alone for Deaconship they make onely a kind of civil office for disposing of the alms of the Church So sufficient they account the Subordination of particular persons singly considered to the same persons as considered collectively in an Assembly without any distinction of Orders for Government And why the President of these Presbyteries though not of a distinct Order as most of the Schoolmen and many of the Episcopal Authors maintain especially those of the old Prelatists as your self have elsewhere observed may not upon the same terms maintain Discipline for my part I cannot understand The ground I believe of your mistake is that in the administration of our Prelatick Episcopacy you have observed some other Officers of prudential Ecclesiastical Constitution which are intrusted with Jurisdiction as Deans Archdeacons Vicars General Lay-chancellors c. which you mistake for Orders because they have different duties in the subordination of the policy of the Church But 1. I do not doubt but that you know better than I can tell you that even Diocesan Government as Diocesan may and has been actually administred without them in the primitive times Some of them being of civil constitution for administring the power of the Prince in the exteriour government of the Church as he is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that I may use the language of Constantine the Great and all of them of prudential use onely convenient not simply necessary even in the opinion of them that use them And 2. You cannot pretend that the addition of new Officers though possibly unlawful upon other accounts yet should make the Discipline of a populous precinct less but rather more maintainable For certainly in such a case the multitude of Officers is an advantage And let me intreat you to remember that this is the real question not Whether Diocesan Government be constituted by God but Whether Discipline be maintainable under it But 3. Suppose it as inconvenient as you please even for the maintainance of Discipline which I am not willing at present to digress to nay even unlawful to be introduced by Governours yet how can it be proved that it is lawful for Subjects to undertake its Reformation without and against the consent of Governours And how can they be excused even in such a case for refusing passive obedience for separating from them and joyning with Parties formed in opposition to them Which seems to be your case in separating from our Communion as Diocesan and communicating with such who have cast off their obedience and united themselves in a communion opposite to their original Superiours And 4. You may be pleased to consider that as we do not call all these prudential Offices Orders so there is no reason why we should do so in the Ecclesiastical notion of the word For not now to make use of that distinction betwixt Order and Jurisdiction which is generally followed by the Ancient and Modern Popish Schoolmen that Order is circa corpus Christi mysticum and Jurisdiction circa corpus Christi verum according whereunto these offices will differ in Jurisdiction not in Order It is plain that every rank of men in Ecclesiastical Assemblies are not by the Presbyterians themselves accounted distinct Orders as Scribes Moderators Lay-Elders c. But onely such as by a distinct solemn consecration have a distinct power given them for the dispensation of divine graces not to be deprived or repealed as to its original right though it may be restrained as to its actual execution In which sense it is plain that these Offices neither are nor suppose a distinction of Orders § XI BUT then for the second proposition supposed in your Answers That the Church has not power of constituting new Orders though I doubt not you understand what Conclusion may be inferred from the Doctrine of that ingenious person who has professedly disproved Dr. Stillingfleet's all divine unalterable right of any certain form of Church-government because I confess my self not to be of his mind yet if you mean by Orders all deputation even of Ecclesiastical persons to particular offices executive of their general power then I think you have no way disproved prudential Innovations in that kind Nay I doubt not but that it were easie to instance in all other Sects as well as the Presbyterians that have any face of Government unscriptural Officers The Scripture has not used the word and therefore cannot be pretended to have condemned Nor has the Church ever understood it in this sense when she has owned but three or two Holy Orders But if by Orders you mean the limited sense of the Church of that word then I confess they are not multipliable by the Church but conceive I have shewn the no-necessity of it in our Prelatick Diocesan Government § XII YOUR second disparity is That Kingly Power requireth not ad dispositionem materiae such persnal ability as the pastoral office doth That a child may be a King and that it may serve turn if he be but the Head of Power and give others commission to do all the rest of the governing work But it is not so with a Judge a Physician an Orator or a Bishop who is not subjectum capax of the essence of the office without personal aptitude This seems to me a plain mistake even in the judgment of those Nations which are governed by an hereditary Monarchy who do not suffer their Princes whilest children to intermeddle I do not say in the executive which belongs not to them as absolute Princes but in the decretory parts of their Government which is their Royalty but oblige them to perform all by Regents and Protectors till themselves come to the years of personal aptitude in the mean time reserving them onely the honour without the power of a King And this sense of the necessity of personal abilities as it appears from the Scripture which accounts those Nations miserable that are under such Princes and the nature of the Office it self which is as chargable with the miscarriages of their Subjects as Ecclesiasticks as is excellently discoursed by Socrates in Xenophon so the avoiding such defects in regard of personal Incapacity seems to be the reason of all those Nations who have made their Government elective and even of those which are hereditary who have excluded persons notoriously incapable or at least so judged by them as Fools in all places Women in France and even such as are judged fit in regard of natural endowments till they come to be so personally That children therefore are any where permitted the honour of Kings is not because that they think them sufficiently qualified or that they think it convenient to stand to the hazardous contingency of their future qualifications but that it is accounted a less evil so to be assured of their person than to expose themselves to the danger of Civil Wars and Seditions on that account if it were managed by popular election And accordingly those Nations
Bishop then challenged the same power over the Presbytery as now This I have but lately proved Or that discipline was then maintained This I do not find that you deny Nay certainly your self thought discipline maintainable under it when you professed your self ready to yield to such an Episcopacy Or that what was then performed by the same Government is still performable if men would be the same The admission of this would not oblige you to question your self or experience Nor indeed is any thing of this kind concerning antiquity as notorious to you as what men do at present in England FOR proving the great multitudes then subject to Diocesan Discipline I said That the greatness of no City was thought sufficient to multiply Bishops To this you answer 1. That Gods Institution was that every Church have a Bishop for which you quote Acts 14. 