A
Reply
to
Mr.
Baxter's
pretended
Confutation
of
my
Book
OF
SCHISM
.
Contents
.
Mr.
Baxter's
disingenuous
dealing
with
my
Person
.
A
Defence
of
my self
.
§
1
,
2.
Why
I
am
unwilling
to
recriminate
.
§
3.
An
account
of
the
Publication
of
these
Letters
.
§
4.
His
endeavours
against
me
cannot
in
reason
be
called
a
Confutation
,
as
the
word
Confutation
signifies
either
an
Answer
to
my
Proofs
,
or
a
Disproof
of
my
Answers
.
§
5.
Nor
as
it
may
signifie
a
Disproof
of
my
principal
Conclusion
,
by
proof
of
Truths
inconsistent
with
it
.
§
6.
Nor
as
it
may
signifie
a
Disproof
of
what
is
said
in
defence
of
my
Principal
Conclusion
,
though
without
particular
application
.
§
7.
His
invidious
consequences
,
concerning
the
multitude
concerned
in
my
Principles
,
do
not
prove
the
Principles
themselves
false
.
§
8.
Not
proving
them
false
,
the
unkindness
of
the
application
will
be
rather
his
than
mine
.
§
9.
A
defence
of
our
English
Succession
from
Aidan
and
Finan
,
&c.
§
10.
His
Hypothesis
concerning
God's
giving
Ecclesiastical
Power
immediately
,
drawn
out
into
several
Propositions
.
§
11.
This
is
the
onely
likely
way
of
justifying
our
Adversaries
Ordinations
.
Their
Similitudes
will
not
do
without
it
;
not
that
of
a
Husband
over
the
Wife
;
not
that
of
the
Power
of
a
Corporation
conveyed
by
Charter
.
§
12
,
13
,
14.
Two
things
premised
before
a
particular
Answer
to
that
Hypothesis
;
1.
That
at
least
it
must
be
granted
,
that
the
reasoning
of
my
former
Book
will
hold
,
on
supposition
that
Ecclesiastical
Power
is
given
by
God
,
not
immediately
,
but
by
the
interposition
of
the
Ordeiners
.
§
15.
2.
That
this
Hypothesis
is
not
agreeable
to
the
Notions
of
any
Party
that
owns
any
such
thing
as
Ecclesiastical
Power
;
but
onely
of
Enthusiasts
,
who
utterly
deprive
the
Church
of
any
such
Power
,
or
of
being
a
Political
Society
.
§
16
,
17.
The
mischievous
consequences
of
this
Hypothesis
.
§
18.
Authority
does
not
necessarily
result
from
true
Qualifications
.
It
is
not
agreeable
to
the
sentiments
of
Mankind
to
think
so
.
Not
in
Supreme
Power
.
§
19.
Not
in
Subordinate
.
God
suits
his
Establishments
in
Government
to
the
sentiments
of
Mankind
.
§
20.
It
is
not
agreeable
to
the
principles
of
Ecclesiastical
Government
in
particular
.
The
Rights
of
God
not
alienable
without
a
particular
and
express
consent
.
§
21.
The
Right
of
Forgiving
offences
least
alienable
of
all
other
Rights
.
§
22.
Less
alienable
by
a
Governour
(
which
is
the
person
God
assumes
here
)
than
by
any
other
person
.
§
23.
This
Hypothesis
not
agreeable
to
Authority
.
The
Scripture
account
of
extraordinary
Offices
being
grounded
on
Gifts
not
favourable
to
our
Adversaries
.
§
24.
Much
less
pertinent
to
the
Scripture
account
concerning
ordinary
Offices
.
The
Independency
of
gifted
persons
on
the
ordinary
Governours
expresly
opposed
in
the
Scripture
.
§
25.
The
Scripture
constantly
supposes
Man
instrumental
in
giving
ordinary
Ecclesiastical
Authority
.
§
26
,
27.
It
is
no
dishonour
to
the
Holy
Ghost
to
suppose
him
given
by
Men
instrumentally
.
§
28.
Want
of
Gifts
does
not
invalidate
Ecclesiastical
Authority
when
once
given
.
§
29.
Gifts
for
Preaching
not
essential
to
the
Ministry
.
§
30.
Application
to
the
forementioned
Hypothesis
,
§
31.
Arguments
of
Mr.
Baxter's
s
;
elf
Conviction
.
Conclusion
.
§
32.
§
I
MR.
Baxter
in
a
late
Book
of
his
bestowed
one
whole
Chapter
on
the
Confutation
of
my
Schismatical
Book
(
so
he
is
also
pleased
to
call
it
)
of
SCHISM
.
I
wish
with
all
my
heart
he
had
confined
himself
to
my
Book
,
[
](A36252-e6190-b)*
*
The
true
and
onely
way
of
Conc.
part
3.
chap.
9.
and
forborn
unbecoming
,
as
well
as
undeserved
,
Insinuations
concerning
my
Person
.
I
mean
particularly
those
Suggestions
concerning
Communion
,
which
most
oblige
me
on
the
account
of
conscience
to
take
notice
of
them
;
and
which
notwithstanding
can
hardly
be
discussed
,
without
what
I
am
otherwise
so
averse
to
,
some
consequential
Reflection
on
him
.
He
has
indeed
put
me
in
hopes
of
some
amends
for
it
.
If
he
perform
it
,
it
will
be
well
for
his
own
sake
.
For
my
part
I
do
not
intend
to
depend
[
](A36252-e6300-b)*
*
This
I
had
written
before
I
had
seen
the
Admonion
prefixed
to
his
Church
History
,
where
he
pretends
to
make
me
the
amends
he
had
promised
,
but
still
leaves
it
as
a
dispute
what
I
really
am
,
to
be
determined
not
from
his
Testimony
,
but
from
my
Book
.
We
had
at
his
own
nomination
referred
the
form
of
his
Purgation
to
the
excellent
Dean
of
Canterbury
,
to
whom
I
had
expresly
given
warning
of
such
slippery
forms
,
from
some
tryal
I
had
of
him
both
in
Discourse
,
and
in
a
Letter
;
but
he
never
consulted
him
.
By
this
it
appears
how
little
reason
I
had
to
depend
on
him
.
However
I
am
glad
he
has
acquainted
the
Reader
with
the
true
reason
of
these
disingenuous
Suspicions
concerning
me
,
that
he
has
referr'd
him
to
my
Books
.
He
cannot
mean
my
two
Books
designodly
against
the
Romanists
,
but
onely
the
last
of
Schism
.
Vpon
which
the
Controversie
will
be
reduced
to
this
short
issue
;
They
who
will
have
the
defence
of
Ecclesiastical
Authority
to
pass
for
Popery
will
judge
me
a
Papist
;
but
they
who
will
take
the
estimate
of
Popery
from
what
the
Laws
and
Church
of
England
has
condemned
under
that
name
,
will
find
no
shadow
for
so
base
an
Accusation
.
I
am
heartily
content
to
abide
this
tryal
;
but
Mr.
Baxter
had
deale
more
sincerely
,
if
he
(
who
is
,
on
other
occasions
where
there
is
no
need
,
so
offended
at
others
for
not
explaining
terms
not
understood
by
the
parties
in
different
senses
)
had
been
here
as
careful
to
warn
his
Reader
,
that
this
was
all
he
meant
by
the
name
of
Popery
.
He
cannot
but
know
,
that
the
Commonalty
,
to
whom
he
would
make
me
odious
by
this
insinuation
,
mean
far
different
and
worse
things
by
it
,
than
the
bare
defence
of
Ecclesiastical
Authority
free
from
any
of
the
Romish
Encroachments
and
Usurpations
.
on
it
.
I
know
how
ordinary
it
is
for
the
Nonconformists
to
asperse
that
same
Religion
,
which
has
been
settled
here
by
those
Laws
and
Legislators
,
who
first
excluded
Popery
,
with
that
same
odious
Name
,
against
which
those
Laws
and
Legislators
were
deservedly
so
zealous
.
We
know
how
very
lately
they
have
again
been
endeavouring
it
,
and
even
at
a
time
when
themselves
pretended
a
cordial
union
among
Protestants
so
very
necessary
.
I
know
particularly
how
Mr.
Baxter
has
been
guilty
of
it
in
his
Book
of
the
Grotian
Religion
.
I
know
how
Moderation
in
the
Disputes
of
Christendom
is
apt
to
be
so
miscalled
by
these
,
who
so
much
pretend
themselves
to
Moderation
.
What
difference
is
there
betwixt
that
which
was
decried
as
Grotianism
in
those
excellent
persons
Bishop
Bramhall
and
Doctor
Pierce
;
and
that
which
is
so
much
applauded
as
equal
and
candid
dealing
in
Monsieur
le
Blanc
,
Mr.
Baxter
himself
,
and
as
many
of
that
Party
as
have
affected
the
praise
of
being
Men
of
Healing
Principles
?
I
know
how
the
defence
of
Order
,
and
Discipline
,
and
Ecclesiastical
Power
,
is
apt
to
be
so
miscalled
by
them
.
And
far
be
it
from
me
that
I
should
endeavour
to
purchase
their
good
word
or
opinion
,
by
deserting
such
Causes
as
these
,
let
them
call
them
by
what
odious
names
they
please
.
For
others
who
are
more
equal
Judges
,
I
think
I
have
as
much
to
say
to
clear
my self
from
the
imputation
of
Popery
,
as
Mr.
Baxter
himself
has
,
or
can
have
.
I
mention
not
my
Education
from
the
beginning
in
the
Communion
of
the
Church
of
England
,
and
never
varying
from
it
.
I
mention
not
my
Renunciation
of
Popery
when
I
was
made
Fellow
of
the
College
of
Dublin
,
which
he
seems
willing
to
asperse
,
because
I
had
once
the
honour
to
be
a
Member
of
it
.
I
mention
not
my
Books
against
Popery
,
Considerat
.
of
present
concernment
.
in
one
of
which
I
have
endeavoured
to
prove
,
that
the
Doctrines
of
the
Church
,
as
well
as
the
Court
,
of
Rome
are
treasonable
;
which
let
any
equal
person
think
what
service
it
could
do
them
,
by
one
who
must
be
supposed
onely
to
dissemble
himself
of
another
Communion
.
I
mention
not
the
Witnesses
of
my
Life
in
those
places
where
I
have
spent
the
greatest
part
of
it
.
§
II
MY
present
communicating
with
the
Church
of
England
,
and
none
other
,
will
with
equal
Judges
,
who
will
allow
any
possibility
for
Protestants
to
clear
themselves
from
the
imputation
of
Popery
,
when
charged
on
them
in
times
of
ill
design
,
Part
3.
Ch.
9.
Sect.
32.
be
a
sufficient
Purgation
,
notwithstanding
his
Cavils
to
the
contrary
.
If
my
mind
should
change
,
(
as
at
present
I
foresee
no
probability
that
it
ever
will
)
I
hope
in
God
that
greater
Fears
than
those
I
have
from
him
,
shall
never
force
me
to
dissemble
.
At
present
I
intend
,
that
this
shall
not
fright
me
from
any
reasonable
Candour
to
Papists
,
as
well
as
other
Adversaries
.
And
this
methinks
a
Peace-maker
,
and
a
person
of
that
Catholick
temper
to
which
Mr.
Baxter
does
so
pretend
,
should
not
be
angry
at
,
Terms
of
Conc.
part
2.
chap.
5.
sect.
39.
who
can
himself
(
when
he
thinks
fit
)
give
a
just
Character
of
what
he
thinks
commendable
in
them
.
But
I
am
weary
of
such
Personal
Subjects
,
in
which
the
Publick
is
so
little
concern'd
;
and
I
am
not
willing
to
make
this
slander
look
too
like
a
matter
of
real
dispute
by
too
sollicitous
a
defence
.
All
I
shall
say
further
for
my
own
vindication
in
this
matter
is
,
that
I
challenge
the
justice
of
them
that
know
me
,
and
that
I
claim
the
charity
of
those
who
do
not
,
till
they
have
better
information
,
than
the
Surmises
,
rather
than
Arguments
,
of
this
otherwise
good
man
in
his
passion
.
I
dare
stand
by
an
Authority
which
he
cannot
well
decline
;
it
is
his
own
against
himself
in
this
very
Book
wherein
he
has
traduced
me
.
Part
3.
Ch.
2.
Sect.
11.
Himself
has
observed
how
ordinary
it
is
to
charge
even
just
moderation
in
Disputes
wherein
the
Papists
are
concerned
with
Grotianism
;
no
doubt
out
of
a
consciousness
of
his
own
guilt
,
for
I
believe
he
is
himself
the
principal
(
if
not
the
onely
)
Author
of
the
charge
of
Grotianism
to
the
Sons
of
the
Church
of
England
.
Part
1.
Ch.
13.
Sect.
2.
Himself
has
also
observed
how
not
onely
the
common
gang
,
but
even
learned
men
,
yea
and
zealous
religious
men
are
to
be
suspected
in
their
evil
Characters
,
and
Reports
of
those
that
they
are
speaking
against
as
Adversaries
.
And
he
says
,
It
grieveth
him
to
think
how
little
most
Adversaries
in
this
case
are
to
be
believed
.
So
that
without
disparagement
to
his
acknowledged
zeal
and
religiousness
,
the
impartial
Reader
has
from
himself
a
sufficient
warning
to
suspect
him
in
this
matter
.
§
III
FAR
be
it
from
me
to
recriminate
,
or
to
return
him
evil
for
evil
.
I
have
in
truth
a
just
Reverence
for
his
Devotional
Labours
,
and
the
benefit
that
many
Souls
have
received
by
them
.
I
have
a
Reverence
for
his
publick
designs
of
charity
,
and
particularly
for
that
of
endeavouring
the
Peace
of
Christendom
,
and
am
sorry
that
my
agreeing
with
him
in
it
,
(
which
I
hoped
might
have
been
an
endearment
)
has
in
the
event
proved
an
occasion
of
offence
.
I
have
withall
a
Reverence
for
his
years
,
and
am
unwilling
that
the
defects
of
his
Age
and
Controversial
Writings
,
should
impair
any
of
that
Credit
his
former
and
Devotional
Writings
have
justly
gained
him
.
On
these
accounts
I
most
willingly
pass
by
his
other
personal
Reflections
on
me
,
which
my
Conscience
will
permit
me
to
take
no
notice
of
.
I
pass
by
even
his
disrespectful
mention
of
our
primitive
Forefathers
,
of
Bishops
as
Bishops
,
and
Clergie
as
Clergie
,
and
even
of
those
to
whom
in
his
Episcopal
Ordination
he
must
have
promised
Canonical
Obedience
antecedently
to
the
Covenant
.
I
pass
by
the
Imperfections
of
his
way
of
reasoning
used
generally
in
his
later
Writings
.
I
pass
by
whatsoever
may
concern
his
person
,
as
far
as
my
cause
will
give
me
leave
.
I
cannot
deny
,
but
some
of
these
may
justly
forfeit
him
that
reverence
which
his
other
Performances
have
deserved
.
But
besides
my
own
unwillingness
to
take
advantage
even
of
just
Forfeitures
,
I
have
other
prudential
reasons
to
forbear
such
a
subject
.
They
administer
no
occasion
of
promoting
useful
Knowledge
;
they
are
neither
likely
to
be
received
by
others
,
nor
to
benefit
himself
,
as
proceeding
from
an
Adversary
.
§
IV
CONCERNING
the
cause
it self
I
find
so
little
said
,
as
that
I
had
thought
to
cast
my self
upon
the
candour
of
our
disinterested
Readers
.
But
remembring
that
a
subject
which
was
wanting
here
,
was
given
me
formerly
in
these
Letters
which
pass'd
between
us
some
years
since
,
upon
the
Publication
of
my
Letters
of
Advice
;
remembring
that
the
same
things
which
had
been
objected
then
,
are
still
objected
anew
in
this
,
and
his
other
late
Books
,
without
[
](A36252-e7820-b)*
*
Since
my
writing
of
this
I
find
Mr.
Baxter
once
referring
to
the
second
of
these
Letters
in
his
Church
History
;
but
he
has
added
nothing
that
I
find
against
what
had
here
been
argued
,
excepting
his
account
of
the
small
numbers
of
the
Church
of
Alexandria
from
Mr.
Clarkson
;
which
I
should
here
have
considered
,
if
that
as
well
as
the
rest
of
the
design
of
his
Church
History
,
had
not
been
already
undertaken
by
an
excellent
and
learned
Friend
,
from
whom
I
hope
the
World
will
shortly
have
an
account
of
it
.
the
least
notice
of
those
Answers
which
had
been
so
long
since
returned
to
them
;
considering
withall
,
that
that
subject
was
new
,
and
not
,
that
I
knew
of
,
considered
professedly
in
any
modern
Discourse
;
I
thought
it
not
unseasonable
to
take
this
occasion
of
publishing
them
,
the
rather
because
they
may
serve
as
an
Answer
to
the
greatest
part
of
the
Argument
of
his
Book
;
and
because
what
new
matter
is
here
urged
,
might
conveniently
enough
be
included
in
a
Preface
.
But
because
I
had
desired
him
not
to
publish
any
thing
without
common
consent
;
Let.
3.
sect.
3.
and
because
I
wanted
the
Copies
of
his
Letters
,
which
I
(
being
to
keep
the
Originals
)
did
therefore
not
transcribe
,
but
yet
could
not
now
come
at
,
because
they
were
in
Ireland
,
and
are
mislaid
since
my
departure
;
and
because
I
was
willing
to
take
leave
to
correct
what
I
thought
amiss
in
my
own
Letters
,
yet
so
as
to
do
him
no
wrong
by
doing
so
;
I
therefore
craved
his
concurrence
and
assistance
in
the
Publication
.
But
he
lest
me
to
dispose
of
my
own
as
I
thought
fit
.
I
have
accordingly
taken
the
liberty
to
expunge
some
things
personal
,
and
,
but
very
rarely
,
to
add
what
might
better
clear
my
own
sense
;
but
was
in
both
as
cautious
as
I
could
be
,
not
to
misrepresent
him
to
his
disadvantage
,
and
the
rather
because
I
wanted
his
own
Originals
.
I
have
always
endeavoured
rather
to
answer
his
sense
than
his
expressions
,
whenever
I
thought
his
expressions
were
not
so
much
for
the
advantage
of
his
cause
.
But
if
any
suspect
otherwise
of
an
Adversary
,
I
am
content
,
and
shall
be
glad
that
what
I
say
may
pass
for
a
Reply
rather
to
his
cause
than
his
person
;
that
he
be
charged
with
nothing
but
what
he
owns
again
in
this
Book
,
or
will
own
again
when
there
is
occasion
.
I
know
not
what
himself
can
desire
more
in
order
to
my
dealing
fairly
.
§
V
TO
come
therefore
more
closely
to
his
pretended
Confutation
of
my
Book
,
I
wonder
what
it
is
that
any
indifferent
person
can
indeed
mistake
in
it
for
a
Confutation
.
Part
3.
ch.
9.
sect.
20.
I
have
given
a
Summary
of
my
whole
design
in
the
beginning
of
it
;
(
I
wish
he
had
transcribed
it
where
he
pretends
to
give
an
account
of
my
Design
and
Doctrine
.
)
It
had
certainly
been
no
disparagement
to
him
,
to
have
allowed
me
for
a
fitter
Interpreter
of
my
own
mind
than
himself
)
I
have
digested
it
into
the
several
Propositions
whereof
it
consists
,
See
the
Summary
at
the
end
of
this
Reply
.
in
the
natural
order
wherein
they
follow
each
other
,
with
reference
to
the
several
Chapters
wherein
they
are
proved
,
by
which
the
Reader
may
readily
inform
himself
,
Ibid.
sect.
29.
whether
I
onely
beg
,
and
do
not
prove
,
so
many
things
as
this
reverend
person
pretends
begged
and
not
proved
by
me
.
And
every
Chapter
has
,
in
the
Contents
,
a
general
Analysis
of
the
proofs
contained
in
it
.
I
did
prevent
all
the
Answers
I
know
of
,
not
onely
in
his
Disputations
of
Church
Government
,
and
in
Voetius
,
but
in
all
others
that
either
I
had
read
or
could
foresee
,
though
I
did
not
think
it
needful
to
make
an
endless
Application
to
every
particular
Author
that
had
written
on
the
subject
.
Whoever
will
not
believe
me
let
him
try
,
after
he
has
once
throughly
acquainted
himself
with
my
principles
.
And
what
has
he
done
against
all
this
that
may
deserve
the
name
of
a
Confutation
?
Has
he
answered
the
proofs
,
I
do
not
say
of
my
whole
Work
,
but
of
any
single
proposition
,
I
think
I
might
say
,
of
any
one
single
Argument
in
it
?
For
my
part
I
cannot
find
one
single
Instance
,
and
let
the
Reader
iudge
between
us
.
But
it
may
be
by
Confuting
he
does
not
mean
Answering
,
but
Disproving
.
Has
he
therefore
disproved
any
Answers
on
my
part
,
that
might
either
be
given
consequently
to
my
principles
,
or
which
were
expresly
given
by
me
?
Whoever
had
designed
the
Improvement
of
Knowledge
,
would
have
endeavoured
the
prevention
of
such
Answers
,
as
might
have
been
made
by
my
principles
;
but
I
have
not
had
the
favour
to
have
those
taken
notice
of
,
which
were
particularly
and
expresly
given
.
Part
3.
ch.
9.
sect.
12.
The
Opinion
of
those
who
make
Episcopacy
and
Presbytery
not
different
in
order
but
degree
,
and
the
Case
of
a
desolate
Island
,
Ib.
sect.
11.
are
still
urged
and
urged
as
Arguments
,
as
confidently
as
if
nothing
yet
had
been
said
concerning
them
.
Yet
I
had
considered
the
former
in
a
whole
Chapter
.
Ch.
23.
Concerning
the
later
I
denied
what
he
said
,
Ch.
28.
sect.
29
,
&c.
and
gave
my
Reasons
of
denial
:
yet
has
he
not
been
pleased
to
take
any
the
least
notice
either
of
the
denial
or
the
disproof
.
He
tells
me
that
I
call
men
oft
to
Catholick
Unity
,
and
never
tells
them
what
it
is
,
or
how
it
may
be
known
;
yet
even
this
I
made
the
subject
of
a
principal
part
of
a
Chapter
.
Ch.
27.
By
which
the
Reader
will
judge
,
Part
3.
ch.
9.
sect.
19
,
20.
who
it
is
that
provokes
to
write
the
same
things
over
again
.
And
now
when
neither
Proofs
▪
are
answered
,
nor
Answers
disproved
,
how
can
that
properly
be
called
a
Confutation
?
§
VI
I
KNOW
not
for
my
own
part
what
he
can
mean
further
by
this
word
but
a
disproof
of
my
conclusion
,
though
without
any
particular
application
to
my
Principles
.
And
if
this
must
pass
for
a
Confutation
,
why
may
not
my
Book
,
though
written
the
former
of
the
two
,
be
called
a
Confutation
of
his
,
as
well
as
his
a
Confutation
of
mine
?
For
if
my
conclusion
must
therefore
be
supposed
false
,
because
inconsistent
with
what
he
has
proved
true
;
why
must
not
his
be
for
the
same
reason
supposed
false
,
because
inconsistent
with
what
I
have
proved
true
also
?
But
yet
even
in
this
way
of
of
Confutation
,
of
disproving
falshoods
by
proving
truths
inconsistent
with
them
,
it
ought
to
be
considered
,
whether
all
the
Answers
that
may
be
given
in
defence
of
my
principal
Conclusion
be
proved
false
,
as
well
as
the
Conclusion
defended
by
them
,
though
their
Phaenomena
were
not
particularly
accounted
for
?
Or
at
least
whether
his
disproofs
be
of
themselves
more
certain
or
more
evident
to
us
,
than
those
Arguments
by
which
I
had
positively
proved
it
?
If
neither
of
these
can
be
pretended
in
his
case
,
with
what
Justice
can
he
call
his
Performance
a
Confutation
?
And
not
now
to
enter
into
the
particular
merit
of
his
cause
,
let
us
see
whether
his
disproof
will
endure
a
tryal
by
even
these
presumptions
.
He
says
,
that
Church
Power
is
given
immediately
by
God
,
and
therefore
may
be
had
rather
where
it
is
not
received
by
the
Ministry
of
Men
,
nor
can
be
diminished
by
any
intention
of
theirs
from
whom
it
is
received
.
This
he
proves
from
two
Similitudes
,
that
of
the
Power
of
a
Corporation
given
by
the
Charter
,
(
which
was
expresly
considered
by
me
,
Ch.
20.
sect.
21.
if
it
had
been
his
custom
to
take
notice
of
any
Answers
)
and
that
of
a
Husband
over
the
Wife
.
Suppose
I
shall
at
present
be
so
kind
,
(
and
he
must
indeed
acknowledge
it
for
a
kindness
)
as
to
let
his
Similitudes
pass
for
Arguments
;
yet
who
can
be
so
extremely
partial
,
as
to
think
them
comparable
with
those
used
by
me
,
deduced
à
priori
,
from
the
nature
and
first
original
of
Ecclesiastical
Power
?
Wise
men
value
any
Arguments
whatsoever
before
Similitudes
.
How
much
more
such
as
these
,
which
are
acknowledged
to
be
,
in
their
own
nature
,
the
strongest
of
all
Arguments
?
§
VII
HAS
he
therefore
proved
what
is
said
in
defence
of
my
principal
Conclusion
false
,
as
well
as
the
Conclusion
it self
?
Has
he
proved
that
our
title
to
the
benefits
of
the
Gospel
does
not
depend
on
the
actual
promise
of
God
?
or
that
our
title
to
his
actual
promises
is
not
to
be
derived
from
our
Interest
in
his
Covenant
?
or
that
our
legal
Interest
in
the
Covenant
is
not
obtained
by
the
Seals
?
or
that
the
validity
of
the
Seals
does
not
require
Authority
in
him
who
presumes
to
use
them
?
or
that
the
same
Reasons
which
made
this
Authority
necessary
for
this
validity
of
the
Seals
,
will
not
hold
now
(
as
well
as
they
did
in
the
days
of
the
Apostles
)
and
for
ever
?
Does
he
deny
any
of
these
things
?
can
he
in
the
least
pretend
to
have
disproved
them
?
Do
any
of
his
Arguments
reach
them
either
directly
,
or
by
any
clear
and
necessary
consequence
?
Can
he
defend
his
Brethrens
Ordinations
or
Sacraments
administred
by
them
who
never
received
Episcopal
Orders
?
If
he
have
done
none
of
all
these
,
nor
so
much
as
attempted
them
,
what
will
become
of
his
pretended
Confutation
?
§
VIII
TILL
he
do
,
or
attempt
these
things
,
I
cannot
conceive
how
he
can
pretend
to
prove
my
Doctrine
false
.
All
that
he
endeavours
is
to
make
it
popularly
odious
.
That
is
the
tendency
of
all
those
odious
consequences
which
he
deduces
from
it
,
concerning
my
unchurching
and
unchristening
such
multitudes
of
Christians
and
Churches
.
The
consequences
are
of
his
own
deducing
.
I
undertake
not
to
judge
where
I
am
not
throughly
informed
in
the
matter
of
fact
.
But
what
if
these
consequences
should
really
follow
?
will
he
thence
conclude
my
reasonings
false
,
because
multitudes
are
concerned
in
the
consequences
of
them
?
This
also
was
an
Objection
prevented
and
accounted
for
in
my
Preface
,
Pref.
sect.
11
,
&c.
if
he
had
thought
himself
obliged
to
speak
to
Answers
in
his
Confutations
.
But
does
he
not
know
that
this
very
same
Objection
was
made
use
of
by
the
Heathens
against
Christianity
,
and
by
the
Romanists
against
the
Reformation
,
that
if
either
Christianity
or
Protestancy
were
the
onely
true
way
to
Salvation
exclusively
to
others
;
then
much
the
greater
number
of
Mankind
or
Christians
must
have
been
out
of
the
true
way
of
Salvation
?
