AN ANSWER TO Mr. Dodwell and Dr. Sherlocke Confuting an Universal Humane Church-Supremacy Aristocratical and Monarchical as Church-Tyranny and Popery And defending Dr. Isaac Barrow's Treatise against it By Richard Baxter Preparatory to a fuller Treatise against such an Universal Soveraignty as contrary to Reason Christianity the Protestant Profession and the Church of England though the Corrupters usurp that Title LONDON Printed for Thomas Parkhurst at the Bible and Three Crowns at the lower end of Cheapside near Mercers Chappel 1682. READER THough the difference between Mr. Dodwell and Mr. Thorndike and such others and those condemned by them be very great I would not have it seem greater than it is The sum of it is as followeth 1. Mr. Dodwell thinketh that there is no true Ministry Church-Sacraments nor Covenant-right to pardon and salvation but where there is a Ministry delivering the Sacraments who were ordained by Bishops in his sense of Bishops who had their Ordination from other Bishops and they from others by an uninterrupted chain of succession from the Apostles We know that by this Doctrine he condemneth or unchurcheth not only the Reformed Churches the Greeks and other Easterns but the Church of Rome it self and leaveth no certainty of the very being of any one Church on earth And we maintain that the sacred Scripture is the universal Law of Christ in which he hath described and instituted the office and work of the sacred Ministry and appointed the way of their continuance in the world by necessary Qualification Election Consent and ordinarily regular Ordination That as Presbyters now lay on hands with the Bishop so senior Pastors are the Ordainers as the Colledg of Physicians license Physicians and the Convocation of Doctors make Doctors and man generateth man But to avoid contention and division the Churches have used to make one of these Presbyters or Pastors a President and partly a Ruler in each Colledg and Church and given him a Negative voice in Ordinations against which we strive not but maintain 1. That his consent is not so necessary as that no one can be a true Presbyter that hath it not As the Clergy at Rome in Cyprian's days long governed when they had no Bishop so if the Bishop be dead or refuse to ordain or would ordain none but Hereâ—icks or uncapable men or would tyrannize and impose men not consented to the Ordination is valid that is made without him And 2. That the true chief Pastor of every particular formed Church is a true Bishop though Diocesans should deny it 3. And that even Ordination it self is necessary but for Order where it may be had and not to the Being of the Ministry where it cannot be had on lawful terms no more than Coronation to the King or publick solemnization to Marriage 4. And we are assured that if Regular Ordination were interrupted by death heresie refusal neglect e. g. at Antioch Alexandria Constantinople Jerusalem c. Christs Charter or Scripture-Law would presently restore it to persons duly qualified chosen and ordained by the fittest there that can be had 5. If this were not so as multitudes of schismatical and unlawful Popes Ordinations at Rome would be invalid e. g. John 13. and 21. and 23. and Eugenius 4th deposed as a Heretick by a General Council c. so every usurping Bishop that pretendeth falsly that he was himself lawfully ordained would nullifie Churches Ministry and Sacraments of all ordained by him And many have falsly pretended to Orders 6. And that if men must refuse the Government and Sacraments of all Bishops and Presbyters that do not prove to them a Regular Ordination uninterrupted for 1600. years all the Ministry on earth may be refused and none for so doing should be called Schismaticks I never yet heard or saw a Bishop prove such a succession nor ever knew one that would take his Oath on it that he was a true Bishop on such terms II. Mr. Dodwell thinks that the Presbyters yea and Bishops were not given by God Pag. 60. saith he But where do they find that God ever gave Bishops Presbyters and Deacons Where note that it is of the Office in specie that we speake But we think that God hath made or instituted the Office and its work And if he did not 1. Who did If men was it Clerg-ymen or Lay-men If Lay-men was it Christians or Infidels And by what Authority Do the children beget the fathers and yet may not Presbyters propagate their species If Clergy-men who were they If not Apostles or Prophets or Evangelists they were none If these then it seems the Apostles did it not as Bishops for it is the making of the first Bishops that we question And what the Apostles did not as Bishops but as commissioned Apostles Christ did by his Spirit And they that will do the like must have the like Office Authority and Spirit If God gave not Bishops because the Apostles made them then God gave us not the Scripture because the Apostles and Evangelists wrote it And is not this the same or worse Doctrine than that which the Italian Iesuits would have had pass at Trent against Gods making Bishops or their Office And if God gave not Bishops or Presbyters they that reject them reject no gift or institution of God And if men made them how come they to be essential to the Church Did not Christ and his Spirit in the Apostles institute so much as the Church-essentials And if men made Bishops and Presbyters in specie may not man unmake them III. Mr. Dodwell maintaineth that the power of Presbyters is to be measured by the intention of the Ordainers who give it them and not by any Scripture-institution charter or description We maintain the contrary that God having instituted and described the Office of Bishops Pastors Presbyters Gods Law in Scripture is the Rule by which the office-office-power and obligation and work in the essentials must be known Otherwise 1. It would be supposed that God made not the office of Bishops or Presbyters which is false 2. That Ordainers may make new Churches Bishops or Presbyters in specie yea as many species of them as they shall intend 3. That they may abrogate or change the ancient species They may make one office only for preaching another only for praying another only for Baptism another only for the Lords Supper and others for new work of their own The Papists themselves abhor this Doctrine 4. Then no man can know the measure of his Authority not knowing the intentions of the Ordainers Perhaps three or ten ordainihg Bishops may have three or ten several intents 5. Then the Bishop may put down Gods Worship or Sacraments by limiting the Priests power 6. It 's contrary to all Ministerial Investitures The Investing Minister is not the Owner or the Donor but delivereth possession of what the Owner and Donor contracted for or gave If the Archbishop Crowning the King would infringe his Prerogative it 's a
that was Ordained in our Synods § 33. And he hath half disabled me to answer him from p. 50. forwards where he feigneth me to maintain that Authority must necessarily result from true qualifications For it is taken for uncivil to give his words their proper name But if the Reader will pardon the Repetition I may remind him how probable it is that Mr. Dodwell trusted that his Reader would believe his words without perusing what I wrote where he might have seen 1. That I say that the Authority resulteth not from the qualifications but from Christs Law Grant or Charter 2. That personal qualifications of gifts or grace are but part of the necessary Dispasitio Recipientis but that moreover there is needful 1. Opportunity 2. And need of his Office 3. And to a Bishop the flocks consent if not election And ordinis gratia where moral necessiâ—y dispenseth not with order the Ordainers approbation and consent 5. And to regular possession where it may be had a due Investiture so that there is a Relative part as well as a Qualitative of the Receptive disposition necessary And all the following leaves in which he disputeth against me as maintaining a power resulting from meer qualities are so unbeseeming a Divine and a Câ—ristian that I will not soul my paper with their due confutation But they are suitable to that man who thinks himself wise good and fit enough to Unchurch and condemn so much as he doth of the Christian world on pretence of pleading for obedience to the Diocesans § 34. And where he adds p. 50. Or that it so depends on them qualifications as that where the persons ordained may want any of them there the whol Ordination must be null because of the incapacity of the matter This also he denieth Ans. 1. I still distinguish between the Qualifications necessary ad esse and those only ad bene esse or integral If he would perswade the Reader that I null Ordination for want of the latter his weakness or designed ill intent is such as warneth his Readers to take heed of believing him If he mean it only of the former as I speak I have before confuted him that dare say that no qualification is necessary ad esse Then a Pope Ioan or woman-Priest or Prelate or a professed enemy of God or Christ may be a Priest And he may be a Pastor of a Church to feed them by the Word who never heard or know what was the Word or Church Cannot the best believer go to Heaven if all your Priests will but deny him the Sacrament and yet may a man be validly a Bishop and the Key keeper of Heaven that believeth not that there is a God a Christ or Heaven and so professeth This maketh me remember the old Roman Canons how no Bishop must be deposed for lying with his own Sister unless a great multitude of Witnesses testifie it and the Councils that decreed no Layman shall witness against a Clergy-man c. But Election consent the Ordainers approbation ordinarily are part of my Qualifications And if these be unnecessary what doth the man plead for And is a false approbation of a man that wanteth Essentials more necessary than having them How contrary is this to the Doctrine of the Council of Carthage in the Epistle in Cyprian of Martial and Basilides and to many honest Councils § 35. P. 90. At the end of this insinuated false accusation he asketh Where do we find that God ever gave Bishops Presbyters and Deacons though he gave Apostles Pastors and Teachers those extraordinary Offices indeed seem to have been made neither of man nor by man but by God immediately c. Ans. 1. Hath he said a word to prove that Pastors and Teachers are not ordinary Officers contrary to the common judgment of the Church in all ages 2. Whether he mean Bishops in the Dative Case or the Accusative I know not If the later let him speak out and say God gave not Bishops But how proveth he that Presbyters and Bishops are not Pastors or Teachers 3. The Text tells you Ephes. 