23. c. But 1. The place you refer me to has no mention of a Divine Institution for Apostolical practice is not a sufficient proof of that and this is all which is so much as intimated in this place 2. It does not as much as mention the word Bishop but that of Presbyter And though the words were granted to have been then confounded yet you know they were so afterwards when the things were certainly distinct And therefore you cannot conclude from the word Presbyter that a Bishop was meant especially in the sense wherein it was afterwards appropriated Nor 3. Is it evident that by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is meant a single Presbyter in every particular Church as in a Parish but it may as well be meant of Presbyteries as Presbyters And when afterwards the Presidency of a single Monarch was introduced no Churches and Presbyteries but such as had Bishops and were Diocesan in the sense we now understand the word And if they were Presbyteries you cannot hence disprove the presidency of one over the rest as we find it soon after practised Nor 4. Is it evident that by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must needs be meant a Parish as it concerns you to believe For the word Church is as applicable to great as small Societies and the great ones may as well be called one in their kind though they be capable of a further subdivision into many Churches of smaller denomination Thus the Catholick Church is called one in the Constantinopolitan Creed though consisting of many national and the Church of England but one national Church though consisting of two Provincial and the Province of Canterbury but one Provincial Church though consisting of several Diocesan and every Diocese but one Diocesan Church though consisting of several Parishes And even in the Scripture there are several notions of the word of different proportions There are the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and there are the two or three gathered in the name of Christ which from the coherence and the Jewish notions of Assemblies seem to make up a Church and accordingly Tertullian calls an Assembly of two or three a Church though consisting onely of Laicks And yet these Churches are so little serviceable to your purpose as that I believe you would not be for confining a private Presbyter to so small a cure I am sure they are much beneath those populous Parishes which you do not seem to disapprove Supposing therefore I should grant you that every distinct Church should have a distinct Bishop yet how will you prove with the least plausibility that this Church must be understood of a Parochial one that the multitude of Bishops may answer that of Parishes Especially considering that the notion of the word for a Parochial Church will not be so easily deduced from Scripture as that for a Diocese For thus much the Independents I think do prove sufficiently that a whole Church in those times did generally meet in one place but they fail in proving distinction of Churches in Cities though never so great and populous which two put together do plainly amount to our notion not of a Parochial but Diocesan Church there appearing no footsteps in those times of any Subdivisions allotted to particular Presbyters Besides if we may believe the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here parallel with those 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Tit. l. 5. as in all likelyhood they are then a Church will be that which will extend to the Liberties of a whole City And because you find no mention of distinct Presbyters for Villages recommended to Titus's care it seems very probable that they were sufficiently provided for by those of the City and therefore that they had some dependence on them That the name of Churches was attributed first to Cities see proved by the Excellent Dr. Stilling fleet Iren. p. 2. c. 7. § 2 4. FOR that the Apostles did take care even for Villages we have the express Testimony of S. Clemens Romanus that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if these words be understood as commonly they are But I confess it does not seem to me so clear that by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here is understood those Country Villages which are obnoxious to the Jurisdiction of the City but rather Regiones as it is translated not as Rome and Constantinople were divided into their Regiones answerable to our Wards but as it may in a larger sense signifie whole Provinces under which many Cities might be comprehended my Reasons I would give if I were not unwilling to digress much less am I satisfied with Blondell's Conjecture who conceives it to relate to the Chorepiscopi and thence concludes that they were not originally subject to the City Bishop For though 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were indeed taken in the sense he is concerned it should be yet there is no necessity that it should be referred to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as if distinct Bishops had been imposed over them from those of the Cities to which they were related but may conveniently enough be joyned with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to signifie their preaching in the Villages as well as Cities and their election of fit persons from both for Bishops and Deacons to be disposed of where they thought convenient However it were it seems very probable that the Apostles as they planted Christianity first in Cities so they seemed to have settled the Government there first and as they generally left the Villages to be converted by excursions from the Cities so it seems most credible that the influences of the Government must have followed that of the propagation of their Doctrine Certainly the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 mentioned by Ignatius in his Inscription of his Epistle to the Romans over which the Church of Rome is said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cannot in the narrowest exposition choose but include a Precinct as large as our ordinary Dioceses But 5. Supposing all had been as you would have them that it had been enjoyned by the Apostles that every Parochial Church should have a distinct Bishop yet how can you
gifts and disposes of these gifts immediately has never impowered men to confer these gifts but onely to examine and declare them which Declaration does not make but find them qualified and consequently impowered before any humane interposition 3. That even in the Apostles times these gifts and qualifications were not ordinarily given in Ordination but supposed to be antecedent to it as appears from that gift of Prophecy and discerning of Spirits by which they were enabled to judge who were fit to be ordained which must have related to gifts and qualifications not given by the Apostles but by God immediately And that if any gifts and qualifications were super added in the very act of Ordination yet they were extraordinary and therefore not to be expected by Successors especially not at this distance of the Age we live in 4. That these gifts being given by God immediately and this power being thus necessarily consequent to these gifts even the designation of the particular person is from God as well as the investing him with the power So that all that the interposition of men can do in this matter cannot be to give any power to the person to be ordained that he had not before but onely to judge of it in order to acceptance as to its exercise The judgment of the person himself will be necessary in order to his own acceptance The judgment of the Senior Pastors not in order to the investing them by Ordination by delivery with the power as Mr. Baxter speaks inconsistently with his own Principles who acknowledges no power given by the act of Ordination for I am willing to consider his Cause free from the inconveniences of his management but either as they are the ordinary Representatives of the people in accepting and such as are first to propose whatsoever is to be proposed to the people even in affairs wherein their suffrages are not ultimately concluded by their Representatives or as at least the Solemnities of Acceptance are to be transacted by them The judgment of the people also as they are the Objects of his Ministry and as they are supposed on that account to have the original right of Acceptance 5. That the way to know what persons are by God invested with power and with what power they are invested is by the Scriptures There he is supposed to have described the gifts and qualifications which when Pastors and People find in any man they must be supposed to be obliged to accept him And there he is supposed to have described that power which himself gives by giving him such gifts and qualifications 6. That this power being thus given by God immediately without any humane interposition in the giving it but onely in the accepting it consequently the extent of this power must be known by enquiring not into the mind of the Accepters but of the giver of it and the mind of God the giver is to be known onely in the Scriptures 7. That the extent of this power being thus to be gathered from the Scriptures as private persons are not obliged to think their Governours Expositions truest but may with reason and conscience differ from them there being nothing requisite for the understanding of the Scriptures that is capable of being known by the Clergie which learned Laicks are not as capable of knowing also so private persons may