And
can
he
deny
that
the
matter
of
fact
was
true
,
that
there
was
indeed
a
time
when
Heathens
were
more
numerous
than
Christians
,
and
Romanists
than
Protestants
?
Will
he
therefore
grant
that
Christianity
and
Protestancy
were
not
the
onely
ordinary
true
means
of
Salvation
?
I
know
he
will
be
far
from
saying
so
.
But
yet
he
is
not
sensible
how
much
himself
is
more
concerned
in
the
Consequence
of
this
Discourse
than
I
am
.
He
that
in
his
Diocesan
Ordination
must
have
promised
Canonical
Obedience
to
his
Ordinary
,
cannot
renounce
our
Diocesan
Communion
as
Diocesan
,
without
some
charge
of
sin
,
greater
than
the
sin
of
breaking
his
Promise
of
Canonical
Obedience
.
And
if
this
sin
agree
to
Diocesan
Communion
as
Diocesan
,
then
certainly
it
must
be
not
onely
a
single
act
of
sin
,
but
a
state
of
sin
;
and
such
a
state
of
sin
as
all
will
acknowledge
destructive
of
Salvation
,
so
agreeing
to
Diocesan
Communion
as
Diocesan
,
it
must
agree
to
all
Diocesan
Communion
whatsoever
.
And
if
all
Diocesan
Communion
as
Diocesan
be
destructive
of
Salvation
,
how
much
more
uncharitable
will
he
prove
than
I
,
if
to
maintain
principles
from
whence
consequences
will
follow
,
which
will
prove
hurtful
to
faulty
persons
,
must
be
thought
uncharitable
?
How
few
are
those
Protestants
that
want
Episcopal
Ordination
(
who
can
alone
seem
chargeable
with
the
consequences
of
my
Discourse
)
in
comparison
of
the
whole
Greek
and
Latin
Churches
,
and
those
other
Forein
Protestants
also
,
as
well
as
those
of
our
own
Dominions
,
which
will
be
concerned
in
the
consequences
of
his
?
I
might
here
declame
as
tragically
as
he
does
,
and
retort
a
great
part
of
his
own
Discourse
upon
himself
,
if
I
were
desirous
to
take
advantage
of
this
Topick
against
him
,
not
so
much
to
prove
his
Doctrine
false
,
as
to
expose
it
as
odious
.
If
he
will
say
,
that
he
has
notwithstanding
charitable
thoughts
concerning
the
persons
of
many
,
who
differ
from
him
in
principles
of
their
own
nature
destructive
of
Salvation
:
Abate
his
affection
to
his
party
,
which
makes
him
(
as
his
matter
requires
)
speak
inconsistently
;
and
I
think
I
shall
allow
as
much
candour
and
charity
to
the
persons
of
Dissenters
,
as
he
can
rationally
,
and
with
any
consistency
with
any
,
even
his
own
,
principles
.
§
IX
IF
therefore
it
be
granted
,
that
these
consequences
are
no
just
argument
to
prove
the
principles
false
from
which
they
follow
;
it
will
then
follow
further
,
that
in
order
to
the
confutation
of
my
principles
,
he
ought
not
to
content
himself
with
deducing
these
consequences
,
without
more
distinct
application
to
the
principles
themselves
;
it
will
follow
,
that
even
the
odium
of
such
consequences
is
irrational
and
sinful
,
and
therefore
not
at
all
regardable
in
conscience
,
whatever
it
may
in
prudence
.
No
truly
conscientious
persons
can
be
offended
at
just
consequences
from
principles
whose
truth
is
not
proved
questionable
,
especially
where
positive
reasons
have
been
produced
for
them
.
And
therefore
whoever
are
so
,
must
for
that
very
reason
,
at
least
in
this
particular
,
be
presumed
not
to
act
conscienciously
,
or
consequently
to
be
regardable
on
account
of
conscience
;
It
will
follow
,
that
till
he
do
answer
more
distinctly
to
my
principles
,
the
very
unkindness
of
the
application
will
be
rather
his
than
mine
.
For
till
he
weaken
the
proof
of
my
principles
,
I
shall
have
reason
in
all
equity
to
presume
them
true
.
And
if
he
draw
Inferences
unfavourable
to
them
from
unconvicted
principles
,
it
will
be
he
,
not
I
,
that
must
be
responsible
,
at
least
for
the
application
.
If
therefore
he
will
not
make
them
less
concerned
than
it
is
their
Interest
to
be
in
case
of
real
danger
,
let
him
first
secure
them
from
the
danger
by
a
conviction
of
my
principles
;
which
when
he
does
,
he
will
have
me
as
well
as
them
indebted
to
him
for
the
Obligation
.
Till
he
do
so
,
certainly
plain
dealing
and
a
fair
warning
is
the
most
real
office
of
Friendship
,
that
can
be
shewn
in
case
of
danger
.
I
wish
I
may
,
by
this
intimation
,
prevail
with
whosoever
shall
hereafter
trouble
themselves
to
answer
me
,
not
to
satisfie
themselves
with
invidious
clamours
,
and
evasions
of
a
direct
Answer
to
my
principles
.
A
direct
Answer
would
better
become
them
,
as
Lovers
and
Enquirers
of
truth
,
rather
than
Votaries
to
a
Party
;
would
more
tend
to
the
satisfaction
of
conscientious
Dissenters
;
would
afford
a
better
subject
for
useful
information
.
§
X
As
for
particulars
,
there
are
onely
two
that
I
can
know
of
,
in
which
indifferent
Friends
do
think
me
concerned
.
One
is
,
that
he
says
,
and
says
it
more
than
once
,
that
the
Generality
of
our
Saxon
Bishops
derive
their
Succession
from
Aidan
and
Finan
,
who
(
says
he
)
were
no
Bishops
,
as
Bede
and
others
fully
testifie
.
So
that
he
says
,
Premonition
.
Terms
of
Conc.
p.
11.
chap.
5.
sect
23.
&
Church
History
.
The
denying
the
validity
of
the
Ordination
by
Presbyters
,
shaketh
the
Succession
of
the
Episcopal
Church
of
England
,
and
proveth
it
on
that
supposition
interrupted
.
I
know
not
how
it
becomes
him
,
who
himself
pretends
Episcopal
Ordination
,
to
discover
his
Forefathers
nakedness
,
Part
3.
ch.
9.
sect.
4
,
13
if
it
had
been
true
that
is
here
suggested
.
But
not
to
expostulate
with
him
concerning
the
unkindness
herein
shewed
to
his
Ordainers
,
what
benefit
can
he
do
his
own
cause
by
this
Objection
?
Would
it
follow
,
that
his
Brethren
have
Succession
because
we
had
fail'd
of
it
?
Would
it
follow
,
that
Succession
is
not
necessary
,
because
none
could
justifie
their
Claims
by
it
?
Would
it
follow
,
that
the
Right
of
Ordination
must
in
course
be
escheated
to
the
Presbyteries
,
or
the
People
,
or
the
Magistracy
,
in
case
no
Right
could
now
be
made
out
by
Derivation
from
the
Apostles
?
If
Succession
be
still
necessary
for
the
validity
of
Orders
,
as
it
may
be
notwithstanding
this
Argument
,
till
he
answer
the
Arguments
produced
to
prove
it
necessary
;
all
that
he
can
expect
by
using
such
Arguments
as
these
will
be
,
not
to
satisfie
us
,
but
to
prove
us
as
faulty
as
themselves
;
not
to
quiet
the
consciences
of
those
who
should
be
afraid
of
Sacrilegious
Ordinances
,
but
onely
to
make
them
despair
of
ever
being
quieted
.
And
therefore
this
is
an
Answer
,
if
at
all
fit
to
be
insisted
on
,
yet
not
till
he
had
attempted
a
more
particular
Answer
.
But
,
God
be
praised
,
we
have
no
need
to
be
concerned
for
this
Objection
:
Bede
is
so
far
from
denying
Aidan
and
Finan
to
have
been
Bishops
,
as
that
he
expresly
affirms
the
contrary
.
Bede
Hist.
Angl.
III.
3
,
5.
Oswald
King
of
Northumberland
sent
to
the
Elders
of
the
Scots
for
a
Bishop
;
Antistes
is
the
word
in
Bede's
Latine
,
and
Biscop
in
the
Saxon
of
Alfred
.
Accordingly
he
receives
Pontificem
Aidanum
as
the
Latine
,
or
Biscop
as
it
is
again
in
the
Saxon.
When
this
Bishop
was
come
,
he
has
an
Episcopal
Se●
provided
for
him
;
so
Bede
most
expresly
,
Veniente
igitur
ad
se
EPISCOPO
,
Rex
l●cum
Sedis
EPISCOPALIS
in
Insula
Lindisfarnensi
,
ubi
ipse
petebat
,
tribuit
.
Again
,
Monachus
ipse
EPISCOPUS
Aidanus
.
He
elsewhere
tells
us
the
very
time
when
he
was
made
Bishop
,
Ib.
c.
5.
accepto
gradu
EPISCOPATUS
quo
tempore
eidem
Monasterio
Segenius
Abbas
&
Presbyter
praefecit
.
Where
the
Saxon
also
gives
him
the
Title
of
Bishop
,
though
it
omits
the
particularizing
of
the
time
when
he
received
it
.
He
therefore
also
gives
an
account
of
the
reason
why
his
Monastery
pitch'd
on
him
particularly
as
a
person
fit
for
that
Imployment
.
He
tells
us
,
that
thereupon
they
judged
him
dignum
Episcopatu
,
that
accordingly
illum
Ordinantes
ad
praedicandum
miserunt
.
●
.
6.
Again
,
he
is
called
Reverendissimus
Antistes
,
(
Biscop
in
the
Saxon
)
and
praefatus
Episcopus
.
The
same
Title
is
very
frequently
given
him
,
cap.
14
,
15
,
16
,
17.
&
l.
4.
23
,
27.
l.
5.
23.
so
frequently
,
as
that
I
do
not
know
whether
it
be
worth
while
to
transcribe
each
particular
Instance
,
and
the
Time
of
his
Bishoprick
distinctly
noted
.
So
also
in
his
Epitome
at
the
Year
DCLI
,
Aidanus
Episcopus
defunctus
est
.
So
extremely
little
occasion
he
had
of
even
mistaking
in
this
matter
from
Bede
himself
.
Nor
could
he
have
much
greater
from
those
others
to
whom
he
refers
us
,
who
must
have
taken
what
they
had
from
Bede
,
if
they
had
any
Authority
.
The
Saxon
Chronicon
transcribes
the
very
words
of
Bede's
Epitome
,
and
at
the
same
Year
.
The
like
Agreement
there
is
in
those
who
took
from
him
at
a
greater
distance
,
[
](A36252-e12250-b)a
a
Simeon
.
Dunelm
.
in
Collect.
Seldeni
.
Turgotus
,
[
](A36252-e12270-b)b
b
Simeon
.
Dunelm
.
in
Collect.
Seldeni
.
Simeon
Dunelmensis
,
[
](A36252-e12290-b)c
c
Malmesb.
de
gest
.
Angl.
l.
3.
de
gest
.
Pontif.
Angl.
l.
3.
Malmesburiensis
,
[
](A36252-e12310-b)d
d
Huntingd.
Hist.
l.
3.
Huntington
,
&c.
if
any
be
yet
further
curious
.
Nor
is
Bede
and
his
Transcribers
less
clear
in
the
case
of
Finan
.
Bede
Eccl.
Hist.
II●
.
17
Bede
is
most
express
.
Immediately
after
the
death
of
Aidan
,
he
subjoyns
,
Successit
verò
ei
in
Episcopatum
Finan
,
&
ipse
illo
ab
Hii
Scotorum
insulâ
ac
Monasterio
destinatus
,
ac
tempore
non
pauco
in
EPISCOPATU
permansit
.
Concerning
the
Baptism
of
Peada
Son
of
Pendan
,
L.
3.
c.
21.
King
of
the
Middle
Angles
and
the
Mercians
,
Ibid.
Baptizatus
est
ergo
à
Finano
Episcopo
.
Duma
also
(
mentioned
by
Mr.
Baxter
)
was
sent
as
Bishop
of
that
new
Colony
of
Christians
,
ordinatus
à
Finano
EPISCOPO
.
L.
3.
c.
22.
Sigbercht
King
of
the
East
Saxons
was
baptized
by
the
same
Finan
,
Baptizatus
est
à
Finano
EPISCOPO
.
And
when
Cedd
a
holy
person
was
invited
by
Sigbercht
for
the
Conversion
of
his
People
,
he
took
occasion
to
make
a
visit
at
Lindisfarn
,
the
Seat
of
the
Northumbrian
Bishops
,
propter
colloquium
Finani
EPISCOPI
,
where
he
was
made
Bishop
by
Finan
,
vocatis
ad
se
in
Ministerium
Ordinationis
aliis
duobus
EPISCOPIS
.
Qui
,
accepto
gradu
Episcopatûs
,
rediit
ad
provinciam
,
&
majore
autoritate
coeptum
opus
explens
,
fecit
per
loca
Ecclesias
,
Presbyteros
&
Diaconos
ordinavit
,
&c.
We
see
here
how
punctual
Observers
of
the
Canons
these
Scotish
Bishops
were
,
notwithstanding
our
Adversaries
would
fain
persuade
us
,
that
themselves
were
ordained
by
Presbyters
,
because
the
Monks
of
the
Isle
of
Hii
(
though
Bishops
)
were
subject
to
their
Abbot
,
though
onely
a
Presbyter
as
to
the
Rules
of
their
Monastick
Discipline
,
for
the
sake
of
their
first
Founder
Columba
,
who
never
exceeded
the
Order
of
Presbyter
.
But
Mr.
Baxter
would
do
well
to
let
us
know
what
use
they
could
have
had
of
Bishops
at
all
,
See
Bishop
Bramhalls
Vind.
of
the
Church
of
Engl.
c.
9.
Bishop
Pearson
Vind.
Ign.
l.
1.
c.
10.
if
it
were
not
to
perform
some
office
,
for
which
no
Superiority
of
their
Presbyter
Abbot
in
the
Monastery
could
qualifie
them
without
Bishops
.
And
what
either
then
,
or
ever
was
taken
for
so
unseparable
a
Right
of
Episcopacy
as
Ordination
?
If
therefore
they
were
willing
their
Presbyter
Abbot
should
,
for
the
sake
of
Columba
,
have
all
the
Honour
of
which
a
Presbyter
was
capable
,
and
yet
thought
it
necessary
to
have
Bishops
also
for
their
Ordinations
;
is
not
this
a
plain
Conviction
,
that
they
thought
this
Office
of
Ordination
not
performable
by
single
Presbyters
?
And
how
had
it
been
an
unusual
Order
,
as
Bede
expresly
says
it
was
,
that
Presbyters
(
if
such
onely
had
been
meant
by
the
name
of
Bishops
)
should
have
been
subject
to
the
Abbot
,
who
was
also
a
Presbyter
?
But
to
fancy
that
the
Offices
of
Bishops
and
Presbyters
were
confounded
in
those
later
Ages
of
which
we
are
discoursing
,
(
whatever
they
were
in
the
Apostles
)
is
indeed
a
fancy
so
extravagant
,
as
Mr.
Baxter
could
hardly
have
been
guilty
of
,
if
he
had
been
either
so
ingenuous
or
skilful
in
Church
History
as
he
would
fain
persuade
us
.
But
so
far
were
those
ancient
Scots
from
invading
this
Right
of
Episcopacy
,
that
as
to
Ordination
they
strictly
observed
even
our
present
Canons
.
Three
Bishops
were
at
the
Consecration
of
a
Bishop
,
who
when
he
was
thus
consecrated
,
and
not
before
,
had
that
greater
Authority
of
ordaining
Presbyters
and
Deacons
,
which
it
hence
appears
was
not
allowed
to
any
under
Bishops
.
But
to
return
from
whence
I
have
digressed
,
Finan
and
Aidan
are
both
of
them
expresly
said
again
to
have
been
Bishops
,
and
not
onely
so
,
but
the
Cathedral
Church
of
Finan
is
mentioned
again
by
Bede
:
L.
3.
c.
25.
Interim
Aidano
EPISCOPO
de
hac
vita
sublato
,
Finan
pro
illo
gradum
EPISCOPATUS
,
à
Scotis
ordinatus
ac
missus
acceperat
,
qui
in
insula
Landisfarnensi
fecit
Ecclesiam
EPISCOPALI
Sedi
congruam
.
c.
26.
Again
,
concerning
the
Dispute
between
Wilfred
and
Coleman
,
Facta
est
autem
haec
quaestio
Anno
Dominicae
Incarnationis
DCLXIV
,
qui
fuit
annus
Oswi
Regis
XII
,
EPISCOPATUS
autem
Scotorum
,
quem
gesserunt
in
provincia
Anglorum
,
annus
XXX
,
siquidem
Aidanus
XVII
annis
,
Finan
X
,
Coleman
III
,
EPISCOPATUM
tenuere
.
Yet
after
all
it
is
very
well
known
,
that
our
English
Succession
,
even
in
the
Kingdom
of
Northumberland
,
was
not
derived
down
to
us
from
Coleman
,
the
last
of
those
Scotish
Bishops
,
but
from
Wilfrede
a
Saxon
who
succeeded
him
.
I
wish
he
would
not
write
such
things
of
such
consequence
,
and
so
often
,
with
such
confidence
,
without
once
consulting
his
Authors
.
As
for
his
other
Authors
,
he
would
oblige
us
to
tell
us
who
they
are
,
that
could
know
any
thing
concerning
those
times
,
but
what
they
must
have
from
Bede
as
well
as
we
.
§
XI
The
other
particular
is
that
which
does
indeed
look
most
like
reasoning
and
principles
,
of
any
thing
that
is
said
by
him
in
his
whole
Book
.
And
I
shall
endeavour
to
shew
him
all
the
fair
dealing
I
can
,
in
representing
what
he
says
to
the
best
advantage
.
The
Summ
therefore
of
what
he
says
seems
most
conveniently
reducible
to
these
Propositions
.
1.
That
the
power
of
the
Ministry
is
grounded
on
the
gifts
and
qualifications
of
the
person
immediately
;
so
that
whoever
has
those
gifts
and
qualifications
,
has
thereby
an
essential
right
to
the
power
;
and
he
that
bestows
those
gifts
,
does
thereby
bestow
the
power
;
and
they
who
cannot
bestow
them
,
cannot
consequently
dispose
of
the
power
.
2.
That
God
alone
has
the
disposal
of
these
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
,
Part
3.
c.
9.
sect.
7.
p.
75
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
he
has
power
,
which
he
had
(
though
he
knew
it
not
)
antecedently
to
their
Declaration
;
or
to
hinder
him
of
the
exercise
of
that
power
which
he
has
,
and
may
know
that
he
has
independently
on
their
Declaration
:
and
therefore
can
be
onely
to
judge
for
themselves
in
order
to
their
own
acceptance
.
So
that
if
they
refuse
him
,
that
cannot
in
conscience
hinder
him
from
either
finding
,
or
proselyting
others
that
will
accept
him
.
And
in
the
mean
time
he
may
exercise
that
power
where
he
can
,
and
exercise
it
to
the
full
extent
of
it
,
as
far
as
himself
conceives
it
to
extend
,
because
he
must
on
these
principles
be
supposed
to
have
it
,
and
to
know
he
has
it
,
whether
they
accept
of
it
or
not
.
§
XII
I
KNOW
some
things
are
suggested
in
this
way
of
Management
,
which
are
not
actually
observed
by
Mr.
Baxter
,
nor
Mr.
Humfrey
,
nor
any
other
that
I
know
of
,
that
has
undertaken
this
Hypothesis
;
and
I
believe
some
things
,
which
when
they
see
how
consequentially
they
destroy
all
Ecclesiastical
Order
and
Government
,
themselves
will
then
perhaps
be
willing
to
disown
.
But
I
am
confident
nothing
has
been
added
,
but
what
has
been
for
the
advantage
of
the
Argument
,
and
what
is
consequential
and
agreeable
to
the
main
Hypothesis
;
and
for
that
they
must
,
whether
they
will
or
no
,
be
responsible
till
they
are
pleased
to
disown
the
Hypothesis
to
which
it
is
consequent
.
Certainly
it
is
much
more
defensible
than
the
bare
Simile's
of
the
Husbands
power
over
the
Wife
,
or
of
the
power
conveyed
by
an
Original
Charter
to
all
succeeding
Posterity
.
'T
is
true
indeed
,
that
no
compacts
of
the
Wife
with
the
Husband
can
diminish
that
Right
which
was
never
given
him
by
any
Compact
of
hers
,
for
that
very
reason
,
because
God
never
left
her
at
her
liberty
,
whether
she
should
be
subject
or
no
,
but
onely
to
chuse
the
person
,
to
whom
she
was
in
particular
to
pay
Subjection
.
But
certainly
my
Reasoning
will
hold
,
if
Ecclesiastical
Power
be
properly
given
by
the
Mediation
of
those
Ecclesiastical
Persons
,
who
minister
in
the
Act
of
Ordination
.
And
that
it
is
not
properly
given
by
them
is
onely
begged
by
that
Similitude
,
but
proved
onely
by
the
Hypothesis
now
mentioned
.
But
as
for
Charters
,
the
Instance
is
very
unhappy
to
their
purpose
.
They
cannot
,
I
believe
,
give
an
Instance
in
any
Humane
Charters
,
where
bare
qualifications
,
though
acknowledged
,
and
acknowledged
by
them
who
have
power
to
invest
them
in
office
,
are
thought
sufficient
to
invest
them
without
some
further
act
of
them
who
have
power
to
invest
them
.
They
cannot
give
an
Instance
where
the
Acts
of
such
acknowledgedly
qualified
,
but
not
invested
,
persons
are
thought
valid
in
Law
,
or
the
Acts
of
persons
lawfully
invested
,
though
confessedly
less
qualified
,
are
not
thought
valid
,
a
plain
sign
that
their
Investiture
does
properly
confer
such
power
.
They
cannot
give
an
Instance
of
any
power
settled
by
Charter
,
where
upon
a
faileur
of
all
who
are
by
the
Charter
impowered
to
dispose
of
Offices
,
that
power
must
devolve
to
those
who
are
not
by
the
Charter
impowered
(
on
foresight
of
such
a
case
)
to
dispose
of
them
,
and
where
such
a
Charter
is
not
thought
in
Law
to
fail
by
becoming
unpracticable
,
till
the
supreme
unaccountable
Power
be
pleased
again
to
interpose
concerning
it
,
which
is
the
very
case
impugned
by
me
in
the
Nonconformists
.
They
cannot
give
an
Instance
of
any
Humane
Charter
,
that
ever
allows
any
person
impowered
,
to
extend
his
own
power
by
a
private
exposition
of
the
Charter
,
against
the
sense
of
all
the
visible
supreme
Powers
of
the
Society
;
and
not
onely
to
challenge
it
(
on
such
an
account
)
but
to
practice
it
also
;
or
that
does
ratifie
such
practice
when
attempted
;
or
that
does
not
look
on
it
as
invalid
as
well
as
irregular
.
Yet
this
is
also
their
Case
,
who
arrogate
this
power
of
ordaining
others
,
against
the
sense
and
permission
of
all
their
supreme
visible
Governours
.
§
XIII
BESIDES
,
many
things
are
taken
for
granted
very
confidently
in
this
Hypothesis
,
which
they
will
find
extremely
difficult
to
prove
when
they
are
put
to
it
.
Where
can
they
find
such
a
Charter
for
the
power
of
Presbyters
in
the
Scriptures
as
they
speak
of
?
Where
can
they
find
their
power
described
in
any
professed
Constitution
concerning
it
?
They
may
indeed
some
actual
practises
of
Presbyters
there
;
but
will
they
call
that
a
Charter
?
Will
they
make
all
actual
practises
obligatory
for
ever
,
and
unalterable
by
the
prudence
of
succeeding
Ages
?
Are
not
many
actual
practises
grounded
on
circumstances
?
Are
not
many
of
those
circumstances
obnoxious
to
great
mutability
?
Are
not
ordinary
Governours
the
competent
Judges
of
their
actual
change
?
If
any
practises
be
grounded
on
unalterable
reasons
,
it
will
be
by
those
reasons
that
they
must
become
unalterable
,
not
from
their
being
barely
actual
practices
,
not
from
their
being
barely
historically
mentioned
in
the
Scriptures
.
And
what
is
that
reason
that
makes
such
a
just
proportion
of
power
immutably
due
to
the
Office
of
Presbyters
?
Yet
when
all
is
done
,
it
is
not
reason
but
writing
that
makes
a
Charter
.
Where
do
they
find
men
plead
Charters
in
humane
affairs
upon
so
weak
pretences
to
them
?
And
where
is
it
that
reason
is
admitted
to
prove
the
right
of
an
actual
practice
of
power
?
Reason
does
indeed
prove
it
fit
that
men
should
have
that
power
given
them
which
is
reasonable
.
Does
it
therefore
follow
,
that
they
actually
have
that
power
which
it
is
reasonable
they
should
have
?
If
they
actually
have
it
not
given
them
,
by
those
who
had
power
to
give
it
them
,
that
is
sufficient
to
prove
their
practice
of
it
an
Usurpation
,
and
utterly
invalid
as
to
all
intents
and
purposes
of
Law
.
But
for
matter
of
fact
I
do
not
see
but
that
this
supposition
concerning
the
inseparable
connexion
of
the
power
of
Ordination
with
the
office
of
a
Presbyter
,
will
rather
ruine
than
advance
their
Cause
,
as
I
have
accordingly
retorted
it
in
my
former
Book
.
Since
it
is
certain
,
that
this
power
of
ordaining
others
was
not
given
to
the
first
dividing
Presbyters
,
it
will
follow
plainly
that
they
were
not
made
Presbyters
at
all
,
if
the
power
of
Ordination
be
essential
to
the
office
of
a
Presbyter
.
And
then
their
succession
will
fail
as
well
on
account
of
their
want
of
true
Presbyters
,
as
of
their
Presbyters
wanting
the
power
of
Ordination
.
§
XIV
BUT
neither
did
I
onely
overthrow
their
succession
on
account
of
their
first
Ministers
not
receiving
this
power
of
Ordaining
others
,
from
the
Bishops
who
ordained
them
,
but
from
the
invalidity
of
that
act
by
which
they
derived
their
Orders
to
their
Successors
,
supposing
they
had
indeed
received
a
power
of
Ordination
.
Supposing
they
had
it
,
yet
they
could
not
exercise
it
but
in
lawful
Assemblies
,
which
none
but
the
Bishops
as
Presidents
of
the
Presbyteries
had
power
to
indict
;
nor
yet
even
there
,
supposing
all
Presbyters
equal
,
could
they
carry
it
but
by
plurality
of
suffrages
.
And
therefore
the
generality
of
their
later
Ordinations
being
performed
by
single
over-voted
persons
,
without
the
consent
of
the
greater
part
of
those
Presbyteries
of
which
they
were
originally
Members
,
and
out
of
lawful
Assemblies
,
must
on
these
accounts
be
not
onely
irregular
but
invalid
too
.
Here
therefore
no
Presbyters
were
at
all
made
,
and
therefore
it
is
in
vain
to
talk
of
Charters
to
prove
the
power
of
legal
Presbyters
,
when
these
are
not
the
persons
of
whom
those
Charters
speak
,
and
whose
power
they
are
conceived
to
describe
.
And
the
same
is
applicable
also
to
the
Commonalty
.
Neither
can
they
exert
any
power
of
which
they
might
otherwise
have
been
capable
,
but
by
majority
of
Votes
,
and
in
regular
Assemblies
.
If
they
do
,
it
is
Null
by
the
fundamental
principles
even
of
Democratical
Government
.
This
therefore
will
destroy
the
validity
of
their
second
Ordinations
,
though
their
first
had
been
valid
;
will
null
all
their
Ordinations
in
the
state
of
Separation
,
though
the
Orders
received
by
them
in
the
Churches
Communion
had
been
as
valid
,
and
valid
to
as
great
purposes
,
as
they
can
pretend
to
prove
by
any
Charters
.