4.14 15 16. that these offices were given for the continued stated use of the Church For the perfecting of the Saints the work of the Ministry for the edifying the body of Christ till we all come in the unity of the faith and the knowledg of the Son of God to a perfect man c. Was this temporary 4. It seems he disclaimeth Bishops being made in making Apostles 5. Christ by his Spirit in the Apostles ordered the Churches § 36. P. 65. he saith They never find any of those Officers to whom succession is at present pretended made immediately by God but by the intervention of men c. Ans. Still deceiving confusion 1. Intervention is a word of fraud and may signifie only that act which determineth of and qualifieth the receiver and it may signifie the Donation or making of the office It is this that we speak of 2. The Intervention of infallibly inspired men commissioned to deliver and record Christs own will hath an efficiency instrumental in making the office in that the Spirit in them doth it and they do make instrumentally the Charter or Law which giveth the power and Christ doth what they did by his Commission and Spirit If you can prove that our Diocesans have this Commission spirit and power if they write new Sacred Scriptures or make new Sacraments and Church-forms and offices we will obey them But prove it well 3. Did any man but Christ send forth the Seventy Yet most Prelatists hold that those were the predecessors of the Presbyters 4. By this it seems he again denieth that Christ himself instituted the Order of Bishops by making Apostles And if so he will sorely shake his standing for then they must prove all their power from the Apostles or following persons institutions and not make them successors of the Apostles own Office for they made not their own Office And Dr. Stillingfleet thinks there were no Bishops or few made in the Apostles times as Dr. Hammond thinks of subject-subject-Presbyters And if Christs Spirit in the Apostles made not these Offices who made the Scripture which is Gods Law I despair of seeing it proved that any since them were authorized to make them And if men only made the Episcopal and Presbyters Office men may unmake them § 37. A case put to me within this hour remindeth me how much these men prefer Ordination not only in it self but in this circumstance of Prelatical uninterrupted succession before Baptism which is our Christning There are some godly young men that have Communicated in the Lords Supper that were the children of Quakers and Anabaptists some were never baptized and some know not whether they were or not and being born near Two hundred Miles hence cannot learn or come to any certainty The question is Whether these that have Communicated should yet be baptized which is to make Christians of
about the final Judgment If all these be little tollerable differences why may not we be tollerated If not judg Reader who they be that are intollerable when you hear them plead against tolleration § 3. I. For the first we judg that there is a God who is the Governour of the World by an universal Law which is above all humane Laws or will and that he is the fountain of all power and there is none but what he giveth and limiteth and that no man is above him nor hath true authority against his Laws But Mr. Dodwell saith That it is irreconcileable to Government in this life or to due subordination of subjects to superiours to practice differently and defend it by pretending Divine authority and appealing to writings Scriptures is our word by excellency so called And so God shall be God and be obeyed if the Clergy please § 4. II. As to the second we suppose that the Holy Scriptures are Gods Laws indited and recorded by the Holy Ghost to be the first obliging Rule of Faith and holy living which all men are to be obedient to before and against all contrary Laws of men But Mr. Dodwell as aforesaid alloweth no such prime obligation as will warrant an appeal to the Word of God from the visible Church-Governours that contradict it § 5. III. And for the third we suppose that all humane Powers are derived from God and have no authority but what he giveth them and are more under him and his Laws than the Justices are under the King and his Laws and can oblige no man against the Laws of God But how far Mr. Dodwell thinks otherwise you have heard He saith not indeed that we must break Gods Laws but we must not pretend them or appeal to them against our Governours In charity I hope he meaneth no worse but that we must take our Rulers word or exposition and judg nothing to be in the Scripture contrary to their commands And whether he give them the same dominion also over the Law of Nature let him tell you Paul disclaimed dominion over mens saith and the written Law of God § 6. IV. And for the fourth We take moral good to be a conformity to Gods Law and moral evil or sin to be a breach of it But Mr. Dodwell is for measuring them by the Clergies or Governours will though Gods Law be against theirs § 7. V. And for the fifth we take the Catholick Church to have no Supreme Government but God and our Glorified Redeemer God and man and that there is no such thing as a Catholick-Church of Gods making under any other Supreme Rulers But that as God is the invisible King of this visible world and Kings are subordinate Supremes in their Kingdom but neither one of them or many conjunct in an Aristocracy Supreme over all the earth so Christ is the partly visible and partly invisible supreme Ruler of the visible Church of Christians and each Pastor is under him over his proper flock bound to keep concord and peace but none under him Supreme over all whether Monarch as the Pope or Aristocracy as Councils Cardinals or ' others But Mr. Dodwell is for a visible Society with a visible humane Supreme But who the Supreme is I despair of getting him to acquaint us § 8. VI. And for the sixth we suppose that God sent forth Preachers to convert the world and turn them from darkness to light and the power of Satan to God and that faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word preached and that whoever believeth shall be saved and the word of God is powerful to this end and sufficient to make us wise to salvation But Mr. Dodwell thinks that it is not Preaching but the delivering men the Sacraments that giveth them the first true saving grace and title to Salvation And that none in the world have this Sacrament or Covenant-title to life but those that receive it from a hand that had an Ordination by Bishops in his sense of uninterrupted succession from the Apostles by the like Ordination § 8. VII Accordingly we hold that Preaching is for the converting of souls and the means of saving faith and holiness But what he thinks it is good for I know not well nor whether he would send the Indians the Sacraments instead of Preachers § 10. VIII We take it to be our duty though men forbid us to confess Christ and assemble for Gods worship to read and hear the Scripture and to praise God But he thinks we must not practice differently from the ruling Clergies will if they forbid us nor alledg Divine authority for it § 11. IX We suppose that the office of a Prophetical Ministry bringing new Doctrines or Laws from God and the office of the Teachers and Rulers by these Laws are greatly different and must necessarily be distinguished Moses was a Prophetical Mediator in Legislation and he confirmâ—d his Mediation by uncontrouled Miracles The Prophets afterward came but on particular applicatory messages But the Priests and Levites as such were no Prophets nor had power to make any new additions or alterations of the Law but only to teach it the people and as guides apply it to their several cases so Christ and his Apostles commissioned to deliver and record all his Doctrines and Commands to the following ages did by the Holy Ghost Prophetically deliver to the world that body of Doctrine and Law which must rule them to the end and judg them and thus sealed and confirmed all by a multitude of uncontrouled Miracles but all following Bishops and Pastors are not to do the like nor add or alter nor are such Legislators being not Prophets nor workers of Miracles but only to teach and apply the Laws already recorded in Scripture and guide their Congregations in variable circumstances time place translations c. according to the general rules of Gods Law This is the truth But how much Mr. Dodwell equals the Bishops and Apostles and sets their words above the Scripture as to obligation you have seen before § 12. X. And as he giveth Bishops power to silence Presbyters and forbid the Preaching of the Gospel and Gods worship so how little knowledg or godliness or common sobriety or honesty he requireth to a saving Sacramenting Priest who must not be separated from you heard before contrary to Cyprian and many a Councils Canons But we know that Paul had no power to destruction but only to edification And they have no more § 13. XI We suppose that we must love honour and communicate with all such as true Ministers or Churches who have true faith and repentance and sincere obedience to Christs Laws and are able godly willing Pastors chosen or consented to by the flocks approved and ordained by senior Pastors especially in Synods where City-Pastors preside and especially if also authorized by the Christian Magistrate But he thinks if they have not also successivâ— Ordination from the Apostles by Bishops