believe themselves invested with a power from the Scriptures which their Superiours neither gave them nor believe to be the sense of such Scriptures either that themselves ought to give it as authorized by God to do so or that God will himself give it immediately 8. That persons authorized have not onely power to believe what they take to be the sense of the Scriptures though different from the sense of ordinary Ecclesiastical Governours but also to practise their different sense at least so far as their Authority extends And therefore if a Bishop or his whole Presbytery whether in irregular or regular Assemblies do deny a Presbyter any part of his Office which indeed they never gave him neither by any invalid nor on these principles by any valid act of theirs he may notwithstanding use and exercise it as given him by God immediately 9. That every person for himself as he is as capable of understanding those Scriptures which describe the extent of the power as any others though Superiours but yet is more conscious to himself of his own integrity in using means to the best of his abilities and following his own convictions than any others so for the gifts and qualifications which by this Hypothesis confer an immediate title to the Office he can much better judge than any others because they are things more within his own cognizance than they can be of any others So that in order to his own practice he must on these principles be obliged in reason and conscience and prudence more to rely on his own judgment than on that of any others 10. That this power being immediately from God he is to presume that what God did once give that he intends still to give till he declares his pleasure to the contrary This Observation will both make Scripture-precedent which is the utmost they can pretend concerning the power of Church Officers described in Scripture as in a Charter an Argument now and will excuse them from the extreme difficult task to which their ordinary management does oblige them of proving it obligatory on other principles For grant it never so mutable in its own nature yet even mutable Determinations oblige till the Legislators pleasure be known for an actual change But supposing this power to have been immediately from God without any so much as interposition of men supposing therefore as has been shewed on these principles that it must appear to us by an express word of God such as may seem express to us without humane Authority even in the exposition of it supposing that no such express word of God is ever to be expected for the future it will follow that what is left determined any way in the Scripture must for ever be as secure from an actual change as if it had been of its own nature immutable But if the power it self be given by men then if they will prove it immutable by the men who give it they must endeavour to prove it either from the nature of the thing or the continuance of the same reason and circumstances of its first institution or some express command of God in Scripture that they should not actually change it which yet would not prove an invalidity but onely an irregularity in their doings supposing the power not to come from God immediately but by their mediation which would be much more difficult for them to prove than than they are aware of Whence it will further follow 11. That all that others can do whether Bishops or Presbyters or People cannot be either to give any power or to inform any person that
what is for the benefit of the Society whose government he has undertaken as it is impossible that he should not act well and wisely But who does ever think it fit that private persons should have a right to pardon or retain Offences committed against the Government without a particular express gift Who thinks it fit that they should have a right to pass a pardon under the Broad Seal and in due solemnities of Law for no other reason but onely because they are qualified for it Who thinks such Pardons valid or thinks it just and reasonable that they should be so How is it possible that Government should ever be maintained if the right of it be resolved into pleas so capable of being made use of by false pretenders and so little notorious to Subjects that are so highly concern'd in it How can Government be maintained where Inferiours may pardon what their Superiours condemn where Rebels may justifie or pardon their own Rebellions by as good a title as they who are actually possessed of the Supreme Government as they may certainly do if Inferiours as well as Superiours derive their Authority from God immediately where pretended Expositions of Charters against the sense of all the present visible Governours of a Society must be thought to give men an authority here in this Life which how falsly so ever pretended must yet by this means be rendered uncapable of conviction till the day of judgment For what can in the consequence more necessarily invest men with authority than this power of pardoning or punishing offences committed against the publick THUS unreasonable it is to believe that bare qualifications do invest any with actual power What can they now pretend further but an authority sufficient to countervail and silence all these contrary Reasonings I repeat not now what I have elsewhere proved that some reasons are such as to be greater Evidence than any other authority whatsoever I insist not on what might have been said to shew that the reasons now produced are of that sort But alas how little do they produce to prove this from authority which yet is the foundation of all their consequential reasonings How much less to prove their sense to be the sense of Scripture than what has been produced to prove the contrary to be the sense of God They observe that God is said to have given some Apostles some Pastors c. as if their very gifts had made them so But where do they find that God ever gave Bishops Presbyters and Deacons Will they not allow some difference between the extraordinary offices there spoken of and the ordinary ones of which we are at present disputing Will they not allow a difference in this very matter of their gifts Whither do they reason so confidently from those extraordinaries to these ordinaries Those extraordinary offices seem indeed to have been made neither of man nor by man but by God himself immediately and possibly by the degrees of their inspiration received their several denominations of that kind respectively Thus S. Paul proves his Apostleship which it seems was then called in question by his Rival false Apostles among other Arguments by that especially that he was made so before he had ever seen any of the Apostles and when he did see them that they received him on equal terms and added nothing to him above what he had received before And what men could pretend to give that Supreme Dignity of the Apostolical Office who were not themselves Apostles The like might have been observed concerning others of those extraordinary offices And I have before conjectured that according to these extraordinary gifts so they performed the several Offices of their Ecclesiastical Assemblies So I understand the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Cor. 14. 16. to which the Amen was in course replied by him who answered among the people as it was answered in the Office of the Eucharist in the time of S. Justin Martyr And can they desire any more Yet even then there was this dependence on the ordinary Officers of the Church that even these extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost were generally not given but by that Imposition of hands which usually followed after their Baptism that even then their deviating from the Spirit of those from whom they had received the Spirit in that office at least of confirmation was a presumption against those who first deviated from their predecessors so S. Paul proves his own Orthodoxy from his agreement with those who were in Christ before him though he had not received his Doctrine from them and he generally presupposes this Principle in his Disputes against the disorderly Prophets That there were manifestations of the Spirit signs of the Apostleships the gifts of discerning of the Spirits and Judges of the Spirits for the satisfaction of others not onely to judge in order to their own reception as our Brethren would have it but to judge so as that they were not to be presumed to have the Spirit at all who could not abide their Judgments if after their rejection they presumed to exercise any such gifts in the state of Separation If they will plead these extraordinary gifts