These
are
Arguments
not
(
that
I
know
of
)
insisted
on
by
Jansenius
,
not
answered
by
Voet
or
Mr.
Baxter
,
not
(
I
believe
)
thought
of
or
considered
either
by
them
,
or
by
any
others
of
our
Adversaries
,
that
have
most
accurarely
managed
their
cause
;
and
will
hold
if
they
were
as
succesful
as
themselves
desire
in
answering
the
others
.
The
Hypothesis
therefore
thus
managed
is
that
which
alone
it
is
their
Interest
to
stand
by
.
And
if
this
prove
nothing
,
or
nothing
to
their
purpose
,
we
shall
have
no
reason
to
be
very
solicitous
for
any
thing
else
that
is
pretended
by
them
.
§
XV
I
HAVE
said
several
things
in
answer
to
this
same
Argument
as
urged
by
Mr.
Humfrey
,
a
person
of
much
more
candour
and
judgment
,
Seperat
.
proved
Scismat
.
ch.
20.
15
,
&c.
and
elaborate
thoughtfulness
than
Mr.
Baxter
.
I
am
unwilling
to
repeat
any
thing
there
said
more
than
I
needs
must
,
though
he
has
served
it
as
he
uses
to
do
Answers
,
passed
them
all
by
without
any
notice
taken
of
them
.
Yet
he
is
the
person
who
has
the
confidence
to
complain
of
being
forced
to
repetitions
.
What
I
shall
now
say
,
shall
rather
be
with
a
prospect
on
the
Argument
it self
,
and
with
reference
to
some
worthy
Brethren
of
our
own
Communion
,
than
on
account
of
any
new
Obligation
I
can
think
my self
under
from
any
thing
new
observed
by
Mr.
Baxter
.
First
therefore
,
I
shall
onely
desire
at
present
,
that
what
has
been
said
Chap.
XXII
.
of
my
former
Book
,
be
onely
understood
on
supposition
,
that
Ecclesiastical
Power
is
not
conferred
immediately
by
God
,
but
mediately
by
the
interposition
of
the
Ordainers
.
And
on
that
supposition
I
cannot
conceive
what
reason
there
can
be
to
question
it
.
Who
can
doubt
but
that
,
supposing
Ecclesiastical
Power
to
be
properly
their
gift
,
it
must
be
conveyed
to
others
by
virtue
of
some
compact
of
theirs
whose
gift
it
is
,
as
all
other
gifts
are
to
which
any
one
else
can
pretend
a
legal
right
?
Who
can
doubt
but
the
legal
validity
of
all
such
Conveyances
depends
upon
that
which
the
Law
presumes
to
be
the
intention
of
the
Giver
?
Who
can
doubt
but
that
the
Law
presumes
every
one
to
mean
that
which
he
ought
to
mean
?
Who
can
doubt
but
that
in
all
like
cases
of
legal
judicature
,
that
is
still
presumed
to
be
the
sense
of
the
Law
,
which
is
the
sense
of
all
the
visible
Makers
and
Executioners
of
Laws
,
no
legal
appeal
being
ever
admitted
to
Powers
future
or
invisible
?
Who
can
doubt
that
if
the
Laws
be
competent
Judges
in
any
case
,
they
are
most
so
in
such
cases
,
wherein
publick
not
private
Right
is
concerned
,
such
as
is
that
of
Ecclesiastical
Power
,
which
is
the
subject
of
our
present
Dispute
?
Who
can
doubt
but
the
visible
Powers
of
any
Communion
must
judge
,
that
all
Ordainers
ought
to
mean
to
give
that
Power
,
which
by
the
principles
of
their
Communion
is
thought
proper
for
the
Office
to
which
the
person
is
ordained
;
and
to
mean
to
withhold
that
which
by
the
principles
of
their
Communion
is
thought
unlawful
to
be
given
to
that
Office
?
Who
can
doubt
but
where
it
was
thought
Heresie
to
believe
,
that
Bishops
and
Presbyters
had
the
same
power
,
there
it
must
also
have
been
thought
unlawful
to
give
it
them
?
Who
can
doubt
but
that
where
the
Power
of
Ordination
was
taken
for
the
peculiar
prerogative
of
the
Bishop
,
there
it
must
have
been
thought
unlawful
to
give
this
particular
branch
of
power
of
simple
Presbyters
?
If
all
these
suppositions
agree
with
the
matter
of
fact
in
that
Age
wherein
these
separations
were
first
made
,
I
cannot
possibly
conceive
how
that
power
of
ordaining
others
(
on
which
the
validity
of
the
present
Sacraments
and
Ordinances
of
our
several
Sects
do
at
present
depend
)
could
have
been
conveyed
to
the
first
Presbyters
of
the
several
Parties
,
by
any
gift
of
those
Bishops
and
Presbyteries
who
first
ordained
them
.
So
that
if
they
will
pretend
at
all
to
have
it
,
they
must
necessarily
bethink
themselves
of
some
other
Hypothesis
,
such
as
this
,
by
which
they
might
have
it
antecedently
to
,
and
independently
on
,
the
gift
of
the
Ordainers
.
§
XVI
2.
THEREFORE
I
desire
it
may
be
observed
further
,
that
this
Hypothesis
is
not
agreeable
to
the
notions
or
practices
of
any
Party
whatsoever
,
that
owns
any
such
thing
as
Ecclesiastical
Power
for
the
suppression
of
Heresie
or
the
prevention
of
Schism
;
but
onely
for
Enthusiasts
,
who
utterly
deprive
the
Church
of
any
such
power
,
or
of
being
a
political
Society
.
I
do
not
say
but
that
it
may
follow
from
some
principles
expresly
owned
by
them
,
(
as
particularly
from
that
principle
so
much
received
among
the
Sects
,
that
it
is
dishonourable
to
think
,
that
the
Holy
Ghost
can
be
given
by
any
means
of
Humane
Ministry
,
though
of
his
own
Appointment
;
for
the
giving
of
the
Holy
Ghost
was
in
the
Jewish
Theocracy
the
exact
Method
of
investing
any
with
power
)
but
onely
that
it
is
not
agreeable
to
their
notions
and
practices
concerning
Government
.
For
all
that
hold
any
such
thing
as
Government
must
,
unless
they
will
make
it
perfectly
useless
,
own
a
power
of
restraining
particular
persons
from
Innovation
;
I
mean
,
which
may
in
conscience
oblige
such
persons
,
(
how
different
soever
from
the
sentiments
of
their
Superiours
,
yet
)
even
in
conscience
to
forbear
Divisions
in
the
same
Churches
,
or
erecting
new
ones
in
opposition
to
those
which
are
already
established
.
But
this
cannot
be
maintained
by
this
Hypothesis
.
For
where
all
that
others
can
do
,
can
neither
hinder
a
private
person
from
Authority
,
nor
from
knowing
that
he
has
it
,
not
even
from
such
a
knowledge
as
may
suffice
in
conscience
,
to
justifie
his
acting
pursuantly
to
that
Authority
.
There
it
is
plain
he
is
under
no
obligation
to
forbear
drawing
parties
after
him
if
he
can
.
As
for
the
Interest
others
have
in
admitting
him
for
their
Minister
,
that
signifies
nothing
to
this
purpose
:
It
onely
secures
that
they
shall
not
be
drawn
away
without
their
own
consent
.
And
for
that
what
use
is
there
of
Government
?
If
he
can
persuade
and
seduce
them
,
he
will
have
the
consent
of
as
many
as
he
can
persuade
and
seduce
.
If
he
cannot
persuade
them
,
it
will
not
be
in
his
power
to
make
any
Divisions
,
though
there
were
no
such
thing
as
Government
.
And
this
is
the
rather
so
,
because
in
order
to
persuasion
there
is
,
on
these
principles
,
no
obligation
incumbent
on
private
persons
from
the
Determinations
of
Assemblies
.
For
as
that
private
knowledge
,
which
such
a
person
may
have
of
his
own
Authority
,
may
suffice
to
justifie
his
own
acting
as
a
person
authorized
,
so
the
private
evidence
every
particular
person
may
have
of
his
Gifts
,
and
consequently
of
his
Authority
grounded
on
those
Gifts
,
may
also
suffice
for
to
make
it
lawful
for
such
a
person
to
receive
him
for
his
own
private
use
,
though
over-voted
by
the
Suffrages
of
regular
Assemblies
.
So
that
for
this
there
is
no
need
of
any
,
so
much
as
Democratical
Authority
.
And
the
same
reason
which
will
make
this
power
possible
to
be
had
without
,
nay
and
contrary
to
,
the
intention
and
gift
of
the
Bishop
,
will
prove
it
also
possible
to
be
had
without
any
gift
of
the
Presbytery
,
or
of
the
People
as
they
are
capable
of
giving
any
Authority
,
by
any
Rules
even
of
Democratical
Government
.
§
XVII
BUT
the
Hypothesis
I
am
now
considering
as
it
agrees
with
the
principles
,
so
it
fully
answers
the
designs
of
our
modern
Enthusiasts
.
It
agrees
with
their
principles
.
For
these
are
they
who
indeed
make
the
office
immediately
consequent
to
the
gifts
,
so
that
where
women
have
the
gifts
,
they
are
thought
to
have
as
good
a
title
to
the
office
as
men
.
These
conceive
extraordinary
gifts
and
inspirations
to
be
common
now
as
well
as
in
the
time
of
the
Apostles
;
conceive
these
gifts
to
be
given
by
God
immediately
,
without
dependence
on
Sacraments
or
Humane
Ministeries
;
conceive
every
one
who
has
the
Spirit
,
to
have
withall
the
gift
of
discerning
the
Spirit
in
himself
and
others
,
so
that
in
order
to
his
own
satisfaction
he
is
conceived
to
have
a
surer
testimony
within
himself
than
any
Humane
Authority
,
yet
so
as
that
he
cannot
deny
but
that
others
of
his
Brethren
,
who
are
supposed
to
have
the
like
gifts
,
have
also
a
right
to
judge
of
his
gifts
in
order
to
their
own
reception
.
It
answers
their
designs
.
For
receiving
their
Authority
immediately
from
God
,
it
follows
in
course
that
they
should
not
in
reason
be
responsible
to
any
but
him
.
And
as
they
are
not
supposed
to
receive
any
Authority
from
men
,
so
neither
is
there
any
rational
Obligation
for
dependence
or
subjection
to
men
.
This
I
warn
that
they
,
who
upon
other
occasions
oppose
this
Hypothesis
when
maintained
by
Euthusiasts
,
may
see
how
little
it
is
their
Interest
to
be
driven
to
such
principles
as
these
in
their
own
defence
;
how
much
they
as
well
as
we
are
concerned
to
answer
what
can
be
said
for
them
;
and
how
bad
that
Cause
must
be
,
that
cannot
be
maintained
but
by
recourse
to
such
principles
,
as
upon
other
occasions
are
so
disowned
by
themselves
.
THESE
things
therefore
being
thus
premised
,
§
XVIII
I
come
now
more
closely
to
examine
the
Hypothesis
it self
.
No
doubt
some
Dispositions
are
necessary
to
qualifie
men
for
Ecclesiastical
Offices
.
No
doubt
it
is
fit
that
Ordainers
should
judge
who
have
those
Dispositions
before
they
intrust
them
with
the
Offices
for
which
they
are
qualified
by
such
Dispositions
.
No
doubt
but
these
Dispositions
are
Gods
gifts
,
not
onely
on
account
of
that
common
Providence
by
which
even
natural
endowments
are
his
gifts
,
but
also
an
account
of
that
supernatural
assistance
which
is
thought
necessary
for
all
virtues
and
ordinary
graces
,
in
opposition
to
the
Pelagians
,
and
for
all
iminent
Discriminations
between
Men
and
Men.
But
these
things
are
not
more
proper
to
Ecclesiastical
than
to
Secular
Offices
.
There
is
also
the
like
necessity
of
Dispositions
for
Secular
as
for
Ecclesiastical
Imployments
.
There
is
a
like
necessity
of
Graces
as
well
as
of
Gifts
among
those
Dispositions
.
There
is
a
like
necessity
of
Divine
and
Supernatural
Assistance
for
those
Graces
which
tend
to
the
accomplishing
of
men
for
such
Imployments
,
as
there
is
for
those
that
fit
men
for
Ecclesiasticals
.
Yet
who
is
there
that
therefore
thinks
that
God
gives
Secular
Authority
also
antecedently
to
any
interposition
of
Men
?
What
confusions
and
disorders
,
what
violations
of
Authority
and
Obedience
,
would
he
introduce
in
Seculars
who
should
think
so
?
BUT
not
to
take
advantage
against
these
principles
from
the
falshood
of
their
Consequences
,
§
XIX
.
themselves
are
also
very
questionable
.
It
is
very
unreasonable
to
think
that
Authority
must
necessarily
result
from
even
true
qualifications
;
or
that
it
must
so
depend
on
them
,
as
that
where
the
persons
ordained
may
want
any
of
them
,
there
the
whole
Ordination
must
be
Null
,
because
of
the
incapacity
of
the
matter
.
I
shall
speak
to
both
these
Uses
of
this
Argument
,
because
they
are
both
of
them
,
as
occasion
serves
,
insisted
on
by
Mr.
Baxter
.
1.
It
is
unreasonable
to
conclude
that
Authority
must
necessarily
result
even
from
the
true
qualifications
.
It
is
not
agreeable
to
the
sentiments
of
Mankind
in
chusing
persons
qualified
.
They
certainly
suppose
persons
qualified
antecedently
to
their
own
election
of
them
,
because
their
judging
.
them
so
is
the
reason
why
they
do
elect
them
.
But
do
they
therefore
suppose
them
already
authorized
?
If
so
,
what
need
of
any
further
act
of
giving
the
power
?
How
shall
they
do
when
they
confess
many
Candidates
sufficiently
qualified
for
an
Office
,
of
which
notwithstanding
onely
one
is
capable
?
Can
their
not
electing
them
deprive
the
persons
rejected
of
their
qualifications
?
Can
it
upon
these
principles
deprive
them
of
their
authority
,
if
that
do
necessarily
result
from
their
qualifications
?
If
it
cannot
,
then
in
case
of
an
Elective
Kingdom
,
all
the
persons
who
were
admitted
as
Candidates
(
which
they
would
not
have
been
,
if
their
Electors
at
least
had
not
judged
them
qualified
)
must
,
when
they
are
put
by
as
well
as
before
,
be
supposed
to
be
Kings
.
And
where
can
such
a
supposition
end
but
in
a
Civil
War
?
But
among
all
the
unreasonable
pretensions
that
have
been
made
by
persons
interessed
,
and
of
power
sufficient
to
prosecute
their
Interests
by
force
,
what
History
can
afford
an
instance
of
any
one
who
challenged
the
power
onely
because
he
was
thought
qualified
,
and
permitted
to
stand
Candidate
for
it
?
THUS
it
is
in
case
of
Supreme
Power
,
§
XX.
but
much
more
in
Subordinate
.
They
who
have
derived
the
Supreme
Power
from
God
,
that
they
might
this
way
the
better
assert
their
Unaccountableness
to
Men
,
have
for
that
very
reason
thought
it
necessary
,
that
inferiour
Governours
should
receive
their
power
from
Men
,
that
they
may
thereby
be
made
dependent
and
accountable
to
those
Men
(
as
well
as
God
)
from
whom
they
had
received
it
.
And
who
is
there
that
doubts
,
but
that
a
legal
warrant
of
the
meanest
Justice
of
Peace
is
of
more
force
in
Law
,
than
the
advice
of
the
ablest
and
most
prudent
Lawyer
,
who
is
much
better
qualified
to
be
a
Justice
than
he
who
is
one
?
This
is
the
sense
of
Mankind
,
which
(
besides
that
it
overthrows
the
consequence
,
that
if
the
gifts
of
particular
Ministers
be
from
God
immediately
,
therefore
their
Authority
must
be
so
too
,
till
proved
more
particularly
than
as
yet
they
have
attempted
to
prove
it
)
will
also
be
of
great
moment
for
proving
Right
in
a
question
of
this
nature
.
For
that
Crimes
of
disobedience
to
Government
may
indeed
prove
criminal
,
and
imputable
to
the
person
guilty
of
them
,
it
is
requisite
that
their
criminalness
may
appear
to
him
from
his
own
Notions
.
And
accordingly
God
has
always
fitted
Governments
established
by
himself
to
the
notions
received
among
the
persons
to
be
governed
.
If
therefore
men
do
take
it
for
the
best
preservative
of
Societies
,
to
have
all
inferiour
Governours
obliged
to
a
strict
dependence
on
the
supreme
;
and
the
best
security
of
this
,
that
Inferiours
,
whatever
their
qualifications
be
,
should
yet
receive
their
power
it self
from
their
Superiours
;
then
certainly
we
have
reason
to
presume
,
even
on
this
account
,
that
this
same
Method
was
also
observed
by
God
himself
in
his
provisions
for
Ecclesiastical
Government
.
THIS
presumption
there
is
,
§
XXI
.
that
God
would
never
make
this
Authority
immediately
consequent
to
the
qualifications
requisite
to
dispose
men
,
from
the
notions
of
Mankind
concerning
Government
in
general
.
And
as
little
reason
there
is
to
believe
it
from
the
particular
principles
of
Ecclesiastical
Government
,
those
very
principles
I
mean
which
are
owned
by
themselves
when
they
are
settling
,
though
they
are
forgotten
and
contradicted
when
they
are
onely
intent
upon
overthrowing
the
Authority
of
their
own
Superiours
.
When
they
as
well
as
I
make
the
power
of
the
Church
a
power
of
sealing
Covenants
in
Gods
Name
,
and
of
transacting
for
him
with
Mankind
,
it
is
strange
how
they
could
fall
into
this
mistake
,
if
they
had
minded
being
constant
to
these
principles
.
No
doubt
whoever
would
imploy
a
proxy
to
act
in
his
name
,
and
to
make
legal
covenants
that
should
oblige
himself
,
would
in
prudence
chuse
one
that
should
be
skilful
in
the
Law
,
and
prudent
as
well
as
faithful
to
his
trust
.
But
which
of
themselves
would
therefore
give
an
indefinite
Authority
to
all
that
were
so
qualified
to
seal
legal
obligations
for
them
without
a
more
particular
Deputation
?
Which
of
them
would
think
themselves
justly
dealt
with
,
or
obliged
even
in
conscience
to
performance
,
if
any
person
whom
even
themselves
could
not
deny
to
be
so
qualified
,
should
presume
to
do
so
?
And
can
they
think
God
legally
obliged
in
a
case
,
wherein
they
would
think
themselves
injured
if
it
were
their
own
?
Is
this
to
judge
of
God
by
the
same
measures
by
which
they
would
be
content
to
be
judged
by
themselves
,
which
God
owns
as
just
,
and
appeals
to
in
the
Prophets
?
If
themselves
think
other
qualifications
requisite
,
for
trust
as
well
as
for
abilities
of
management
of
a
trust
to
be
committed
to
them
,
before
they
think
it
prudent
to
entrust
a
person
,
even
of
known
and
confessed
Abilities
,
with
a
power
of
obliging
themselves
;
has
not
God
the
same
frail
persons
to
deal
with
,
who
may
fail
in
fidelity
to
his
trust
,
as
well
as
in
point
of
ability
to
discharge
it
?
But
to
let
alone
the
inconvenience
,
and
to
insist
onely
on
the
justice
of
this
Cause
;
do
not
themselves
look
upon
this
right
of
disposing
of
what
is
their
own
gift
,
and
of
impowering
others
to
do
it
,
as
a
right
inherent
in
themselves
,
which
no
other
mans
qualifications
,
how
great
or
acknowledged
soever
,
can
in
justice
alienate
from
themselves
,
or
entitle
him
to
,
without
a
more
particular
act
of
their
own
?
And
must
the
power
of
God
in
sealing
Covenants
for
Heaven
and
the
Holy
Ghost
,
and
pardon
of
sins
,
escheat
to
all
that
are
qualified
,
without
any
more
distinct
gift
than
that
of
their
qualifications
themselves
?
Of
the
two
,
certainly
the
disadvantage
does
rather
lie
on
the
creature's
side
.
Their
rights
may
indeed
be
disposed
of
in
some
cases
without
their
own
act
,
because
they
are
not
absolutely
at
their
own
disposal
,
but
depend
on
the
pleasure
of
God
,
and
of
their
lawful
Superiours
impowered
by
him
.
But
the
independency
of
the
Divine
Right
excludes
all
possibility
of
any
case
wherein
any
right
of
his
can
be
disposed
of
without
his
own
particular
consent
and
act
for
disposing
of
it
.
AND
yet
of
all
Rights
,
§
XXII
.
Forgiveness
of
offences
committed
against
any
one
,
is
that
which
is
least
capable
of
a
general
alienation
.
Property
in
Goods
,
especially
as
among
Men
,
depends
generally
on
compacts
or
positive
humane
(
and
therefore
variable
)
Constitutions
.
But
offences
relate
to
their
persons
,
as
also
the
grief
and
resentment
consequent
to
them
,
and
therefore
may
be
where
there
is
no
such
thing
as
property
in
goods
;
and
the
remitting
of
Offences
does
essentially
consist
in
the
remission
of
that
personal
resentment
,
and
other
mischiefs
as
consequent
to
it
,
and
therefore
must
be
as
unalienable
from
any
as
his
own
person
.
As
long
as
his
person
is
free
and
at
his
own
disposal
,
so
long
none
but
himself
can
undertake
for
the
managment
of
his
own
resentments
.
Though
in
truth
in
God
his
benefits
,
conveyed
by
this
covenant
,
are
as
unalienable
without
his
own
express
act
,
as
his
right
to
forgive
sins
committed
against
himself
.
Men
may
by
general
acts
put
the
Effects
out
of
their
own
power
to
recall
them
.
They
may
disposses
themselves
both
of
their
goods
and
of
their
power
to
right
themselves
,
and
even
of
their
legal
right
and
equity
by
some
less
prudent
management
.
But
neither
can
God
act
imprudently
,
nor
are
his
gifts
at
the
actual
disposal
of
his
Creatures
,
even
where
he
has
obliged
himself
to
ratifie
what
is
engaged
for
in
his
name
.
Even
there
it
is
he
,
not
the
creature
,
that
must
immediately
confer
the
Spirit
,
and
pardon
of
sins
,
and
the
eternal
rewards
promised
by
him
.
The
very
actual
giving
them
is
not
in
their
power
.
How
then
can
this
right
be
granted
by
God
to
any
without
a
most
particular
and
express
conveyance
?
YET
is
not
this
all
;
§
XXIII
we
are
to
consider
further
,
that
in
forgiving
or
punishing
sin
God
acts
under
the
notion
of
a
Governour
.
Now
a
Governour
has
not
the
same
liberty
in
forgiving
offences
against
the
publick
,
and
against
himself
as
a
publick
person
,
as
a
private
person
may
have
in
remitting
private
injuries
.
A
private
person
need
onely
consider
his
own
private
interest
,
and
in
doing
so
he
may
remit
much
of
his
own
right
where
no
others
are
concerned
.
But
a
publick
person
must
consider
the
publick
interest
,
and
must
not
take
any
other
course
in
forgiving
publick
offences
,
than
what
may
be
beneficial
for
the
publick
.
Humane
Governours
are
obliged
hereunto
by
the
Law
of
Nature
,
by
the
nature
of
the
trust
committed
to
them
,
by
the
implicite
interpositions
of
Providence
by
which
they
are
made
Governours
,
and
by
the
common
dictates
of
natural
conscience
.
And
even
God
is
also
obliged
to
it
,
not
by
imposition
of
any
Superiour
,
but
by
his
own
natural
inclinations
.
Having
undertaken
the
person
of
a
Governour
,
it
is
as
impossible
that
he
should
use
any
other
methods
in
pardoning
offences
against
his
Government
,
than
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
,
§
XXIV
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
,
Prolog
.
ad
D.
Stearn
de
Obstin
.
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
,
Eph.
4.
11.
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
,
Gal.
1.
1.
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
;
Gal.
11.
6
,
7
,
8
,
9.
(
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
,
§
XXV
.
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
[
](A36252-e21750-b)a
a
1
Cor.
14.
29
,
30
,
31.
many
of
them
at
once
,
their
using
the
gift
of
Tongues
in
the
Ecclesiastical
Offices
without
an
[
](A36252-e21790-b)b
b
V.
13.
Interpreter
,
the
Prophetesses
using
their
Gifts
in
promiseuous
Assemblies
of
[
](A36252-e21820-b)c
c
V.
34.
men
,
their
prophecying
as
it
should
seem
like
the
Sibyls
,
with
their
hair
[
](A36252-e21870-b)d
d
1
Cor.
11.
5
,
6
,
10
,
13
,
15.
dishevel'd
,
and
without
their
veils
,
unbecoming
the
modesty
of
their
Sex
.
How
does
the
Apostle
provide
to
remedy
these
Inconveniences
,
but
by
obliging
all
to
a
strict
dependence
on
their
Superiours
?
by
obliging
the
Prophets
not
to
speak
but
in
[
](A36252-e21960-b)e
e
1
Cor.
14.
30
,
31.
order
,
not
to
use
their
gifts
but
for
[
](A36252-e21990-b)f
f
V.
26.
edification
,
not
to
use
them
[
](A36252-e22010-b)g
g
V.
40.
indecorously
,
to
submit
to
the
[
](A36252-e22030-b)h
h
V.
29.
Judges
of
their
Prophecies
;
by
restraining
the
women
universally
from
all
[
](A36252-e22070-b)i
i
V.
34
,
35.
publick
exercise
of
their
gifts
;
a
plain
sign
that
the
Spirit
who
gave
those
gifts
,
did
not
thereby
exempt
any
who
had
them
,
from
their
due
Subordinations
,
much
less
did
thereby
give
them
the
governing
power
of
their
Ecclesiastical
Assemblies
,
as
our
Brethren
would
fain
persuade
us
.
This
also
was
the
great
occasion
of
that
Schism
which
was
the
subject
of
S.
Clement's
Epistle
to
the
Corinthians
,
and
that
not
many
years
after
this
former
had
been
written
to
them
by
S.
Paul
.
The
gifted
Brethren
did
then
also
assume
,
and
raised
a
Sedition
against
the
ordinary
Presbyters
of
that
Church
,
and
are
again
taught
their
duty
of
Obedience
,
Humility
,
and
Subjection
,
through
the
whole
current
of
that
Epistle
.
How
could
that
be
,
if
their
very
gifts
had
made
them
Presbyters
,
when
acknowledged
,
as
they
are
not
here
denied
?
This
very
pretence
therefore
was
particularly
and
expresly
disowned
by
those
very
Precedents
,
to
which
our
Brethren
do
so
eagerly
appeal
.
ACCORDINGLY
they
never
find
any
of
those
Officers
,
§
XXVI
to
whom
Succession
is
at
present
pretended
,
made
immediately
by
God
,
but
by
the
intervention
of
men
,
notwithstanding
that
there
were
then
Gifts
of
the
Spirit
requisite
to
qualifie
men
for
those
offices
.
There
were
the
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
Rom.
12.
6
,
7
,
8.
and
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
and
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
and
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
reckon'd
among
the
gifts
of
the
Spirit
,
which
fitted
men
for
the
offices
of
Bishops
and
Presbyters
.
There
was
also
the
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
v.
7.
with
other
gifts
fitting
men
for
the
offices
of
Deacons
.
Yet
who
sees
not
this
express
difference
between
these
and
those
extraordinary
Officers
,
that
these
never
so
much
as
pretended
to
be
immediately
from
God
without
the
mediation
of
Men
?
What
great
Argument
had
it
been
for
S.
Paul
to
prove
his
Apostleship
by
,
that
he
was
not
of
Men
or
by
Men
,
if
this
were
the
ordinary
case
in
the
ordinary
Governours
and
Officers
of
the
Church
?
if
all
that
men
did
was
onely
a
recognition
of
their
gifts
,
and
a
solemn
reception
of
their
Authority
,
which
was
as
requisite
for
Apostles
as
ordinary
Bishops
and
Deacons
?