from Popery are 1. That it cherisheth Ignorance and I am sure that is the soil of all wickedness God Christ the Spirit and Scripture are Light and Satan is the Prince of Darkness 2. That it liveth like the Leech on blood hating and destroying the most holy persons who differ from them To these my Soul is unreconcilable I hate cruelty to Papists or Infidels much more to godly faithful persons that do hurt to none And I think I have convinced Mr. Dodwell himself that I am not inclined for the avoiding of Popery to run into any contrary Extreme nor to imitate them thaâ— ignorantly call Truth or harmless things Antichristian or Popish The name of Popery doth not affright me from any truth of God What I have written in many Books especially in the last part of my Catholick Theology and what censures I have suffered for it which never moved me to comply with the Censurers I think prove it I again and again profess That if the Papists or such as I now deal with would but prove that God ever made or allowed such a Church as they plead for in the world that is an Vniversal Church constituted or unified by any one Head or Supreme Governing pâ—râ— Monarchical or Aristocratical under Christ the Dispute whether it be Pope or Council or Cardinals or Colledge of Bishops in all the world shall not hinder me from a chearful and joyful declaring my self a Papist without partiality fear or shame in the sense that the word Papist hath still signified with such as I converse with These things I have taken the boldness to ask some of the greatest that on the fore mentioned terms appropriate the name of the Church of England to their Sect or Party and I could get no answer from them viz. Whether they took the Councils of Constance and Basil for Papists And whether they now take the Bishops and Church of France for Papists And whether they took Gerson Cusanus Cassander Erasmus for Papists or not 2. If yea What is the difference between the said Papists Church-Form and Government and that which these call the Church Catholick and Dispute for 3. If not Then is not the Controversie de nomine Whether the French Bishops and Church and the said Councils being of the same Form and Religion with the Church of England as called by these men ought to be called Papists or not And for that I shall strive with none Let every man call them as he seeth cause or if he will as they will call themselves Let them be Papists in France and Protestants in England I contend not for names But I wonder not at these Church-men if they unchurch the French Protestants and condemn their Ministry and Sacraments as none How else could their Persecution be justified And O that they would tell us what Churches they be that they live in communion with Whether the French Spanish Italian Greeks Nestorians Jacobites Copties Abassines be in their Communion or not If yea Whether the Reformed Churches be not as worthy of their communion If not whether the Church of England be all the Catholick Church in their account O that we could long more for God's righteous final Iudgment to which we appeal though Mr. Dodwell be against it and for the world of perfect Light and Love and Union Dated Septemb. 2. 1681. appointed a Publick Fast for the burning of London I have not time to gather the Errata of the Press I cast my eye on these Pag. 9. l. 19. for natures r. names p. 10. l. antep dele and. p. 11. l. antep r. is in p. 17. l. 1. for or r. over p. 5. l. 29. after excommunicating r. Christ's servants for not forsaking their faithful Pastors p. 10. l. ult for of r. by p. 16. l. 32. for our r. one p. 90. l. 12 r. temerity p. 139. l. 17. for by r. to pag. 151. l. 4. for by r. my c. THE CONTENTS A Late Letter of Mr. Dodwell's with the Answer written since the rest was printed Chap. 1. Of Mr. Dodwell's displeasure against me as if I accused him to be a Papist and wronged the Councils of Bishops p. 1. Chap. 2. His schismatical Church-destroying Scheme the sum of his great schismatical book confuted p. 7 Chap. 3. The consequents of Mr. Dodwell's foresaid Doctrine p. 21 Chap. 4. My words of Gods Collation of Ministerial Authority vindicated from the forgeries and fallacies of Mr. Dodwell p. 27 What my assertion is of the cause of Church power p. 29. The contrary p. 32. The truth proved p 33 c. His objections answered p. 36. c. Bishops are of God p. 46. c. His sad qualification of Ministers p. 48. Preferring God is no wrong to Government p. 54. What succession we have p. 54. Of Aidan and Finans Episcopacy p. 57. His assertion of supreme church-Church-power from whom there is no appeal to Scripture to God or the life to come and whose intention is the measure of the power of all ordained by them examined p. 57 c. Whether the Church on earth be one visible society under one visible humane Government p. 59. Whether Divine Authority may not be pretended for practising contrary to some superiors p. 60 Chap. 5. Wherein Mr Dodwell's deceits and their danger lie p. 63. Whether there be but one sense of all terms which causes obliging men to mean all that have skill in causes are to understand p. 63. Twelve great doctrinal Articles in which we differ from Mr. Dodwell p. 65. Some questions put to him p. 68 His second Letter to me from Ireland p. 70. My Answer to it p. 75. proving the impossibtlity of just Discipline in the Diocesan way which I dissent from The short Answer to Mr. Dodwell's long Letter which Dr Sherlocke and Mr. Morrice extol which is fully answered in my Treatise of Episcopacy p. 90. A Letter sent to Mr. Dodwell Mar. 12 1681. A Letter to Mr. Dodwell Nov. 15. 1680. Anothâ—r to him of July 9. 1677. opening many of our chief differences p. 100. Another after a personal conference sent to him but returned because he was gone into the Country debating with him eleven of our great differences in which Mr. Dodwell may be known p. 118. An Account of my dissent from Dr. Sherlocke his Doctrine Accusations and Argumentation specially about the essence of the Universal a National and Single Church and the nature of Schism c. CHap. 1. The Historical Proem Chap. 2. My â—etter and Counsâ—l to Mr. Sherlocke many years ago advising him to expound or retract his words which seem to deny the three Articles of our Baptismal covenant our belief in God the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost p. 162 His Answer p. 173 Chap. 3. Of the ill manner of these mens Confutations p. 174 Chap. 4. The main part of our difference viz. what is the essential form of the Catholick National and single Churches p. 182 Chap. 5. What is the
work that God hath â—ade Officers to do already And then we need not say â—that Orders are Iure Divino if the Bishop may make more at his pleasure but quo jure and what shall set his bounds and end This seemeth more in kind than the Italians at Trent would have given to the Pope over Bishops Anâ— if they do not themselves also that same Essential part of their Office which they give to others they degrade themselves For the ceasing or alienation of an Essential part changeth the specieâ— But I suppose you will say 〈◊〉 is Preâ—byters to whom they may delegate this work And 〈◊〉 either it is a worâ— which God hath made part of the Presbyters Office or not If it be then that Presbyter doth his ow◠〈◊〉 appointed him by God and not another 〈…〉 not 〈◊〉 he maketh a new Officer who is â—either 〈…〉 But the 〈…〉 the Office 〈◊〉 that it may not be 〈◊〉 thoâ—gh Bishop may Ordain men to an Office of 〈…〉 the King or Church may make new Officers 〈…〉 Clock keepers Ostiaries c. 〈…〉 and obligation to personal duty to be done 〈◊〉 personâ—l abiâ—â—ty as is the Office of a Physician a Judg a School 〈…〉 a Pilot c where he that Authorâ—zeth and obligâ—th another statedly to do his work doth thereby make that other a Physician Judg School-Master Pilot c. This is but Ordinâ—tioâ— And if a Bishop be but one that may appoint others to do the Episcopal work then 1. Why is not every King a Bishop for he may appoint men to do a Bishops work And why is he not also a Physician Musician Pilot c. because he may do the like by them 2. And then the Bishop appointed by the King is no more a Bishop indeed than one appointed by a Bishop is But this delegation that I speak against is a smaller sin than such men choose To depute others to exercise Discipline whom God appointed not de specie thereto is but Sacriledg and Usurpation by alienating it from the true office and setting up a false one But yet the thing might some how be done if any were to do it But the almost total deposition and destruction of the Discipline it self and letting none do it by pretending the sole authority of doing it is another kind of sin Now to your answer from the similitude of Civil Monarchs I reply It is no wonder if we never agree about Church-offices if we no better agree of the general nature of them and their work Of which if you will please to read a sheet or two which I wrote the last year to Ludov. Molinaeus of the difference of Magistracy and Church-power and also read the Lord Bacons Considerations you will excuse me for here passing by what is there said I. The standing of the Magistrates Office is by the Law of Nature which therefore alloweth variety and mutations of inferior Orders as there is cause But the standing of the Clergy is by Supernatural Institution Our Book of Ordination saith there are three Orders c. Therefore man may not alter them or make more of that same kind II. Kingly power requireth not ad dispositionem materiae such Personal ability as the Pastoral-office doth A child may be a King and it may serve turn if he be but the head of power and give others commission to do all the rest of the Governing work But it is not so with a Judg a Physician an Orator