1.1 Tit. 1.5 6 7. And divers other Texts of Scripture and in his Commentary on Ist of Titus affirms Idem ergo Presbyter qui Episcopus c. and tells us that at first the Churches were governed by the common consent of the Presbyters and that the Distinction betwixt Presbyter and Bishop was Magis consuetudine quà m dispositionis Dominicae veritate rather by Custom than Divine Appointment in another place he ascribes to Presbyters the Power of the Keys Ep. ad Heliodorum p. 283. and is so full and express that some of the Papists accuse him of Error herein others labour hard but in vain to invalidate his evidence by pretending that this Praelation of Bishops above Presbyters was a thing done by Apostolical Appointment because Jerom says it was found out as a remedy against Schism when men began to say I am of Paul and I of Apollo which was in the Apostles times but to this it has been often replyed St. Jerom does not speak of that particular Schism of the Corinthians but of others which arose about Contests of the like Nature and that he does not intend that individual Case of the Church of Corinth is most certain For 1. The Schisms he speaks of were occasioned by their differences about those Presbyters that had governed them by common Consent but that of the Corinthians was about the Apostles it cannot be supposed that by the common Council of Presbyters Jerom should mean Paul Apollo and Cephas governing in Common the Church of Corinth 2. This Schism Jerom speaks of was too much promoted by the Presbyters themselves Postquam vero unusquisque eos quos baptizaverat suos esse putabat non Christi c. He does not date this Distinction of Order from the time that the People only contended about their Ministers but when the Ministers also influenced those Contentions and made themselves the Heads of Parties accounting those their own who had been baptized by them now this was not the Corinthian case for there the Apostle was so far from encouraging those sidings that he expresly condemns them 3. The Schism he speaks of was remedied by choosing one of those Presbyters they contended about and setting him over the rest and committing the whole care of the Church to him but I hope none will say that Paul was set above Cephas or he above Paul or Apollo above them both to heal the Corinthians Schism and therefore the rise of Prelacy is not to be dated from that very Schism but from others that afterwards happened in the Churches And it has been observed by a very learned Doctor That the Arguments which St. Jerom brings for this Parity Dr. Stilling Irenic p. 279. are grounded upon those parts of Scripture which were writ after this Corinthian Schism and says he can we think Jerom had so little sence as to say that Episcopacy was instituted upon that Schism and yet bring all his Arguments for Parity after the time that he sets for the Institution of Episcopacy St. Ambrose or rather Hilary Non per omnia conviniunt scripta Apostoli ordinat in Ephes 4. Prospiciente Concilio ut non ordo sed meritum crearet Episcopum multerum sacerd judicio constiti Ibid affirms that the Ordination that was in the Church in his day did not exactly agree with the writings of the Apostles and afterward shews how the difference betwixt a Bishop and Presbyter arose by a meer Act of the Church choosing One that was most worthy and setting him over the Rest but that in the beginning there were no particular Rectors of Churches constituted and therefore all things were managed by the Convention of Presbyters Comment in 1 Cor. 11. These Commentaries are cited by St. Augustine and greatly commended Clemens Alexandrinus Stromat l. 7. tells us that the Discipline of the Church is Penes Presbyteros in the Power of the Presbyters St. Augustine gives us a plain account of the difference betwixt Bishops and Presbyters Secundum honorum Vocabula quae jam Ecclesiae usus obtinuit Episcopatus Presbyterio major est he does not pretend that it was by Divine right but by the Custom of the Church nor in any real act of Power but only in an honourary Title that Episcopacy is Superiour to Presbytery Medinas de sacr Hom. Orig l. 1. c. 5. Consult Art 14. p. 952. Chrys Hom. 11. And this matter is so evident that the most learned Papists acknowledge it was the opinion of most of the Fathers Cassander is positive in it Convenit inter omnes olim Apostolorum aetate nullum discrimen c. To this some Object that both Jerom and Chrysostome notwithstanding all they say for the Identity of these Offices do still except Ordination as that which is peculiar to the Bishop but the illustrious Chamier
that the Priests and Bishops be all one St. Austin saith what is the Bishop but the first Priest So saith St. Ambrose there is but one Consecration of a Priest and Bishop for both of them are Priests but the Bishop is the first Thus he The next I shall mention is Dr. Whitaker Regius Professor of Divinity in the University of Cambridge Contr. Duraeum l. 6. § 19. de Eccl. Regim qu. 1. Cap. 1. de notis Eccles quaest 5. He repeats Sr. Jeromes words at large on 1 Titus and to Evagrius that Bishops and Presbyters were the same that the Primitive Churches were governed by the common consent of the Presbyters that this custom was not changed by the Apostles but afterwards by the Church and thus argues If the Apostles had changed the order as Sanders pretendeth what had it advantaged him to have so diligently collected Testimonies out of the Apostles to prove that they were sometimes the same He might easily have remembred that the Order was changed by the Apostles themselves after the Church was distracted with contentions if any such thing had been done and he enquires Wherefore then saith Jerome Before it was said I am of Paul c. He answers This might deceive Sanders but it is certain Jerome onely alludeth to that place of the Apostle to shew that Schisms were the Cause of changing the Order but this Remedy was almost worse than the Disease for as at first one Presbyter was set above the rest and made a Bishop afterwards one Bishop was preferred before the Rest and this custom at length produced the Pope with his Monarchy Resp ad decion rationem Campiani p. 51. and elsewhere he thus speaks of Aerius his Heresie And truly if to condemn Prayers for the Dead and to make Bishop and Presbyter equal be Heretical Nihil Catholicum esse potest nothing can be Orthodox and Catholick That passage in Mr. Tract of Schism p. 13. Hales of Eaton is as memorable as its Author They do but abuse themselves and others that would persuade us that Bishops by Christs institution have any superiority over men further than Reverence or that any is superior to another further than positive order agreed upon among Christians hath prescribed Nature and Religion agree in this that neither of them hath any hand in the Heraldry of Secundum sub supra all this comes from composition and agreement of Men among themselves wherefore this abuse of Christianity to make it Lacquey to Ambition is a Vice for which I have no extraordinary name of Ignominy and an ordinary one I will not give it lest you should take so transcendent a Vice to be but trivial The most Excellent Arch-bishop Usher both in his Writing and Discourse acknowledged these Orders to be the same that the difference was only in degree that Bishops ordained as Presbyters but regulated the Ordination as Bishops and would not endure to hear the Ordination of the Reformed Churches condemned In his Reduction of Episcopacy Printed by Dr. Bernard he proves both by the words of Paul of Tertullian P. 2 3. and the Order of the Church of England that Spiritual Jurisdiction belongs to the Common Council of Presbyters in which the Bishop is no more than President and page 6. has these words True it is that in our Church this kind of Presbyterial Government hath been long disused yet seeing it still professeth that every Pastor hath a right to rule the Church from whence the name of Rector was also first given to him and to administer the Discipline of Christ as well as to dispense the Doctrine and Sacraments and the restraint of the exercise of that Right proceedeth only from the Custom now received in the Realm no man can doubt but by another Law of the Land this hindrance may be well removed And to say the Truth this was the general opinion of the Church of England for many years after the Reformation and very few even of the Bishops themselves opposed it Till the Treaties about Marriage with Spain and France became the great occasion of corrupting the Court and Church and letting in a sort of Men who in pursuance of secret Articles were to effect an accommodation with Rome Vid. Dr. Heylin's Cyprianus Angl. Mr. Baxter against a Revolt to a Forreign Jurisd p. 25. alibi See also the late Bishop of Hereford's Naked Truth and therefore must settle the Jus Divinum of the Prelacy as the Council of Trent had done before them by taking the power