Where
do
we
find
any
of
these
ordinary
Officers
made
,
but
there
is
express
mention
of
Men
,
who
laid
on
their
hands
,
and
performed
the
Ceremony
,
and
that
by
a
distinct
Imposition
of
Hands
from
that
whereby
they
then
usually
received
the
Holy
Ghost
,
immediately
after
their
Baptism
?
And
the
words
used
concerning
it
,
Acts
14.
23
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
and
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
are
the
same
by
which
the
giving
of
Authority
,
Tit.
1.
5.
even
in
Secular
Offices
,
where
Authority
is
confessedly
given
,
is
usually
expressed
according
to
the
custom
of
that
Age.
S.
Timothy
is
said
to
have
his
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
of
S.
Paul
,
2
Tim.
1.
6.
is
said
to
have
it
given
him
,
among
other
things
,
by
the
laying
on
of
the
hands
of
the
Presbytery
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
.
1
Tim.
4
▪
14.
What
can
be
more
clear
than
these
words
,
if
they
be
understood
of
Ordination
?
And
who
are
more
forward
to
understand
them
so
than
our
Brethren
,
when
they
are
concerned
to
produce
Precedents
of
Ordinations
by
Presbyters
?
But
I
confess
I
am
not
my self
very
confident
of
that
Exposition
.
The
thing
is
clear
enough
from
this
new
Imposition
of
hands
,
which
was
used
on
this
occasion
of
ordaining
the
ordinary
Officers
of
the
Church
,
but
not
of
the
extraordinary
.
When
S.
Matthias
was
chosen
Apostle
into
the
place
of
Judas
,
no
more
was
done
than
onely
to
know
God's
pleasure
concerning
it
,
according
to
that
ordinary
way
of
Divination
usual
in
such
cases
by
Lots
.
When
that
was
known
,
there
was
no
further
act
of
Men
,
no
Imposition
of
hands
,
onely
he
was
added
to
complete
the
number
of
the
Twelve
Apostles
.
That
more
was
observed
in
ordinary
Ordinations
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
Acts
1.
26.
why
was
it
but
to
shew
,
that
the
Influence
of
humane
acts
was
greater
in
them
.
BESIDES
,
§
XXVII
.
the
very
Ceremony
of
Imposition
of
hands
,
was
generally
designed
to
communicate
some
of
those
supernatural
gifts
,
wherewith
they
were
themselves
endued
.
So
it
was
in
their
casting
out
of
Devils
.
and
their
curing
the
sick
,
and
particularly
so
it
was
in
their
giving
the
Holy
Ghost
.
And
indeed
what
other
gift
is
imaginable
,
that
was
ordinarily
necessary
for
ordained
persons
?
Themselves
cannot
think
it
could
be
dispossessing
or
healing
,
&c.
What
could
it
therefore
be
but
the
Holy
Ghost
himself
?
And
what
gifts
could
be
then
thought
necessary
for
making
ordinary
Officers
,
but
such
as
are
ordinary
and
perpetual
as
the
Offices
themselves
?
If
therefore
the
Holy
Ghost
was
given
,
this
was
(
according
to
the
Jews
)
an
investing
them
with
power
,
where
he
was
given
particularly
with
such
a
design
.
So
it
was
in
the
case
of
[
](A36252-e23290-b)a
a
1
Sam.
10.
9.
Saul
and
[
](A36252-e23310-b)b
b
1
Sam.
16.
14.
David
,
and
of
the
[
](A36252-e23330-b)c
c
S.
John
20.
20
,
21.
Apostles
themselves
.
And
what
other
design
is
conceivable
in
giving
the
Holy
Ghost
to
them
,
who
were
supposed
already
to
have
received
him
before
in
their
Baptism
,
and
that
Imposition
of
hands
which
then
usually
accompanied
their
Baptism
?
And
if
the
Holy
Ghost
were
given
in
Ordination
,
then
plainly
they
had
not
all
their
gifts
antecedently
to
their
Ordination
,
as
our
Brethren
conceive
,
particularly
not
those
which
immediately
intituled
them
to
Ecclesiastical
Power
.
If
these
Gifts
of
the
Holy
Ghost
(
which
immediately
intituled
them
to
Power
)
were
given
them
by
the
ministry
of
Men
;
then
certainly
the
Power
it self
was
not
given
them
immediately
by
God
,
but
by
humane
ministry
.
And
therefore
their
antecedent
gifts
(
which
they
judged
of
by
the
gift
of
discerning
of
Spirits
)
did
not
immediately
give
them
the
power
.
THE
great
Prejudice
that
possesses
our
Brethren
against
this
power
being
thus
given
by
the
ministry
of
men
,
§
XXVIII
.
is
that
,
conceiving
it
to
result
from
the
gift
of
the
Holy
Ghost
,
they
think
it
dishonourable
to
the
Holy
Ghost
to
say
that
he
is
given
by
men
.
But
how
can
they
deny
those
plain
Evidences
of
Scripture
wherein
he
was
so
frequently
given
by
the
Apostles
?
Will
not
their
Conjectures
reach
them
as
well
as
our
Ecclesiastical
Officers
now
?
Were
not
they
men
of
the
like
frail
sinful
nature
as
ours
are
now
?
But
if
they
would
indeed
consider
how
he
does
it
,
what
is
there
more
dishonourable
in
this
than
in
the
whole
management
of
the
Incarnation
?
Why
may
not
God
the
Father
and
Son
(
whose
Gift
undoubtedly
he
is
)
give
him
by
covenant
as
well
as
otherwise
?
Why
may
not
himself
do
so
too
?
Supposing
them
willing
to
take
this
way
of
disposing
of
him
,
what
can
hinder
them
from
deputing
men
to
represent
them
in
the
solemnities
of
such
a
covenant
to
be
made
with
men
?
What
is
there
in
this
,
I
do
not
say
dishonourable
,
but
unusual
,
where
ever
such
covenants
have
been
made
?
Having
done
so
,
how
can
it
be
thought
dishonourable
that
they
should
be
obliged
by
their
own
act
of
deputation
,
to
ratifie
what
is
by
him
acted
in
their
name
,
when
they
have
impowered
him
to
do
so
?
Nay
,
would
it
not
rather
be
dishonourable
to
the
Divine
Persons
,
to
think
them
not
faithful
to
those
obligations
,
which
they
have
been
pleased
to
impose
upon
themselves
?
Why
may
they
not
impower
men
for
all
future
ages
as
well
as
that
of
the
Apostles
,
seeing
there
are
new
persons
,
and
new
explicit
covenants
to
be
made
with
each
of
them
for
their
own
persons
in
all
succeeding
ages
?
Why
may
not
they
be
as
firmly
obliged
by
the
act
of
a
wicked
man
as
a
good
,
if
he
come
lawfully
by
his
power
of
deputation
,
by
a
regular
succession
from
those
who
first
received
it
?
Nay
,
who
is
there
of
themselves
,
that
does
the
least
question
this
in
other
cases
,
where
their
Interest
does
not
make
them
justly
suspicious
of
partiality
?
Does
the
Law
ever
make
the
least
inquiry
into
the
Lives
of
Proxies
,
where
it
is
satisfied
of
their
Authority
?
Who
ever
thinks
that
a
Bond
signed
by
a
Proxy
,
who
is
a
good
man
,
does
more
oblige
the
person
for
whom
he
is
concerned
,
than
a
like
Obligation
signed
by
another
who
were
vitious
,
supposing
them
equally
authorized
?
Do
any
of
themselves
think
what
Judas
acted
as
an
Apostle
,
to
have
been
less
obliging
to
his
Master
,
or
less
valid
in
the
effect
,
than
what
was
acted
by
any
of
the
other
Apostles
?
Thus
I
have
shewn
,
that
those
gifts
to
which
Ecclesiastical
Power
is
really
consequent
,
are
not
given
by
God
immediately
and
antecedently
to
humane
interposition
,
and
that
those
gifts
that
are
indeed
given
antecedently
to
Ordination
,
are
not
,
nor
were
,
such
as
did
entitle
them
,
who
were
acknowledged
to
have
them
,
to
any
Ecclesiastical
Office
or
Authority
.
SO
also
,
§
XXIX
on
the
contrary
,
neither
does
the
want
of
such
extraordinary
gifts
as
men
are
capable
of
having
antecedently
to
Ordination
,
irritate
the
whole
act
of
the
Ordainers
,
and
make
it
null
,
in
regard
of
the
incapacity
of
the
maker
,
supposing
they
should
be
mistaken
in
judging
them
to
have
them
who
have
them
not
,
as
Mr.
Baxter
does
frequently
intimate
.
This
he
urges
sometimes
so
far
as
to
make
Inmoralities
of
Life
sufficient
to
deprive
them
of
their
power
,
and
to
excuse
a
Separation
from
their
Ministry
,
from
the
guilt
of
SCHISM
.
Should
I
tell
him
,
that
this
very
Doctrine
of
his
was
condemned
as
SCHISMATICAL
in
the
Donatists
by
the
Ancients
,
I
easily
foresee
how
little
the
Authority
of
those
Ancients
is
like
to
signifie
with
him
,
who
scruples
no
occasion
of
aspersing
their
Sacred
Memory
with
opprobrious
and
reproachful
Epithetes
.
Ch.
Hist.
professedly
,
and
elsewhere
.
I
have
already
shewn
from
the
nature
of
the
things
,
how
little
the
validity
of
their
Ministry
is
concerned
in
the
holiness
or
unholiness
of
their
Lives
.
The
same
is
easie
to
be
proved
concerning
those
other
qualifications
,
if
he
had
considered
them
in
relation
to
my
principles
.
He
should
first
have
remembred
,
that
there
are
two
sorts
of
Uncapacities
of
such
a
person
to
be
ordained
,
such
as
make
him
utterly
uncapable
of
the
Office
it self
,
and
such
as
onely
make
him
uncapable
of
administring
it
wisely
and
advantageously
.
Now
though
these
later
Uncapacities
ought
to
be
considered
by
Ordainers
,
whilest
the
person
as
yet
stands
onely
Candidate
for
Ordination
,
and
even
afterwards
may
reflect
on
the
fidelity
or
prudence
of
his
Ordainers
;
yet
they
are
onely
the
former
sort
of
Incapacities
that
can
irritate
their
act
when
past
and
irrevocable
.
He
should
further
have
considered
,
that
no
Incapacity
can
irritate
the
whole
gift
of
an
office
,
but
that
which
makes
a
man
uncapable
of
the
essential
work
of
an
office
;
not
that
which
onely
incapacitates
him
for
such
works
as
are
not
essential
,
but
onely
ornamental
.
Now
the
essential
work
of
the
Ministry
according
to
my
principles
,
(
which
he
ought
to
have
confuted
more
particularly
in
this
matter
,
if
he
was
unwilling
to
stand
by
their
consequences
)
is
to
transact
between
God-and
Men
,
to
seal
Covenants
on
behalf
of
God
,
and
to
accept
of
those
which
are
made
by
men
,
and
to
oblige
them
to
perform
their
part
of
the
covenant
by
,
otherwise
authoritatively
excluding
them
from
Gods
part
.
Hence
results
the
whole
power
of
Ecclesiastical
Government
.
And
for
this
no
great
gifts
and
abilities
are
essential
.
All
the
skill
that
is
requisite
essentially
is
onely
in
general
,
to
know
the
benefits
to
be
performed
on
Gods
part
,
and
the
duties
to
be
promised
on
Mans
,
and
the
nature
and
obligation
of
covenants
in
general
,
and
the
particular
Solemnities
of
Ecclesiastical
Covenants
.
And
of
this
how
can
any
be
uncapable
,
who
is
but
capable
of
understanding
the
common
dealings
of
the
world
?
And
how
can
Governours
be
supposed
so
grosly
mistaken
,
as
that
when
they
design
peculiar
and
excellent
qualifications
,
they
should
fall
short
of
such
mean
ones
as
these
▪
THE
gifts
so
much
insisted
on
by
Mr.
Baxter
and
his
Brethren
,
§
XXX
.
are
such
as
accomplish
an
excellent
and
useful
Preacher
,
which
Office
of
Preaching
they
have
been
used
on
all
occasions
to
magnifie
,
as
if
it
were
the
onely
,
or
at
least
the
principal
,
imployment
of
the
Ministry
.
But
how
can
they
prove
that
,
suppose
their
office
were
to
preach
,
it
is
essential
to
every
particular
Officer
,
that
he
be
eminently
gifted
for
and
skilful
in
it
?
How
can
they
prove
that
Preaching
is
at
all
any
essential
part
of
the
office
?
How
can
they
prove
that
in
the
primitive
Apostolical
times
,
every
particular
Presbyter
did
either
practice
it
,
or
did
think
himself
obliged
to
do
so
?
If
they
cannot
,
how
will
it
follow
that
he
who
is
lawfully
impowered
,
must
therefore
be
no
Minister
on
account
of
incapacity
,
if
he
could
not
preach
at
all
?
And
they
are
his
Brethren
,
who
upon
other
occasions
do
suggest
the
most
likely
Arguments
,
to
prove
that
Preaching
was
no
essential
part
of
the
imployment
of
an
ordinary
Presbyter
.
They
are
the
persons
who
tell
us
,
that
in
the
primitive
times
Preaching
was
looked
on
as
the
peculiar
office
of
the
Bishop
.
If
so
,
how
could
it
be
any
essential
part
of
the
duty
of
ordinary
Presbyters
?
They
tell
us
,
(
I
do
not
say
Mr.
Baxter
is
one
of
them
)
of
the
distinction
between
ruling
Presbyters
and
those
who
laboured
in
word
and
doctrine
.
1
Tim.
5.
17.
They
can
never
prove
that
any
of
those
Presbyters
were
Laicks
,
but
however
the
distinction
seems
plainly
to
imply
,
that
some
of
those
Clerical
Presbyters
did
onely
rule
,
and
did
not
concern
themselves
in
word
and
doctrine
.
Nor
was
this
unagreeable
to
the
aproved
advice
of
the
Apostle
,
Rom.
12.
6
,
7
,
8.
who
would
have
every
man
lay
out
himself
according
to
his
different
gifts
,
not
that
every
one
should
endeavour
all
,
as
the
Custom
is
now
.
So
he
that
had
the
gift
of
Prophecy
was
to
give
himself
to
Prophecy
,
he
who
had
the
gift
of
Preaching
(
called
elsewhere
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
or
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
)
was
to
give
himself
to
Teaching
,
he
who
had
the
gift
of
Exhortation
(
called
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
or
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
)
was
to
give
himself
to
Exhortation
.
And
so
they
who
had
the
gift
of
Government
(
called
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
whether
of
the
whole
Church
or
particularly
for
managing
the
Church
Alms
,
then
given
for
the
use
of
the
poor
)
where
to
lay
out
themselves
upon
that
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
very
probably
the
same
with
that
mentioned
in
S.
Timothy
.
And
when
Judas
and
Silas
persuaded
the
differing
Parties
of
Jews
and
Gentiles
,
to
agree
in
the
accommodation
of
the
Synod
of
Jerusalem
,
Acts
15.
32.
exercising
the
Gift
of
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
they
are
observed
to
have
done
it
,
not
as
ordinary
Presbyters
,
but
as
Prophets
,
to
whom
(
it
seems
)
that
Gift
of
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
was
then
thought
proper
.
And
by
this
means
it
should
seem
that
they
did
designedly
contrive
the
mutual
necessity
of
each
others
gifts
,
for
the
maintaining
that
Unity
of
the
Spirit
,
so
much
insisted
on
by
the
Apostle
,
in
his
Disputes
against
the
disorders
of
the
gifted
persons
of
those
times
,
that
each
might
have
some
which
might
make
him
useful
to
his
Brethren
;
but
that
none
should
have
so
many
of
them
as
to
disoblige
him
from
a
dependence
on
the
gifts
of
others
.
And
if
this
was
the
precedent
of
the
Apostolical
Ages
,
how
false
measures
then
do
our
Brethren
take
,
(
who
are
yet
the
greatest
Pretenders
of
Reverence
to
the
Scripture-times
and
Apostolical
Precedents
)
when
they
judge
of
the
whole
Ministry
by
this
onely
Imployment
of
Preaching
.
But
it
is
easie
to
see
what
Exigency
of
their
cause
has
brought
them
,
to
it
.
Their
great
neglect
of
Sacraments
and
their
contempt
of
Excommunication
,
and
their
opposition
to
all
that
power
that
can
give
them
justifiable
Sacraments
,
and
their
Consciousness
how
little
their
own
Sacraments
can
oblige
others
to
adhere
to
themselves
,
who
have
given
so
ill
precedents
of
deserting
the
Sacraments
of
those
who
were
originally
their
own
actual
and
present
Superiours
,
have
obliged
them
to
such
slight
thoughts
of
the
Sacraments
,
as
if
they
were
the
least
part
of
the
Office
of
a
Minister
.
HAVING
therefore
thus
proved
,
§
XXXI
that
what
power
is
received
by
any
ordained
person
,
is
properly
given
him
by
the
Ministry
of
his
Ordainers
,
I
cannot
foresee
what
can
be
further
urged
against
my
Argument
drawn
from
the
intention
of
them
who
gave
it
,
but
that
taking
it
with
the
Distinctions
and
Limitations
which
I
have
made
use
of
in
managing
it
,
it
is
such
as
any
Law
,
or
Equity
either
,
would
consider
in
order
to
the
validity
of
a
Conveyance
.
And
it
is
easie
now
to
make
Application
also
to
the
particulars
of
the
contrary
Hypothesis
,
as
I
have
managed
it
.
To
the
I.
It
has
been
proved
,
that
power
does
not
immediately
result
from
those
gifts
which
onely
qualifie
men
for
the
Administration
of
Ecclesiastical
Offices
.
Whence
also
the
consequences
do
fail
,
that
the
giving
or
not
giving
of
those
Offices
is
to
be
proved
from
the
giving
or
not
giving
of
those
gifts
.
To
the
II.
That
gift
of
the
Holy
Ghost
which
does
indeed
immediately
invest
with
Ecclesiastical
Power
is
disposed
of
by
God
,
but
not
immediately
,
but
by
the
Ministry
of
the
Ordainers
,
who
do
not
onely
declare
,
but
properly
convey
it
.
To
the
III.
The
gifts
which
in
the
Apostles
times
were
antecedent
to
Ordination
,
and
which
were
judged
of
by
the
gift
of
discerning
of
Spirits
in
the
Ordainers
,
did
not
intitle
to
the
power
,
but
onely
that
gift
which
was
given
in
Ordination
,
which
as
to
the
essentials
of
it
was
not
extraordinary
,
(
though
it
might
be
so
in
regard
of
some
manifestations
of
it
)
and
therefore
fit
to
be
expected
in
all
future
generations
.
To
the
IV.
Though
the
Interest
of
the
person
to
be
ordained
,
and
the
people
,
be
onely
acceptance
,
yet
it
has
appeared
that
the
Interest
of
the
Ordainers
is
not
acceptance
and
recognition
of
a
power
already
received
,
but
the
conveyance
of
a
new
power
,
which
the
Candidate
for
Ordination
had
not
before
he
received
it
by
virtue
of
this
conveyance
from
them
,
because
God
does
not
convey
it
but
by
their
Ministry
.
To
the
V.
The
gifts
described
in
the
Scriptures
were
many
of
them
extraordinary
,
in
which
we
are
not
concerned
now
;
of
those
that
were
ordinary
,
all
were
not
requisite
in
each
particular
person
,
and
indeed
fewer
were
requisite
according
to
the
Discipline
of
those
times
,
when
each
of
them
laid
out
themselves
on
some
particular
imployments
than
now
,
when
each
particular
Minister
must
undertake
all
the
several
necessities
of
a
Parish
;
and
this
very
difference
of
their
Imployments
will
make
the
Scripture
times
uncapable
of
being
precedents
now
,
when
the
Imployment
is
so
much
changed
from
what
it
was
then
,
and
will
make
many
more
Ministers
by
the
qualifications
requisite
then
,
than
can
be
by
those
which
are
required
now
,
all
which
must
be
owned
to
be
valid
Ministers
antecedently
to
any
humane
Ordination
,
(
if
our
Adversaries
principles
hold
)
though
they
be
not
qualified
for
much
the
greatest
part
of
that
which
is
counted
the
Ministerial
Imployment
now
.
Nor
does
it
appear
that
the
Scripture
does
oblige
us
to
accept
them
immediately
for
true
Ministers
,
even
upon
recognition
of
those
gifts
which
are
indeed
true
qualifications
.
And
withall
the
Scriptures
are
very
far
from
describing
all
the
particulars
of
power
of
our
present
ordinary
Ecclesiastical
Offices
with
that
likelyhood
of
design
to
do
it
,
and
that
distinctness
,
as
might
in
reason
have
been
expected
if
the
Holy
Ghost
,
or
the
sacred
Writers
,
had
intended
them
as
a
Charter
for
the
extent
of
those
Offices
in
future
Ages
.
They
do
not
distinguish
between
their
Ordinaries
,
which
were
to
descend
to
their
Successors
,
and
their
Extraordinaries
,
which
were
not
.
They
do
not
distinguish
between
Prudentials
,
which
might
validly
be
changed
by
acts
of
humane
authority
,
and
Immutables
,
which
might
not
.
They
do
not
descend
to
any
particulars
,
but
such
as
were
occasioned
by
the
Disputes
of
that
Age.
They
do
not
so
much
as
explain
any
terms
,
which
were
then
notorious
,
though
it
could
not
be
expected
they
should
always
be
so
,
even
to
the
distance
of
our
present
times
;
nor
have
they
done
any
thing
which
,
upon
these
principles
might
prevent
litigious
Disputes
concerning
Government
and
Subjection
,
which
no
doubt
so
good
and
wise
a
Governour
as
God
would
have
done
for
a
Society
,
so
well
beloved
by
him
as
his
Church
,
if
he
had
designed
her
a
written
Charter
to
appeal
to
for
all
future
Generations
.
To
the
VI.
As
it
does
prove
that
recourse
were
indeed
to
be
had
to
the
Scriptures
,
for
knowing
the
mind
of
God
immediately
concerning
the
extent
of
Ecclesiastical
Power
,
supposing
the
Power
it self
were
immediately
derived
from
him
;
so
by
the
same
proportion
of
reasoning
it
confirms
my
argument
,
that
recourse
ought
now
to
be
had
to
the
intention
of
the
Ordainers
,
seeing
it
has
appeared
that
God
is
pleased
not
to
confer
it
actually
,
but
by
their
mediation
.
To
the
VII
.
It
thence
appears
how
irreconcileable
this
Hypothesis
of
our
Adversaries
is
with
Government
in
this
life
,
in
that
it
permits
persons
to
assume
Authority
,
and
to
extend
it
as
far
as
they
think
fit
,
by
appealing
to
writings
against
the
sense
of
all
the
visible
Authority
of
this
life
,
and
this
rationally
by
their
principles
,
which
let
any
of
themselves
consider
and
explain
(
if
they
can
)
how
it
is
reconcilable
with
the
practice
of
any
visible
Government
upon
earth
.
On
the
contrary
,
our
Hypothesis
,
obliging
inferiour
Governours
to
prove
their
title
to
their
Office
,
and
the
extent
of
it
,
from
the
intention
of
their
superiour
Governours
,
does
oblige
all
to
a
strict
dependence
on
the
supreme
visible
power
,
so
as
to
leave
no
place
for
Appeal
concerning
the
practice
of
such
Government
,
(
which
as
it
lasts
onely
for
this
life
,
so
it
ought
not
to
admit
of
Disputes
more
lasting
than
its
practice
)
from
them
,
and
that
upon
rational
and
conscientious
principles
.
For
how
fallible
soever
they
may
be
conceived
to
be
in
expounding
Scriptures
,
yet
none
can
deny
them
to
be
the
most
certain
,
aswell
as
the
most
competent
,
Judges
of
their
own
intentions
.
As
certianly
therefore
as
God
has
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
,
which
by
rational
consequence
does
make
it
unpracticable
;
and
ours
true
,
which
does
so
fitly
secure
the
practice
of
such
Government
by
a
like
rational
consequence
.
To
the
VIII
.
It
is
in
truth
very
consequent
to
the
former
proposition
,
but
having
indeed
no
more
evidence
of
its
truth
,
as
applied
to
our
present
subject
,
than
its
being
consequential
,
it
is
sufficiently
overthrown
by
what
has
been
said
against
the
principles
from
which
it
follows
.
And
this
use
may
be
also
made
further
of
its
being
consequential
,
that
whatever
may
be
said
against
it
to
prove
it
false
,
will
more
strongly
convict
the
principles
themselves
of
falshood
,
than
if
it
were
not
so
naturally
consequent
from
them
.
And
let
any
equal
person
consider
,
how
any
Ecclesiastical
Government
can
be
practicable
on
these
terms
.
Subjects
may
indeed
preserve
their
due
Subordination
to
their
Superiors
,
notwithstanding
their
differing
from
them
in
opinion
.
But
how
can
they
preserve
it
if
they
also
practise
differently
?
They
may
possibly
do
it
,
notwithstanding
practices
of
humane
infirmity
,
and
disavowed
by
themselves
.
But
how
can
they
do
it
,
whilest
they
defend
their
practises
,
and
pretend
Divine
Authority
for
them
?
It
is
yet
harder
to
reconcile
such
practises
as
these
with
Authority
.
Yet
they
who
disown
their
Subjection
in
some
singular
instances
,
may
yet
own
it
in
all
others
.
But
how
is
it
possible
that
they
should
own
it
,
who
do
not
onely
defend
single
practices
different
from
the
sense
of
their
Superiours
,
but
pretend
to
Authority
and
Offices
unaccountable
to
them
,
which
must
justifie
a
whole
course
of
different
practices
?
Who
defend
their
Authority
and
Offices
by
such
principles
,
as
if
they
were
true
must
in
reason
make
them
unaccountable
.
If
their
Authority
be
immediately
received
from
God
,
and
the
Rule
of
their
practices
be
taken
from
the
Scriptures
as
understood
by
themselves
;
what
reason
can
there
be
of
Subjection
to
any
humane
Superiours
?
As
certainly
therefore
as
all
that
is
false
,
which
destroys
the
practicabless
of
Government
;
as
certainly
as
this
Proposition
does
so
,
so
certainly
is
it
false
,
and
all
those
other
antecedent
principles
from
whence
it
does
naturally
follow
.
To
the
IX
.
The
same
things
may
be
said
,
that
it
is
indeed
rationally
consequent
to
the
former
,
to
justifie
the
lawfulness
and
prudence
of
differing
from
Superiours
in
a
judgment
of
private
discretion
,
and
consequently
of
differing
in
practice
,
and
that
practice
the
practice
of
an
Authority
where
yet
it
is
established
on
such
principles
,
as
that
a
different
judgment
even
of
private
discretion
,
may
be
allowed
as
sufficient
to
defend
such
different
practices
.
To
the
X.
It
is
the
onely
rational
way
of
making
Scripture
precedents
in
such
matters
as
these
are
,
an
obliging
Rule
to
our
present
times
,
and
rational
onely
on
the
principles
now
mentioned
.
If
,
on
the
contrary
,
God
give
his
authority
by
men
,
then
for
prudential
cases
the
commands
of
those
same
men
ought
by
the
same
reason
to
be
taken
for
his
commands
,
as
the
Authority
given
by
them
is
taken
for
his
Authority
.
And
then
these
being
Cases
not
to
be
expected
in
the
Scripture
,
and
there
being
notwithstanding
a
means
to
know
God's
mind
concerning
them
as
far
as
we
are
concerned
to
know
it
in
order
to
the
knowledge
of
our
duty
,
and
there
being
withall
so
little
reason
to
presume
,
that
the
sacred
Writers
or
the
Holy
Ghost
intended
to
give
us
any
account
of
such
matters
;
they
will
not
find
it
so
easie
as
they
think
,
to
prove
us
obliged
even
by
Scripture
precedent
it self
in
such
cases
.