themselves let them grant the continuance of the like gifts in their Superiours and we shall be at least secure from any Schismatical Consequences of such pretensions But if they will alone challenge this continuance to themselves let them consider how unequal dealing this is let them consider how different from their pretended Veneration of Apostolical Precedents when they separate those gifts now which then were made mutually useful by their conjunction how different this is from the Judgment of the Apostles themselves and consequently of God by whom the Apostles were more particularly inspir'd in what they did relating to these extraordinaries who did not it seems think these pretences to extraordinaries safe without these remedies from the gifts of others and particularly of Superiours Several of these things were already suggested and proved and will be more particularly in my Second Part if it please God to encourage me to go on with it by which this whole Reasoning is overthrown which is drawn from these Apostolical Precedents even in extraordinaries AS for those other precedents of their ordinary establishments for Succession when these extraordinary gifts or evidences of them should fail which are in truth the onely precedents which are pleadable as arguments in our present times there is so extremely little in favour of such pretences as would make one wonder how considering persons could fall into such mistakes The Inconveniences and Schisms resulting from those very pretences to extraordinaries were observed and particularly provided for even in those Apostolical Ages Such were the Prophets speaking many of them at once their using the gift of Tongues in the Ecclesiastical Offices without an Interpreter the Prophetesses using their Gifts in promiseuous
same mind or neglect the moral means of information which if you suppose the case evident you must presume such as would infallibly bring them to be so 3. Therefore what are the real thoughts of Governours and whether they have made use of the means of information with integrity and diligence none can for their own satisfaction which is principally to be taken notice of in order to the imputableness of sin judge of so well as themselves Nor 4. Can we better be assured of their sense herein than by their word unless it be by the evidence of the thing It is not therefore every proof that may seem satisfactory to our selves that may warrant our presumption of their sense unless it be such as is thought cognoscible by them and whose evidence is presumed inevitable upon a sincere examination And 5. It is not sufficient as to the matter in hand that it appear that some persons have indeed been made hypocrites for fear of this exterior coercion but it must further be shewn that its natural tendency is to do so or at least that it is its most usual consequent And 6. That it is an occasion of their hypocrisie by virtue of it self not of the disposition of the Subject For the sins that are derived from the disposition of the Subject they that give the immediate occasions are not responsible for Otherwise when the wicked turn Gods grace into wantonness and those things which should have been for their good into the occasions of falling and the word preached turns to be the savour of death unto death to its unworthy hearers and the blessed Sacrament of the Lords Supper to its unworthy receivers you might conclude God who gives those abused favours to be the proper occasion of the abusers sin And because there are some who will with less scruple grant of God that he is the designer of his creatures sins than they would grant it concerning any good men S. Paul had been the culpable occasion of the perjury of those conspirators who had sworn not to eat untill they had killed him onely by making use of just means for his own preservation And these you may easily believe to be the thoughts of Governours concerning those whom they are pleased to prosecute for their opinions That they do as seriously believe that the reasons which satisfie themselves are as sufficient to satisfie all others that use their moral diligence for finding satisfaction as the sufferers believe it concerning their own reasons that they are sufficient to satisfie their Governours and therefore that such dissenting hypocritical Subjects are as faulty in not using their diligence in the use of the means if they find not actual satisfaction as such Subjects believe the same concerning their Governours And 7. That this personal hypocrisie of such dissembling persons is a greater inconvenience to the publick than the toleration of their seditious behaviour For as it is certain that Governours no more than other good Christians may design any sin for any good whatsoever so it will not be easily disproved either by reason or authority of Casuists that they may design that from whence they know a sin will necessarily follow for the avoidal of a greater both inconvenience and sin such as is sedition in respect of hypocrisie For though it be unlawful to choose any evil where it may be avoided yet it is not so when two occurr whereof at least one is inevitable to make choice of the less before the greater And now upon these supposals it were easie to shew from these conditions of dissimulation that either there were no necessity that the sufferers under these coercive means must needs dissemble or if there were yet at least not such as would make it imputable as sin to Governours or if it were a sin to them absolutely yet not such under such a streightned election BUT I must avoid prolixity and therefore at present shall onely briefly make Application to the forementioned conditions of dissimulation 1. Therefore it is not necessary that every sufferer for his opinions must believe his cause to be good for there are bad as well as good of all much received opinions that maintain them not upon account of their truth but because they are themselves factiously disposed and love contradiction especially to Superiours a humour such people of the vulgar are usually too much addicted to or affect popularity or singularity or promise themselves some great advantages by publick Innovations and Disturbances or engage in a party out of kindness to their Friends that are concerned in it Much less 2. Is it necessary that every one who does indeed believe his own Opinion true must do it upon Motives so much as apparently conscientious For education and custom and the authority of a person respected or a vainglorious ostentation of his own Wit or the shame of being mistaken or convicted may at first incline many to defend Opinions fortuitously taken up and afterwards the love of their own arguments may delude many to believe what they have once asserted And God knows whether the vulgar of most Opinions be not acted thus whatever pretences they make of conscience for custom may go very far in making men abhor unusual innocent or commendable things as prophane and piacular as appeared in the Experiment of Darius Hystaspis in Herodotus who found the Scythian to pretend as much conscience for eating as the Grecian for burying his dead Relations And we have reason to believe if of too many whom we find the most zealous maintainers of opinions controverted and yet the most negligent practisers of such as are undoubted which certainly would not be if Gods sake or conscience or a sense of their own duty were the reasons inducing them to believe them Now these Deductions being made the number of conscientious Dissenters would I doubt be generally found the smaller And it is a general and just rule of publick proceedings not to forbear that which may generally do good though it may prove inconvenient and prejudicial in some rarer Instances Nor would these coercive means oblige these Dissenters upon Motives not conscientious to dissimulation or hypocrisie But even for those fewer truly conscientious Dissenters which would remain it is not necessary 3. That if they have been of a different Opinion they should persevere in it unalterably And as their minds may alter at any time so as well when they are prosecuted for their Opinions as otherwise in which case their conversion may be veracious And possibly the number even of good converts even upon such an occasion would be more if they did not some of them for fear of being censured as time-servers not allow the contrary Opinion the same favour of an equal hearing when it is countenanced by Authority as otherwise or at least not express their sentiments so freely and ingenuously not heeding that hereby instead of courage and constancy they onely choose their conquerour