or a Bishop who is not subjectum capax of the essence of the office without personal aptitude III. God hath described the Bishops office in Scripture as consisting of three parts viz. Teaching Priestly or about Worship and Sacraments and ruling as under Christs Prophetical Priestly and Kingly Office And he hath no where made one more proper to a Bishop than another nor said this is Essential and that is but Integral Therefore the Bishop may as well allow a Layman to administer the Sacraments c. as one not appointed to it by God to Rule by the Keys IV. The Bishops Pastoral Rule is only by Gods word upon the Conscience as Bishop Bilson of Obed. sheweth at large and all Protestants agree and not by any mulcts or corporal force If he use the sword or constraint it is not as a Bishop but as a Magistrate But the Kings is by the sword And will it follow that because the King may appoint another to apprehend men and carry them to prison c. that therefore a Bishop appointed by God to Preach Worship and Rule and therein to draw the Impenitent to Repentance by patient exhortations and reproofs c. may commit this to another never appointed to it of God V. Either it is the Bishops work as was said that is delegated by him or some other If properly his own than either he maketh more Bishops and that 's all we plead for or else a Presbyter or Layman may do a Bishops proper work And then what need of a Bishop to pass by the contradiction VI. But my chief answer to you is the King as Supreme Magistrate doth appoint and rule by others that are truly Magistrates They have every one a Judicial power in their several places under him even every Justice of Peace But you suppose the Bishop to set up no Bishops nor no Church-Governours under him at all A King can rule a Kingdom by Supremo Judgment when he hath hundreds of Judges under him who do it by his authority And if this had been all our dispute whether a Patriarch or Archbishop can rule a thousand Churches by a thousand Inferior Bishops or Church-rulers you had said something But doth it follow that your Church Monarch can over-see them all himself without any sub-oversees or rule them by Gods word on the Conscience without any sub-rulers You appropriate the Decretory Power to your Monarch and communicate only the executive Hold to that The whole Government is but Legislatio Iudicium Legislation now we meddle not with yet our Bishops allow it to the Presbyters in Convocation for they take Canons to be Church-Laws It is a lower power that is denied to them that they grant the higher to Bare execution is no Government A Hangman is no Governour A Governour may also be Executioner but a meer Executioner is no Governour The People are Executioners of Excommunications while they withdraw from the Excommunicate and with such do not eat c. as 1 Cor. 5. And the Parish-Priest is an Executioner while he as a Cryer proclaimeth or readeth the Chancellors Excommunication in the Church and when he denieth the Sacrament to those that he is bid deny it to I grant you that this is Communicated But it is the Judicial power it self which I have been proving the Bishop uncapable of Exploration is part of the Judicial work I know you include not that in execution which follows it If you did it would be a sad office for a Bishop to
the worst oft carried the possession and Councils themselves were for divers whih was the Episcopal communion 3. Is communion and subjection all one with him or divers If divers I have communion with many Bishops that I am not subject to If the same how many must each man be subject to and in what order and cases 4. Communion is 1. mental or local and the first 1. In essentials 2. Integrals 3. Accidents of Christianity I have communion with all Christians in Essentials with the best in most integrals with none in all nor in all accidents 4. I am more secure in the mental communion of many Bishops than of some one and of All in Essentials and certain things than of some one in suspected things especially in universal communion with Christ and his whole Church 2. He that hath no communion with any true Bishops of Gods institution in his judgment will and profession hath no communion with Christs Church But if they are 1. of a false species 2. incapable 3. unordained 4. obtruders not consented to by the Clergy and the Flock it 's safest to disown them 5. And â—f they turn wolves thorns and thistles or hereticks 2. It 's dangerous to refuse communion with the true Episcopi Gregis but not with such as depose them 3. And its doubtful as to the Episcopi Episcoporum 1. It 's but deceit to distinguish only ordinary and extraordinary in speaking of the necessity of means The Gospel written or preached is an ordinary means which to want is hazardous indeed so is meditation prayer and sacraments where they may well be had and Pastors to administer them But there are many lesser means that may be wanting or ignorantly refused where salvation is safe The Church of England thinks preaching to be such which forbiddeth men to go for Preaching and from a bare Reader in his own Parish And the Indians converted by Frumentius and Edesius might have certain salvation before they had any Pastor And so may they that cannot know among contenders which is the true Pastor either as to the species or individual But 2. Comunion in every lawful thing is no ordinary requisite means of salvation Mark Reader that he said that suffer themselves to be excluded from Communion by such Governours for refusing submission to unsinful things And Dr. Saywell Bishop Gunnings Chaplain and this man make such refusal and schism damnable Now mark here how they make all indifferent imposed things consequently necessary to salvation and make all such indifferences to be Articles of faith or necessary to salvation to be believed E.g. if Organs the Cross in Baptism Surplices Church-images Exorcisms and five hundred such be indifferent and commanded by the Bishop he that is excommunicated for not conforming to them or withdraweth for it is a damnable Schismatick Ergo it is necessary to salvation to conform to every one of them in that case Ergo it 's necessary to salvation to hold them to be lawful or else to use them while I verily take them to be sins To what a mass now have these men brought the Aâ—ticles or necessaries to salvation Doth any living man know all lawful things to be such 1. Then in Abassia where there is but one Abuna Bishop local Communion with him is impossible to most 2. And how is the Patriarch of Alexandria who ordaineth him of that Place that is another Kingdom 2. Then in one Place-Communion with Papists in another with Greeks Moscovites Abisines Armenians c. is necessary in unsinful things 3. Who will judg but the Excommunicator what is unsinful as to his act 4. What a case were men in at Rome under Formosus Stephen Sergius Eugenius 4. Iohn 12. and 22. c. and at Alexandria under Peter Meletius Paulinus Flavianus and so oft in other Schisms and Nullities 5. The Novatians and Ioannites had the ordinary means of salvation in Constantinople under separate Pastors But it 's true that the ordinary means are confined to the visible Church and its external Communion where it may be had Of which more anon 1. Some think that if God had only commanded men to love him call upon him hate sin seek life eternal without an express promise one might be sure it should not be done in vain 2 But God hath expresly promised salvation to all that truly love trust and obey him and seek first Gods Kingdom and are pure in heart holy and love all men though they were excommunicate for not crossing subscribing or thinking Diocesans unlawful Chap. 3. The Promises of God and his Covenant on his part are all one Those that God promiseth to save shall certainly be savâ—d who those are the Gospel fully tâ—lls us yea and told men before the particular Churches were fixed under their proper Pastors called Elders and Bishops in the Scripture 3 Transaction is an ambiguous word 1. It was transacted by making the promise by Christ on Earth 2. It is transacted by giving the consenting penitent Believer a Right before God to Christ and salvation when he first truly so consenteth 3. It is transacted by a solemn Mâ—nisterial Investiture sealing and delivering that Right for the fuller comfort of the consenter and in soro Ecclesiae to give the Right of external Communion as a Tessara when the person is baptizâ—d 4. It is transacted by renewed confirmation and for further grace daily in the Eucharist I love not to offend you but I must be true to truth and souls and therefore tell men that these Generals and Confusions are but Cheats 3. Would you have men believe that external solemnities are necessary to the Right of Heart Covenanters before God as to salvetion Or that all external solemnities are of the same necessity The Church of England takes Confirmation to de an external solemnity for assuring men of Gods favour by the sign of Imposition of a Diocesans hands and yet bind you to profess that it is not necessary to salvation but the baptized Infants are certainly and undoubtedly saved without it Litanies Processions and many external solemnities are not essential to external Communion with the visible Church Chap. 8 O tremendous Is it no other Is not the universal visible Church consisting of all professed Christians Headed only by Christ the only universal Church visible in the world Is there no Communion with this as such Had the baptized Eunuch by Philip the Evangelist no Communion with the visible Church nor promise of salvation nor the Iberians Indians and many others that were baptized before they knew or had a Bishop Do not baptizing Presbyters and Lay-men say Turtullian and the Papists assure men of salvation though they should not hear of a Bishop Why was not Diocesan Episcopacy in the Creed if the belief and obedience be necessary to salvation a 1. 1. Apostles and Evangelists took men into the visible Communion of the universal Church before they had particular Church-Bishops 2. Fixed Church-Communion was exercised universally under