To
the
XI
.
It
is
a
consequence
which
it
may
be
our
Brethren
will
not
stand
by
,
who
when
they
speak
of
the
Interest
of
Presbyters
and
People
,
in
judging
concerning
the
gifts
of
such
a
Candidate
,
in
order
to
their
own
acceptance
of
him
,
and
speak
of
this
with
a
design
of
solving
the
Phaenomena
of
Government
by
it
,
and
of
restraining
disorderly
persons
from
erecting
new
Churches
and
Schisms
at
their
pleasure
,
will
no
doubt
be
willing
to
believe
,
that
persons
so
excluded
,
or
at
least
not
admitted
by
the
Presbyters
or
the
People
,
ought
in
conscience
or
modesty
at
least
to
forbear
the
exercise
of
their
gifts
and
authority
,
till
they
be
somewhere
regularly
admitted
.
But
how
they
can
avoid
this
consequence
,
admitting
this
Hypothesis
of
an
immediate
call
from
God
,
for
my
part
I
confess
I
cannot
understand
.
If
they
be
sensible
how
inconsistent
such
disorderly
practices
as
these
are
with
Government
,
(
as
they
seem
to
be
when
they
endeavour
,
by
this
Interest
of
Churches
in
admitting
gifted
persons
,
to
prevent
the
consequence
of
such
disorderly
practices
)
it
will
then
concern
them
seriously
to
reflect
on
their
principles
,
which
will
justifie
practices
,
which
themselves
confess
to
be
so
disorderly
,
and
will
ruine
Government
,
for
which
themselves
pretend
to
have
at
least
some
little
reverence
.
I
onely
observe
one
thing
more
,
Part
3.
c.
9.
sect.
21.
p.
92
,
that
Mr.
Baxter
tells
me
,
that
I
have
at
first
given
the
Nonconformists
their
cause
,
and
confirm'd
them
.
But
I
am
not
conscious
,
nor
is
he
pleased
to
tell
me
where
I
have
done
it
.
If
I
could
tell
how
to
excuse
them
,
I
should
still
think
my self
obliged
to
own
my
convictions
.
But
whatever
I
have
done
,
methinks
he
of
all
men
should
not
upbraid
me
,
who
gives
so
many
Reasons
of
Suspicion
,
that
he
is
conscious
of
defending
a
bad
Cause
.
It
is
hard
to
think
of
any
artifice
,
which
a
person
so
conscious
would
make
use
of
,
but
Mr.
Baxter
has
practised
something
which
looks
very
like
it
.
Such
a
one
would
evade
all
direct
Disputes
of
the
merit
of
the
cause
,
would
neither
answer
Arguments
,
nor
confute
Answers
.
Such
a
one
,
where
he
could
not
justifie
the
Succession
of
Orders
not
derived
from
Bishops
,
would
have
recourse
to
those
of
the
Nonconformists
who
had
Episcopal
Orders
,
Part
3.
c.
9
▪
sect
13.
p
▪
85.
but
had
not
been
impleaded
in
those
Disputes
concerning
the
necessity
of
Succession
.
Such
a
one
would
make
a
Conclusion
odious
,
where
he
could
not
disprove
it
as
false
;
Ib.
sect.
33.
p.
102
,
103
would
endeavour
to
raise
the
affections
of
his
Readers
,
where
he
despaired
of
prevailing
on
their
Judgments
;
Ib.
sect.
2.
p.
74
,
100.
would
traduce
the
person
of
his
Adversary
,
where
he
had
no
hopes
of
obtaining
his
cause
.
Such
a
one
would
be
as
confident
as
he
is
in
general
charges
of
Absurdities
,
Ib.
p.
92
,
90.
Contradictions
,
and
Wordiness
,
&c.
but
would
withall
be
as
cautious
as
he
is
of
mentioning
any
particulars
of
such
Charges
.
Such
a
one
would
refer
an
Adversary
to
Books
written
before
for
Answers
to
Arguments
not
so
much
as
treated
of
in
those
Books
,
Ib.
sect.
19.
p.
90.
would
with
great
boldness
impose
on
Readers
ignorant
of
those
matters
,
that
all
had
been
already
answered
there
,
and
that
the
onely
reason
why
no
more
is
answered
now
is
onely
to
avoid
Repetitions
;
so
that
unless
a
new
question
be
produced
as
well
as
a
new
argument
,
there
shall
never
want
an
excuse
for
want
of
a
new
Answer
.
I
wonder
how
Mr.
Baxter
can
pretend
to
have
answered
what
I
have
said
concerning
the
sin
against
the
Holy
Ghost
,
or
the
sin
unto
death
,
or
the
Sacraments
,
(
which
yet
I
see
are
so
displeasing
to
him
)
or
even
the
way
of
deriving
their
Succession
from
their
first
Separation
,
what
I
have
said
concerning
the
opinion
of
the
Schoolmen
,
that
Bishops
and
Presbyters
differ
onely
in
degree
,
to
shew
how
unsufficient
that
is
for
justifying
their
present
Succession
;
what
I
have
said
concerning
this
way
of
resolving
the
Dispute
,
not
into
ancient
Learning
,
but
more
modern
Histories
of
their
Succession
;
what
concerning
their
derivation
of
Power
from
any
valid
act
even
of
the
Presbyteries
themselves
,
&c.
Should
I
say
things
so
notoriously
false
with
such
confidence
,
I
confess
I
could
not
tell
how
to
excuse
my self
from
his
uncivil
Epithete
of
Audaciousness
.
Ib.
sect.
2.
p.
74.
Such
a
one
would
slight
the
question
that
pinched
him
,
how
momentous
soever
it
might
prove
in
its
consequences
,
Ib.
p.
81.
and
divert
to
others
,
though
of
no
use
,
yet
more
capable
of
odium
,
and
of
a
popular
talent
of
raising
passion
.
And
has
not
Mr.
Baxter
(
who
cannot
find
leisure
to
answer
these
Arguments
,
Ib.
sect.
2.
p.
47.
sect.
29.
p.
97.
wherein
the
Orders
of
his
Brethren
,
and
their
Sacraments
,
and
the
whole
comfort
of
their
Communion
,
are
generally
concerned
)
shewn
,
that
he
has
a
great
deal
of
leisure
to
rake
Church
History
to
asperse
the
dead
,
and
blaspheme
the
living
Rulers
of
his
people
,
for
condemning
Heresies
,
when
yet
the
generality
of
his
Brethren
themselves
do
not
pretend
to
differ
from
us
in
any
thing
which
even
we
call
Heresie
?
To
what
end
is
all
this
,
but
to
make
a
noise
at
a
distance
,
to
divert
us
from
the
real
debate
?
Such
a
one
would
cavil
as
he
does
about
words
.
What
can
I
think
it
else
but
cavil
,
when
he
pretends
himself
so
extremely
ignorant
in
the
meaning
of
the
Terms
of
our
Dispute
?
When
he
who
has
lived
all
his
Life
in
England
,
p.
92.
and
has
received
his
Orders
from
a
Bishop
of
the
Church
of
England
,
Ib.
sect.
13.
p.
85.
is
yet
to
learn
what
we
in
England
,
in
our
Disputes
with
his
Party
,
mean
by
the
name
of
Bishop
;
nay
,
even
by
that
of
the
Church
of
England
?
If
he
thought
himself
in
earnest
as
ignorant
as
he
pretends
,
why
would
he
meddle
in
Disputes
where
he
does
not
understand
the
Terms
?
If
he
knows
better
things
,
what
charity
can
excuse
him
from
the
charge
of
Insincerity
?
Though
persons
may
,
yet
causes
cannot
aequivocate
.
There
is
but
one
sense
of
all
Terms
,
which
causes
oblige
men
to
mean
,
and
that
every
one
ought
to
know
who
pretends
to
skill
in
causes
.
Other
senses
I
did
not
think
my self
obliged
to
take
notice
of
in
Terms
of
notorious
signification
,
till
I
found
some
occasion
for
it
from
the
misunderstandings
of
my
Adversaries
.
But
there
is
one
thing
that
looks
most
like
an
Argument
of
Self-conviction
,
which
though
it
has
been
taken
up
by
persons
of
worse
design
than
he
,
yet
does
withall
run
through
the
Reasoning
of
several
of
the
later
Books
of
Mr.
Baxter
;
that
is
,
that
our
Clergie
must
alone
be
responsible
for
all
the
scandals
that
any
Clergie
,
who
never
had
any
affinity
with
ours
,
but
that
of
their
common
office
,
were
ever
guilty
of
.
What
is
this
but
in
effect
to
acknowledge
that
ours
are
the
onely
real
Clergie
?
What
is
it
but
to
acknowledge
the
conclusiveness
of
those
Arguments
,
which
have
been
used
by
me
to
disprove
the
Title
of
their
Ministers
to
the
Office
of
real
Clergie-men
?
If
they
thought
their
own
to
be
Clergie-men
,
why
will
they
not
be
as
obnoxious
to
all
the
scandals
they
can
rake
of
Clergie-men
out
of
the
Histories
of
Sixteen
hundred
Years
,
as
ours
?
I
wish
I
could
by
this
Suggestion
make
them
sensible
of
the
disingenuity
they
shew
in
this
way
of
Reasoning
,
and
of
the
mischief
they
do
themselves
and
the
common
cause
of
Christianity
.
It
is
strange
if
Mr.
Baxter
can
ever
expect
to
revive
Parochial
Discipline
by
such
means
as
these
,
of
ruining
Diocesan
.
Can
he
ever
expect
to
prevail
with
those
irreligious
Laicks
,
who
are
on
this
occasion
so
ready
to
make
use
of
this
misguided
zeal
of
his
Brethren
,
not
as
more
orthodox
than
others
,
but
as
a
popular
party
,
to
submit
themselves
to
the
Censures
of
his
Parochial
Ministers
,
when
he
teaches
them
to
despise
an
Authority
so
much
more
venerable
than
theirs
,
on
all
the
accounts
which
Mankind
owns
for
just
reasons
of
veneration
?
Can
he
in
earnest
hope
,
than
an
upstart
Authority
of
Innovators
,
too
late
to
have
their
Scandals
traced
through
any
distant
Histories
,
can
procure
reverence
with
them
,
who
are
told
such
vile
things
of
those
,
who
upon
the
first
division
were
found
possessed
of
an
Authority
so
much
more
received
by
a
peaceable
as
well
as
a
just
prescription
?
Can
he
expect
that
he
can
preserve
that
Authority
in
Inferiours
,
which
he
endeavours
to
ruine
in
their
Superiours
?
Can
he
think
to
preserve
it
in
those
,
whom
it
seems
himself
dares
not
own
for
Clergie-men
,
whilest
he
teaches
them
to
asperse
the
very
name
as
well
as
the
authority
of
Clergie-men
?
Can
he
think
to
preserve
it
in
those
,
who
have
no
other
but
extraordinary
ways
of
pretending
to
a
Divine
Authority
,
or
to
pretend
Charters
expounded
by
themselves
in
their
own
favour
,
when
he
teaches
them
to
undervalue
an
Authority
,
derived
by
all
the
ways
by
which
it
is
reasonable
to
expect
an
Authority
,
should
be
derived
at
such
a
distance
?
Can
he
expect
in
the
age
we
live
in
,
that
the
great
ones
will
ever
be
induced
to
pay
respect
to
the
inferiour
Clergie
,
who
are
so
unknown
to
our
Laws
,
when
they
are
taught
to
deny
it
to
those
,
who
have
as
good
a
Title
even
to
legal
honours
as
themselves
?
Mr.
Baxter
may
possibly
ruine
us
,
if
God
should
grant
him
the
curse
of
a
success
on
his
present
Endeavours
;
but
I
cannot
for
my
life
conceive
how
he
can
settle
us
,
or
really
reform
our
lives
,
or
restore
Discipline
,
on
such
Principles
as
these
.
True
Latitudinarianism
does
onely
tend
to
introduce
Scepticism
into
the
minds
,
and
Libertinism
into
the
lives
of
Men.
God
deliver
us
from
an
experiment
of
his
Projects
,
and
him
from
the
dissatisfaction
of
a
fruitless
repentance
,
when
he
cannot
remedy
us
.
THIS
is
all
which
I
think
fit
to
say
at
present
.
§
XXXII
.
If
Mr.
Baxter
,
or
any
of
his
Brethren
,
shall
think
fit
to
reply
further
to
my
Book
,
Pref.
sect.
19.
I
shall
again
humbly
put
them
in
mind
of
the
same
requests
I
made
formerly
:
if
they
will
be
pleased
to
observe
them
,
they
will
not
onely
approve
their
own
sincerity
by
doing
so
,
but
also
minister
a
subject
of
useful
information
;
if
they
do
not
,
they
will
force
me
instead
of
yielding
or
rejoyning
,
to
cast
my self
upon
the
indifferent
and
impartial
Readers
candour
to
judge
between
us
,
and
I
hope
they
will
not
flatter
themselves
with
the
hopes
that
all
will
be
partial
.
The
Summary
of
my
Book
treating
of
the
Sinfulness
and
Mischief
of
SCHISM
,
with
reference
to
the
Chapters
,
where
each
particular
of
this
Summary
is
proved
.
THat
all
are
obliged
to
submit
to
all
unsinful
conditions
of
the
Episcopal
Communion
where
they
live
,
1.
if
imposed
by
the
Ecclesiastical
Governours
thereof
;
and
that
the
nature
of
this
Obligation
is
such
,
2.
as
will
make
them
who
,
rather
than
they
will
submit
to
such
Conditions
,
either
separate
themselves
,
or
suffer
themselves
to
be
excluded
from
Communion
by
such
Governours
for
such
a
refusal
of
submission
,
guilty
of
the
sin
of
SCHISM
.
Here
are
two
Parts
.
I.
That
all
are
obliged
to
submit
to
all
unsinful
conditions
of
the
Episcopal
Communion
where
they
live
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
.
if
imposed
by
the
Ecclesiastical
Government
thereof
.
This
proved
by
these
two
degrees
:
1.
That
the
supposition
,
of
their
being
less
secure
of
Salvation
out
of
this
Episcopal
Communion
than
in
it
,
is
sufficient
to
prove
them
obliged
to
submit
to
all
terms
,
not
directly
sinful
,
however
unexpedient
,
rather
than
separate
themselves
,
or
suffer
themselves
to
be
excluded
,
from
this
Communion
.
Ch.
I.
§
7
,
8
,
9
,
10.
2.
That
there
is
indeed
less
security
of
Salvation
to
be
had
even
on
performance
of
the
moral
conditions
of
Salvation
,
out
of
this
Episcopal
Communion
than
in
it
.
This
proved
from
two
things
:
(
1.
)
That
they
cannot
be
so
well
assured
of
their
Salvation
in
the
use
of
extraordinary
as
of
ordinary
means
;
nay
,
that
they
being
left
to
extraordinaries
is
a
condition
either
very
hazardous
,
or
at
least
very
uncomfortable
at
present
,
whatever
it
may
prove
hereafter
.
Ch.
II.
(
2.
)
That
these
ordinary
means
of
Salvation
are
,
in
respect
of
every
particular
person
,
confined
to
the
Episcopal
Communion
of
the
Place
he
lives
in
,
as
long
as
he
lives
in
it
.
This
proved
from
two
things
.
(
I.
)
A.
That
these
ordinary
means
of
Salvation
are
confined
to
the
external
Communion
of
the
visible
Church
.
This
proved
from
four
things
.
1.
We
cannot
be
assured
that
God
will
do
for
us
what
is
necessary
for
our
Salvation
on
his
part
,
otherwise
than
by
his
express
promises
that
he
will
do
it
.
Ch.
III.
§
1
,
2.
2.
The
ordinary
means
how
we
may
assure
our selves
of
our
Interest
in
his
Promises
is
by
our
Interest
in
his
Covenant
,
by
which
they
are
conveyed
to
us
.
Ch.
III.
from
§
5.
to
the
end
.
3.
The
onely
ordinary
means
,
by
which
we
may
assure
our selves
of
our
Interest
in
this
Covenant
with
him
,
is
by
our
partaking
in
these
external
Solemnities
,
by
which
this
Covenant
is
transacted
and
maintained
.
Ch.
IV
,
V
,
VI
,
VII
.
4.
The
participation
in
these
external
Solemnities
with
any
legal
validity
is
onely
to
be
had
in
the
external
Communion
of
the
visible
Church
.
Ch.
VIII
.
(
II.
)
That
this
visible
Church
,
B.
to
whose
external
Communion
these
ordinary
means
of
Salvation
are
confined
,
is
no
other
than
the
Episcopal
Communion
of
the
place
where
any
one
lives
,
whilest
he
lives
there
.
This
proved
in
both
parts
.
(
1.
)
That
the
visible
Church
,
a.
to
whose
external
Communion
these
ordinary
means
of
Salvation
are
confined
,
is
the
Episcopal
Communion
.
This
proved
by
these
degrees
.
I.
That
Salvation
is
not
ordinarily
to
be
expected
without
an
external
participation
of
the
Sacraments
.
(
A
)
1.
Negatively
,
Not
by
those
other
popular
means
which
ordinary
persons
are
apt
to
trust
in
,
to
the
neglect
of
the
Sacraments
,
that
is
,
-
1.
Not
by
hearing
the
Word
preached
.
Ch.
IX
.
-
2.
Not
by
private
Prayer
,
nor
indeed
by
any
,
out
of
the
Communion
of
the
Church
.
Ch.
X
,
XI
,
XII
,
XIII
,
XIV
.
2.
Positively
,
That
Salvation
is
ordinarily
to
be
expected
onely
by
this
external
participation
of
the
Sacraments
.
-
1.
Proved
concerning
Baptism
.
Ch.
XV.
-
2.
Concerning
the
Lords
Supper
.
Ch.
XVI
,
XVII
.
II.
That
the
validity
of
the
Sacraments
depends
on
the
Authority
of
the
persons
by
whom
they
are
administred
.
(
B.
)
Ch.
XVIII
.
III.
No
other
Ministers
have
the
Authority
of
administring
the
Sacraments
,
(
C.
)
but
onely
they
who
receive
their
Orders
in
the
Episcopal
Communion
.
This
proved
by
four
degrees
.
1.
That
the
Authority
of
administring
the
Sacraments
must
be
derived
from
God
.
Ch.
XIX
.
2.
That
though
it
be
derived
from
God
,
yet
it
is
not
so
derived
without
the
mediation
of
those
men
to
whom
it
was
at
first
committed
.
Ch.
XX.
3.
That
it
cannot
be
so
derived
from
those
men
to
whom
it
was
at
first
committed
,
without
a
continued
succession
of
persons
orderly
receiving
Authority
from
those
who
had
Authority
to
give
it
them
,
from
those
first
times
of
the
Apostles
to
ours
at
present
.
Ch.
XXI
.
4.
That
this
Authority
is
not
now
to
be
expected
any
where
but
in
the
Episcopal
Communion
.
Ch.
XXII
,
XXIII
,
XXIV
,
XXV
.
(
2.
)
That
the
Episcopal
Communion
to
which
every
particular
person
is
obliged
to
joyn
himself
,
b.
as
he
would
enjoy
the
ordinary
means
of
his
own
particular
salvation
,
is
the
Episcopal
Communion
of
the
place
wherein
he
lives
,
whilest
he
lives
in
it
.
Ch.
XXVI
.
II.
That
the
nature
of
this
Obligation
to
unsinful
conditions
of
their
Episcopal
Communion
is
such
as
will
make
them
guilty
of
the
sin
of
SCHISM
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
.
who
,
rather
than
they
will
submit
to
such
conditions
,
either
separate
themselves
,
or
suffer
themselves
to
be
excluded
from
Communion
by
their
respective
Diocesan
Ordinaries
.
Ch.
XXVII
.
LETTER
II.
The
Contents
.
Introduction
.
§
1.
Quest.
1.
Whether
the
Bishop
be
bound
to
discharge
his
whole
duty
in
his
own
person
?
Or
,
Whether
he
may
not
take
in
the
assistance
of
others
?
That
he
may
,
granted
by
Mr.
Baxter
.
Quest.
2.
waved
by
me
.
§
2.
Mr.
Baxter's
reasons
do
as
solidly
disprove
a
possibility
of
Secular
Discipline
under
a
Secular
Monarch
,
of
a
Precinct
as
large
as
a
Diocese
,
as
of
Diocesan
Discipline
.
§
3.
Secular
Monarchs
as
well
responsible
for
the
miscarriage
of
particular
Subjects
as
Bishops
,
and
their
charge
is
as
great
.
The
Persons
,
Crimes
,
and
Laws
,
belonging
to
the
care
of
the
Secular
Governour
more
numerous
than
they
which
belong
to
the
Ecclesiastical
.
§
4
,
5.
So
are
the
necessities
to
be
provided
for
by
the
Secular
Governour
.
§
6
,
7
,
8.
An
Objection
prevented
.
§
9.
Mr.
Baxter's
first
answer
refuted
.
The
Government
of
a
Diocese
may
be
administred
without
any
more
than
three
Orders
.
§
10.
The
Church
may
for
prudential
reasons
constitute
new
Officers
,
though
not
Orders
.
§
11.
Mr.
Baxter's
second
answer
refuted
.
Personal
Capacity
as
requisite
in
a
Prince
as
in
a
Bishop
.
§
12.
An
Objection
prevented
.
§
13.
Mr.
Baxter's
third
,
fourth
,
and
fifth
answers
refuted
.
§
14
,
15.
His
sixth
answer
rejected
.
§
16.
What
I
mean
when
I
make
the
decretory
power
of
Government
proper
to
the
Supreme
,
and
the
executive
onely
to
be
communicated
to
inferiour
Governours
.
§
17.
The
decretory
power
of
Government
does
not
necessarily
include
personal
or
particular
Exploration
.
§
18
,
19.
His
seventh
answer
considered
.
Good
men
need
Government
as
well
as
others
.
Their
mistakes
more
dangerous
to
Government
than
the
mistakes
of
others
.
§
20.
Mr.
Baxter's
Objection
in
favour
of
me
.
His
first
answer
refuted
.
§
21.
His
second
answer
refuted
.
Declaration
is
no
act
of
power
.
§
22.
The
unbecomingness
of
Doctrines
,
so
disparaging
to
Ecclesiastical
Authority
,
to
Mr.
Baxter
as
a
Curer
of
Church-divisions
.
§
23.
The
first
Reformers
at
length
sensible
of
the
necessity
of
Church
Authority
to
Peace
and
Discipline
.
§
24.
Mr.
Baxter's
uncandid
character
of
a
Prelatick
Christian
.
§
25.
The
use
of
external
coercion
in
Religion
is
not
to
make
men
onely
dissemblers
.
§
26
,
27
,
28.
No
Discipline
to
be
expected
without
a
coercive
power
somewhere
.
§
29.
The
liberty
desired
by
Mr.
Baxter
inconsistent
with
the
principles
of
the
Ignatian
Episcopacy
,
so
much
recommended
by
himself
on
other
occasions
.
§
30.
Inconsistent
with
the
Discipline
of
the
Church
described
by
Tertullian
and
Firmilian.
§
31.
Inconsistent
with
that
of
S.
Cyprian
.
No
reason
why
Mr.
Baxter
should
desire
to
disown
them
from
being
parts
of
his
Cure
,
who
do
not
observe
Rules
of
Discipline
.
§
32.
My
second
Argument
for
the
Possibility
of
Diocesan
Discipline
from
the
actual
experience
of
former
times
.
§
33.
The
notion
of
a
Church
for
no
more
than
are
capable
of
the
personal
inspection
of
a
single
Presbyter
,
not
proved
to
be
of
Divine
Institution
from
Acts
14.
23.
§
34
,
35.
His
second
and
third
answer
refuted
.
The
distribution
of
particular
Cures
to
particular
Presbyters
,
(
from
whence
it
comes
to
pass
,
that
one
Diocese
includes
many
such
Societies
as
are
fitted
for
personal
Communion
)
is
more
convenient
than
their
governing
the
same
multitudes
in
common
.
Very
probably
as
ancient
as
they
had
settled
places
of
Meeting
.
How
ancient
in
the
Churches
of
Rome
and
Alexandria
.
§
36.
How
vigorous
notwithstanding
Discipline
was
at
that
very
time
at
Alexandria
.
§
37.
His
fourth
answer
refuted
.
§
38.
His
fifth
answer
refuted
.
§
39.
His
sixth
answer
refuted
.
§
40.
His
seventh
answer
refuted
.
The
ancient
Cities
of
the
Roman
Empire
that
had
single
Bishops
were
generally
as
great
and
populous
as
now
.
§
41
,
42.
The
Ecclesiastical
Government
of
those
Cities
proportioned
to
the
Civil
.
§
43.
Whether
our
Diocesans
Office
be
a
driving
men
to
sin
?
§
44
,
45
,
46.
His
eighth
answer
refuted
.
Great
Cities
then
had
great
numbers
of
Christians
.
Instanced
in
the
Churches
of
Hierusalem
,
Samaria
,
Antioch
,
Antiochia
Pisidiae
,
Thessalonica
,
Beroea
,
Ephesus
.
§
47.
These
were
Churches
in
all
likelyhood
designed
by
the
Apostles
themselves
as
precedents
for
others
.
The
multitudes
of
Christians
every
where
in
the
Roman
Empire
in
the
time
of
Tertullian
.
§
48.
Instances
of
other
Churches
very
numerous
besides
Rome
and
Alexandria
.
Neocaesarea
,
Carthage
.
The
passage
of
S.
Cyprian
concerning
his
Contribution
explained
.
§
49
,
50.
The
ancient
numerousness
of
Christians
proved
from
Pliny
.
§
51.
The
possibility
of
their
meeting
in
the
same
Assemblies
.
§
52.
Several
ways
how
greater
numbers
might
communicate
from
the
same
Altar
,
than
could
ordinarily
meet
in
the
same
Assemblies
.
§
53.
S.
Patrick's
Dioceses
not
equivalent
to
our
modern
Parishes
.
§
54.
My
Argument
from
the
numerousness
of
the
Church
of
Rome
in
the
time
of
Cornelius
.
His
answers
refuted
.
§
55.
His
endeavours
to
give
an
account
how
the
Clergie
then
might
have
been
numerous
,
though
their
people
had
been
few
.
§
56.
His
first
five
answered
.
§
57.
His
sixth
.
§
58.
His
seventh
.
§
59.
His
eighth
.
§
60.
His
ninth
.
§
61.
His
tenth
.
§
62.
No
Instance
of
Mr.
Baxter's
notion
of
a
Church
of
a
Society
under
the
Cure
of
one
single
Priest
,
but
onely
in
those
two
Churches
of
Rome
and
Alexandria
,
so
much
disowned
in
this
very
matter
by
himself
.
§
63.
Ulphilas
Bishop
of
the
whole
Nation
of
the
Goths
.
Whether
an
Arrian
?
§
64.
Frumentius
Bishop
of
the
Indians
,
and
Moses
of
the
Arabians
.
The
Christians
of
both
more
numerous
than
our
single
Parishes
.
§
65.
His
first
answer
refuted
.
§
56.
His
second
answer
refuted
.
§
67.
A
Conclusory
Exhortation
.
§
68.
Reverend
Sir
,
§
I
AS
I
have
before
expressed
my
sorrow
for
dealing
in
such
a
Controversie
that
divides
Communion
with
a
person
of
your
piety
and
candour
,
and
from
whom
I
am
so
unwilling
to
differ
upon
any
tolerable
terms
;
so
I
am
withall
glad
that
we
can
still
maintain
an
unpassionate
way
of
debating
it
,
which
for
my
part
I
conceive
not
onely
most
Christian
,
but
most
useful
and
succesful
.
It
is
onely
with
this
design
that
I
am
willing
to
continue
it
,
wherein
I
hope
you
will
not
be
displeased
at
me
for
venturing
on
that
Liberty
your self
are
pleased
to
take
,
and
which
I
hope
through
Gods
gracious
assistance
I
shall
never
abuse
.