of opposition and dissent out of the hands of the inferiour Clergy who generally abhorred the design from that time this new Doctrine has much grown upon the Nation and with a great deal of noise and confidence has been asserted by the main bulk of the Ecclesiasticks and yet some few of the most learned of them have declared against it I shall onely mention two both of eminent note and figure in the Church at this day I mean the Bishops of Worcester and Salisbury For the Bishop of Worcester I have cited his Irenicum so often already that it would be in vain to add any thing more the main design of that learned Tract especially the latter part of it is to prove that God has not by his Law settled any form of Church Government and he has for ever ruined the pretensions of Episcopacy to a Jus Divinum they say indeed he has retracted that Book but as long as he has not destroyed the reason of it we are well enough for it is upon the reason of the thing not the authority of his person how great soever that we depend and till that Book be undone as well as unsaid it will remain in full force and virtue for reason is always the same though Men and their Interests may vary The Bishop of Salisbury inferior to none in all the accomplishments of Gentleman Vindication of the Church of Scotland p. 306. States-Man and Divine spoke his thoughts freely at a time when Prelacy was in its Zenith thus At first every Bishop had but one Parish but afterwards when the numbers encreased that they could not conveniently meet in one place and when through the violence of persecution they durst not assemble in great multitudes the Bishops divided their charges into lesser Parishes and gave assignments to the Presbyters of particular Flocks which was done first in Rome in the beginning of the second Century c. And P. 310. I do not alledge a Bishop to be a distinct office from a Presbyter but a different degree of the same office c. P. 331. I acknowledge Bishop and Presbyter to be one and the same office and so plead for no new Office-bearer in the Church the first branch of their power is their authority to publish the Gospel to manage the worship and dispense the Sacraments and this is all that is of Divine Right in the Ministry in which Bishops and
Presbyters are equally sharers but besides this the Church claimeth a power of jurisdiction of making Rules for Discipline and applying and executing the same all which indeed is suitable to the common Laws of Socleties and the General Rules of Scripture but hath no positive warrant from any Scripture Precept Therefore as to the management of this Jurisdiction it is in the Churches power to cast it into what mould she will c. I believe I shall rather be censured for having said too much than not enough upon this Subject yet I will venture so much farther upon the Readers Patience who cannot be wearier of reading than I am of transcribing as to conclude this Chapter with the suffrages of three Famous Divines of the Gallican Churches that have all writ in our Day Let the learned le Blanc Thes Sedan de Grad distinc Minist p. 501. be first heard thus Quod spectat vero Discrimen Presbyteri Episcopi c. But as to the difference betwixt Bishop and Presbyter for as much as the Church of England is Governed by Bishops it is the more general opinion of the English that Episcopacy and Presbytery are distinct offices instituted by Christ with distinct powers but the rest of the Reformed as also they of the Augustane Confession do unanimously believe that there is no such distinction by Divine Right but that as the names in Scripture are synonymous and put for each other indifferently so the thing is wholly the same and that the superiority of Bishops above Presbyters which has now for many Ages obtained in the Church is onely of Positive and Ecclesiastical Right and has been introduced thereinto by degrees That even in the Apostles days a certain precedency of honour and place was given unto him who did excell his Colleagues either in Age or in the time of his Ordination so that he was as President or Moderator of the Presbytery and yet look'd upon as altogether of the same office and had no power or jurisdiction over his Colleagues and this Person did always perform those things which the Presidents or Moderators of our Synods now perform But in the following Age it so fell out that this Primacy was not conferr'd according to the Persons Age or time of entrance but a custom was introduced that one of the Presbyters should be chosen by the Votes of the whole Colledge who should continually preside after the same manner over the Presbytery and these after a while assumed to themselves the name of Bishops and by degrees gained more and more Prerogatives and brought their Colleagues into subjection to them till at length the matter grew up to that Tyranny which now obtains in the Church of Rome Moreover though all reformed Divines excepting those of the Church of England condemn that supream power which among the Papists Bishops usurp over Presbyters as Tyrannical and think that by the Law of God there is no distinction betwixt Bishop and Presbyter yet is there some dispute amongst them whether it be not expedient by Positive and Ecclesiastick riâ—â—â— to appoint some degrees amongst the Ministers of the Gospel by which some may be set above others provided such moderation be observed as that it may not degenerate into Tyranny the French and Dutch Churches and not a few in England it self think it dangerous and not sufficiently agreeable to the Laws of Christ to admit any such thing but the Judgment and Practice of the Churches in Germany and Poland is otherwise they have certain Bishops which they call Superintendents that preside in such certain districts over the rest of the Pastors with some Authority and Power but much short of that which the Popish Bishops claim The second I shall mention is Monsieur Jurieu Pastoral Letters let 14. who having spoken concerning the Monastick Life and Oecumenick Councils as two great Novelties which had very unhappy effects he adds Behold a third of them 't is the Original of the Hierarchy which hath given birth to the Antichristian Tyranny hereby is understood that subordination of Pastors which hath been seen in the Church for 1000 or 1200 years in this subordination are seen the lowest Orders in the lowest seats above these are seen the Priests above the Priests are the grand Vicars above the Grand Vicars are the Bishops above the Bishops are the Archbishops or Metropolitans above the Arch-bishops are the Primates above the Primates are the Exarchs above the Exarchs are the Patriarchs above all these appears a head which was insensibly framed and placed there this is that which is called the Pope All this is a new invention with respect to the Apostles who left in all the Churches Presbyters or Bishops to Preach the Word and Administer the Sacraments But the Bishop and Presbyter were not distinguished those which St. Paul calls Bishops he calls Presbyters in the the same place this is matter of fact which our Adversaries cannot deny Then he proceeds to tell us how this distinction was made and the account thereof agreeing very much of that of Le Blanc I shall not transcribe it The last I shall take notice of is the Renowned Monsieur Claude whose Name will be great in all the Churches as long as Piety and Learning have any esteem among Men his words are these As for those who are ordained by meer Presbyters can the Author of the Prejudices be ignorant Historical Defence of the Reform Part. 4. p. 95. that the distinction of Bishop and Priest as if they were two different offices is not only a thing they cannot prove out of Scripture but that which even contradicts the express words of Scripture where Bishop and Presbyter are names of one and the same office from whence it follows that Presbyters having by their first Institution a a rite to confer Ordination that Rite cannot be taken away from them by meer humane Rules can the author of the Prejudices be ignorant that St. Jerome Hilary and after them Hincmar wrote formerly concerning the Unity or as they speak the Identity of a Priest and Bishop in the beginning of the Church and about the first rise of that distinction which was afterwards made of them into different offices can he be ignorant that St. Austin himself writing to Jerome refers that distinction not to the first institution of the Ministry P. 97. but meerly to an Ecclesiastical use And elsewhere And to speak my thoughts freely it seems to me that this confident opinion of the absolute necessity of Episcopacy that goes so high as to own no Church or Call or Ministry or Sacraments or Salvation in the World where there are no Episcopal Ordinations although there should be the true Doctrine the true Faith and Piety there and which would make all Religion depend upon a formality and on such a formality as we have shewn to be of no other than Humane Institution that opinion I say cannot be lookt on otherwise than as