Parliament by Charter yet if they are unqualified when they come thither the choice is judged null If a City choose and Invest a proclaimed Rebel for Mayor I will believe it null or invalid though Mr. D. will not And if he write Forty Books with such streams of confident words to prove that the Election and Investiture of the dâ—â—lared Heretick Bishops at Alexandria Antioch Constantinople and most of the Empire in many Ages Arrians Eutichians c. were yet judged valid by the Councils of the Orthodox no man that ever read the Councils will believe him 5. Nor will I believe him that any Bishops Ordination can make a true Bishop or Priest of a Woman an Infant or a professed Heathen Infidel or proper Heretick or any uncapable person any more than he can make a Woman to be a Husband or a dumb man the University Orator § 23. He saith They cannot give an Instance of any Power setled by Charter whereupon a failure of all who are by the Charter empowred to dispose of Offices the power must devolve to those who are not by the Charter empowred to dispose of them and where such a Charter is not thought in Law to fail by becoming unpracticable till the supreme power interpose c. Ans. Still the same fraud If all empowred to dispose of Offices is an ambiguous word The Prince disposeth of them by giving the Power and the Electors by choosing the Receivers and the Minister by delivering the Insignia If Electors and all die indeed there are none to determine of the Receiver And yet if the Plague kill most of the Electors at Age and leave not a due number when the rest left come to Age and choose the Charter will renew the Office-power 2. But if it be only the Ministerial Invester that faileth the sense of the Lawgiver must be judged of by the words and by other notices and the light of common Reason e. g. Whether it be the meaning of the Charter which saith that the Recorder shall give the Oath or the former Mayor shall deliver the Insignia that if the Recorder or Mayor be dead or sick or mad or wilfully refuse the City shall have no Mayor or if no Priest will Marry folks all England must live unmarried or if the Archbishops and Bishops will Ordain none but Hereticks all the Churches must have no other Ministers And here Nature and Christ teach us that the Means is only for the End and Order for the thing ordered and God will have us understand his own Laws so as that Rituals give place to Morals I will have mercy and not sacrifice And sure if the King of Spains Charter for the making of Governours at the West Indies should not express or reasonably imply a Remedy in case of the failure of circumstances of meer Order his Countrey might be lost before they could send to Spain for a new Charter or new power And Mr. D. saith Which is the very case impugned by me of the Nonconformists And so judg whether he must not turn a Seeker and say that all Ministry Churches and Sacraments cease till a new Commission comes from Heaven upon the failure of every such circumstance yea when almost all the Churches charge each other with failures and intercisions and the very species of the Ordainers is so much altered If the King send his Army into the Indies or his Navies and mention no power but the Generals as chief or no way of choosing a new General but by the Field-Officers choice and giving him an Oath by the Secretary c. yet no man doubteth but it was his meaning that if the General die or turn Rebel yea and the major part of the Field-Officers or the Secretary the Army should choose another General rather than perish and the Kings service miscarry § 24. He addeth They cannot give an Instance of any humane Charter that ever allows any person empowered to extend his own power by a private exposition of the Charter against the sense of all the visible supreme powers of the society Ans. This opens the Core of the Aposthume 1. We deny as confidently as any French or Italians affirm that there is any such thing at a supreme visible power over the universal Church under Jesus Christ and therefore none such is disobeyed or contradicted 2. And we maintain That by Divine appointment there is no visible National supreme Church-power but that of the Civil Christian Soveraign and therefore none such disobeyed 3. And we hold that no man can extend his own power further than Christs own Law extendeth it False expositions give no power 4. And therefore we prove by your own Rule that Christ being the only supreme universal Ruler and having described and specified the Office of a Pastor and order of a Church no Bishops can by their private exposition turn a single Church into a Diocesan or a Presbyter of Christs description into an half Presbyter of their own making But if they make a man a Pastor his power and work shall be what Christ saith and not what the Ordaâ—ner will Investing-Ministers Acts are null if they contradict the Order of the Donor If the King give you a Parsonage of 300. l. a year and the Instituter say you shall have but 100. l. out of it it 's vain he instituteth you but as the Donors instrument in the same Benefice and power given by him § 25. He addeth p. 38. Where can they find such a Charter for the power of Presbyters in Scripture as they speak of Ans. Nay then we are far from agreeing if you think that the very Species of a Pastors Office is not found in Scripture as of Christs institution Thâ—n it seems the Bishops make the very Species The Italian Bishops at Trent scarce gave so much to the Pope Then why may not the Bishops put down Presbyters if they make the Species or make as many Species as they please Indeed Dr. Hammond thought that there was no evidence of the Order of Subject Presbyters in Scripture-times And if God instituted none let us have none But I have told you before and often where in Scripture the true Pastors Office is described § 26. He adds They may find some actual practices but will they call that a Charter Ans. This is indeed to strike at our foundation If we prove not Christ to be King and Lawgiver and that his Laws or Governing-precepts were partly given by himself and partly by his Spirit in his Commissioned Apostles and these Recorded Sealed and Delivered in Scripture If we prove not that these as the authorized Agents of Christ delivered his Will by words and practice in setling and describing the Pastors of his Churches then take the Ministry and spare not for mans invention I cited you before the Texts that are our proof But if the Office which you call Priestly be of mans making in specie I doubt the Diocesans will prove so much more
practice Is this the rate of these mens wise disputations 1. A murderers practice may be disputed at the Assizes when his act is past 2. Shall not all the actions of men in this world be examined and judged of by Christ hereafter What no men judged according to their works or for any thing done in the body 3. Or did he mean that God will justifie us for any Villany that we shall do in obedience to the Supreme Clergy 4. Or did he think that by appealing to Gods judgment we challenge them there to dispute with us What to make of this mans demonstrations little do I know § 48. He adds P. 82. For how fallible soever they may be conceived to be in expounding Scripture yet none can deny them to be the most certain as well as the most competent Iudges of their own intentions Ans. 1. That 's true And if their intentions may make Doctrine Worship and Priesthood what they please it much concerneth us that they conceal not their intentions But I would I knew whose intention this must be whether the supreme Clergies or the Ordainers and what to do if divers mens intentions differ and what bounds are set to their intentions and how many hundred sorts of Priests Doctrine or worship they may make 2. You touch their fallibility tenderly as a thing that some may conceive But it seems let them never so falsely expound Scripture their own intentions still shall prevail against all the word of God I would you would answer Dr. Stillingfleet's Rational Account which confuteth you § 49. He proceeds As certainly therefore as God hath made his Church a visible society and constituted a visible Government in it so certainly it is to be presumed that their Hypothesis must be false c. Ans. 1. Trifle not at this deceiving rate with plain men that love the light If by a visible Society with a visible Government you mean as we have great reason to think With a visible Government over it besides Christ do not thus as Mr. Thorndike and others of you do go on to beg it and build vast structures on it but prove it to us and we will yield prove to me that the Vniversal Church is a Society that must have one visâ—ble supreme Government under Christ and I here declare to you that I will turn Papist presently and will not wrangle against any man for calling me a Papist though I may not own all that Popes say and do as those do that Grotius called Papists I will not talk with Bishop Gunning of a Collegium Pastorum governing all the Christian world per literas formatas nor be so moderate as those French Papists that make an Vniversal Council which never was nor ever must be the supreme Church-power I will presently be for the Pope though not as absolute But why answer you not what we have said against it particularly my Sermon in the Morning-Lectures against Popery 2. But if by a visible power in the Church you mean not one over the Church the Independents deny it not while every City hath its proper Mayor and so every Church its Pastor it is a visible power in the Kingdom but not over it as a Kingdom All the Justices of Peace are visible powers in the Kingdom but not Supreme nor as one Aristocracy over the whole Seeing all my dissent from Popery and from you is founded in my judgment against any one universal Supreme besides Christ Monarch Aristocracy or Democracy I seriously intreat you to write your strongest arguments on that subject to convince me and answer what I have said to Mr. Iohnson and you may spare all the rest of your labour as to me This will do all § 50. P. 83. He adds How can subjects preserve their due Subordination to their Superiors if they practice differently and while they defend their practices and pretend Divine authority for them Ans. 1. As the three Confessors did Dan. 3. and as Daniel did Dan. 6. and as the Apostles did Act. 2. 