For
my
meaning
is
as
much
as
is
possible
to
abstain
from
all
things
personal
,
and
to
insist
onely
on
the
way
proposed
by
S.
Augustine
to
Maximinus
,
Ut
res
cum
re
,
causa
cum
causa
,
ratio
cum
ratione
decertet
.
And
here
it selfe
I
shall
endeavour
to
avoid
the
multitude
of
unnecessary
controvers●es
,
that
we
may
be
more
accurate
in
the
discussion
of
such
as
shall
remain
.
§
II
THE
principal
controversie
of
your
Letter
is
concerning
the
possibility
of
reviving
Ecclesiastical
Discipline
under
a
Diocesan
Episcopacy
.
Where
I
am
glad
to
find
that
the
Dispute
seems
rather
derived
from
your
forgetfulness
of
your
own
Concessions
and
mine
,
than
any
real
difference
of
our
Opinions
,
when
clearly
and
candidly
explained
.
For
I
can
perceive
onely
two
things
questioned
betwixt
us
through
your
Letter
.
1.
Whether
the
Bishop
be
obliged
in
his
own
person
to
a
particular
care
of
all
the
Souls
contained
within
his
Jurisdiction
,
or
whether
he
may
not
assume
Assistents
and
Coadjutors
dependent
on
himself
,
over
whom
he
is
to
exercise
the
Office
of
a
Bishop
,
that
is
,
an
Overseer
:
not
to
take
the
whole
burden
on
himself
,
but
to
oblige
them
to
the
performance
of
their
duty
,
and
to
punish
their
Delinquencies
?
2.
Whether
supposing
this
Delegation
lawful
,
Lay-Chancellors
be
fit
to
be
entrusted
with
it
?
The
former
you
seem
to
have
yielded
when
you
say
;
1.
If
this
had
been
all
our
Dispute
,
whether
a
Patriarch
or
Archbishop
can
rule
1000
Churches
by
1000
inferiour
Bishops
or
Church-rulers
,
I
had
said
something
.
Which
is
indeed
the
onely
thing
asserted
by
me
in
my
Proofs
,
and
the
very
Case
in
practice
,
no
Bishop
undertaking
the
particular
Cure
of
a
whole
Diocese
,
without
the
assistance
of
his
particular
respective
Parochians
.
When
therefore
you
ask
,
Whether
it
follows
that
our
Church-Monarch
can
oversee
all
himself
,
without
any
Suboverseers
,
or
rule
them
(
by
Gods
Word
on
the
conscience
)
without
any
Subrulers
?
Sure
you
cannot
mean
that
this
is
the
Practice
of
our
Diocesans
.
And
if
your
design
be
to
assert
,
that
every
Cl●rgyman
is
bound
to
a
particular
personal
care
of
all
within
his
Limits
,
and
therefore
ought
not
to
undertake
a
Cure
too
great
for
his
personal
cognizance
,
and
which
he
cannot
manage
without
Assistants
;
this
should
have
been
more
directly
proved
than
your
Letter
attempts
.
So
also
for
the
second
,
2.
Whether
supposing
this
Assistance
lawful
,
it
were
fit
to
be
entrusted
to
Lay-chancellors
?
I
expresly
declined
that
question
,
(
if
you
had
remembred
it
;
)
as
also
,
Whether
it
were
expedient
that
the
Bishops
Government
were
so
Monarchical
,
as
to
exclude
the
counsel
of
Presbyters
.
But
though
we
be
thus
agreed
in
the
main
(
if
not
the
whole
)
difficulty
,
if
rightly
explained
;
yet
your
Arguments
and
Answers
,
if
allowed
,
do
so
consequently
overthrow
your
concessions
themselves
,
as
that
it
is
easie
to
observe
how
heat
of
Discourse
does
transport
you
beyond
the
equity
of
your
more
composed
thoughts
.
§
III
IF
I
may
therefore
securely
take
it
for
granted
,
that
a
Bishop
with
many
Subrulers
(
and
such
are
the
particular
Parish
Ministers
)
may
govern
a
Diocese
of
as
large
extent
at
least
as
ours
are
,
as
your
words
seem
to
grant
;
I
can
then
imagine
no
possible
difficulty
concerning
the
possibility
of
reviving
Discipline
under
a
Diocesan
Government
.
For
by
Discipline
,
I
suppose
,
we
mean
nothing
but
good
Laws
punctually
executed
,
both
of
which
are
necessarily
implied
in
the
nature
of
good
Government
.
Either
therefore
you
must
deny
that
such
good
Laws
,
and
such
punctual
Execution
,
may
be
had
under
such
a
Diocesan
Government
;
and
then
you
will
destroy
the
possibility
of
such
Government
,
contrary
to
your
own
concession
;
or
you
must
say
that
such
Government
may
be
maintained
without
good
Laws
or
punctual
Execution
,
which
is
alike
absurd
to
affirm
concerning
a
good
Government
,
concerning
which
alone
we
are
at
present
disputing
.
But
because
I
find
by
some
of
your
other
Works
,
that
you
do
indeed
deny
a
possibility
of
Discipline
under
a
Diocesan
Government
,
nay
sometimes
deny
the
lawfulness
of
communicating
with
a
Diocesan
Church
as
Diocesan
;
perhaps
this
Confession
may
have
slipped
from
you
unawares
,
so
that
it
may
not
be
safe
to
take
you
at
your
word
.
If
this
later
be
your
case
,
(
as
methinks
it
must
,
if
there
be
any
real
controversie
betwixt
us
)
all
that
at
present
I
am
willing
to
undertake
,
(
that
I
may
not
enlarge
beyond
necessity
)
is
the
Examination
of
your
Answers
to
the
Reasons
produced
in
my
former
Letter
.
My
first
Reason
is
therefore
for
proving
the
possibility
of
Discipline
under
a
Monarchical
Diocesan
,
in
the
sense
there
and
here
already
explain'd
(
which
I
could
gladly
wish
you
would
keep
in
mind
for
preventing
misunderstandings
on
your
part
,
and
unnecessary
repetitions
on
mine
)
was
,
that
your
Reasons
being
not
drawn
from
testimony
,
or
any
positive
and
peculiar
prescriptions
,
which
might
make
the
case
singular
;
but
from
reason
,
and
that
not
particularly
drawn
from
the
nature
of
Government
as
Ecclesiastical
,
but
general
,
from
the
principles
of
Government
as
such
)
will
proceed
as
strongly
against
the
possibility
of
Secular
Discipline
under
a
Secular
,
as
Ecclesiastical
under
an
Ecclesiastical
Monarch
.
Seeing
therefore
that
in
a
Secular
Monarchy
as
absolute
as
the
Ecclesiastical
we
speak
of
,
and
as
remote
from
a
possibility
of
a
cognizance
of
all
particulars
,
and
of
a
much
larger
extent
than
any
Diocese
,
Secular
Discipline
may
notwithstanding
be
preserved
:
it
must
needs
follow
,
that
no
Reasons
of
this
kind
can
prove
it
impossible
under
such
an
Ecclesiastical
Monarchy
,
as
is
the
subject
of
our
present
Discourse
.
Nay
,
as
it
hence
appears
possible
,
not
onely
upon
particular
accounts
,
but
simply
,
as
having
been
actually
performed
under
Secular
Monarchies
:
So
it
must
upon
these
principles
be
presumed
actually
performable
in
Ecclesiasticals
,
which
will
not
onely
evince
the
falshood
of
your
Reasons
,
but
also
the
truth
of
the
contrary
assertion
.
In
this
Argument
you
seem
to
grant
(
what
is
also
proved
in
my
Letter
from
the
Instance
of
Davids
Kingdom
of
Israel
,
and
good
Government
of
it
,
(
which
I
thought
least
liable
to
exception
)
that
Secular
Discipline
is
preservable
under
Secular
Monarchy
.
That
also
what
agrees
to
Ecclesiastical
Government
,
not
by
virtue
of
any
peculiar
Ingredients
as
Ecclesiastical
,
but
by
virtue
of
the
common
principles
of
Government
in
general
,
must
agree
to
all
other
Governments
;
as
also
,
on
the
contrary
,
that
what
agrees
to
other
Forms
of
Government
upon
the
like
general
accounts
,
must
likewise
agree
to
that
which
is
Ecclesiastical
;
are
so
clear
,
that
as
I
do
not
perceive
that
what
you
say
tends
to
the
denyal
of
it
,
so
I
do
not
think
it
worth
my
time
to
prove
it
.
The
only
thing
therefore
remaining
,
which
you
seem
to
question
in
your
Answer
is
,
that
the
Reasons
produced
by
you
proceed
on
Principles
peculiar
to
Ecclesiastical
Government
as
such
.
For
your
principal
endeavour
is
to
shew
a
disparity
,
why
,
though
Secular
Discipline
be
indeed
maintainable
under
a
Secular
Monarchy
,
yet
Ecclesiastical
must
not
be
presumed
to
be
so
under
an
Ecclesiastical
.
For
which
you
refer
me
to
my
Lord
Bacon
;
and
your
own
Letter
to
Ludovicus
Molinaeus
,
besides
what
you
add
to
that
purpose
in
your
present
Letter
.
For
the
very
supposal
of
a
Disparity
does
necessarily
proceed
on
peculiar
Considerations
,
and
is
directly
repugnant
to
the
notion
of
general
and
common
Principles
.
Now
to
let
you
understand
that
your
Reasons
do
indeed
proceed
on
principles
common
to
all
Government
of
the
same
number
of
persons
and
extent
of
place
,
as
that
of
the
largest
of
our
Dioceses
,
Secular
as
well
as
Sacred
.
I
need
onely
to
invert
those
Topicks
of
duty
;
which
because
you
think
impossible
that
they
should
be
discharged
,
you
thence
infer
an
impossibility
of
Ecclesiastical
Discipline
,
that
you
may
see
that
none
of
those
same
Instances
of
duty
are
to
be
exempted
from
the
Cure
of
the
Secular
Magistrate
.
§
IV
I
BELIEVE
you
will
not
question
but
that
every
Secular
Magistrate
is
as
responsible
for
his
Cure
as
the
Ecclesiastical
;
and
that
this
Cure
is
not
so
general
,
but
that
all
particular
Misdemeanours
of
particular
persons
,
that
are
capable
of
an
exteriour
cognizance
,
both
as
to
their
prevention
and
punishment
are
comprehended
under
it
.
If
so
,
then
certainly
,
1.
As
many
persons
will
belong
to
the
Care
of
the
Civil
,
as
the
Ecclesiastical
Government
;
nay
,
generally
more
,
seeing
that
in
the
same
precincts
it
is
true
what
Optatus
Milevitanus
tells
us
,
Contra
Parm.
l.
3.
that
the
Church
is
contained
in
the
Commonwealth
,
not
the
Commonwealth
in
the
Church
;
there
being
no
Members
of
the
Church
not
liable
to
the
Civil
Government
,
but
many
in
the
Commonwealth
not
being
subject
to
the
Church
,
as
Pagans
,
Jews
,
Mahumetans
,
and
other
Infidels
.
And
,
2.
At
least
as
many
crimes
will
come
under
Secular
as
Ecclesiastical
cognizance
,
nay
generally
more
,
both
as
to
the
individuals
and
kinds
of
Crimes
.
As
to
the
individuals
,
because
those
who
are
not
obnoxious
to
the
power
of
the
Church
,
as
Infidels
,
are
to
be
presumed
generally
more
careless
of
themselves
,
and
less
capable
of
good
impressions
,
as
wanting
those
most
powerful
Motives
for
reclaiming
men
from
a
vicious
course
of
life
,
which
are
taught
by
the
Doctrines
of
Christianity
.
And
as
to
the
kinds
of
Crimes
.
For
as
for
the
Law
of
Nature
,
the
punishment
of
Offences
against
that
will
as
properly
belong
to
the
Magistrate
as
the
Bishop
,
and
that
not
onely
as
to
the
Second
Table
,
(
which
does
professedly
concern
Crimes
against
Secular
Conversation
)
but
also
the
First
,
as
far
as
it
relates
to
Natural
Religion
,
the
Interest
of
the
State
being
so
nearly
involved
in
that
of
Religion
,
especially
as
far
as
it
is
natural
,
as
that
all
Obligation
of
conscience
is
derived
from
thence
,
which
is
incomparably
a
better
Preservative
of
the
Princes
Rights
,
than
that
of
external
force
.
As
for
the
positive
Laws
of
the
State
,
they
are
far
more
numerous
than
those
of
Christianity
;
according
to
those
who
make
the
Scripture
an
adequate
Rule
of
such
Positives
.
For
how
extremely
do
these
fall
short
of
those
Volumes
of
Codes
and
Pandects
;
Charters
and
Statutes
,
Civil
and
Municipal
,
of
all
the
distinct
subordinat
Societies
to
which
every
particular
person
is
related
,
by
multiplication
whereof
his
duties
and
possible
offences
must
be
proportionably
multiplied
?
That
I
may
not
now
mention
all
the
extemporary
provisional
commands
which
are
acknowledged
obligatory
,
(
even
to
the
sinfulness
of
such
disobediences
)
by
virtue
of
the
general
Subjection
due
to
ordinary
and
extraordinary
Superiours
?
But
yet
the
positive
impositions
of
the
Scriptures
themselves
,
which
may
be
conceived
ordinarily
and
eternally
obligatory
to
sin
,
are
extremely
short
of
the
Voluminousness
of
the
Canonical
Writers
themselves
.
For
deduct
first
all
those
passages
that
are
purely
historical
;
for
as
for
the
obligation
of
Scripture-precedent
,
which
is
so
much
insisted
on
by
some
,
themselves
dare
not
maintain
it
in
the
utmost
latitude
.
Nor
have
they
yet
established
such
Notes
,
whereby
we
might
discern
when
we
are
concerned
in
them
,
and
when
we
are
not
:
and
when
we
are
,
when
onely
its
imitation
is
commendable
,
and
when
its
omission
is
directly
sinful
;
what
is
obligatory
in
all
circumstances
,
and
what
onely
in
some
particular
ones
;
what
are
all
the
circumstances
requisite
for
such
obligation
,
and
how
we
may
know
when
they
concurr
particularly
in
our
present
case
;
when
their
obligation
arises
from
the
authority
;
and
when
onely
from
the
prudence
of
their
Author
;
when
they
oblige
as
Laws
,
and
when
onely
as
Rules
;
when
upon
account
of
the
authority
of
the
person
,
and
when
onely
of
the
reason
of
the
thing
.
For
when
this
obligation
is
derived
from
the
reason
of
the
thing
,
(
as
I
might
have
proved
it
generally
to
be
either
as
to
the
establishment
of
the
Rule
,
or
at
least
as
to
its
application
to
the
particular
case
to
be
ruled
by
it
)
then
it
cannot
be
proved
without
recourse
to
other
Laws
of
Nature
or
Prudence
,
or
positive
Constitutions
;
so
that
such
precedents
will
not
encrease
the
number
of
Scripture-obligations
.
Deduct
also
all
promises
and
threats
,
all
exhortations
and
dehortations
,
which
are
not
themselves
precepts
,
but
suppose
the
proof
of
the
precepts
which
they
concern
by
other
mediums
.
And
,
even
of
that
small
part
of
the
Scripture
,
which
after
these
deductions
will
still
remain
properly
preceptive
,
which
(
for
the
Old
Testament
)
does
according
to
the
computation
of
the
Rabbins
,
who
are
most
minutely
critical
in
such
punctilio's
,
amount
to
no
more
than
643
,
including
both
affirmatives
and
negatives
.
If
we
still
further
consider
,
how
many
of
them
are
onely
positive
enforcements
of
natural
Laws
,
and
so
reducible
to
the
forementioned
consideration
;
how
many
of
them
that
are
positive
concern
the
Jews
,
not
as
a
Church
,
but
as
a
Commonwealth
;
how
all
of
them
that
concern
them
as
a
Church
,
are
now
evacuated
by
that
Evangelical
Liberty
,
which
has
abrogated
the
Mosaick
Authority
,
from
which
they
derived
their
Sanction
;
how
,
even
of
the
New
Testament
prescriptions
,
many
are
onely
provisional
,
and
onely
grounded
on
temporary
reasons
,
and
those
such
as
are
not
suitable
to
our
present
times
and
places
;
how
many
are
confessedly
antiquated
,
and
how
hard
it
is
to
distinguish
Apostolical
Connivanees
from
Approbations
,
their
Approbations
from
Constitutions
,
their
Constitutions
as
of
ordinary
Governours
,
and
their
Traditions
as
extraordinarily
sent
and
impowered
by
our
Saviour
,
for
the
eternal
and
unalterable
obligation
of
the
Catholick
Church
.
When
all
these
things
,
I
say
,
are
considered
and
allowed
for
,
the
positive
Constitutions
of
the
Scripture
,
which
may
oblige
us
antecedently
to
the
Churches
Imposition
,
(
which
the
persons
I
am
speaking
of
do
not
value
)
and
that
to
sin
,
will
be
extremely
short
of
the
number
of
Secular
Laws
.
§
V
AND
though
we
should
,
to
increase
the
number
,
add
the
Ecclesiastical
Laws
to
those
of
the
Scriptures
;
yet
neither
so
would
they
exceed
the
Secular
.
For
to
make
this
comparison
with
Justice
,
we
should
,
1.
Compare
onely
such
Ecclesiastical
Laws
,
as
do
not
derive
their
force
from
any
civil
Sanctions
:
For
they
that
do
must
needs
suppose
those
civil
Sanctions
at
least
as
numerous
as
themselves
,
and
therefore
cannot
be
presumed
to
over-number
them
.
And
this
consideration
will
be
extended
not
onely
to
such
Instances
,
wherein
Ecclesiastical
Persons
exercise
a
Power
confessedly
dependent
on
the
Concessions
of
Princes
,
as
in
Marriages
,
and
Wills
and
Testaments
,
and
the
certain
proportion
of
the
Ecclesiastical
maintainance
,
&c.
but
also
to
those
spiritual
crimes
,
more
immediately
relating
to
their
cognizance
,
as
established
under
Secular
Penalties
,
which
will
de
jure
include
all
affairs
of
that
nature
in
Christian
Commonwealths
,
where
the
Prince
is
acknowledged
to
be
custos
utriusque
juris
,
and
de
facto
does
include
the
Ecclesiastical
Constitutions
of
our
Kingdoms
,
where
the
Clergie
are
not
onely
by
Law
,
but
by
promise
in
King
Henry
the
Eighth
his
time
,
(
as
far
as
that
promise
can
oblige
their
Successors
)
obliged
to
make
no
Laws
without
the
Secular
permission
.
Seeing
therefore
that
(
with
us
at
least
)
there
are
no
Ecclesiastical
Laws
but
what
are
seconded
by
the
Secular
,
but
many
Secular
not
seconded
by
Ecclesiastical
;
it
must
needs
follow
,
that
Secular
Laws
,
and
consequently
Crimes
,
must
be
more
numerous
than
such
as
are
Ecclesiastical
.
But
,
2.
Abate
even
out
of
the
Jus
Pontificium
,
Petr.
de
Marca
de
Concord
.
Sac.
&
Imp.
l.
3.
c.
6.
which
has
swelled
to
the
greatest
Voluminousness
in
this
kind
,
not
onely
such
things
as
are
undertaken
by
Ecclesiastical
persons
by
the
favour
of
Princes
,
but
such
as
are
usurped
against
their
express
consent
;
and
wherein
the
Romish
Clergie
,
who
have
so
exceeded
in
this
kind
,
cannot
de
jure
challenge
any
Legislative
power
;
and
the
number
of
such
Laws
will
yet
extremely
decrease
.
And
,
3.
All
such
Laws
as
are
grounded
on
Ecclesiastical
Usurpation
,
such
as
are
all
those
which
abridge
the
power
of
ordinary
Bishops
,
and
ascribe
all
to
the
omnipotency
of
the
Roman
See
,
which
seems
to
be
the
principal
scandal
that
first
alienated
Spalato
from
them
.
I
need
not
instance
particulars
of
this
kind
,
whose
Titles
abound
with
them
as
those
of
reserved
Cases
,
of
Exemptions
,
of
Appeals
from
without
the
Limits
of
the
Roman
Patriarchate
,
&c.
And
4.
All
such
Laws
as
are
grounded
on
false
Doctrines
,
as
those
against
the
use
of
the
Cup
in
Laical
Communion
,
against
reading
the
Scriptures
,
concerning
Indulgences
,
and
the
like
practices
grounded
on
the
supposal
of
Purgatory
,
&c.
And
,
5.
All
such
as
are
misbecoming
the
candour
and
equity
of
a
Christian
Church
:
such
as
are
all
those
relating
to
the
Inquisition
,
in
relation
to
the
delation
and
punishment
of
the
persons
and
suppressing
the
Books
of
Hereticks
,
&c.
the
very
things
the
Catholicks
under
the
persecutions
complained
of
,
as
unequal
in
the
Pagans
,
and
prejudicial
to
all
just
Information
.
And
,
6.
All
,
even
indifferent
,
Constitutions
which
,
though
lawful
to
be
obeyed
,
are
yet
either
imprudent
as
to
the
things
,
or
burthensom
as
to
their
number
,
and
therefore
unnecessary
to
be
imposed
;
for
if
S.
Augustine
complained
,
that
even
in
his
time
the
Constitutions
of
this
kind
exceeded
the
servitude
of
the
Law
,
we
may
do
it
much
more
justly
now
,
when
they
are
incomparably
more
numerous
.
These
things
,
I
say
,
and
the
like
being
retrenched
,
and
no
more
being
left
,
than
what
are
absolutely
necessary
for
the
Government
,
of
a
Church
,
reformed
from
all
encroachments
and
abuses
,
would
reduce
the
Ecclesiastical
Laws
into
a
narrow
compass
;
as
we
find
them
in
the
several
Codices
Ecclesiae
Universae
Romanae
&
Africanae
,
which
though
extremely
short
of
the
Voluminousness
of
the
present
Canon
Law
,
yet
were
thought
sufficient
for
several
Centuries
,
before
the
ambitions
and
factiousness
of
private
Prelates
had
dissolved
the
unity
of
the
Catholick
Church
.
§
VI
AND
as
the
Crimes
have
thus
appeared
more
numerous
,
that
come
under
the
cognizance
of
the
Civil
than
Ecclestastical
Governours
;
so
also
,
3.
The
necessities
to
be
provided
for
by
the
Magistrate
are
so
too
.
Thus
Maries
better
part
(
which
was
Religion
)
is
represented
by
our
Saviour
himself
as
a
solicitousness
onely
for
one
thing
necessary
;
whereas
Martha
was
troubled
about
many
things
.
For
Religion
teaches
us
an
indifferency
as
to
our
desires
,
and
an
unconcernedness
as
to
events
,
and
a
confident
acquiescency
in
God
for
our
temporal
provision
,
the
efficacious
procurement
and
security
whereof
is
the
design
of
temporal
Laws
.
It
preserves
us
from
many
or
great
designs
,
from
all
ambitions
or
competitions
,
from
all
resentment
and
impatience
of
injuries
;
and
for
such
persons
very
few
Laws
will
prove
sufficient
,
for
direction
onely
,
not
for
coertion
:
for
the
Apostle
tells
us
,
that
the
Law
is
not
for
the
righteous
.
And
as
the
Necessities
are
thus
certainly
fewer
in
persons
of
an
eminent
perfection
in
Religion
,
so
the
means
of
bringing
them
to
that
perfection
are
fewer
and
easier
than
those
of
a
secular
conversation
;
it
being
much
easier
to
curb
our
own
desires
,
which
is
the
design
of
Religion
,
than
to
curb
the
world
and
the
course
of
providence
,
which
are
many
times
necessary
for
their
gratification
;
which
is
the
design
of
the
world
.
Besides
,
that
the
good
things
of
Religion
are
not
like
those
of
the
world
,
the
less
to
particulars
for
being
communicated
to
many
,
which
is
the
great
occasion
of
those
many
controversies
concerning
meum
and
tuum
,
which
make
the
eares
of
men
so
intricate
,
and
their
Laws
so
very
voluminous
.
And
though
the
things
themselves
were
more
obnoxious
to
injury
than
they
are
,
yet
the
persons
are
not
so
inclinable
to
offer
it
;
Religion
much
more
effectually
uniting
and
endearing
its
Professors
,
than
the
most
excellent
humane
Laws
.
To
which
may
be
added
,
that
in
case
of
incorrigibleness
the
Church
is
much
more
easily
cleared
of
the
prejudice
of
a
corrupt
member
,
than
the
Commonwealth
.
The
Church
is
sufficiently
cleared
of
his
scandal
by
disowning
him
,
and
excluding
him
from
Communion
,
and
the
blessings
consequent
thereunto
;
but
the
State
is
never
secure
from
suffering
by
him
while
he
lives
,
which
is
much
the
more
difficult
case
.
§
VII
IT
had
been
very
easie
for
me
to
have
added
many
more
difficulties
in
the
Secular
Government
of
a
multitude
,
which
have
not
place
in
the
Ecclesiastical
;
and
that
without
the
partiality
of
insisting
onely
on
the
conveniences
of
one
part
,
and
onely
on
the
inconveniences
of
the
other
,
(
which
I
confess
very
fallacious
and
unfit
for
a
faithful
representation
of
the
Cause
)
but
in
such
Instances
as
might
be
competent
for
an
absolute
and
equal
sentence
concerning
the
whole
.
Nay
,
I
might
have
insisted
on
your
own
Topicks
,
and
shewn
you
,
1.
The
many
Requisites
for
making
a
good
Subject
,
and
wherein
more
positive
Laws
are
concerned
,
than
in
making
a
good
Christian
.
First
,
many
Laws
of
the
Commonwealth
concern
Marriages
,
that
there
may
be
no
injury
to
the
Friends
or
the
Persons
concerned
,
or
the
Children
.
When
the
Children
are
begotten
,
there
are
further
Laws
for
preserving
them
in
the
womb
;
and
when
they
are
born
,
for
securing
them
from
murder
or
exposing
,
or
unwholsom
nourishment
,
or
vicious
education
.
The
oeconomical
charge
of
Education
does
require
more
care
and
constant
attendance
of
the
Nurse
than
is
ever
pretended
or
required
from
any
Minister
in
the
conversion
of
Souls
.
Many
are
the
casualties
of
their
childish
Follies
,
many
the
distempers
of
their
irregular
Actions
,
many
the
dangers
they
can
neither
avoid
nor
complain
of
,
to
such
as
might
prevent
or
remedy
them
.
And
yet
for
all
these
their
Nurses
are
made
responsible
if
they
happen
by
their
negligence
.
Nay
,
so
great
is
this
care
for
some
years
,
as
to
take
up
the
whole
time
of
the
Nurse
,
which
the
conversion
of
no
sinner
does
of
a
Minister
.
Yet
certainly
you
would
not
think
your
own
Argument
good
if
I
should
apply
it
here
.
If
the
nursing
of
one
child
take
up
the
whole
time
of
one
person
,
then
what
one
person
can
be
able
to
govern
as
many
children
as
are
in
ordinary
Families
?
And
if
this
Government
of
many
children
appear
thus
impossible
to
one
person
,
then
much
more
that
of
a
Family
,
of
a
Corporation
,
of
a
City
,
of
a
Province
,
&c.