Learned Grotius has fully proved that there never was a Council truly called General excepting that of the Apostles at Jerusalem that Councils have no governing Power Non ideo convocari Synodum quòd in co pars sit imperii Yea that the Church has no Legislative Power by Divine Right That what was written in Synods for Order and Ornament are not called Laws but Canons and have either the force of advice only Burnets Abridement p. 139. or they oblige by way of agreement c. And our Reforming Bishops Cranmer Tonstal and others being required to give their opinions concerning the Authority of General Councils declared that this Authority did not flow from the number of the Bishops but from the matter of their decisions and this indeed is the only true notion of Ministerial Power it depends purely upon the matter of their Canons not the Authority of the Person so that they can never by their Authority make a thing indifferent to become a Duty Praeeant ipsi judicio directivo says Grotius they are Councils not Parliaments and only to shew men what is Sin and Duty not to make any thing Duty which was not so before Dr. Sherlock fairly acquits himself of the Suspicion of ascribing unto a Council of Bishops Vind. of Prot. Princ. p. 30. Vind. of the Def. of Dr. St. p. 162. any Power in matter of Faith or Manners or Catholick Unity and because in a former Treatise he had let fall an Expression that might seem to give them such a Power he by much strugling gets from under it and says he meant no more than a Power of Deposing Heretical Bishops but withal adds It does not follow that any Bishops or any Number of Bishops however assembled have such an Authority to declare Heresie as shall oblige all men to believe that to be Heresie which they decree to be so and therefore the effects of those Censures must of Necessity depond upon that Opinion which People have of them those who believe the Censure just will withdraw from the Communion of such a Bishop those who do not will still communicate with him and whether they do right or wrong their own Consciences must judge in this World and God will Judge in the next And elsewhere he thus speaks As for Ecclesiastical Causes nothing is a pure Ecclesiastical Cause but what concerns the Communion of the Church who shall be received into Communion or câ—st out or put under some less Censures c. Here we see it is not in the Power of Councils or Synods to take away any of that Power from Presbyters that God has given them this is none of the Ecclesiastical Causes belonging to them This is more directly asserted by the Author of the Summary of the Controversies betwixt the Church of England P. 119. and the Church of Rome what he says of the Episcopal Office will hold true of the Ministerial in General That a General Council has no Authority to give away those Rights and Powers which are inherent in every Church and inseparable from the Ministerial Office for it is not in Ecclesiastical as it is in Civil Rights Men may irrevocably grant away their own Civil Rights and Liberties but all the Authority in the Church cannot give away it self nor grant the whole entire Episcopacy with all the Rights and Powers of it to any one Bishop If Bishops or Presbyters will not exercise that Power which God has given them they are accountable to their Lord for it but they cannot give it away neither from themselves nor from their Successors for it is theirs only to use not to part with and therefore every Bishop or Presbyter may reassume such Rights though a General Council should give them away because the Grant is void in it self By ancient Ecclesiastical custom Arch-Bishops were set over Bishops Vind. Prot. Prin. p. 72. and yet Dr. Sherlock confesses they have not direct Authority and Jurisdiction over them and if Bishops have no Superiority over Presbyters but what is grounded upon this Ecclesiastical Right it will not amount to formal Authority But 2. No Power can be claimed by Ecclesiastical Right but what has been acquired according to the Rules of those Councils and Customs by which they claim if it be a jus Ecclesiasticum they must come by it more Ecclesiastico in that method which Ecclesiastical Canons have prescribed and nothing is more evident than that the Rules of the Primitive Churches gave all the Presbyters and the People too a voice in the Election of their Bishops the African Bishops in a Council where Cyprian Presided Cypr. Ep. 68. Concil Nic. Arab. Can. Sozom. l. 1. c. 23. determined that Plebs maximè habeat potestatem vel eligendi dignos sacerdotes vel indignos recusandi St. Ambrose Ep. 82. Electio vocatio quae sit à tota Ecclesia verè cartò est divina vocatio ad munus Episcopi That this was the Primitive Custom none will deny though some Question whether this be absolutely necessary or no and I will not say it is necessary where the Office stands upon a Divine Institution but certainly where it only stands upon the Plea of Ecclesiastical Right the Ecclesiastical Method is absolutely necessary to give that Right for our Bishops cannot pretend to stand upon the Foundation of those Canons which they do not observe in their entrance upon that Office since those Canons must needs bind them as much in their Acquisition of Power as the People in their Subjection to them The best Title therefore our Bishops have to shew for their Prelatical Jurisdiction is the Law of the Land Our learned Historians and Lawyers tell us that before William the Conquerors time there were no such Courts in England as we now call Courts Ecclesiastical or Spiritual only by the Laws of Ethelstane the Bishops were allowed to be present with the Sheriffs in their Tourne Courts Brompton de Leg. Ethels where all Ecclefiastical matters were heard and determined Sir Edward Cook says William the Conquerour was the first that by his Charter to the Dean and Chapter of Lincoln prohibited Sheriffs to intermeddle any more with Ecclesiastical Causes but leave them wholly to the Bishop 4. l. Institut c. 53. p. 259. and yet there appears no enrolment of any such Charter till the 2d of Rich. 2d And Cook himself mentions the Red Book of Henry the first de general placit Comitat. extant in the Office of the Kings Rememb in the Exchequer wherein 't is said of the Sheriffs Tourne Courts Ibi agantur primo debita Christianitatis jura secundo Regis placita postremo causae singulorum and he adds certain it is the Bishops Consistories were erected and Causes Ecclesiastical removed from the Tourne to the Consistory after the making of the said Red Book Nothing will set this matter in a better Light than our Acts of Parliament especially that of the 37. Hen 8. Entituled An
Act that Doctors of Civil Law being married may exercise Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction In most humble wise shew and declare unto your Highness your most faithful humble and obedient Subjects the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons of this Present Parliament Assembled That whereas your Highness is c. The Arch-Bishops Bishops Deans and other Ecclesiastical Persons who have no manner of Jurisdiction Ecclesiastical but by under and from your Royal Majesty to whom by Scripture all Authority and Power is wholly given to hear and determine all Causes Ecclesiastical and to all such Persons as your Majesty shall appoint thereunto And long before this time our Kings were so tender of their Royal Rights in Ecclesiastical Matters that when the Clergy in Parliament 51. Edw. 3d. Petitioned that of every Consultation Conditional the Ordinary may of himself take upon him the true Understanding thereof and therein proceed accordingly that is without Appeal to the King who by his Delegates by Commission under the great Seal might determine the same the Kings Answer was That the King cannot depart with his Right Instit 4th part cap. 74. p. 339. but to yield to Subjects according to Law upon which Sir Edw. Cook gives an Item Nota hoc stude bene By the Statute 1. Edw. 6.2 The Bishops could hold no Court but in the Kings Name and it was no less than Praemunire to issue out Process in their own Names and under their own Seals and though that Statute was Repealed in 1. Mary 2. Yet it lets us see the true Fountain of Prelatical Jurisdiction and some are of opinion that it was revived in general terms in the 1. Eliz. 1. Which annexes and unites all Spiritual and Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction to the Imperial Crown of England and shews that the Prelatical Power of our Bishops is wholly founded directed and limited by the Laws of the Land And this is readily granted by our ablest Civilians particularly Godolphin in his Abridgment of the Ecclesiastical Laws Introduct p. 2◠whose words are No sooner had Princes in ancient times assigned and limited certain matters and causes