3. 4. And as all the Bishops and Churches did for three hundred years And as the Orthodox did under Valens Constantine Theodosius junior Anastasius Philippicus c. 2. They may defend it by proving that there is a God who is supreme and that there is no power but of him and none against him and that man is not God and therefore hath no power but limited and that to disobey usurpation is not to disobey power and that God must be obeyed before man 3. This is high language and harsh to Protestant and Christian ears What! are you serious Must none in Rome Italy Spain France c. practise contrary to their Governours nor in Turky neither Nor in China Iapan c Is it unlawful to read the Scripture to pray to worship God to be baptized to profess our selves Christians to speak a good word or do a good deed to feed our Children or relieve our Parents c. if Governours forbid us This is far worse than to forbid the Scripture in a known tongue if when we know it we must not obey it if Governours forbid us nor so much as plead Divine Authority for doing what Gods word commandeth us Is Gods authority so contemptible in comparison of Prelates Or doth it so little concern us as that we may not so much as plead it for any practice forbidden us by superiours This Doctrine must needs startle a Christians heart It 's far unlike Bishop Bilsons of subjection and such others If you really mean so that whatever God commandeth us in Scripture we must do none of it if the Governours forbid us or else we overthrow all Governments speak it out and prove it but Christians will abhor it And yet this same man calleth the Martyrs Saints when his argument makes them rebels W. Iohnson would not have talkt at this rate § 51. And I would fain know whether he that first saith that it subverteth all Government and after nameth supreme Church-Government do really mean it of all or of Church-Government only 1. If of all the man is no Papist I will gratifie him to proclaim it for he is no Christian. He that thinks that men must not plead Gods Authority for doing any thing different from the wills of Turkish Iewish or Heathen Governours surely is no Christian No nor if he had confined this power to Christian Governours 2. But if he mean it only of Church-Governours how come they to have so absolute a power more than Civil Magistrates May we plead Gods Authority against a King and not against the Prelates What proof was ever given of this Then the Prelates is far above the Kings Then the Prelate is an absolute Governour of the King himself Let Kings and Parliaments but understand these men and we fear not their deceits Are they willing to give over all worship of God and confessing Christ and all duties of Religion Justice or Charity if the Supreme
of his species they are no Ministers or Churches and have no Sacrament and Covenant title to Salvation but are Schismaticks and by their Ministry sin against the Holy Ghost And so destroyeth all certainty of title to Salvation and of Church-communion Ministry and Sacraments to all the Christian World § 14 XII Lastly we think that men shall be judged by their keeping or breaking Gods Law and according to what they did in the body But he would have us obey the Supreme Clergy and not plead Scripture or Divine authority for our different practice because the Government that lasteth but for this life ought not to admit of disputes more lasting than its practice § 15. I conclude with a request to him to resolve me these doubts 1. Whether Prophets having immediate messages from Heaven were not differenced from the teaching Priests and Pastors 2. Whether false Prophets were not grievously threatened among the Iews and whether Christ did not command us to beware of false Prophets 3. Whether he be not a false Prophet worse than a false teacher that falsely pretendeth to that which is proper to a Prophet 4. Whether it be not proper to a Prophet to deliver as immediately from God new Laws to the universal Church yea or to any Church which are not in the Scripture nor are revealed by it as Gods means besides the determination of circumstances left to humane prudence variable pro re nata if Moses and the Apostles in Legislation acted as Prophets do not they so that pretend to do the like 5. Whether the General Councils of Bishops and the Pope have not done the work proper to the Prophetical office when they have made Laws for the unversal Church and this as by Divine authority and undertaken to give all the Church the sense of Scripture which only shall be obligatory to them thereby For it is the maker of the sense that is the maker of the Law especially when they pretend to Infallibility or to be secured from erring in faith by Divine inspiration how ignorant or bad soever they be singly Is not this pretended authority and inspiration that of Prophets as different from meer Teachers and Guides by Gods Law already made 6. If it be so how many such Papal Councils arrogating such power have been false Prophets 7. But if they pretend not Inspiration nor Prophetical authority from God nor yet authority given them by the Scriptures or Laws of God already made or falsly pretend such then is not this to usurp Christs own authority and so instead of being false Prophets to be partly Vice-Christs or Law-givers to his universal Church called commonly Antichrists I would willingly have things so cleared that men may be freed from all such suspicions But if you are still confident that the universal Church hath a visible supreme Government besides Christs I should be glad 1. To see it proved 2. To know whose it is and how we may know them 3. And to know its true extent If you intend no fraud you cannot refuse me this when I promise you if performed I will let fall the suit and no more trouble you with lesser Controversies I have no Copy of my first Letter to Mr. Dodwell upon a Book which he sent me This is his Answer Reverend and Worthy Sir I Have received your very kind Letter wherein I hardly know whether I should be more thankful for your approbation or your reproof both of them being in their kind so useful and both of them being by you performed with so great civility I am confident that if our modern disputes had been moderated with that candor men would certainly have been more peaceful and very Orthodox than now we find them I could very heartily have wished that the opinions wherein we differ had not been of that nature as to sâ—parate Communion for this I look upon as the only circumstance that can make such differences grievous to a pious person for as for those others which exasperate many that Dissenters are not so wise to discern the truth or so fortunate in avoiding prejudices or lighting on faithful informations in a time when they are capâ—ble of receiving them or that they are not so submissive as themselves expect to that Pope which Luther has long since observed in every mans â—eart c. are reasons either sinful or at least insufficient to excuse the sin of uncharitableness upon such an account but as they aâ—e considering them as tempered with that piety and moderation which may expiate their other malignities that they are rather alledged as Apologies for your selves than as obligations on others rather to excuse your deformity in assisting at our Altars than erecting others in opposition to them that you are still iâ—quisitive and desirous of further information and ready to lay down your mistakes where you are convinced that they are such that still you preserve a pâ—aceable mind and embrace our Communion it sâ—lf in voto though perhaps not actually these are so valuable considerations even before God as well as man for excusing from the guilt of error as that whatever I may think of your opâ—nions I hope it shall not hinder me from a cordial respect and veneration for your person As I do very much esteem the good opinion of so great a lover of pâ—â—ce and piety as your self and should have been sorry to have given any juâ—t occasion of offence to you so I am not a little glad that upon a review of the particulars mentioned in your Letter I find my self so very innocent For as for my Preface the main parts of it wherein the disrepect of the Clergy is shewn to have been an Introductory to the Atheism of the age we live in and that the Conformable Clergy that is such as would answer the design of the Church not only as to their exterior demeanor in publick solemn Assemblies but also as to the qualifications of their persons and the conduct of their whole lives could not prove either trifling in their Preaching or scandalous in their examples and therefore that the Church is not responsible for their misdemeanors where they prove otherwise and that the Laity are in their proportion obliged to the same duties with the Clergy and therefore may make use of the advices there prescribed or where the errors of our modern School-Divinity are touched and some Proposals made for their reformation in these things I say I can see no occasion of offence but rather some preservatives against it The only thing I suppose you aim at is my taxing some opinions of Nonconformists and that with as little personal reflection as I was able which I conceived prejudicial to Church-authority which because you seem to disown I do not see why you should apprehend your self as particularly concerned especially there being nothing in the discourse whereby you could conclude either your self or any of your moderate temper to have been intended I will assure