the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 reverence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hence it appears that Presbyters as well as others are concerned in this his Exhortation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so much disputed of the youthfulness of their Bishops person not the novelty of the Institution of his Order for it was that youthfulness which they were likely to take advantage of which is the notion of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 You see here that even Presbyters are not to take advantage even of a youthful Bishop either for presuming on too much familiarity with him or denying him the reverence due to his Order though in a youthful person That they are to yield to him or rather to Jesus Christ whose person is represented by him and sure you would not think much to be imposed on by Jesus Christ That this duty is to be paid without all hypocrisie to the Bishop for Gods sake whom it is impossible to deceive That hearkning to him for that is the notion of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which in the Hellenistick style then in use is the same with obedience is part of that And that the disrespect to him in any of these duties redounds to the dishonour of God for whose sake he is to be honoured And now I pray consider how you can reconcile herewith your desired liberty of excommunicating without his privity or consent Immediately after he blames them who give their Bishop the honour of an empty name and yet do all things without his privity and expresly censures them as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 men of no good consciences 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Where besides the coherence formerly noted it is plain that even Presbyters also are included because he speaks of Assemblies which could not be celebrated without some act of priestly power And if such Assemblies be not according to the command nor the rules of good conscience how your proceedings without the consent or privity of your Bishop can be excusable I do not understand In the Epistle ad Trallian after having enjoyned respect to all the three Orders he concludes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whence you may easily conclude his thoughts concerning such Assemblies which are maintained without one of them that is of Episcopacy as they must needs be who take upon them to act independently on their Bishop So in the Epistle to the Philadelphians he says expresly that as many as are on Gods part and Jesus Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by which you may see what he would have thought of those who should have joyned with any Presbyter exercising an Authority different from and independent on that of the Bishop Nay he confidently charges them not as from his own private sense but inspiration and those extraordinary 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 had not as yet failed in his time 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and after teaches that God gives remission of sin to them that are penitent onely on that condition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which if it be so how can the Absolutions of Presbyters attempted without the consent of their Bishop be valid But what can be more clear against your Independency of Parish Ministers in the exercise of discipline than that excellent passage in the Epistle to the Smyrnaeans 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And a little after 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So again 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 You see how expresly all persons Presbyters themselves not excepted are forbidden to meddle in Ecclesiasticals without order from the Bishop You see what Ecclesiasticals he means by his enumeration of the particulars not onely Baptism and the Feasts of Love but the very Eucharist You see how clearly he disowns the validity of that Eucharist which is not received either from the Bishop himself or some person authorized by him Which both may serve to let you see that even Presbyters themselves are included seeing your self do not allow the power of admitting to communion Laicks or Deacons though authorized and that the power you seem to challenge of communicating whom you please without the Bishops Licence is again censured as invalid as a dishonour of God nay as a service of the Devil which would have been thought harsh and passionate expressions if the Age he lived in before the starting of our modern Controversies had not put him beyond any just or probable suspicions of partiality I HAVE the rather insisted on the Testimony of this blessed Martyr because you seem to seem to have been willing to have condescended to the Ignation Episcopacy and were therefore concerned because in my Catalogue of the ancient Writers I said Ignatius was decretory against the Presbyterians I might have descended lower because you said you would have yield to the Episcopacy practised in S. Cyprians time to shew that this liberty you desire of admitting to or excluding from your flock whom you please was not even in those Ages allowed to bare Presbyters At present I shall onely note a passage or two because I am desirous of hastening Baptism therefore which has always been thought to require less power than the Lords Supper was not in Tertullians time permitted to Deacons nor Priests themselves without the Authority of their Bishop These are his words Dandi quidem viz. Baptismi habet jus summus sacerdos qui est Episcopus Dehinc Presbyteri Diaconi non tamen sine Episcopi authoritate propter Ecclesiae honorem Quo salvo salva pax est c. Exactly herein agreeing with Ignatius And the same seems to have been the sense and practice of the Asiatick Churches in the time of Firmilian who though indeed he mention the majores natu praesides under which word according to the use of that Age I confess Presbyters may be included as having the power of Baptizing Imposition of hands in reconciling penitents especially and of Ordination which we do not deny them yet he seems to intimate their dependence on the Bishop in the administration of that power which properly belonged to them which is all that we desire For thus he afterwards expresly asserts the power of remission of sins either in Baptism or Absolution of Penitents as appears from the occasion of the Dispute concerning the validity of both among the Hereticks to have been given to the Apostles Ecclesiis quas illi à Christo missi constituerunt EPISCOPIS qui eis dinatione vicariâ successerunt Where it is to be observed 1. That no exclusive particle be expressed yet it must necessarily be understood from the whole design of his Discourse which is to exclude the Baptism of Hereticks from being remissive of sins because the power of remitting sins is not granted to them which would not follow unless all which had that power conferred on them had been adequatly enumerated by him And 2. That by the Churches here mentioned cannot be understood a Society contradistinct from the Bishops For
I believe you cannot produce a precedent of that age where the word is taken for the other Clergie so that there are onely two other Senses that I can think of reducible to this purpose either for the Laity and that your self I believe will not think intelligible here that the power of remitting sins by Baptism or otherwise does agree to them or for the complex of both the Laity and the Body of the Clergie in contradistinction to the Bishop And to this his proof of the power of remitting sins given to the Apostles being also given to the Church in this contradistinct sense must have been impertinently urged from its being given to the Apostles seeing that the Church in the Apostles time must have been as contradistinct from the Apostles as the later Churches from their respective Bishops By the word Churches therefore are onely meant Orthodox Societies including Bishops as well as other members whence it will follow that the Church is onely therefore said to have this power because the Bishops have it and therefore that no Ecclesiastical Member can have it independently on them 3. Therefore that by the word Bishops to whom this power of remitting sins is given to which all other Ecclesiastical Power is consequent Presbyters are not included will appear probable if you consider 1. That though the word Presbyter and Sacerdos be attributed to Bishops properly so called yet at least in that age I believe you will hardly find that a simple Presbyter is called Episcopus Blondell