Controversial to the Cognizance of Bishops and to that end dignified the Episcopal Order with an Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction but the multiplicity and emergency of such Affairs require for the dispatch and management thereof the Assistance of subordinate Ordinaries c. Dr. Cases of Consc l. 3. ch 3. fol. 544. Jeremy Taylor acknowledges that the Supream Civil Power is also Supream Governour over all Persons and in all Causes Ecclesiastical and he says This is a rule of such great necessity for the conduct of Conscience as that it is the measure of determining all Persons concerning the the Sanction of Obedience to all Ecclesiastical Laws c. And in another place It was never known in the Primitive Church that ever any Ecclesiastical Law did oblige the Church unless the secular Prince did establish it The Nicene Canons became Laws by the Rescript of the Emperor Constantine says Sozomen When the Council of Constantinople was finished the Fathers wrote to the Emperor Theodosius Ibidem cap. 4. fol. 600. Petitioning ut Edicto Pietatis tua confirmetur Synodi sententia The Decrees of the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon had the same Confirmation as to the last Marcion the Emperor wrote to Palladius his Prefect Quod ea quae de Christiana fide à Sacerdotibus qui Chalcedone convenerunt per nostra praecepta statuta sunt And indeed what is it that the Civil Magistrate may not do in the making of a Prelate in the Church of England He may elect the Person and does so in reality for he nominates Authoritatively and whatever some pretend Godolph Repert Canon p. 42. the Dean and Chapter have no power to refuse the Conge d'eslire and Mr. Gwin in the preface to his Readings tells us that the King of England had of antient time the free appointment of all Ecclesiastical Dignities investing them first per Annulum Baculum and afterwards by his Letters Patents and that in process of time he made the Election over to others under certain Forms and Conditions and affirmeth with good authorities out of the Books of the Common Law that King John was the first that granted this Liberty of Election to the Dean and Chapter but that all Bishopricks were at first Donative The Civil Magistrate may multiply Bishops ad libitum and if he pleases may appoint one in every Parish by the Statute of 26 Hen. VIII c. 14. Six and twenty Suffragan Bishops are added to the Diocesans as saith the Act hath been accustomed to be in this Realm the Arch-Bishop or Bishop was to name two whereof the King to chuse one and to give him the Name Title and Dignity of Bishop and to that Name Title and Dignity the Arch Bishop with two Bishops or Suffragans more is to consecrate him onely he is to act by the Commission of the Diocesan and to have none of the profits of the Bishoprick this restraint in the exercise might have been taken off if the Legislative Power had so pleased And if this Law had not given them the Episcopal Power they could not have exercised that Power by any Commission from the Diocesan whatsoever He may also delegate the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction to whom he pleases either to Lay-Men or to Presbyters 'T is commonly assigned to Lay-Chancellors they do judicially Excommunicate and Absolve and they have their Commission to do it from the King not from the Bishop and in some places the Episcopal Jurisdiction is reserved to a Presbyter as in the Peculiars we have in divers parts of England at Bridgnorth six Parishes are Governed by a Court held by a Presbyter and Godolphin tells us there are certain peculiar Jurisdictions belonging to some certain Parishes the Inhabitants whereof are exempted from the Arch-Deacons and sometimes from the Bishops Jurisdiction of which there are fifty seven in the Province of Canterbury A certain proof that the Bishops Jurisdiction is only by humane Right or Custom because the Law can exempt some Parishes from it but by the Citizen of Chesters Divinity all these peculiars have the peculiar priviledge of being unchurched and their exemption would be tantamount to Excommunication because they are not under the Government of the Bishop without which there can be no Church Unity If any say they are under the Archiepiscopal Jurisdiction I answer they are no otherwise under it than the Bishops are and the Prelatical party themselves acknowledge that Arch-Bishops are but of Humane Institution Lastly The Civil Magistrate may also depose and deprive Bishops when they see just cause and this power has been so lately exerted that it needs no farther proof I would fain know whether the deprived Bishops be not divested of all Episcopal Jurisdiction Perhaps this will be thought an invidious question and an insulting over the misfortunes of those learned Gentlemen but I profess seriously it is
they will admit of no other Plea But what if terms of Conformity be not sinful it is sufficient for us that we are under no Obligation to comply with them our Governours have left us at our Liberty and though the Bishops may still command them yet our own Pastors are as truly Bishops as they The Unity of the Church does not depend upon them but may be much better preserved without them and the Act of Liberty in the Preamble declares that it is the Sense of the King Lords and Commons that not Conformity but ease to scrupulous Consciences may be an effectual means to unite Protestants in Interest and Affection and the Worship of God may be as decently performed without them how are we then obliged to comply with such things Will he say it is our Duty to use all those Ceremonies and Customs in the Worship of God that are not sinful What if a Papist should ask him Why do you not Conform to all the Ceremonies of our Church Why do you not use Salt and Cream and Spittle in Baptism Why do you not Cross your Breasts and Shave your Heads Can you prove these things to be sinful I suppose this Gentleman would reply we care not whether they be sinful or no we are not obliged to use them and if the Papist should alledge the Command of the Catholick Church he would reply No Forreign Prelate or Potentate has Authority to enjoyn such things upon us and our own Governours have not done it if the other should urge that we must comply for Unity sake he would answer The Unity of the Church lies not in Uniformity of such Rites and Ceremonies if the Papists should press it further These are decent Ceremonies and serve to excite in men devour thoughts of God and Christ and have rare mystical Signification surely He would rejoyn The Worship of God is managed by us very decently without such things Thus we say in answer to his demand if we be not obliged to Conformity though it should not be unlawful our Nonconformity is very justifiable therefore this Plea of the Sinfulness of the thing is not now so necessary as he imagines but lest we should seem to acknowledge that we had nothing to justifie our practice heretofore when Conformity was required by the Law And that we are still for an unaccountable Singularity and are resolved to differ from others meerly for distinction sake and have no regard to Parochial Order which we have formerly seemed to approve of I shall venture to say something upon this point though I am sensible before-hand some will blame me for saying so much and others for saying no more The World is not to seek for the Reasons of our Nonconformity a large Account has been given thereof in a Multitude of Treatises some of which have received no answer at all as Dr. Rule 's Rational Defence and Mr. Baxter's English Nonconformity Stated and Argued wherein the Case is so copiously and yet so closely debated in the several particulars both of Ministerial and Lay-Conformity that it seems wholly superfluous to add any thing till we see what answer will be made unto it I have seen indeed a little impertinent Scribble of two or three Sheets of Paper wherein the Author pretends not to engage in the Controversie but only tells us with Confidence enough that Mr. Baxter's Book is an unnecessary unseasonable and unaccountable Undertaking and has been already answered which is a very quick and cheap way of confuting Dissenters and the common reply of every baffled Party to all that is writ against them and is only taken up as a little shist to serve an easie and credulous sort of Men amongst themselves but can never be designed to give Satisfaction to others and if such Trifles must pass for an Answer to a Book so Large Distinct and Argumentative as Mr. Baxter's is truly it is to no purpose either to write or read Controversie There are three Steps a man must take before he can arrive at the heighth of English Conformity 1. He must submit to the Use and Practice of the Impositions 2. He must declare his Approbation and good liking of them 3. He must Swear never to endeavour any Alteration some of us stumble at the First many stick at the Second but