condescending tenderness patience plain evidence earnest exhortations no means left untried to reduce a sinful miserable soul. And all this with the time and patience which so great a work requireth And sure if the Congregation must avoid the sinner they should know why One such person will hold the Pastor work from first to last many an hour and day Nâ—xt let us think how many such as by Christs Law must be thâ—s dealt with are in a Diocess I had the most reformed people as to sins of commission and omission that ever I knew in England Our custom being to have each family come by turns to us to be personally Catechised and instructed I had full opportunity to know them all Many score of them that came daily to Church knew not the Essentials of Christianity and Baptism When I came first to them I suppose some thousands lived in gross ignorance open impiety and prophaneness And even at last some scores I fear lived in gross sin Some were notorious drunkards raging weekly twice or thrice in the open streets Some quieter drunkards Many profane Swearers Too many railers fighters slanderers c. Three or four Apostate-Infidels The Parishes about me were far worse A great part of the people know not who Christ is nor what he doth as the Saviour of the world nor understand one of many Articles of the Creed or Petitions of the Lords Prayer much less do any thing like Christians for Children or Servants in their Families The Diocess that I now live in hath above 1100 Parishes some have half as many some Parishes have 3000 some 10000 People in London some 20000 30000 and the Country smaller Parishes usually about 400 500 or 1000. I do warrantably conjecture that in the Diocess where I now live there may be about 50000 souls that by Christs Law should be admonished and disciplined for gross sin And about 80000 or 100000 that are grosly ignorant of Christianity It 's ten to one experience tells it me that five Conventions will scarce serve with each obstinate sinner to bring the work to the issue of a due Excommunication or Absolution Some parts of the Diocess that I am in are about 120 miles from other parts The Diocesan then that doth all this himself but there is no such if he sit half the year must either speak to 10000 or 20000 persons at once or in a few minutes or else he must let all the rest lye and rot in their sins till he hath done with the first And indeed I have tried it a sober Pastoral course of conviction and discipline with each one will take up so much time that seven years are not enough for him to go over all this Diocess if he did as much in a month as ever I knew a Bishop do in his life except against Godly Nonconformists or Conscientious Dissenters But if you consider how far every accusing Minister and Churchwarden and every accused sinner have to travel some 20 some 40 miles c. and that Witnesses also must travel as far and how long they must attend and how few can bear the charge of this and that the old and weak sort of sinners are unable for the journey and who shall do the Parish Ministers work the while and how likely it iâ— that of 10000 such sinners 5000 may be dead or the Witnesses at least before the reâ—t are tried and well dispatched or tâ—e case grown old and the same mâ—n drunken twentâ— times again before he can be judged for the first 〈◊〉 alâ—o how strange a course this is to humble convince and save a soul wonderful that it should with any man living be a controversie Whether one Bishop be sufficient for all this And what need we more than common experience The work is every where undone Lay the blame where you will not one common gross sinner of a thousand is disciplin'd or judged as in question That which can be done and should be done some one good Bishop will do But none that ever I knew did ever see the face and speak to one of a thousand gross sinners of his Diocess unless perhaps as he preached to one or few Congregations nor do I know any that take it for their work if they could do it but leave it to the Lay-Chancellor as his part If you say that Excommunication must not be on many I answer 1. The Bishops trying and conviction of gross sinners is first for their Repentance and not their Excommunication except in case of the last obstinacy which cannot be foreknown till tried 2. If Christ would not have such Discipline at all there needs no Bishop to do it If he would when twenty drunkards fornicators c. are notoriously guilty is it his will that one of these only be admonished convinced excommunicated and all the rest let alone that are equally guilty Sure the Law of God doth not so distinguish but say of all alike If any called a brother be a fornicator c. And will such partiality either reform men or honour Religion or rather make it a scorn and make him that is singled out hate the partial Prosecutor If you say it 's long of Churchwardens that accuse not men I answer 1. And it will be so while the thing is unfeasable who will be hated to do no good 2. Some Churchwardens of late to some Articles have presented all the Parish without exception And so no man heard of it any more II. And whether the Bishop may delegate his Office or do his work per alios would be no controversie if Scripture were our Rule or it were known what a Pastors office is If he may delegate it either to a Layman in sensu composito or to a Clergy man If to a Layman than a Layman and a Clergy-man are all one For there is nothing but the work to define the authority and obligation by which constituteth the Office A Bishop is one authorized and obliged to do the work of a Bishop and so is a Layman too by this supposition If to a Clergy-man either to one of the same order and office with the Bishop or of another If of the same before or now made so datur quaesitum then he is not the sole Bishop If of another in sensu composito then another Clergy man is not another For he that is Authorized to the same work is of the same Office If you say that he may not delegate the whole work de specie but a part I ask which part either the Essential part or but an Integral common part If the former 1 Either â—o such as God in Scripture by office authorizeth to that part or not If the former then the Bishop cometh too late to that which God hath done already And then that is no proper work of Bishops which God hath made common to another Office If the later than a man may make new Priestly Oâ—fices and Orders even to the same
by not multiplying Bishops as Churches or Converts needed it began the grand sin and calamity which hath undone us and therefore are not to be our Pattern Orbis major est urbe 6. Were Bishops necessarily to be distributed by Cities the Empires that have few or no Cities must have few or no Bishops and an Emperor might aliud agâ—ndo depose all the Bishops by dis franchizing the Cities 7. But every Corporation oppidum like our Market-Towns was then truly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And if you will but procure every such City with us to have a Bishop and the Office of such Bishops to be to drive men from sin and not to it and to silence Blasphemers and not faithful Preachers of the Gospel all our controversies of Prelacy are then at an end 8. And you must remember that great Cities had long but few Christians in comparison of the Heathens till Constantine's time and mostly long after And when Patrick with his own hand Ordained Three Hundred and Fifty Bishops in your Ireland they were but Ecclesiarum fundatores and with them he founded but septingentas Ecclesias and Ordained Five Thousand Clerks if Ioceline be true Vit. Patriâ— cap. 185. and not rather the far more credible report of Antonin in Chrâ—n tit 11. cap. 18. § 2. and Vincent specul histor lib. 20. cap. 23. who say that Ecclesias funâ—avit 365. â—rdinavit Episcopos eodem numero 365. et eo amplius in quibus spiritus Dei crat Presbyteros autem usque ad 3â—00 ordinavit Aâ— Vsher â—â—ceth them de primord Eccl. Br. p 9â—7 which is Ninius number there So that here is no more Churchâ—s thâ—n â—ishops and about Nine Presbyters to a Bishop You tell me of above One thousand Clergy-men at Rome in Corâ—elius's 〈◊〉 Ans. 1. This was above Two hundred and Fifty years after Christs Birth 2. I never took all the impotent persons poor and Widows in the Church to be Clergy-men and Clergy-women Cornelius his account is that there are Six and Forty Presbyters Seven Deacons Seven Sub-Deacons Two and Forty Acolytes Two and Fifty Exorcists and Readers with Porters Widows and impotent persons above One thousand and Fifty souls considering 1. How their Meetings were then obscure and small in Houses as the tolerated Churches in London And in so vast a City in how many distant places Besides the sub-urbicarian Assemblies 4 And how many Presbyters used still to be with the Bishop in the same Assembly 5. And that here are in all but Seven Deacons 6. And that many then were Presbyters that used not to Preach but for privater over-sight and as the Bishops Assessors 7. And that the poorer sort most commonly received the Gospel 8. And that none of these but the Six and Forty Presbyters had any power in the Discipline 9. And that by all this reckoning the whole Church maintained not besides the Officers near a thousand poor we may probably conjecture that the whole Church of that Bishop was not bigger than some one London-Parish Stepney Giles Cripplegate Martins c. where are about Fifty thousand souls 10. And when none were Christians but persecuted Volunteers they were the holiest and best of men and I have tryed that Six hundred such make less work for Discipline than Ten of the Rabble that are driven into our Churches and choose them rather than the Goal But when all 's done Two Cities under the power of great temptation are not to be our Rule against Gods Word and the state of all other Churches in the world and