himself I think will not furnish you with an Instance And 2. That these Bishops are such as are called Successors of the Apostles And that by these Successors of the Apostles single persons are understood in the language of that age appears in that when they prove Succession from the Apostles they do it by catalogues of single persons as those in Irenaeus Tertullian c. and that Bishops in the confined sense are so frequently said to be Successors of the Apostles which is not said of simple Presbyters See S. Cyprian ep 42 65 69. and the Author de Aleatoribus with many others usually produced in the Disputes concerning Episcopacy AND then for the sense of S. Cyprian he was as resolute in vindicating his own right as condescending in his practice He it is that asserts the unaccountableness of the Episcopal Office to any under God that makes the Church in the Bishop as well as the Bishop in the Church that charges the contempt of the Bishop as the original of all Schism and Heresie and parallels it with the Sin of Corah Dathan and Abiram that spares not even Presbyters themselves when presuming to act without his order but puts them in mind of his being their Superiour and charges them with rebellion when they took that liberty you desire of acting arbitrarily and independently Instances of all these kinds might have been produced if I were not afraid of being too tedeous These things may at present suffice to shew that the liberty you desire of admitting or rejecting whom you please from your own flock is not more unreasonable than dissonant from the practice of those Ages for which you profess a reverence Nor do I understand your design in the use of that liberty you desire If it be that you would have those whom you think unworthy of your flock excluded from your cure that is as improper as if a Physician should desire to be excused from visiting those who are most dangerously though not desperately sick Certainly the contrary would rather follow that as they need most so they should have most of your care It is our Saviours own saying that the whole need not a physician but the sick that is at least not comparatively and generally his greatest pains and favours were extended to those who had least deserved them Nor is their unwillingness to deal with you in affairs of this nature a sufficient reason to exempt them from your Cure for this unwillingness it self is a most considerable ingredient in their distemper and that which makes them most truly pitiable and it would be as great a piece of inhumanity for the spiritual as the corporal Physician to desert them on that pretence I am sure very different from the behaviour of Christ and his Apostles who found the World generally as much prejudiced against and unwilling to hear them concerning affairs of that nature as you can with any probability presume concerning a Christian Auditory If your meaning be not to be excused from the use of all other good means for their recovery but onely from admitting them to the blessed Sacrament which ought to be the privilege of such as are already deserving I pray consider 1. Whether though you deny them to be Christians yet their very Baptism and exterior profession of Christianity be not at least sufficient to entitle them to exterior privileges if on their own peril they will venture on them and that Sacramental privileges are but exteriour They are invited to the marriage feast and none may exclude them if they come though it is at their own hazard if they presume to do so without the marriage garment And 2. That this does at least hold till they be convicted and censured by their due Superiour and you know it is questioned whether you as a private Presbyter ought to have that power But 3. That you have a power of suspending refractory persons till you acquaint the Bishop and with him you have that power of convincing and persuading which seems as much as your self desire so that even upon this account you have no reason to complain MY second Argument was from experience even in Ecclesiasticals to which you answer that It 's hard then to know any thing and that you dispute all this while as if the question were Whether men in England speak English that therefore if you herein erre you profess your self incurable and allow me to despair of you If I had disputed from present experience in England I should have confessed your Answer proper that I had endeavour'd to conquer your sense and experience as you elsewhere express it But I wonder how you could understand me so considering that our present want of discipline was the reason of my desire of its revival whence you took the occasion of these Disputes My meaning was that in the primitive times when Bishops were indeed laborious and conscientious and were willing and desirous to do what they could do experience shewed that discipline was actually maintained under such a Diocesan Government and therefore I concluded that the multitude of persons governed was not the reason of our present neglects And what is it that is scrupled in this Discourse or need put you to those unequal resolutions of being uncurable Is it whether the number of Christians in Dioceses were equal then with what we have now This was proved in my former Letter Or that the
prove that it was an Injunction of an immutable and eternally-obliging nature as it is clear that some that of abstaining from bloud Acts 15. was not For if they be not you ought not to urge them to the prejudice of superinduced Constitutions But lastly all that you can hence pretend for your purpose is onely that the having onely one Bishop in the appropriated sense in a Diocese was not conformable to the sense of the Apostles But it does not thence follow that discipline is not maintainable under such a Government which was the onely thing for whose proof I produced it You answer 2. That a particular Church was a Society of neighbour Christians convened in personal communion for Gods worship I confess personal communion was generally practised with the Bishop but I have proved it to be of whole Cities and such great Assemblies as could not be served by a single person without the assistance of a Presbytery which the Bishop had for his help and therefore could not be Parochial in the sense of the word now commonly used If you thinke otherwise when you prove it I may then and not till then be concerned to think of a further Answer YOU answer 3. That for 250 years you think I cannot prove that any one Bishop in the world save at Alexandria and Rome had more such congregations and altars than one nor there for a long time after the Apostles nor in many Churches for some hundred years longer The is the same mistake as before to think them answerable to our Parishes who did then all communicate at one altar whereas indeed the fame circuit and number of Inhabitants who had first been governed by the Bishop and his Presbytery in common no particular Presbyter having nay proper portion assigned him but by the provisional commands of the Bishop was afterwards distributed into parts proportionable to the number of the Presbytery that so every one might know his own work And I pray what essential difference is there betwixt the same Presbyteries as acting in common as they did at first with the Bishop and distributed into several divisions as they are now unless it be that this later is more convenient And if the Bishop was major universis when they acted in conjunction with him why must he be minor singulis or at least aequalis when dispersed to their several distinct Imployments If all of them when united might not attempt any thing without his consent and privity why must each of them be allowed that liberty when deprived of their united forces And if discipline was maintainable by them when by acting in common they were more remote from particular exploration why should it not be much more so when none is invited to be negligent by trusting to another as men are apt to do in cases of common concernment and when each of them has a task proportionable to his own abilities But 2. Suppose that this subdivision of the Diocese into Parishes which is all that you can pretend to have been attempted at Rome and Alexandria for by this means it fell out by accident that there were several altars under the Jurisdiction of the same Bishop had not answered the primitive example nay had been a culpable not a lawful prudential Innovation yet will you say that discipline was not maintained when it was actually however upon other accounts culpably introduced If you grant it was that is sufficient for my purpose to shew that