the Last is most inaccessible 1. Many of us can by no means be satisfied with the constant Use and Practice of these controverted Matters and that for these Reasons amongst others 1. We observe That the great Corruption of Churches has in all Ages risen from this Source introducing unnecessary Ceremonies in the worship of God teaching for Doctrines the Traditions of Men this had reduced the Jewish Church to that Leprous condition wherein it lay in our Saviour's time And the grand Apostacy of Rome begun by advancing the Power of Ecclesiasticks beyond its measure and exerting it in the Invention and Imposition of such Mystical Rites and Ceremonies and by adding still thereunto it grew up to such a Mystery of Iniquity and Monster of Usurpation and Tyranny as it appears at this day in the World and we know not of any Specifical Difference betwixt the Ceremonies in England and those of Rome and we could never prevail with our Antagonists to give us a Rule to distinguish them by It is usually said ours are but few but theirs are many and therefore burthensom but this does not satisfie for many or few alters not the kind and if it be lawful to use Three why not Six Twenty or a Hundred besides if ours be therefore better because they are fewer I hope they will give us leave to infer the fewer Ceremonies and the better and therefore best of all where there are none if the Matter must be resolved into their Positive decency we have already shewed by their own Confession there is no such decency in them but the worship of God may be managed as well without them But if the Matter be fixed upon the Churches Authority then let the Church command never so many we must comply and so are as much enslaved to the humours of the Ecclesiasticks as the Papists themselves and the case standing thus we think none can justly blame us if we are afraid of contributing to the return of Superstition and Arbitrary Church Power by entertaining and embracing those things that have given it rise and strength in other Parts and Ages of the World Our Objection against them is not that weak and silly thing some represent it as if we reject them meerly because the Papists use them but we do it because the Imposition and use of them has given Life and Growth to the Papacy 2. Especially since they are altogether useless and have no tendency to promote that which is good this much strengthens the prejudice they have done a great deal of harm and they can do no good by the Confession of the Imposers and we cannot imagine why they should
a multiplication of Churches by reason of the increase of Believers The Vindicator was well enough pleased to hear him say that the increase of Believers will make it necessary to multiply Churches for according to the Episcopal Model there may be thousands of Congregations and Millions of Souls and all but one Church under one Bishop still the Gentleman now must mend it a little and he puts in distance of place as that which must be added to multiplication of Believers but still if a Bishop may be Pastor of a Thousand Parishes some of them a hundred Miles distant and may do his work by Delegates I see no Reason as the Vindicator speaks why we may not have one Bishop in a Nation or one over all the World He that can delegate one part of his Work may delegate the whole and then it is but multiplying those Delegates and he may have a Diocess as Universal as that of the old Gentleman at Rome He requires a Scripture instance to prove that when believers grow too numerous for one assembly a Colony must be sent out under Independent Officers But he should rather prove that such a Colony must be still in dependance upon the former for if such a Colony desire to have a Bishop and Presbyters of its own those that refuse to suffer it must be able to give some good reason for it And to keep all new assemblies in dependance upon the first Church would make Jerusalem the Mistress of the Catholick Church as Rome pretends This Gentleman tells us there may be a multiplication of Independant Churches for such are the Episcopal and he says he is not for Acring a Diocess or contending about the Extent and therefore I suppose if it should be no bigger than a Parish there 's no harm done to the Essentials of Episcopacy What need therefore of proving by Scripture that a new Colony must be an Independent Church when the Author himself acknowledges it may be so and if it desire to be so I know no body has power to hinder it unless it be the Civil Magistrate And how far it is within his Jurisiliction I shall not dispute The Magnitude of the Church of Jerusalem has been often debated and before any thing can be concluded from thence on the behalf of Prelacy they must tell us how many of those Converts we read of were constant Inhabitants of Jerusalem and stated Members of that Church For if the greatest part of them might be of those that came thither at the Feast of Pentecost it will spoil the Demonstration And they must also prove that they were under the Government of one Bishop And asking questions is not proving that it was so At that time we read of such numerous Converts they had the Apostles amongst them who taught them from House to House and we have no account of their being under the Government of one Bishop but what comes from Hegisippus and an obscure Clement Writers of no Authority And it ought to be considered that if the Church of Jerusalem were so very numerous it is strange they could all be received in so small a place as Pella Defence of the Answer 3. Treat c. 6. Let this Gentleman hear one of the Grand-fathers of his own Church Archbishop Whitgift thus How few Christians were there at Jerusalem not long before it was destroyed being about forty years after Christ Does not Eusebius testifie that they were all received into a little Town called Pella Epiph. Heres 30. de Ponder Mens c. 15. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet the Apostles spent much Time and Labour in Preaching there And Epiphanius confirms the same truth saying That all the Believers and elsewhere all the Disciples inhabited in Pella Let him remove these difficulties out of the way and then he may more plausibly serve himself of this instance What he says in his 39th Page is meer Banter we neither condemn Bishops nor set up Altar against them nor are in any Covenant against them nor refuse to Communicate with them in Sacraments and Prayers A bare denial is answer enough at any time to a bare assertion We hold Communion with them in all that is essential to Episcopacy or the Worship of God See the Petition for Peace 1661. and if they will not let us Worship God with them in the same Congregations but turn us out by their Impositions let them look to it what ever is culpable will lye at their Door we are willing at any time to Communicate with them on Christs Terms but if they refuse it we must not lose the Ordinances of the Gospel for a point of Humane Order such as Parochial Communion Here I think Mr. Chillingworths answer to the Jesuit is very pertinent P. 15. Notwithstanding your Errors we do not renounce your Communion totally and absolutely but only leave communicating with you in the practice and profession of your Errors The Trial whereof will be to propose some form of Worshipping God taken wholly out of Scripture and herein if we refuse to join with you and not till then you may justly say we have utterly and absolutely abandon'd your Communion He is pleased to say Though we pretend to be United to the Head yet not to the Body it being hard to find several Members united into one Body and yet still remaining all Independent If he means Independent in Point of Government one over another Vind. of Prot. Princ. p. 71. the Episcopal Churches are all Independent in that sence as Dr. Sherlock very well proves and therefore by this Gentleman's talk cannot be United into one Body If he means Independent in Point of Communion I know no Churches that pretend to it He affirms that Bishops succeed the Apostles in their Authority over the Presbyters and People For says he it is not reasonable to suppose that any branch of Authority given by our Saviour to his Apostles died with them But this would prove too much for then we must have some Supream Officers in the Church that have Power over Bishops Vid. Review p. 39. as well as over Presbyters and People for so had the Apostles and we may retort his following words upon himself If their Authority over the Bishops expired with their Persons why should that over Presbyters continue after them unless he will suppose that the Inferiour Clergy are the only Persons that need the Regulation of Superiours all Multitudes must have Governours and the Bishops are certainly too numerous a Populace to be all Independent Now let the Gentleman give us an Answer to this and it will serve very well for an Answer to himself It does not concern us to shew that the Apostles Commission was only a Patent for Life but if any Persons now-a-days shall pretend to have a Patent for the Apostleship it behoves them to produce it well attested The Vindicator observed that the Authority of the Apostles was Universal and the