undeniable experience It 's true that you say that to erect another Altar was counted Schism that is Altare contra altare because when the Phrase came up no Church had more than one Altar Your Instances intimated of Antioch and Carthage I believe not and can give you had I liberty a Volume of proof from Antiquity that for Two hundred and Fifty years if not much longer Ignatius's Rule was true that every Church had one Altar and one Bishop at least except the two aforesaid Vlphilas was but an Arrian Bishop of a few Goths newly turned Arrians and the first that translated the Scriptures into the Gothick Tongue so that no Churches among them had the Scripture till after his translating and these few were presently persecuted to rhe death by Athanarichus ut socrat lib. 4 cap. 32. You may call these few a Kingdom if you please How few of the Indians were converted when Frumentius not Aedesius as you say was made their Bishop it 's easie to gather by the History Scythia and Persia used to have each a Bishop and he lived in the Roman Empire as near them as he durst as not being tolerated usually in their Land And as few it 's like Mosâ—s had among the Arabians there being no mention in the History of any thing to perswade us that he had many Churches under him that I remember And the work of these Bâ—shops was to ordain Presbyters who had the power of the Keys exceptae Ordinatione did all that Bishops did as Hierome saith So that then a Diocess had not one sole Church-Governour and therefore where you gather that yet Discipline was not dissolved I answer 1. In all this you leave out a matter of chief consideration viz. That all the Presbyters then were assistants in Discipline and had a true Church-Government over the people which now they have not 2. It 's strange that we that have eyes and ears must be sent to the Indians and ancient History to know whether one Bishop can hear and try and admonish so many thousands at once as we see by experience are those Objects of Discipline which the Scripture describeth and when we see that it is not done And after all this we have talk't but of a â—hantasm for it is not one Bishop but one Lay man a Chancellor that useth this Decretory power of the Keys over all these fouls so far as they are used as to the ordinary Court-tryals and exerciâ—e and the Bishop rarely medleth with it Again Nonconformists doubt not to prove that the Diocesan frame whiâ—h they dare not swear to 1. Doth depose the species of Churches of Gods Institution 2 And the Discipline it self almost totally 3. And the species of Presbyters 4. And the old species of Bishops And instead of each of these setteth up a new species of man's invention wholly different and inconsistent And that they are not willing to Swear Subscribe or deliberately and solemnly enter into a Church-Covenant That in their Places and Callings they will never endeavour any alteration of this no not by a request or word you may less wonder than if some were then loath to Swear or Covenant never to endeavour to take down the Priests of Dan and Bethel or reform the high places It 's dangerous making a solemn Ministerial Covenant Never to obey God in any one great matter and never to repent of so doing Again our Reasons
understood II. But if it be a priority of Existence in order of execution that you mean it disproveth it self For 1. It is contrary to the nature of production that two or twenty or an hundred stated Congregations should be before on t as it is that I should write a page before a line and a line before a word and a word before a letter 2. It is contrary to the Scripture-History which telleth us that Christ called his Disciples by degrees a few first and more after and that the Apostles accordingly converted men from the number of 120 they rose to 3000 more and after to 5000 c. And that ordinarily the Churches in Scripture-times were such as could and often did meet in one place though that be nâ—t necessary as I said before hath so copious evidence as that I will not here trouble you with it 3. Either the Apostles Ordained Bishops before subject Presbyters or such Presbyters before Bishops or both at once If both at once as two Orders it 's strange that they called both Orders promiscuously by the same names sometimes Bishops sometimes Presbyters and sometimes Pastors and Teachers without any distinguishing Epithete or notice And it 's strange that we never find any mention of the two sorts of Congregations one the Bishops Cathedral and the other the Parish Presbyters Congregation If you say that they were the Bishops themselves and first Ordained only subject-Presbyters under them that cannot hold For doubtless there were more than twelve or thirteen Churches the number of Apostles in their times nor were they fixed Bishops but indefinite gatherers and edifiers of the Churches And either those Elders first Ordained by the Apostles were Bishops or else there were Churches without Bishops for they Ordained Elders in every City and in every Church And either the Elders first Ordained by the Apostles had the power of Ordaining others or not If they had then either they were Bishops or else subject-Presbyters were Ordained to be Ordainers yea to Ordain Bishops if such were to be after ordained And so indeed it would be suitable to your conceiâ— that the inferiour order of Diocesans do by consent make superior Metropolitans Provincials Nationals and Patriarchs to rule them and with Hieromes report ad Evagr. that the Alexandrian Presbyters made the Bishops as the Army doth a General But this making of Children to beget Fathers is so commonly denied that I need not more dispute against it 3 But I think most of the Hierarchical way will say that the Apostles first Ordained Bishops that those Bishops might Ordain subject-Presbyters And if so the Churches could be but single Congregation at the first till the subject-Presbyters were Ordained Yea Dr. Hammond as aforesaid asserteth in Act. 11. and in Dissert c. that there is no proof there were any of the Order of subject-Presbyters in Scripture-times and he thinketh that most of his party were of his mind and that the name Bishop Elder and Pastor in Scripture signifie only those that we now call Bishops And in this he followeth Dion Petavius and Fr. a Sancta Clara de Episcop who saith that it came from Scotus And if this be so then in all Scripture-times there was no Church of more than one worshipping Congregation For we are agreed that Church-meetings were for the publick Worship of God and celebration of Sacraments and exercise of Discipline which no meer Lay-man might lawfully guide the people in and perform as such assemblies did require And one Bishop could be but in one place at once And if there were many Bishops there were many Churches So that according to Dr. Hammond and all of his mind there was no Church in Scripture-times of more than one stated ordinary Worshipping Congregation because there were no subject-Presbyters If you say that yet this was a Diocesan Church because it had a Diocesan Bishop I answer why is he called a Diocesan Bishop if he had not a Diocesan Church If you mean that he was designed to turn his single Congregation into many by increase 1. That must not be said only but proved 2. And that supposeth that his one congregation was first before the many And I hope you â—ake not Infidels for parts of the Church because they are to be converted hereafter Those that are no members of the Church make not the Church and so make it not to be Diocesan One Congregation is not an hundred or a thousand because so many will be hereafter If you mean that such a space of ground was assigned to the Bishops to gather and govern Churches in I answer 1. Gathering Churches is a work antecedent to Episcopacy 2. The Ground is no part of the Church It is a Church of men and not of soil and houses that we speak of 3. Nor indeed will you ever prove that the Apostles measured out or distinguished Churches by the space of ground So that the first Churches were not Diocesan III. As to your Third Opinion 1. Officers are denominated from the work which they are to do There are works to be done circa sacra about the holy Ministerial works as Accidental as to 〈◊〉 to Church buildings Utensils and Lands to Summon Synods and Register their Acts to moderate in disputations and to take votes c. These the Magistrate may appoint Officers to peâ—â—orm and if he do not the Churches by his permission may do it by consent And there are works proper to the Magistrate viz. to force men to their duty by mulcts or corporal penalties I deny none of these But the works of Ordination Pastoral Guidance Excommunication and Absolution by the power of the Keys are proper to the sacred Office which Christ hath instituted And I shall not believe till I see it proved that any men have power to make any new Order or Office of this sort which Christ never made by himseelf or his Spirit in his Apostles much less that Inferiors may make Superior Offices For 1. It belongeth to the same power to make one especially the Superior Church-Office which made the other of the same General nature If without Christs institution no man could be Episcopus gregis and have the power of the Keys over the people then by parity of Reason without his institution no man can be Episcopus Episcoporum and have the power of the Keys over the Bishops 2. Dr. Hammond's argument against Presbyters Ordination is Nemo dat quod non habet which though it serve not his turn on several accounts both because 1. They have the Order which they confer 2. Because Ordination is not giving but Ministerial delivery by Investiture yet in this case it will hold For 1. This is supposed to be a new institution of an Office 2. And that of an higher power than ever the Institutors had themselves The King giveth all his Officers their power but all of them cannot give the King his power The Patriarch cannot make a Pope nor the