And
if
to
avoid
this
you
reply
,
that
although
every
Master
of
a
family
be
not
able
personally
to
discharge
the
duty
of
governing
many
children
,
yet
he
can
by
his
authority
oblige
the
Nurses
and
Tutors
to
do
their
duty
,
and
so
at
least
mediately
govern
them
;
(
as
the
King
,
though
he
cannot
possibly
be
personally
present
in
all
places
of
his
Dominions
,
where
it
is
necessary
that
Justice
be
administred
,
can
yet
command
such
as
may
,
and
punish
them
upon
non-performance
of
their
duty
,
which
Subordination
and
Delegation
may
be
so
contrived
,
as
that
they
who
come
under
his
more
immediate
personal
inspection
may
be
proportionable
enough
to
the
Abilities
of
one
man
;
)
I
pray
consider
whether
the
case
be
not
exactly
the
same
here
:
For
if
one
Minister
be
able
to
govern
400
,
which
is
the
lowest
number
mentioned
by
you
as
in
a
Parish
,
then
why
may
not
a
Bishop
govern
400
Ministers
?
especially
considering
that
the
Government
of
a
Bishop
over
his
Clergie
,
is
onely
in
general
to
see
that
they
do
their
duty
,
and
does
not
require
so
particular
an
inspection
into
their
performances
,
as
that
of
a
Minister
over
his
Parishioners
.
For
it
is
much
easier
for
a
Bishop
to
inform
himself
,
whether
a
Minister
perform
the
duty
of
his
Cure
,
whether
of
Preaching
,
or
Praying
,
or
Visiting
,
and
whether
he
be
of
a
good
repute
,
or
at
least
not
scandalous
,
with
his
Parishioners
;
than
for
a
Minister
not
onely
to
inform
him self
of
those
Quaere's
concerning
each
of
his
flock
,
whether
they
discharge
their
calling
justly
and
conscienciously
,
and
what
means
may
be
used
for
their
recovery
in
case
of
their
default
,
who
are
not
so
easily
to
be
cast
out
of
the
Ministers
care
by
Excommunication
,
as
scandalous
Ministers
are
out
of
the
Bishops
by
deprivation
.
Besides
his
catechizings
of
the
ignorant
,
and
his
admonitions
of
the
knowing
,
and
his
resolutions
of
perplexed
consciences
,
and
his
awaiting
fit
opportunities
and
circumstances
for
rendering
his
persuasions
more
prevalent
,
are
most
expensive
of
time
,
and
yet
are
not
so
absolutely
necessary
to
be
critically
observed
in
Government
,
(
where
the
publick
Service
may
be
promoted
by
other
Instruments
,
if
persuasions
prove
unsuccesful
)
as
in
private
discourses
,
where
the
personal
advantage
of
the
party
concerned
is
principally
intended
.
§
VIII
BUT
then
if
you
would
be
pleased
to
consider
further
,
how
few
Parishes
are
so
little
peopled
as
to
consist
onely
of
400
,
and
how
few
Dioceses
consist
of
so
many
Ministers
that
have
proper
and
distinct
Cures
;
how
that
usually
the
most
eminent
men
for
Parts
and
Action
are
,
or
should
be
,
chosen
Bishops
,
many
of
them
upon
personal
regards
able
to
perform
the
work
of
many
ordinary
Ministers
,
and
may
well
be
presumed
extraordinary
,
considering
the
great
advantage
for
choice
from
the
disproportion
of
their
number
,
so
few
Bishops
being
to
be
chosen
out
of
so
many
Ministers
.
If
you
would
consider
further
how
untrue
it
is
,
that
the
dispensation
of
discipline
,
even
as
it
is
practised
,
is
managed
by
the
Bishop
alone
,
who
has
his
inferiour
Officers
for
preparing
things
for
his
cognizance
,
besides
the
direction
of
learned
Lawyers
for
his
assistance
in
point
of
counsel
,
(
which
is
the
main
reason
that
may
be
pretended
,
for
proving
the
Government
of
many
better
than
that
which
is
Monarchical
;
)
and
for
counsel
in
this
kind
the
Clergie
themselves
are
not
qualified
as
Clergie-men
,
but
as
Lawyers
,
but
would
have
much
more
of
this
assistance
,
according
to
my
Book
,
where
I
have
professed
my self
desirous
,
that
the
Bishops
would
more
communicate
the
great
Affairs
of
Government
with
their
Clergie
,
which
I
confess
I
think
more
agreeable
to
the
primitive
Form
.
If
,
I
say
,
you
had
considered
these
things
,
you
would
find
Discipline
much
more
practicable
under
a
Diocesan
,
than
a
Secular
Monarchy
.
And
I
wish
you
would
consider
whether
your
Arguments
will
not
proceed
with
the
same
force
;
I
do
not
say
onely
against
those
numerous
Parishes
of
30000
or
50000
persons
,
which
is
a
greater
number
than
I
believe
are
in
some
of
our
Irish
Dioceses
,
especially
if
onely
Protestants
be
accounted
,
(
and
yet
you
do
not
pretend
a
duty
of
separating
from
the
communion
of
such
Parishes
,
as
you
do
from
our
communion
as
Diocesan
;
though
certainly
a
Bishop
with
a
multitude
of
Clergie
,
more
subject
to
him
than
ordinary
Curates
are
to
their
principal
Parsons
,
is
much
more
able
for
the
Government
of
a
Diocese
,
than
an
ordinary
Minister
,
wanting
such
advantages
,
is
for
the
Government
of
such
a
Parish
)
but
against
Provincial
and
National
Classes
also
.
For
it
is
as
impossible
for
every
particular
Elder
of
even
a
Provincial
Class
,
which
were
often
of
larger
extent
than
our
Dioceses
,
to
inform
himself
particularly
of
every
person
and
cause
to
be
brought
before
him
,
so
as
to
be
able
to
judge
distinctly
of
their
merit
,
as
for
a
Diocesan
Bishop
.
And
I
can
perceive
nothing
that
may
with
any
plausibility
be
pretended
there
,
that
may
not
with
as
much
force
be
urged
here
.
§
IX
IF
it
be
pretended
that
there
is
a
multitude
who
have
their
distinct
Governments
in
their
respective
precincts
mutually
independent
on
each
other
,
some
of
whom
by
advantage
of
their
neighbourhood
may
have
opportunity
of
informing
themselves
particularly
of
every
cause
belonging
to
their
Jurisdiction
.
The
same
may
be
pretended
here
,
the
same
number
of
Clergie
being
imployed
under
a
Diocesan
,
as
under
a
Classical
Government
.
But
it
is
withall
clear
,
that
a
much
greater
number
of
them
will
,
even
in
such
Classes
,
prove
incapable
of
that
advantage
of
personal
information
,
who
yet
would
not
be
denied
their
decisive
vote
on
the
testimony
of
others
.
And
in
all
Polyarchical
Governments
the
suffrages
of
the
major
part
is
as
decretory
as
that
of
a
single
person
,
in
that
which
is
Monarchical
;
so
that
still
the
Government
is
managed
without
particular
information
.
If
their
multitude
be
urged
for
the
security
of
their
counsel
,
that
is
had
also
here
,
especially
in
the
Hypothesis
defended
by
me
,
where
Presbyters
are
joyned
in
Government
with
the
Bishops
.
But
with
this
advantage
in
our
case
,
that
the
same
security
of
counsel
is
here
joyned
with
expediteness
in
its
decision
and
execution
,
and
security
from
equal
suffrages
,
the
want
of
which
do
oftentimes
more
prejudice
polyarchical
Societies
,
than
the
security
of
their
counsels
do
avail
them
.
And
it
is
plainly
as
impossible
,
if
not
more
,
for
any
Class
,
which
can
onely
be
convened
occasionally
,
to
execute
its
own
Decrees
without
Delegation
as
for
the
Bishop
.
§
X
YOUR
answers
for
shewing
the
disparity
betwixt
Civil
and
Ecclesiastical
Government
,
as
many
of
them
as
are
true
,
(
for
all
are
not
)
do
onely
prove
a
disparity
on
other
accounts
,
(
which
is
not
denied
)
but
not
such
a
one
as
may
hinder
the
governableness
of
the
same
multitude
by
an
Ecclesiastical
,
and
that
in
foro
exteriori
,
(
which
is
the
onely
question
I
am
concerned
in
at
present
)
which
is
acknowledged
governable
by
a
Secular
Magistrate
.
You
have
neither
any
thing
of
reason
,
nor
of
any
positive
revelation
of
God
,
which
might
make
such
a
multitude
less
governable
,
by
reason
of
some
liberties
restrained
in
the
Church
,
but
allowed
in
the
Commonwealth
.
Your
1.
is
,
that
the
standing
of
the
Magistrates
office
is
by
the
Law
of
Nature
,
which
therefore
alloweth
variety
and
mutations
of
inferiour
Orders
,
as
there
is
cause
.
But
the
standing
of
the
Clergy
is
by
supernatural
institution
;
our
Book
of
Ordination
telling
us
,
that
there
are
three
Orders
,
&c.
Whence
you
conclude
,
that
men
may
not
alter
them
,
or
make
more
of
the
same
kind
.
The
force
of
this
Answer
,
as
far
as
I
can
apprehend
it
,
seems
to
consist
in
these
two
things
;
1.
That
the
government
of
a
Diocese
cannot
be
administred
without
more
than
three
Orders
,
for
those
three
,
you
seem
to
allow
from
the
Book
of
Ordination
;
and
,
2.
That
it
is
not
in
the
power
of
the
Church
to
institute
new
Orders
besides
the
three
already
established
,
though
it
be
in
the
power
of
the
State
to
innovate
as
they
please
by
reason
of
the
disparity
by
you
mentioned
.
The
former
is
so
manifestly
false
,
as
that
if
ever
Discipline
were
observed
ever
since
the
government
of
the
Church
was
Diocesan
,
(
which
is
hard
to
deny
,
since
it
has
been
Diocesan
as
far
as
Ecclesiastical
History
can
inform
us
)
it
was
under
these
three
Orders
.
Nay
,
the
Presbyterians
pretend
their
Classical
Discipline
to
be
maintainable
by
one
Order
alone
,
for
Deaconship
they
make
onely
a
kind
of
civil
office
for
disposing
of
the
alms
of
the
Church
.
So
sufficient
they
account
the
Subordination
of
particular
persons
singly
considered
to
the
same
persons
,
as
considered
collectively
in
an
Assembly
,
without
any
distinction
of
Orders
for
Government
.
And
why
the
President
of
these
Presbyteries
,
though
not
of
a
distinct
Order
,
as
most
of
the
Schoolmen
,
and
many
of
the
Episcopal
Authors
,
maintain
,
especially
those
of
the
old
Prelatists
,
(
as
your self
have
elsewhere
observed
)
may
not
upon
the
same
terms
maintain
Discipline
,
for
my
part
I
cannot
understand
.
The
ground
,
I
believe
,
of
your
mistake
is
,
that
in
the
administration
of
our
Prelatick
Episcopacy
you
have
observed
some
other
Officers
of
prudential
Ecclesiastical
Constitution
,
which
are
intrusted
with
Jurisdiction
,
as
Deans
,
Archdeacons
,
Vicars
General
,
Lay-chancellors
,
&c.
which
you
mistake
for
Orders
,
because
they
have
different
duties
in
the
subordination
of
the
policy
of
the
Church
.
But
,
1.
I
do
not
doubt
but
that
you
know
better
than
I
can
tell
you
,
that
even
Diocesan
Government
,
as
Diocesan
,
may
and
has
been
actually
administred
without
them
in
the
primitive
times
.
Some
of
them
being
of
civil
constitution
,
for
administring
the
power
of
the
Prince
in
the
exteriour
government
of
the
Church
,
as
he
is
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
(
that
I
may
use
the
language
of
Constantine
the
Great
)
and
all
of
them
of
prudential
use
,
onely
convenient
,
not
simply
necessary
,
even
in
the
opinion
of
them
that
use
them
.
And
2.
You
cannot
pretend
,
that
the
addition
of
new
Officers
(
though
possibly
unlawful
upon
other
accounts
,
yet
)
should
make
the
Discipline
of
a
populous
precinct
less
,
but
rather
more
maintainable
.
For
certainly
in
such
a
case
the
multitude
of
Officers
is
an
advantage
.
And
let
me
intreat
you
to
remember
that
this
is
the
real
question
,
not
Whether
Diocesan
Government
be
constituted
by
God
,
but
Whether
Discipline
be
maintainable
under
it
.
But
,
3.
Suppose
it
as
inconvenient
as
you
please
,
even
for
the
maintainance
of
Discipline
,
(
which
I
am
not
willing
at
present
to
digress
to
)
nay
even
unlawful
to
be
introduced
by
Governours
;
yet
how
can
it
be
proved
that
it
is
lawful
for
Subjects
to
undertake
its
Reformation
without
and
against
the
consent
of
Governours
?
And
how
can
they
be
excused
,
even
in
such
a
case
,
for
refusing
passive
obedience
;
for
separating
from
them
,
and
joyning
with
Parties
formed
in
opposition
to
them
?
Which
seems
to
be
your
case
in
separating
from
our
Communion
as
Diocesan
,
and
communicating
with
such
who
have
cast
off
their
obedience
,
and
united
themselves
in
a
communion
opposite
to
their
original
Superiours
?
And
,
4.
You
may
be
pleased
to
consider
,
that
as
we
do
not
call
all
these
prudential
Offices
Orders
,
so
there
is
no
reason
why
we
should
do
so
in
the
Ecclesiastical
notion
of
the
word
.
For
not
now
to
make
use
of
that
distinction
betwixt
Order
and
Jurisdiction
,
which
is
generally
followed
by
the
Ancient
and
Modern
Popish
Schoolmen
,
that
Order
is
circa
corpus
Christi
mysticum
,
and
Jurisdiction
circa
corpus
Christi
verum
,
according
whereunto
these
offices
will
differ
in
Jurisdiction
,
not
in
Order
.
It
is
plain
,
that
every
rank
of
men
in
Ecclesiastical
Assemblies
,
are
not
by
the
Presbyterians
themselves
accounted
distinct
Orders
,
as
Scribes
,
Moderators
,
Lay-Elders
,
&c.
But
onely
such
as
by
a
distinct
solemn
consecration
have
a
distinct
power
given
them
for
the
dispensation
of
divine
graces
,
not
to
be
deprived
or
repealed
as
to
its
original
right
,
though
it
may
be
restrained
as
to
its
actual
execution
.
In
which
sense
it
is
plain
,
that
these
Offices
neither
are
,
nor
suppose
a
distinction
of
Orders
.
§
XI
BUT
then
for
the
second
proposition
supposed
in
your
Answers
,
That
the
Church
has
not
power
of
constituting
new
Orders
;
though
I
doubt
not
you
understand
what
Conclusion
may
be
inferred
from
the
Doctrine
of
that
ingenious
person
,
who
has
professedly
disproved
Dr.
Stillingfleet's
all
divine
unalterable
right
of
any
certain
form
of
Church-government
,
because
I
confess
my self
not
to
be
of
his
mind
;
yet
if
you
mean
by
Orders
all
deputation
even
of
Ecclesiastical
persons
to
particular
offices
,
executive
of
their
general
power
;
then
I
think
you
have
no
way
disproved
prudential
Innovations
in
that
kind
.
Nay
,
I
doubt
not
but
that
it
were
easie
to
instance
in
all
other
Sects
,
as
well
as
the
Presbyterians
,
that
have
any
face
of
Government
,
unscriptural
Officers
.
The
Scripture
has
not
used
the
word
,
and
therefore
cannot
be
pretended
to
have
condemned
.
Nor
has
the
Church
ever
understood
it
in
this
sense
,
when
she
has
owned
but
three
or
two
Holy
Orders
.
But
if
by
Orders
you
mean
the
limited
sense
of
the
Church
of
that
word
,
then
I
confess
they
are
not
multipliable
by
the
Church
,
but
conceive
I
have
shewn
the
no-necessity
of
it
in
our
Prelatick
Diocesan
Government
.
§
XII
YOUR
second
disparity
is
,
That
Kingly
Power
requireth
not
,
ad
dispositionem
materiae
,
such
persnal
ability
as
the
pastoral
office
doth
.
That
a
child
may
be
a
King
,
and
that
it
may
serve
turn
if
he
be
but
the
Head
of
Power
,
and
give
others
commission
to
do
all
the
rest
of
the
governing
work
.
But
it
is
not
so
with
a
Judge
,
a
Physician
,
an
Orator
,
or
a
Bishop
,
who
is
not
subjectum
capax
of
the
essence
of
the
office
without
personal
aptitude
.
This
seems
to
me
a
plain
mistake
even
in
the
judgment
of
those
Nations
which
are
governed
by
an
hereditary
Monarchy
,
who
do
not
suffer
their
Princes
,
whilest
children
,
to
intermeddle
;
I
do
not
say
in
the
executive
(
which
belongs
not
to
them
as
absolute
Princes
)
but
in
the
decretory
parts
of
their
Government
,
(
which
is
their
Royalty
)
but
oblige
them
to
perform
all
by
Regents
and
Protectors
,
till
themselves
come
to
the
years
of
personal
aptitude
,
in
the
mean
time
reserving
them
onely
the
honour
,
without
the
power
of
a
King
.
And
this
sense
of
the
necessity
of
personal
abilities
,
as
it
appears
from
the
Scripture
,
which
accounts
those
Nations
miserable
that
are
under
such
Princes
,
and
the
nature
of
the
Office
it self
,
which
is
as
chargable
with
the
miscarriages
of
their
Subjects
as
Ecclesiasticks
,
as
is
excellently
discoursed
by
Socrates
in
Xenophon
;
Mon.
Soci
.
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
themselves
onely
make
those
Offices
hereditary
,
which
being
supreme
are
supposed
,
in
the
interregna
,
not
to
leave
a
Power
sufficiently
preservative
of
the
publick
peace
.
Otherwise
they
that
are
consistent
with
such
a
Power
,
are
even
among
them
Elective
,
as
all
inferiour
Magistracies
.
And
upon
these
accounts
of
avoiding
greater
inconveniences
,
it
is
not
repugnant
to
the
Ecclesiastical
Magistracy
as
such
,
to
be
hereditary
,
as
appears
from
the
High
Priesthood
among
the
Jews
,
which
yet
you
will
not
conclude
not
to
have
required
personal
abilities
.
But
still
your
comparison
of
a
Prince
wanting
personal
abilities
with
a
Bishop
having
them
,
are
not
methinks
to
the
purpose
,
for
shewing
a
greater
multitude
to
be
governable
by
such
a
Prince
,
than
such
a
Bishop
.
Nay
,
certainly
in
such
a
case
the
advantage
will
lie
on
the
Bishops
side
,
personal
abilities
being
much
more
sufficient
for
the
discharge
of
such
a
trust
,
than
the
want
of
them
.
Nor
will
it
be
sufficient
for
you
to
reply
,
That
the
defect
of
personal
abilities
in
a
Prince
is
supplied
by
the
assistances
of
his
substitute
Governours
,
whose
united
aids
are
more
considerable
than
the
personal
abilities
of
any
single
Bishop
.
For
it
will
be
requisite
for
making
the
comparison
even
,
that
the
Bishop
as
well
as
the
Prince
be
considered
with
the
like
assistances
of
Substitutes
;
and
then
the
advantage
will
still
remain
as
formerly
on
the
Bishops
side
.
For
certainly
the
Bishop
having
personal
abilities
to
judge
of
the
sufficiency
of
his
Substitues
,
and
to
call
them
to
an
account
in
case
of
their
default
,
must
needs
be
able
to
perform
more
work
than
such
a
Prince
,
who
must
not
be
supposed
able
to
assure
himself
of
the
sufficiency
or
honesty
of
his
inferiour
Officers
.
§
XIII
IF
it
be
pretended
,
that
Princes
have
power
to
nominate
such
Substitutes
,
but
that
Bishops
have
not
;
and
therefore
that
the
comparison
is
rightly
formed
betwixt
Princes
with
their
Substitutes
,
and
Bishops
singly
considered
;
I
pray
remember
,
1.
That
the
question
is
not
,
Whether
Bishops
may
lawfully
use
Substitutes
,
but
what
were
possible
to
be
performed
by
them
in
the
nature
of
the
thing
.
For
of
this
kind
were
your
Arguments
from
the
many
requisites
for
dealing
with
a
single
Soul
,
much
more
will
so
many
Souls
as
are
included
in
a
Parish
,
and
more
yet
for
as
many
Parishes
as
are
comprehended
in
a
Diocese
.
These
,
I
say
,
if
they
prove
any
thing
,
prove
the
impossibility
of
discipline
in
a
Diocesan
Government
,
not
onely
its
unlawfulness
;
and
the
proving
its
possibility
not
onely
lawfulness
,
was
my
design
in
this
Argument
drawn
from
the
good
Government
of
Secular
Monarchy
.
Now
this
is
clearly
granted
me
in
this
Answer
.
For
if
a
Prince
without
personal
abilities
may
yet
govern
a
Kingdom
by
his
Substitutes
,
much
more
might
a
Bishop
with
the
like
Substitutes
,
and
personal
abilities
besides
.
And
,
2.
It
is
plainly
the
case
in
practice
among
us
,
for
Bishops
to
govern
their
Dioceses
not
alone
,
but
by
the
assistance
of
other
Officers
,
besides
the
distinct
subordinate
Parochians
.
And
to
this
Government
as
thus
established
,
I
believe
you
objected
the
impossibility
of
discipline
.
And
,
3.
The
lawfulness
of
such
Substitution
was
,
you
know
,
the
thing
principally
debated
;
and
therefore
you
ought
not
so
confidently
to
have
urged
your
sense
of
it
as
a
disparity
.
§
XIV
YOUR
third
and
fourth
disparities
are
onely
against
Bishops
substituting
Laymen
;
which
because
I
did
not
undertake
to
defend
,
shall
not
look
on
my self
as
further
concerned
in
.
Your
fifth
is
,
That
either
it
is
the
Bishops
work
that
is
delegated
by
him
,
or
some
other
.
If
properly
his
own
,
then
either
he
maketh
more
Bishops
,
(
and
that
you
say
is
all
you
plead
for
)
or
else
a
Presbyter
or
Lay-man
may
do
a
Bishops
proper
work
;
and
then
what
need
of
a
Bishop
?
This
is
an
Exception
so
easily
answered
,
as
that
I
verily
persuade
my self
,
that
such
a
Wit
as
yours
is
would
have
easily
defended
us
against
it
,
if
it
had
been
objected
by
another
Adversary
.
And
if
I
might
be
so
bold
,
I
would
humbly
beg
you
not
to
exercise
your
wit
,
in
bringing
needless
and
weak
Arguments
ex
abundanti
,
but
onely
to
insist
on
such
as
are
in
your
own
judgment
convictive
.
For
certainly
if
you
had
but
cursorily
reflected
on
this
Argument
,
you
would
readily
have
discerned
,
that
this
is
so
far
from
being
a
disparity
,
as
that
indeed
(
if
it
prove
any
thing
)
it
will
proceed
with
as
much
force
against
the
possibility
of
Secular
Discipline
under
a
Civil
Government
of
the
same
extent
with
a
Diocese
.
For
may
it
not
as
well
be
urged
against
the
power
of
Delegation
in
a
Prince
,
that
either
it
must
be
his
own
work
that
is
delegated
by
him
,
or
some
other
?
If
that
which
is
properly
his
own
,
then
he
must
either
make
many
Princes
,
(
which
were
directly
destructive
to
his
Monarchical
Government
)
or
else
he
who
is
no
Prince
may
do
a
Prince's
work
,
and
then
what
need
of
a
Prince
?
Besides
that
,
your
pretended
Contradiction
will
proceed
with
as
much
force
here
as
in
the
Church
.
Consider
,
I
pray
,
what
you
would
answer
in
behalf
of
a
Secular
Monarch
,
and
see
whether
it
will
not
be
equally
appliable
to
that
which
is
Ecclesiastical
.
I
believe
your self
would
deny
,
that
every
inferiour
Officer
,
who
is
delegated
to
do
the
Prince's
work
,
is
thereby
made
a
Prince
,
seeing
that
though
he
do
exert
the
same
power
,
yet
he
does
not
do
it
adequatly
(
some
Acts
of
grace
being
still
reserved
to
the
Prince's
person
incommunicably
;
)
or
if
adequately
,
yet
at
least
not
independently
,
all
other
Officers
being
subject
to
the
supreme
.
For
these
two
are
the
formal
constitutives
of
a
Prince's
power
as
such
;
so
that
they
who
want
them
,
how
many
soever
of
his
commands
are
executed
,
or
how
much
soever
of
his
power
is
administred
by
them
,
will
not
therefore
prove
formal
Princes
.
Besides
that
,
upon
these
Principles
it
may
be
affirmed
,
that
though
the
Prince
may
indeed
imploy
others
in
all
the
Services
of
the
Commonwealth
;
yet
it
does
not
thence
necessarily
follow
,
that
he
delegates
that
which
is
properly
his
own
work
.
For
to
do
all
things
himself
is
so
far
from
being
his
proper
,
as
that
it
is
none
of
his
work
as
a
Prince
,
but
onely
to
take
care
that
the
supreme
Officers
entrusted
under
him
do
their
duty
,
and
to
punish
them
in
case
of
default
;
so
that
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
or
irresponsible
power
,
is
that
which
is
proper
to
him
,
and
which
if
it
be
communicated
to
others
,
must
make
them
also
Princes
;
and
this
care
of
obliging
others
to
the
performance
of
their
duties
is
so
inseparable
a
Royalty
of
the
Supreme
Power
,
as
that
those
Princes
who
have
entrusted
others
with
it
,
have
been
judged
by
all
prudent
persons
Princes
onely
in
name
,
not
in
effect
,
as
Chilperick
of
France
,
Sardanapalus
,
&c.
This
proper
work
therefore
of
the
Prince
being
reserved
to
himself
incommunicably
,
it
will
plainly
appear
that
this
Deputation
will
not
supersede
the
necessity
of
the
supreme
Monarch
;
and
that
there
will
be
no
contradiction
in
the
case
,
the
inferiour
Officers
still
remaining
Subjects
,
not
Princes
,
notwithstanding
whatsoever
Deputation
that
does
not
make
them
absolute
and
unaccountable
,
and
unobnoxious
to
the
care
and
cognizance
of
the
Supreme
.
The
Application
to
our
present
case
is
easily
made
.
For
when
I
mentioned
the
Delegation
of
the
Bishops
power
to
particular
Parochians
,
I
onely
meant
such
a
subordinate
power
for
governing
their
respective
Parishes
,
as
Viceroys
and
Lieutenants
have
under
Secular
Monarchs
for
the
Government
of
particular
Provinces
;
but
this
subordinate
power
is
so
far
from
being
the
proper
work
of
a
Bishop
as
such
,
as
that
it
would
make
him
no
Bishop
to
suppose
it
in
him
at
all
.
That
therefore
which
is
proper
to
a
Bishop
as
such
,
that
is
,
the
power
of
compelling
the
Parochians
to
the
performance
of
their
duties
,
is
not
communicated
to
any
Parochian
;
and
when
it
has
been
communicated
to
any
simple
Presbyters
,
it
has
been
counted
as
great
an
effeminacy
and
betraying
of
their
power
,
as
the
like
case
in
Seculars
was
reputed
in
the
Secular
Princes
now
mentioned
.
For
this
was
the
occasion
of
the
Abolition
of
the
Co-episcopi
about
the
ninth
Century
,
that
the
Bishops
made
use
of
them
as
pretences
for
their
own
sloth
in
the
performance
of
their
own
duties
.
If
therefore
any
thing
of
this
kind
have
crept
in
in
the
later
ages
,
I
will
not
defend
it
;
but
onely
shall
desire
you
to
remember
,
that
it
is
not
pertinent
to
your
design
of
making
all
Presbyters
as
such
,
without
any
such
particular
deputation
,
equal
with
them
;
and
that
your
Arguments
,
if
they
proved
any
thing
,
are
more
directly
levelled
against
Diocesan
Episcopacy
as
such
,
without
any
such
abusive
deputation
.
§
XV
BUT
this
at
present
may
suffice
to
shew
,
that
that
power
which
is
by
the
Bishops
permitted
to
Parish
Ministers
,
does
not
make
them
Bishops
,
nor
make
them
who
are
so
properly
unnecessary
;
which
methinks
your self
might
easily
have
understood
,
if
you
had
but
reflected
on
what
your self
know
concerning
its
practice
among
us
,
without
such
dilemmatical
uncertainties
,
which
would
make
one
think
you
a
stranger
to
it
.