make the Dioceses of Ephesus and Creet to take in one another and the whole Christian World too The Vindicator told T. W. that it would not agree with the Nature of a proper Succession that two Bishops should succeed one Apostle in his Apostolical Power This Gent. undertakes to prove it may but by such kind of instances as signifie nothing but his own inadvertency viz. When two Persons are Heirs to one in the same Estate the Law calls them Successores partiarii But this will not do an Estate may be divided into a Thousand Parts and each of them have the Nature of an Estate still but the Apostolical Power is Universal the same in all places and division here will make it another thing according to the Account that Mr. Bradford Dr. Barrow and the best Protestant Writers give of the difference betwixt the Offices of Apostle and Bishop Paul as an Apostle had the same Power at Ephesus as at Crete and if Timothy had succeeded in the Apostolical Power he must have had so too His Argument from the Division of the Empire is as defective as the former Empires how great soever are limited within certain Bounds and may be divided it is not of the Nature of Imperial Power to be over all the World as it was of the Apostolical 't is a vain thing to talk of any Provinces to which the Apostolical Power was limited they had equal Power in all Provinces and Parts of the World and so must those have too that succeed them in the Apostleship The Vindicator also desired to know how Timothy and Titus could succeed Paul in his Apostleship whilst he was alive and in Plenitude of Power This Gent. dares not undertake to unfold the Riddle but so it was chuse what the Consequences may be for says he it is evident the Apostle gave them a Plenitude of Power within their respective Charges chuse how much or how little he reserved to himself But pray Sir think better of it a Plenitude of Power confined to a particular Charge and Province is not the Plenitude of Apostolical Power and if he reserved any Power to himself within those respective Charges they had not the Plenitude of Power there but were under his Apostolical Jurisdiction still and therefore did not succeed him in it and if the Apostle reserved to himself no Power over the Churches of Ephesus and Crete he divested himself of his Apostleship for he that had not Apostolical Power every where had it no where But the generous Surveyor is willing to compremise the matter betwixt them T. W. must call the Bishops Coadjutors only whilst the Apostles were living and the Vindicator must give them the Title of Successors after their Death And if by Successors he means those that after them were employed in the great Work of the Ministry of the Gospel we grant all true Bishops are their Successors but then we must put him in Mind that the Bishops we read of in Scripture were as much Bishops before the Apostles Death as after and therefore their Episcopal Power did not come to them by Succession nor did there at the Apostles Death any new Accession of Power devolve upon them It was therefore the most needless thing in the World to give the Primitive Fathers any trouble in this Matter Review p. 42. what if they call Bishops and Presbyters the Apostles Successors so do we too but do they say that they succeeded them in the Apostolical Power or that the Apostleship was devolved upon them by the Right of Succession and yet it is that T. W. after his weak manner struggles to prove and indeed no less will serve his turn This Gentleman is not so thoughtful as he should be when he says We make it such a mighty Mystery for a Bishop to Constitute his Successour if by Constituting he means Naming or Appointing who shall be his Successor it is not impossible supposing that God preserve his Life and the Church Consent to that Appointment tho' it be very inconvenient and therefore forbidden by ancient Councils but it is impossible for one Bishop to devolve his whole Episcopal Power upon another and yet to keep it himself in as great amplitude as ever Decret par 2. caus 7. Quaest 1. c. 5. Vivente Episcopo Can. 41. in unâ Ecclefiâ c. The Decretal and Canon Law will tell him a Successor comes not in place till the Predecessour be gone that as long as the Bishop liveth no man can succeed him that there cannot be two Bishops in one Place this is most certainly true in the sence wherein we now speak of Bishops and sufficient to our present purpose That which follows about the certainty of Linus his succeeding Peter of an uninterrupted Succession of the Concession of Papists Vid. Review p. 44. Irenaeus l. 2. c. 39. Sub finem Aetatem seniorem quadragessimi aut quinquagessimi anni habens Dom. noster c. has already been largely discussed in these Papers It is possible Irenaeus might Name all the Roman Bishops and yet be Mistaken in their Order of Succession and 't is certain all is not to be taken for Gospel that Irenaeus reports even in matters of Fact for he tells us our Saviour lived to the Age of above forty or fifty Years and said he had this from all the Elders of Asia who received it from St. John himself How well is it that we have a more sure Word of Prophesie and History too than the Testimony of Irenaeus As to the time of this Fathers Birth and Death accounts are so various and the probabilities on each hand so fair that no modest man will be Positive in it but Mr. Dodwel has taken upon him to fix it and his Disciples make no Question but he has done it infallibly The Vindicator had some Reason to put that Question concerning the Apostolical Succession in the Patriarchal Churches which this Gentleman quarrels with because he observed T. W. made Linus succeed Peter in the See of Rome Simeon James in the Chair of Jerusalem Ananias I suppose it should be Ananias the Cobler of whom before St. Mark in the Church of Alexandria and the account runs upon this Supposition that the Apostles divided the World into several Provinces and each of them was Bishop of his proper district and those are called the Apostles Successors that came into their several Sees after their Death and these being but such a number it would follow that the Succession must be only propagated in these Patriarchats this the Vindicator mentioned as what would be the consequence of T. W. his Scheme of Succession which he only erected in those Churches where he had an Apostle at the Head of the Roll he never affirmed that it was the Opinion of T. W. or any other that none but the Patriarchs were the Apostles Successors but intimated that such a Succession as T. W. described would only be found in those
Churches We now come to the proof of an uninterrupted Succession and let us see whether this Gentleman can demonstrate it better than his Alderman it must be remembred that according to these men the Truth of their Church the Authority of their Ministry the Validity of their Sacraments and the Salvation of their Souls depend upon this Line and therefore it requires a proof suitable to the vast weight that is laid upon it and whether he has given us such evidence let the Reader judge He tells us As far as we have an account we find the Succession regular and we have no Reason to doubt of the like care in former Ages we rely upon the Providence of God and the Care and Integrity of our Ancestors and no man shall bereave us of our Confidence Confidence indeed in the highest degree but what if God has never promised such an unbroken line how can we think his Providence should be engaged to preserves it or where has he said it should be preserved in England and what if our Ancestours who were Idolatrous Papists had no integrity nor took no care of any thing but to flatter the Pope and enrich themselves and enslave the World a miserable Faith and Hope that depends upon the Care and Integrity of Apostate Antichristian Bishops and Churches What he says about the Vindicators descending from Adam as if it were as impossible for a Priest to come into a Bishoprick without Episcopal Consecration as for a Man to come into the World without ordinary Generation is so perfectly ludicrous that as I suppose it was only designed to make the Club merry so I shall leave it wholly to them But that which goes before must not be so soon dismist he pretends that we have as good Evidence of an uninterrupted Succession of Ministers Episcopally ordain'd as of pure and genuine Scriptures Vid. Review p. 44. and says he although we have not the Original Manuscripts to compare the One nor entire Fasti in the other Case yet unless any will produce matter of Fact to shew that we are deceived no man shall bereave us of our Confidence But this will satisfie no Body but those that are resolved