the experience of those times has evinced the possibility of discipline under a Diocesan Government and therefore that it is practicable even now if men would but endeavour it If you say it was not you must then charge the most celebrated Churches in the purest earliest Ages with want of discipline For in Rome the first division into Titles answerable to our Parishes is attributed to Pope Euaristus who came into his See Anno Dom. 112. by the Author de Vit. Pontif. commonly ascribed to Damasus For afterwards in the two Epistles of Pius which are of better repute with Blondell than the others that bear his Name to Justus Viennens we find mention of two Titles then newly established by Euprepia and the Pastor so that I think this division there if we may trust these Authors for it and if we may not you will have no ground of charging the Romans of those Ages with plurality of Altars more than in other places will appear to have been as soon as they had any settled places to meet in For before that their meetings seem to have been ambulatory and uncertain sometimes in the Temple sometimes in the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sometimes in secret places particularly in the Coemeteria for of some of these may the passages of 1 Cor. 11. and the ancient Author of Philopatris in Trajan's time who bears the name of Lucian be understood and then it was not so convenient to subdivide into Parishes when there were not any settled places peculiarly designed and convenient for Parochial Assemblies Upon which account there will be no reason that the necessitous examples of the former Age should prejudge against the prudence and conveniences of this But the Titles mentioned by Pius as left by Legacy seem to have been perpetually alienated to the use of the Church and therefore fitter for this purpose Which if it be supposed then the antiquity of divers Altars in the same Diocese will be equal with Churches and Parishes which you do not condemn and as ancient as they could be with any tolerable convenience and you cannot blame them for being no sooner And sure you will not deny that even then and a long while after discipline was maintained among the Romanists themselves If you do you must contradict all the histories of that Age which mention the Martyrdoms of their Bishops of those Ages together with very many of their other Clergy and Laity for several Successions and the great Elogies of Tertullian and S. Cyprian and the confident Appeals to the Roman Church as well as others for the Assertion on of Apostolical Tradition used frequently by the Fathers against the Hereticks whereas a sensible decay in discipline would have weakened their credit even in Doctrinals And for the other Instance of Alexandria the first mention that we find of a subdivision there is in the time of Arius who is said to have been Presbyter of a Church called Baucalis upon which occasion Epiphanius tells us That the Churches of the Catholick Communion in Alexandria under the Jurisdiction of the same Archbishop had their particular Presbyters assigned them for the Ecclesiastical necessities of the Inhabitants which divisions were by the Alexandrians according to the custom of their Country called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But it is not mentioned as an Innovation in or near his time and therefore is in all probability to be presumed much more ancient And if the custom of the eldest
so but onely that you think our differences unworthy that the Churches peace should be broken for them so you cannot conclude that Ulphilas was an Arian because he communicated with such as were but onely that he thought the Controversies too trivial Nor can you blame him for thinking them trivial seeing he was persuaded they were nothing but words Nor is such his communion the least intimation of his deserting the Catholick Doctrine seeing he embraced them no further than he conceived them not to differ from what he had formerly believed Nor need you think it so strange in Ulphilas for I verily believe that there were very many more in Constantine's time especially who did not seem to condemn or desert the Catholick Doctrine but were unwilling to separate Communion for any unscriptural expression whatsoever where they conceived the sense secure and did as much censure the Arian Forms of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the Catholick 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of being unscriptural So that their whole design seems to have been that persons agreeing in things might not disagree about words which I believe you will not disapprove To my other instance of a National at least much greater than Parochial Church under one Bishop that of the Indians not the Persians as you mistake both converted and governed by Frumentius you say It is easie to gather by the History how few of them were then converted If you mean that they were so few that they might conveniently resort to one place of meeting which we mean by a Parish the contrary is so manifest from the places as I believe you would not have said otherwise if you had been pleased to have consulted them Socrates plainly mentions one 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 founded before Frumentius was consecrated their Bishop by S. Athanasius but after his return to them with Episcopal power he as plainly says that he founded many more Sozomen says that he did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Plural Number Theodoret that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which appears also from Ruffinus who had the relation from Aedesius himself who was the Companion of Frumentius To my third instance of Moses all that you answer is that its likely he had as few among the Arabians there being no mention in the History of any thing to persuade us that he had many Churches under him that you remember Sozomen's words concerning him are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theodoret is indeed indefinite but yet his words are such as imply a very considerable multitude 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For if they had been but few who were converted by him it is not likely that the expressions would have been so unlimited having before spoken of the whole Nation who had desired him by their Princess Maria. AFTER these instances of great numbers under the Jurisdiction of single Bishops I at length applied them to my purpose observing that they were so many yet discipline was not dissolved To this you answer 1. That in all this I leave out a matter of chief consideration viz. That all the Presbyters then were Assistants in discipline and had a true Church Government which now they have not If you mean such Government as you count true in respect of their Parishioners this you know is not denied them they have a power of executing their Ordinaries commands among them and to discharge their own office though with dependence on the Bishop which is as much as is consistent with an Ecclesiastical Monarchick Government and is an assistance sufficient to enable an Ecclesiastical as well as a Secular Monarch to preserve discipline If such as is true in respect of the Government in general even this they have in the lower houses of our Convocations So that all that you can complain of among us as dissonant from the primitive example is that they are not indeed assistant at their Bishops counsels in every particular act of discipline This you may remember I wished reformed but as it is I cannot conceive it so extremely prejudicial to discipline as to excuse the want of it under a Diocesan Government For even among us the Bishop or he who represents him though for my part I could wish that he would act personally without such Representatives does not give sentence in particular acts of discipline without counsel and that counsel qualified with such requisites as would make Presbyters fit to assist in it that is skill in the Canon Laws and prudence in Government so that their being also ordained persons would onely prove an advantage of decorum not of material influence on Government Certainly unless Clergiemen were better skilled in these things than I doubt they are commonly their onely being Clergiemen would not so conveniently fit them for service in this kind if wanting those other more essential qualifications as their having them though wanting Orders So that of the two evils which follow their disunion in the same persons this seems to be the less But if you think no assistance sufficient but such as may make them independent on their Bishop that I have