to be Confident right or wrong for That we have true Scripture is a thing much more capable of Demonstration than that none of our Bishops have ever wanted Episcopal Ordination it is much more easie to impose an unordained Person upon a particular Church Nor could men lye under the same temptations to the one as to the other than a false Bible upon the whole World in the latter all the World would be equally concerned to discover and reject the imposture in the other a particular Diocess is only interested in the one they had a great number of Copies spread abroad by which they might compare and try any that was offered to them in the other they might have nothing but the Credentials or Certificates of Persons dead or living remote which might easily be forged and they not able to find it out And for the Authority of the Scriptures we do not depend upon the single Credit and care of the Antichristian Churches but of many others that have not been made so drunk with the Wine of her Fornication We have the Greek Armenian and African Churches to assure us of this great point but as to the continued Episcopal Ordination of our Bishops we solely depend upon the credit of a blind and deceitful Generation that have out-done all Mankind in deceiving the Nation and putting a thousand cheats upon the World In the matter and stile of the Scriptures themselves we have most excellent 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Indications of their divine Original but no such inherent Mark or Character of Divinity is found upon the whole Line and Order of Episcopacy It was always accounted the most horrid Sin in the World to forge or adulterate the Scriptures but I have already proved in this Treatise that in Popish Ages the Power of Ordination was sometimes given to those that were no Bishops and though this was one of the incroachments which the Popes made upon the rights of Episcopacy as Dr. Sherlock tells us yet if they assumed such a power it is greatly to be suspected they did not fail to execute it Besides none ever pretended that the Salvation of mens Souls does absolutely depend upon having a compleat and entire Canon of Scripture but according to these men it does wholly lye upon an entire Line of Succession In these and many other Circumstances these two Cases vastly differ and he that has no more to say for the Authority of Scripture than this man has said for his Line would greatly betray the Honour of his Profession and he that would perswade the World that we have no better Evidences of the Truth of our Bibles than of such a Line does the worst Office imaginable to the Interests of Christianity and to use his own Words it is one of the slyest Libels upon Scripture that I have lately met with Here again the business of the Abbot of Hye falls in our way but having sisted it already I shall not make Repetitions This Gentleman would Salve and Patch up the Business by Suppositions Suppose the Succession of Bishops from that Abbot were extinct and true Bishops called in to Consecrate then the Line would be pieced again And yet all the Churches and Christians that lived under the Successors of that Abbot were damned by their Doctrine but what if they were not all extinct which is unreasonable to suppose and impossible to prove suppose that Line should reach to our times then all within it are Lay Impostors I think the Bishops ought to oblige these men that talk at this rate to demonstrate that the Line is Right or else Chastise them severely for making their Authority depend upon a Supposition impossible to be proved The Gentleman denies that the Church of Rome allows an Abbot Presbyter to Consecrate a Bishop and makes challenges and oppresses his Margin with Citations out of the Schoolmen and indeed to give him his due he has endeavoured all along by the redundancy of the Margin to make amends for the emptiness of the Page which looks like a shallow muddy stream hemm'd in with a flowry Bank on each side but who knows not that there is a manifest difference betwixt what the Court of Rome Practises and what the Schoolmen determine Bellarmine himself upon the Note of Succession confesses that the Pope may by particular Delegation impower Mytred Abbots though meer Presbyters to supply the place of two of the Bishops in the business of Consecration The Presbyters of Alexandria Consecrated their Patriarch for several Generations Cassianus tells us of a young man called Daniel Sum. Angelic Ord. Sect. 13. Filuc Jesu de Casibus Cons par 1. Tract 9. c. 5. Alens sum Theol. par 4. q. 9. m. 5. who lived amongst the Monks of Egypt
and like a good Angel made their fetters fall off and the doors fly open others were forced to abscond from their Families and Employments for fear of the Excommunication Writ and these it rescued from impending ruine and indeed it found them all insulted over scorned and trampled upon by the Bigots of the other Party but this Declaration put a respect upon them and gave them the Opportunity of letting the World see they were neither so few nor so bad nor contemptible as their Adversaries had represented them There are two things for which Dissenters are frequently reproached in the late Reign First Their accepting that Liberty with such Addresses of Thanks Secondly Their writing so few Books against Popery I have something to say in their just Defence upon both Accounts As to the First It had been the greatest Madness in the World for them to have refused the Advantages of that Liberty they thought themselves obliged to Worship God according to the Dictates of their Consciences when they run the Risque of Prisons and Banishment for so doing and to neglect it when they were freed from those hazards would have been such a piece of sullen unaccountable perversness as these Gentlemen would soon have upbraided us with I know it is commonly said that Toleration was promoted in favour of the Papists and I believe few of the Dissenters ever questioned it but they knew very well that when it was granted for them to have sate still and suffer'd the Papists alone to enjoy the Benefits of it would have strengthed Popery much more the Papists would have had never the less Liberty though Dissenters had been silent and when they were let loose it was time for all hands to be at work to countermine them and there 's no better weapon to subdue Errour than the Sword of the Spirit which is the Word of God It is objected this Declaration was founded upon a Dispensing Power and to accept of it was owning such a Power But the Dissenters never by Word or Writing ascribed any such Power unto the King as to Dispense with the Laws that are for the good of the Nation indeed they always esteemed the Laws by which they were excluded to be very unjust and unreasonable Edicts contrary to the Law of God and the common Interest and that they ought not to have been made or ever executed when they were made they never thought them binding in Point of Conscience and though they were forced heretofore to submit to the Penalty yet they were not so forsaken of common Sence as to court the Continuance of that Penalty or cast themselves into Prison when the Magistrate did not think fit to do it But the Clergy of the Church of England had often in the Pulpit and from the Press told the King that he had such a Power as the Author of Vox Cleri pro Rege shews us in abundance of Instances And the Judges who were of the Church of England had given it for Law as the other had declared it for Gospel and all the Magistrates in England thought fit to acquiesce in it which surely they would not have done if they had not thought it a just and reasonable thing for indeed the Kings Declaration would have signified little if the Magistrates had put the Laws in Execution still and if they did not think those Laws were really suspended they were bound by their Oaths to have done it and their forbearance was a plain acknowledgment of such a Power at least as to such kind of Laws as were hereby suspended but the Dissenters only persisted to do that which they thought themselves obliged to as they had opportunity by the Law of God any thing in humane Laws to the Contrary notwithstanding And as to their Addresses of Thanks it least becomes the Churchmen of all others to Reflect upon them not only because it was their Cruelty that made Indulgence so very pleasant and Oppression sometimes makes a wise man mad but also because they fall vastly short of those high flights of Complement which these men themselves took in their Addresses of a far worse Nature and Occasion If it be so Criminal to Thank the King for not suffering Protestants to destroy one another what shall we say of those that in the most Luxuriant manner thank'd him for dissolving one of the best of Parliaments E. of W's Speech and as a Noble Peer lately told them Were so forward in the Surrender of Charters and their fulsom Addresses and Abhorrences making no other claim to their Liberties and Civil Rights but Concessions from the Crown telling the King every one of his Commands was stamp'd with Gods Authority c. Besides I am informed by one of those that joined in an Address of Thanks to the King in Cheshire that the Nonconformists never moved in it till the Churchmen had led them the way these Gentleman therefore are too Imprudent to provoke us to Recriminations that will be so vastly to their own dishonour I am sure the Dissenters thank'd the Late King for nothing but what our present King and Parliament have Confirmed to them as the likeliest way to unite Protestants in Interest and Affection as the Preamble of the Act speaks and if there was any thing in that Liberty that was serviceable to the Papists it must be in the manner of giving it not in the thing it self as far as we are concerned in it and if the Episcopal Party had been so wise as to have promoted a legal Comprehension when it was in their Power they had disabled the Papists from serving themselves of any Liberty of ours As to the Second That Dissenters writ so little against Popery in the Late Reign it may be very easily accounted for They have sufficiently demonstrated their Abhorrence of Popery at all times and their Leading Men as Mr. Baxter Mr. Pool and the Preachers of the Morning Lecture have acquitted themselves very well in the Confutation of it and Malice it self cannot really believe that they are in the least favourable to the Romish Heresie the Crime that has been generally objected against them has been their too great aversation and distance from it As for the late Discourses upon that Subject that are so much boasted of it is observable that most of them were begun upon Personal Engagements The Preface to the Exam. of the Council of Trent by Catholick Tradition as one of the Principal Managers thereof acknowledges There is says he a Train in Controversies as well as in Thoughts one thing still giving start to another Conferences produce Letters Letters Books and one discourse gives occasion for another c. Now in such Cases it would not been have decent for a Third Person to have stept in and invaded another mans Province Besides there was no manner of Necessity for it the Papists in England have been a baffled party for some Ages and their Errors so often exposed that it
was too easie a Task these Gentlemen were engaged in to require so much help it 's a beaten Road in which they were to Travel and as I do not find that the Papists offered any thing of late but what has been in substance answered a thousand times so it was not necessary for our Doctors to set their Wits on the Rack for a Reply not indeed do I perceive any thing Method and Language excepted that pretends to be new nor is this any Diminution of their Honour but a Peace of Justice to the Memory and worth of those that have gone before them And I might add Fuller C. H. l. 9. p. 74. This clause was left out of the Art in 1571 but A. B Land would have it inserted again Parker Cartwright Walker Boyes Farmer Slater Manby Good all c. the Presbyterians had little Reason to fear that any of their Perswasion would be perverted their distinguishing Principle of the sufficiency of the Scripture will infallibly secure them whilst they adhere unto it But many of our Churchmen had instill'd into their Followers very odd Notions concerning the Power of the Church in Matters of Faith as in the twenty Article and of the Apostolical Succession and Authority of Bishops and their Power of Judging what is fit and decent in the Worship of God to which all others must submit and concerning the binding force of old Canons and Councils and such Doctrines as these would be in danger to betray men into the Arms of that Church that can pretend as high in these matters as any and it is certain in Fact some of their Bishops and Doctors and Clergy fell in with them and it was time for them to bestir themselves to deliver their men out of the Snares which they had helped to lay for them And the Dissenters were very well pleased to see those Learned Men baffling the Papists upon such Principles as they had reason to hope would set the Authors themselves more upright than before some of them had been those that read Dr. Sherlocks Preservatives against Popery and what he there says concerning the Nature of Gospel Worship That God will not now have a Temple nor is his Presence appropriated to any place and the like and compare it with that he has formerly writ especially in that Book wherein he told us Vind. Defence of Dr. St. p. 13. that Christianity is nothing else but Mystical Judaism will find that his late Polemical Engagements were so very beneficial to himself that it had been a thousand pitties to have taken the work out of his Hands And what I have collected out of these Modern debates concerning Church-Unity Communion Succession c. may convince any man that we had all the reason in the World to make them fair way and room when they were got into the good old Road of Scripture Catholick Notions that would infallibly confound the Papists and when they had done that would very much contribute to the reconciling of Protestants amongst themselves The Author of the Review takes upon him to affirm that none of our Ministers endeavoured at that time to fortifie his Conventicle against Popish Delusions but how can he expect to be believed in that which 't is as impossible for him to know as to be an Ubiquitarian and in all the Conventicles in England at the same time and as he can never prove it to be true so there are thousands in England know it to be false and are able to testifie that notwithstanding their Obligations to the Government their Ministers never failed to confute Popish Tenets when they fell in their way and that not seldom they would go a step or two out of their way to meet them As unhappy is he in the little stories that follow Dr. Owen was in Fee with King James and yet was dead several years before Our present Patrons were the men pickt up at Court to compleat our Ruine and yet I know of no Patrons we have for our Liberty but the King Lords and Commons I hope he does not mean them We know very well what Bishops and others were of the Ecclesiastical Commission in the Bishop of Londons Case and in that of Cambridge and Maudlin Colledge in Oxford not one Presbyterian amongst them Let this Gentleman prove that any Ministers of ours assisted at Jesuitical Intreagues or had Mony sprinkled amongst them to carry on those designs and by my Consent whoever is found Guilty shall be his Bondslave but by no means let Confidence and Noise and loud Appeals be taken for Evidence against them Amongst all that Croud of Writers that give us the History of the late Revolution there is scarcely one of them but acknowledges that the Dissenters were aware of the Popish design of taking away the Test and would not consent to it though for the Penal Laws they thought many of them might be very well spared and I challenge him to prove that either Mr. Lob or any other Person amongst those called Presbyterian and Congregational and we have nothing to do with others ever advised King James to any thing but what our Present King and Parliament have thought fit to establish by Law If as this Gentleman tells us a little Money Review p. 33. and a Toleration will make the Dissenters so easie and quiet and well satisfied it is a sign they are not the worst tempered People in the World and it were well if our Churchmen were as easily pleased for what my Lord Falkland a great Royalist said of some of the Bishops in 1641 they were so cordially Papists that it was all that fifteen hundred Pounds a Year could do to keep from Confessing it I am afraid is too true concerning many of our Clergy in another respect it is as much as some hundreds a year can do to keep them Quiet and Content under the present Government However we are obliged to him for telling us what the sober thinking People judge of us it seems They do not stick to say that our Zeal against Popery is all Counterfeit that we would be better Conformists if Popery should prevail than we are now but he should have told us who these sober thinking People are for many will presume to dignifie themselves with those Epithets See the Review Ibid. that have as little right to 'em as any People in the World and it is usual enough for a Mob of Ecclesiastical Politico's to get together and when they are well heated with drinking Healths to the Church of England and have liberally Cursed and Damned the Dissenters then step forth and look big and think themselves capable of reporting the opinion of all the sober thinking men of the Nation and I am the more inclin'd to believe that it is a Cabal of such men as these that have chosen this Gentleman for their Speaker because our own experience assures us those Conformists that are really most sober have always