proved as far from the practice of those earlier ages as of the present 2. YOU say It 's strange that we that have eyes and ears must be sent to the Persians you mean the Indians and ancient History to know whether one Bishop can hear and try and admonish so many thousands at once as we see by experience are those objects of discipline which the Scripture describeth and when we see that it is not done But all this need not have been thought so strange if you had remembred the true state of the question that it was not whether discipline were actually maintained by our Diocesan Government but whether it could not possibly be maintained under it and that it does no way follow that it cannot because it is not That although this argument ab actu ad potentiam negativè which is yours do not hold yet mine which proceeds affirmatively will That discipline has actually been maintained under a Diocesan Government therefore it is still possible to be maintained under it That for concluding this possibility it is not requisite that it must be maintained in all times and places but it is sufficient that it was in any and that sure may be proved as well by ancient and exotick Histories as by those which are modern and of our own Country And for shewing the possibility I have already proved that so many thousands may as well be disciplined by one Ecclesiastical as one Secular Monarch That of those many thousand objects of discipline you conceive described in the Scripture many are onely Objects of private cognizance which is not denied to ordinary Parish Ministers That they who are of publick are not so extremely numerous or if they were they may be dealt with as in Seculars some punished in terrorem and others equally
be severe for the good of the Commonwealth than it is for a Chirurgeon to cut off a gangreened member for the preservation of its owners life And such is the design of the Church who is not for using even her spiritual coercions which onely belong to her but onely on such persons on whom her rational inducements have proved desperate and succesless BUT notwithstanding your former contrary intimations you say You desire no force nor Church power but not to take these 1. for Christians 2. for your special Christian flock 1. who are no Christians 2. who themselves refuse it But this power you desire here is more than that which alone was allowed by you to Bishops of reproving exhorting instructing and declaring persons fitness or unfitness for communion by their penitence or impenitence For what if your people believe those penitent whom you think impenitent or on the contrary What if they be not satisfied with your Declarations or resolved not to observe them What if at least the greater part which is always predominant in popular Governments be not of your opinion Would you think your self obliged in such a case to make your peoples opinion or your own the rule of your practice in receiving or rejecting persons from your communion If you follow your people then you are as capable of being imposed on against your will for receiving such persons for Christians and for part of your Christian flock who are no Christians and who themselves refuse it by them as you are now by the Bishop And it does not appear that the greater part of your flock especially if such as you describe whereof whole Parishes have been presented by the Churchwardens are likely to stand with you in opposition to your Bishop And if they stand for him against you you can have no reason to obtrude your own judgment and complain according to this principle But if notwithstanding their dissent from you you yet resolve to follow your own judgment in receiving or rejecting according to your own thoughts of the penitence or impenitence of the person obnoxious to your Discipline then you will indeed be so far from desiring no Church power as that you would desire more than you seem willing to grant the Bishops which is onely declarative And then if you may as a Governour impose on the people why may not the Bishop as your Governour impose on you Indeed there can be no such thing as Government without such an Imposition as you speak of For the reason of all Government is the inequality of mens Judgment in their own causes and the inconvenience of deciding their differences by force which is many times the greatest on the unjust side The design therefore of all Government is to entrust a third person or society supposed impartial to the litigant parties with a power sufficient to compel either of them to submit to her decision For seeing it is not ordinarily to be expected that differences should be decided by a persuasion of both parties of the equity of decisions but that both parties will frequently prove tenacious of their own Opinions therefore it is necessary that the guilty whatever he be who will seldom believe his own condemnation just be imposed on and such an Imposition being thus thought necessary common prudence will suggest that it is much more equal and secure for the party imposed on that he be imposed on by the common arbitrator of their differences than by his partially affected adversary And accordingly where there is no need of imposition there is none of government and the seat of government is finally resolved on them who have this power of imposing their own sentiments on others so that to deny Ministers this power over the people or the Bishops over the Ministers is to make neither the one nor the other properly Governours Besides the power of Excommunication and Absolution which you seem to mean in this your complaint that the independent use of them is not communicated to the Ministers are so incommunicably proper to the supreme governour who as having the power of a Society must also have that of admitting to and rejecting members from it as that it were impossible for him to give an account of his charge if others may admit and reject at pleasure without dependence on him So that to complain of being imposed on in this kind is indeed in effect to complain of the Bishops superiority over you And if this reason were of any force it would proceed as much against the Presbyterian government as the Episcopal for even among them the Minister may as well be over-voted and consequently overruled by the Classes as with us by the Bishops So inseparable this power of imposing on Parish Ministers is found from Government as that is indeed admitted by all them who own a Government superiour to single Parishes BUT I pray quo jure do you challenge this Parochial power of Excommunication and Absolution independent on your Ordinaries I shall at present give you leave to say not because that I think you can prove it but because I am unwilling at present to dispute it that Presbyters were not onely counsellors but coordinate governours with the Bishop But how can you shew the least likelyhood that the Bishop had not at least a negative vote among them That as he could not do any thing without their suffrages so they were able to conclude any thing without his Much less are you able to prove that every particular Presbyter singly taken ever had within his own Jurisdiction the power of determining so momentous a thing as Ecclesiastical censures Whereever you find any Presidents over Presbyteries in the Scriptures whether Apostles or Evangelists or Angels you cannot find any Precedent of any thing carried by the major vote against the consent of the President as at least one of the prevailing number And for the Ignatian Episcopacy and so downwards to S. Cyprian which you seem to approve it is very plain that all the power of Presbyters was dependent on the Bishop Thus Ignatius in his genuine uninterpolated Epistle to the Ephesians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And that that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the Communion of the Bishop appears from the sequel whence he concludes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whence you may easily guess what he would have thought of Presbyters communicating in opposition to the Bishop that even such Communions being without the altar must needs have been destitute of the bread of God To the same purpose also the same blessed Martyr advises even Presbyters not to despise the youth of Damas the Bishop of the Magnesians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 translated appositely to the sense of this place familiariter uti seems to argue a greater distance than you would I believe think consistent with the parity you are so desirous of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 observe I pray again