The
other
member
of
your
dilemma
you
do
not
prosecute
,
whether
because
you
forgot
it
,
or
that
you
thought
it
of
it self
sufficiently
evident
,
I
know
not
;
I
suppose
your
Argument
would
have
been
,
that
if
the
power
delegated
by
the
Bishop
to
the
inferiour
Clergy
were
none
of
his
own
,
then
he
could
not
delegate
it
,
seeing
that
none
can
justly
dispose
of
that
which
is
not
his
own
.
To
this
the
Answer
is
easie
,
from
the
parallel
power
of
Princes
already
insisted
on
,
that
this
power
is
the
Bishops
the
same
way
as
that
of
inferiour
Magistrates
is
the
supreme
Prince's
,
not
to
be
executed
by
his
own
person
,
but
by
others
obnoxious
to
his
election
and
censures
,
which
is
sufficient
to
shew
,
that
the
disposal
of
it
is
his
,
though
not
the
Execution
.
§
XVI
YOUR
sixth
Answer
,
which
you
call
your
chief
one
,
is
that
which
I
before
observed
to
be
a
Concession
of
all
that
I
pretended
to
prove
,
that
a
Bishop
with
inferiour
Church-rulers
can
govern
a
scope
as
large
as
a
Diocese
.
But
when
in
application
of
it
to
our
purpose
you
ask
,
Whether
it
follows
,
that
our
Church-Monarch
can
oversee
them
all
himself
,
without
any
Suboverseers
,
or
rule
them
(
by
Gods
Word
on
the
Conscience
)
without
any
Subrulers
.
I
wonder
that
you
should
seem
so
to
forget
the
practice
of
our
Ministers
of
ruling
our
Parishes
as
Subrulers
under
the
Bishop
.
It
may
be
your
meaning
is
,
that
our
Parish
Ministers
were
not
allowed
a
part
in
the
Supreme
Government
of
their
Churches
,
as
if
that
were
sufficient
to
deny
the
name
of
proper
Church-rulers
.
But
you
might
have
remembred
,
1.
That
my
desire
was
,
that
the
Bishops
,
as
in
S.
Cyprians
time
so
now
,
would
more
communicate
their
affairs
of
any
considerable
importance
with
their
Presbytery
.
And
,
2.
That
even
according
to
the
Rubricks
of
our
Church
the
Parish
Minister
or
Curate
is
allowed
the
power
,
not
onely
of
dissuading
,
(
which
yet
is
all
that
is
allowed
the
Church
by
several
of
our
Nonconforming
Brethren
)
but
also
of
hindering
notorious
ill
livers
and
uncharitable
persons
from
the
Communion
,
onely
with
a
provision
that
they
signifie
such
their
proceedings
to
the
Ordinary
within
fourteen
days
at
the
furthest
,
which
was
no
more
than
necessary
for
keeping
them
to
the
notion
of
Sub
,
not
principal
Rulers
.
This
quick
and
easie
dispatch
in
case
of
the
Ministers
concurrence
,
would
make
one
wonder
at
your
complaints
concerning
the
dilatory
proceedings
of
the
Ecclesiastical
Courts
in
this
affair
,
if
the
Clergy
could
be
persuaded
to
be
unanimous
and
vigorous
in
the
performance
of
their
duty
.
And
,
3.
As
it
is
plain
that
there
are
many
Subrulers
under
Princes
,
who
are
not
of
their
Privy
Council
;
so
you
cannot
therefore
conclude
the
Parish
Ministers
not
to
be
Subrulers
under
the
Bishop
even
now
,
because
all
great
affairs
are
not
originally
transacted
by
their
Council
.
Nay
,
4.
Your self
confess
Legislation
it self
to
be
communicated
to
the
inferiour
Clergy
in
the
Lower
House
in
Convocations
,
when
they
make
Canons
,
which
are
Church-Laws
.
And
this
which
is
one
of
the
highest
acts
of
Government
being
communicated
to
them
,
can
you
yet
complain
of
their
exclusion
from
Government
?
WHEN
I
described
the
Ecclesiastical
Monarchy
I
spoke
of
,
§
XVII
to
be
such
as
does
appropriate
the
decretory
power
of
Government
to
it
,
communicating
onely
the
executive
to
others
,
you
bid
me
hold
to
that
.
What
your
meaning
is
thereby
I
do
not
know
;
for
neither
do
you
seem
to
persuade
me
to
hold
to
it
as
truth
,
seeing
you
afterwards
seem
to
dislike
it
.
Nor
can
I
think
that
you
would
have
me
to
hold
to
an
error
,
that
you
might
have
advantage
of
disputing
against
me
.
What
you
except
against
a
mere
Executioner's
being
no
Governour
,
might
easily
have
been
prevented
,
if
you
had
considered
that
the
word
[
mere
]
was
none
of
mine
,
and
that
the
executive
power
was
by
me
opposed
to
that
which
is
decretory
,
that
is
,
which
is
absolute
,
and
unaccountable
to
any
Superiour
on
earth
,
at
least
within
such
limits
.
Which
as
it
may
include
much
more
power
than
that
which
your self
call
more
than
executive
,
that
of
reproving
,
exhorting
,
convincing
,
&c.
So
that
decretory
in
this
sense
can
agree
to
a
subject
,
I
believe
your selfe
will
hardly
affirm
.
And
indeed
if
you
had
been
pleased
to
follow
the
analogy
in
the
civil
power
,
where
I
do
not
find
you
so
scrupulous
in
Ecclesiastical
,
you
would
more
clearly
have
understood
my
meaning
,
and
its
unconcernedness
in
your
Exceptions
.
For
in
civils
,
at
least
the
decretory
power
(
from
whence
all
Laws
and
Rules
of
proceeding
are
originally
borrowed
,
and
to
which
all
appeals
,
in
case
of
difficulty
in
their
sense
or
partiality
of
inferiour
Judges
,
are
finally
resolved
)
will
I
believe
be
owned
by
your self
as
proper
to
the
supreme
Magistrate
.
And
how
will
you
call
that
power
of
the
Subject
as
such
,
that
is
,
as
depending
hereon
by
a
more
proper
name
than
that
of
executive
(
though
it
may
withall
include
something
decretory
in
affairs
of
inferiour
concernment
,
which
though
decretory
in
respect
of
their
Inferiours
,
is
yet
onely
executive
in
relation
to
the
sense
and
design
of
their
Supreme
to
which
they
are
even
in
such
cases
confined
)
for
my
part
I
do
not
understand
.
If
I
knew
what
were
more
,
either
indeed
expressive
of
my
meaning
,
or
likely
to
be
understood
so
by
you
,
though
indeed
less
proper
,
I
would
rather
have
used
it
,
than
have
given
you
occasion
to
leave
my
sense
,
and
onely
to
dispute
the
impropriety
of
my
expressions
.
BUT
you
pretend
your
Arguments
to
prove
the
Bishop
uncapable
even
of
the
judicial
work
,
§
XVIII
(
by
which
I
suppose
you
mean
the
same
that
I
called
decretory
)
because
the
exploration
is
part
of
that
,
which
you
seem
to
imply
to
be
neither
fit
to
be
entrusted
with
others
,
nor
yet
possible
to
be
managed
by
the
Bishop
in
his
own
person
in
so
large
a
circuit
as
a
Diocese
.
This
Argument
also
would
have
been
found
false
if
applied
to
the
Secular
Power
.
For
by
the
same
reason
you
may
prove
,
that
a
Prince
cannot
govern
a
Diocese
,
because
he
cannot
explore
every
particular
crime
committed
within
his
Jurisdiction
,
which
according
to
you
he
must
do
in
his
own
person
if
he
be
a
Judge
.
Consider
,
I
pray
,
whether
what
you
would
answer
in
defence
of
the
power
of
Princes
,
which
may
not
be
as
plausibly
urged
in
behalf
of
Bishops
?
Would
you
not
say
,
that
there
is
a
twofold
judicial
power
;
such
as
determines
Laws
and
general
rules
of
proceeding
,
and
such
as
does
apply
them
to
particular
facts
;
and
that
the
former
is
that
onely
which
reserved
as
the
prerogative
of
the
supreme
power
,
the
later
onely
(
which
is
that
alone
which
alone
includes
exploration
particular
and
personal
)
is
communicated
to
inferiour
Officers
?
And
you
might
have
descerned
,
that
the
former
onely
was
that
which
I
called
decretory
,
and
which
was
by
me
appropriated
to
our
Supreme
Ecclesiastical
Monarch
,
which
you
see
does
not
necessarily
include
exploration
.
And
even
concerning
that
exploration
which
is
requisite
for
pronouncing
Sentence
in
our
ordinary
Secular
Tribunals
,
you
might
have
answered
in
behalf
of
Princes
,
that
it
is
not
necessary
that
it
be
so
minute
and
exact
as
might
be
had
from
a
personal
acquaintance
with
the
person
,
and
observation
of
his
humour
and
behaviour
in
the
course
of
his
life
;
but
for
the
Judges
information
that
is
thought
sufficient
which
is
publick
and
juridical
,
upon
the
testimonies
of
honest
persons
,
who
have
known
the
person
and
his
fact
:
for
upon
these
Evidences
our
ordinary
Judges
do
generally
proceed
in
sentencing
such
as
they
never
saw
or
knew
before
.
Nor
is
it
onely
usual
in
practice
,
but
in
reason
it
is
thought
abundantly
sufficient
.
And
,
I
pray
,
what
may
be
the
disparity
that
may
make
this
just
in
our
Secular
,
and
unjust
in
our
Ecclesiastical
proceedings
?
Is
it
that
the
credit
of
the
witnesses
may
as
well
be
suspected
as
partial
or
mistaken
,
(
even
where
no
grounds
do
appear
sufficiently
convictive
of
such
a
suspicion
)
as
the
persons
themselves
?
Or
is
it
that
there
have
been
frequent
Experiences
of
their
deceiving
such
as
have
relied
on
their
Testimony
?
And
are
not
these
difficulties
as
great
in
secular
causes
,
where
yet
they
are
not
thought
considerable
?
For
humane
affairs
are
not
capable
of
demonstrations
,
but
proceed
generally
on
onely
moral
certainty
,
oftentimes
onely
on
probabilities
,
which
are
therefore
after
the
utmost
humane
diligence
acknowledged
fallible
:
Yet
it
is
thought
prudent
to
rely
even
on
such
proofs
,
where
the
publick
advantage
by
the
decision
of
such
causes
is
more
considerable
,
than
the
prejudice
that
may
redound
to
the
person
concerned
by
a
particular
mistake
,
when
such
proof
is
the
best
that
the
matter
is
capable
of
,
or
that
can
be
had
,
and
that
its
failings
are
more
rare
and
unusual
.
And
the
same
Reasons
are
as
cogent
for
the
like
proceedings
in
Ecclesiastical
Courts
.
Or
is
it
that
some
crimes
are
so
secret
,
as
that
they
cannot
be
juridically
discovered
with
such
Evidence
as
may
satisfie
a
prudent
person
without
personal
and
particular
information
?
But
you
may
remember
that
all
crimes
do
not
come
under
the
cognizance
of
publick
discipline
,
but
onely
such
as
are
great
and
notorious
,
concerning
which
this
cannot
be
pretended
.
And
as
Governours
have
thought
it
just
and
prudent
in
some
criminal
causes
,
to
proceed
on
conjectures
and
presumptions
,
which
themselves
confess
harsh
in
some
instances
,
as
judging
it
fitter
that
some
few
Innocents
should
suffer
some
prejudice
rather
than
that
many
guilty
should
escape
;
so
in
others
,
where
the
probabilities
are
more
frequently
fallible
,
they
have
rejected
them
,
as
conceiving
it
more
just
that
some
few
Nocents
should
escape
,
rather
that
many
Innocents
should
suffer
.
Besides
that
,
where
this
publick
Evidence
does
not
appear
,
the
crime
cannot
be
so
scandalous
,
nor
consequently
can
the
Church
in
such
a
case
be
so
nearly
concerned
for
its
punishment
.
INDEED
in
some
attempts
it
has
been
found
,
§
XIX
.
that
persons
have
used
much
more
liberty
in
private
for
venting
and
propagating
scandalous
Reports
,
than
when
their
oath
has
been
required
for
publick
service
,
by
which
means
they
have
at
once
made
the
crime
very
scandalous
,
and
yet
rescued
the
criminal
from
justice
.
But
then
the
blame
of
such
impunity
is
not
to
be
imputed
to
the
negligence
of
such
a
Judge
,
but
the
prevarication
of
such
witnesses
,
and
therefore
will
not
be
pertinent
to
our
purpose
.
And
then
for
other
less
or
less
notorious
Crimes
the
private
power
of
exhorting
,
reproving
,
&c.
(
which
you
call
more
than
executive
,
and
is
no
more
denied
a
Minister
in
his
own
Parish
under
a
Diocesan
,
than
any
other
Form
of
government
)
may
and
must
prove
sufficient
,
because
no
other
is
either
convenient
or
possible
.
Or
is
it
that
the
penitence
of
the
criminal
,
which
is
requisite
to
his
absolution
,
(
which
is
equally
an
act
of
power
as
that
of
censure
)
cannot
be
so
certainly
known
by
this
publick
Juridical
Evidence
?
This
(
besides
that
it
may
be
as
plausibly
objected
in
Secular
Causes
,
where
personal
penitence
,
at
least
that
which
is
judged
so
,
is
as
much
required
to
absolution
from
secular
penalties
,
and
where
these
Juridical
Evidences
are
perfectly
as
fallible
)
will
not
appear
so
difficult
as
it
may
seem
,
if
it
be
considered
what
kind
of
penitence
is
requisite
for
this
Ecclesiastical
Absolution
?
1.
Not
a
universal
penitence
for
all
sins
,
but
onely
those
which
he
had
been
before
censured
for
.
2.
These
not
secret
,
but
publick
and
notorious
.
For
none
but
these
can
be
scandalous
,
and
none
but
scandalous
sins
do
fall
under
publick
Ecclesiastical
Jurisdiction
.
And
,
3.
Not
real
penitence
,
even
for
these
themselves
,
but
onely
so
far
as
it
may
be
signified
to
the
satisfaction
of
a
prudent
person
by
exteriour
indications
.
And
,
4.
These
exteriour
indications
,
not
private
but
publick
,
such
as
publick
confession
of
the
sin
,
and
asking
forgiveness
for
it
,
and
giving
publick
satisfaction
to
the
injured
party
and
the
Church
,
and
her
scandalized
enemies
,
and
all
circumstantiated
with
such
pregnant
evidences
of
sincerity
,
as
may
be
thought
sufficient
probabilities
of
it
in
the
judgment
of
equal
prudent
persons
.
And
,
5.
These
publick
indications
,
such
as
may
satisfie
even
strangers
,
who
have
been
scandalized
with
his
crimes
,
though
unacquainted
with
his
person
.
Now
why
a
Bishop
may
not
in
this
publick
juridical
way
of
proceeding
explore
the
penitence
,
even
of
particular
criminals
,
without
personal
acquaintance
,
as
well
as
the
scandalized
multitude
,
and
as
well
as
secular
Judges
,
as
you
have
produced
none
,
so
for
my
part
I
see
no
cogent
Argument
.
And
yet
further
,
6.
Considering
that
it
is
not
the
personal
sin
,
but
the
publick
scandal
of
it
,
which
brings
it
to
a
publick
cognizance
,
though
these
signs
should
fail
of
signifying
his
real
personal
penitence
;
yet
if
they
satisfie
the
multitude
,
though
erroneously
they
take
off
the
scandal
,
and
therefore
give
a
just
reason
of
revoking
such
publick
censares
?
For
every
cause
that
may
be
sufficient
to
dissuade
a
person
,
upon
an
account
of
his
own
interests
,
to
abstain
from
communion
,
will
not
be
so
for
depriving
him
of
it
authoritatively
.
For
they
are
not
all
sorts
of
crimes
that
put
us
out
of
the
state
of
grace
,
as
they
ought
to
be
that
deprive
us
of
our
right
to
communion
;
not
all
that
can
deprive
us
of
that
right
,
that
have
not
Evidence
enough
to
warrant
a
coercive
involuntary
punishment
;
nor
all
that
have
that
Evidence
,
that
are
fit
to
be
punished
publickly
,
and
I
believe
you
will
not
question
but
that
Excommunication
is
a
publick
punishment
.
And
thus
,
I
believe
,
by
this
time
you
may
understand
,
how
that
though
the
Bishop
sentence
upon
other
mens
words
,
(
which
your self
confess
may
perhaps
sometimes
be
done
)
yet
there
are
as
good
prudential
preservatives
against
that
inconvenience
which
you
thence
infer
,
That
he
must
excommunicate
all
that
some
body
else
says
he
must
excommunicate
,
as
there
are
against
the
like
in
Secular
Tribunals
,
which
do
confessedly
sentence
on
other
mens
words
,
and
yet
do
not
therefore
condemn
all
that
some
body
saith
they
must
condemn
.
YOUR
seventh
Disparity
is
,
§
XX.
That
in
the
Kingdom
there
is
not
one
Subject
of
an
hundred
,
or
many
hundred
,
who
hath
Law-suits
with
others
once
in
a
year
,
or
seven
years
,
or
his
life
;
not
one
of
some
hundreds
where
you
have
lived
,
that
findeth
the
Magistrate
work
as
a
criminal
,
&c.
But
we
are
all
of
a
sinning
corrupt
disposition
,
and
that
the
Pastor
hath
few
of
his
flock
that
need
not
some
personal
Applications
in
one
degree
or
other
.
And
even
as
to
gross
sins
lived
in
,
and
ignorance
,
or
heresie
against
the
very
essence
of
Christianity
,
it
is
a
good
Parish
,
where
a
considerable
part
of
it
are
not
guilty
.
To
this
it
is
easie
to
reply
,
That
though
the
case
were
as
you
have
represented
it
,
that
men
were
,
not
onely
where
you
have
lived
,
but
generally
more
guilty
of
crimes
obnoxious
to
Ecclesiastical
than
Secular
cognizance
;
yet
it
would
not
follow
,
that
more
were
governable
by
a
Secular
than
by
an
Ecclesiastical
Magistrate
;
1.
Because
I
have
already
shewn
,
That
there
are
even
in
the
same
precincts
very
many
more
persons
,
if
not
crimes
,
subject
to
the
Magistrate
than
the
Church
,
as
Infidels
,
Excommunicated
persons
,
and
such
as
are
incorrigible
by
Ecclesiastical
censures
,
&c.
Besides
those
who
are
religious
,
who
are
not
the
less
subject
to
the
Magistrate
for
their
being
Members
of
the
Church
.
And
,
2.
There
are
many
other
ends
of
government
besides
the
punishment
of
criminals
,
such
as
are
the
prevention
of
the
crimes
,
the
promotion
of
unanimity
and
industry
,
and
publick
generous
designs
,
and
the
determination
of
disputable
controversies
,
wherein
good
and
well-meaning
men
may
bonâfide
differ
from
each
other
,
and
the
like
.
They
must
as
well
build
as
take
away
the
rubbish
.
And
therefore
there
is
a
government
where
there
are
no
crimes
,
over
the
Angels
and
beatified
Spirits
.
But
especially
among
men
,
where
crimes
are
at
least
acknowledged
possible
,
the
prevention
of
crimes
may
be
a
work
of
no
less
diligence
than
their
reformation
.
And
,
3.
The
freedom
of
good
men
from
these
more
ordinary
scandalous
crimes
,
(
which
I
perceive
you
to
instance
in
)
though
it
may
less
frequently
exercise
the
secular
power
;
yet
where
it
does
,
it
will
most
dangerously
.
For
,
1.
Virtue
raises
the
spirits
of
men
,
and
makes
them
active
and
industrious
,
that
they
may
satisfie
themselves
of
their
usefulness
in
their
generations
.
Whereas
,
on
the
contrary
,
Vice
does
emasculate
mens
spirits
,
and
make
them
slothful
and
sluggish
,
and
lovers
of
their
own
ease
,
and
more
unfit
for
commotions
.
And
,
2.
Virtue
makes
men
publick
spirited
,
whereas
Vice
does
debase
them
to
private
and
little
Interests
.
So
that
the
Adversaries
of
these
are
onely
such
ordinarily
as
may
oppose
them
in
their
limited
and
particular
designs
,
and
therefore
onely
private
persons
;
but
these
having
the
same
object
with
the
publick
Magistrate
,
that
is
,
the
publick
concernment
,
must
more
directly
clash
with
him
in
case
of
different
persuasion
.
And
,
3.
The
very
authority
of
Virtue
with
the
multitude
,
(
who
cannot
but
reverence
it
in
others
,
how
little
soever
they
practise
it
themselves
)
cannot
chuse
but
very
much
advantage
virtuous
persons
for
the
forming
of
a
party
more
than
such
as
are
vicious
,
who
,
though
they
may
be
flattered
and
loved
by
such
as
are
gainers
by
their
vices
,
yet
cannot
in
prudence
be
thought
so
fit
for
management
of
their
publick
concernments
,
even
by
vicious
persons
themselves
,
who
act
upon
principles
of
worldly
prudence
,
as
they
who
are
more
honoured
,
and
publick-spirited
,
and
honest
and
sincere
,
and
so
every
way
as
well
more
fit
,
as
more
able
for
the
discharge
of
a
publick
trust
.
And
,
4.
The
onely
curbs
of
the
Supreme
Powers
,
whether
of
rewards
or
punishments
,
are
less
regarded
by
virtuous
than
vicious
persons
,
and
therefore
must
needs
be
less
able
to
restrain
them
.
For
how
can
he
who
undervalues
Death
and
Fear
,
and
all
deprivation
of
exteriors
,
be
governed
by
any
humane
power
?
Besides
,
5.
The
great
courage
,
and
that
not
precipitant
but
rational
,
which
animates
good
men
to
the
susception
of
great
Attempts
,
from
the
satisfaction
of
their
own
consciences
,
and
their
strong
confidence
of
the
present
assistance
or
future
rewards
of
God
,
of
which
wicked
men
are
wholly
destitute
.
These
considerations
,
I
say
,
and
many
others
,
may
suffice
to
shew
,
that
the
mistakes
of
good
men
are
of
more
mischievous
influence
on
the
Commonwealth
,
than
the
crimes
of
debauched
persons
,
and
therefore
far
from
diminishing
the
care
of
the
supreme
Magistrate
.
And
accordingly
you
may
find
the
most
virtuous
ages
of
the
Romans
more
troublesom
for
popular
Broils
and
Seditions
,
than
those
later
ones
of
wickedness
.
Witness
the
almost
perpetual
clashings
betwixt
the
Senate
and
the
People
,
the
popular
envies
against
their
Hero's
,
Coriolanus
,
Camillus
,
Scipio
Africanus
,
&c.
But
,
4.
Though
the
generality
of
people
were
actually
every
where
as
little
troublesom
to
the
Magistrate
,
as
where
you
have
known
them
(
which
I
doubt
you
can
hardly
undertake
for
;
)
yet
you
must
not
thence
estimate
the
qualifications
and
duty
of
a
Magistrate
.
For
as
none
would
think
it
prudent
for
a
person
putting
to
Sea
in
a
calm
,
to
choose
a
Pilot
sufficient
onely
for
that
season
,
but
unprovided
for
a
Storm
;
so
certainly
a
Magistrate
ought
to
be
prepar'd
and
qualified
with
abilities
for
governing
a
criminal
and
unquiet
people
,
even
then
when
he
lies
under
the
actual
obligation
for
exercising
them
,
especially
considering
it
as
a
case
so
very
ordinary
,
and
so
probably
to
be
expected
.
If
therefore
a
Bishop
may
not
undertake
the
charge
of
a
Diocese
,
because
impossible
to
be
performed
by
him
;
I
may
as
well
by
the
same
points
of
reason
conclude
,
that
a
Magistrate
may
not
take
that
of
a
Province
or
Kingdom
,
even
when
in
the
good
humour
you
suppose
them
,
because
he
must
not
in
prudence
venture
on
that
,
unless
he
be
prepared
for
them
when
vicious
,
which
you
suppose
impossible
,
and
therefore
unfit
to
be
engaged
on
.
And
,
5.
You
do
not
propose
the
case
with
any
equality
;
for
if
you
would
do
so
,
you
should
not
compare
a
Prince
governing
a
regular
people
and
a
Bishop
with
an
irregular
scandalous
Diocese
,
but
have
supposed
the
Subjects
in
both
cases
regular
,
or
in
both
irregular
.
And
if
you
will
needs
suppose
in
favour
of
the
Prince
,
that
his
Subjects
are
as
little
criminal
in
his
Courts
,
as
you
have
found
them
where
you
have
been
acquainted
,
to
shew
the
possibility
of
his
governing
such
a
people
,
though
in
a
large
precinct
;
why
can
you
not
suppose
in
favour
of
the
Bishop
,
that
the
Subjects
of
his
Diocese
behave
themselves
as
innocently
in
reference
to
crimes
obnoxious
to
the
publick
cognizance
of
his
Courts
?
Is
it
either
because
that
even
persons
so
supposed
equally
innocent
in
relation
to
the
charges
of
both
Courts
,
are
yet
more
difficultly
governable
by
an
Ecclesiastical
than
a
Secular
Magistrate
?
This
is
not
as
much
as
pretended
,
I
am
confident
,
not
as
much
as
plausibly
proved
,
in
your
present
Discourse
.
Or
is
it
that
the
Supposition
it self
in
relation
to
Ecclesiastical
crimes
is
more
difficult
,
it
being
more
rare
and
improbable
to
find
a
people
innocent
in
crimes
of
publick
Ecclesiastical
,
than
Secular
cognizance
?
If
this
later
be
your
meaning
,
I
doubt
neither
of
the
reasons
intimated
by
you
will
maintain
you
in
it
.
Not
that
of
your
own
experience
;
for
I
believe
you
would
have
found
those
good
persons
of
your
acquaintance
as
little
troublesom
to
the
Bishops
,
as
the
King's
Courts
,
as
little
guilty
of
incestuous
Marriages
,
forging
Wills
and
Testaments
,
Simony
,
&c.
as
of
any
acts
of
secular
injustice
.
And
as
for
the
other
concerning
our
propensity
to
actual
,
deduced
from
the
original
,
sin
;
you
have
not
as
yet
proved
this
propensity
greater
to
Ecclesiastical
than
Secular
crimes
.
But
it
is
rather
probable
,
that
as
the
crimes
cognoscible
in
the
Ecclesiastical
Courts
are
generally
more
heinous
,
so
they
are
more
easily
avoidable
.
If
you
have
any
inclination
to
think
so
,
for
preventing
it
I
pray
remember
what
I
have
already
intimated
,
that
they
are
not
all
sorts
of
sins
against
God
that
are
cognoscible
in
the
Bishops
Courts
,
but
onely
such
as
are
great
,
and
scandalous
,
and
notorious
.
And
then
consider
whether
it
be
not
as
easie
to
suppose
a
people
innocent
of
great
,
and
scandalous
,
and
notorious
sins
against
God
and
Religion
,
as
of
injustice
towards
Men.
For
this
indeed
will
be
the
true
state
of
the
question
.
2.
Therefore
it
will
not
be
so
easily
proved
,
that
the
crimes
cognoscible
in
the
Secular
Courts
are
so
few
,
in
comparison
of
those
that
are
Ecclesiastical
.
This
I
have
already
proved
before
,
and
am
not
willing
to
repeat
what
I
have
there
said
.
At
present
methinks
your
own
Concessions
,
if
closely
reflected
on
,
would
have
prevented
your
pretending
otherwise
.
For
,
besides
that
those
multitudes
of
persons
guilty
of
crimes
obnoxious
to
the
Bishops
Courts
,
(
which
I
have
said
every
impenitent
sinner
is
not
,
and
have
given
my
reason
why
I
said
so
)
are
I
doubt
guilty
of
many
more
civil
crimes
,
for
which
I
shall
onely
appeal
to
your
own
experience
;
I
pray
consider
how
many
of
the
crimes
cognoscible
in
the
Bishops
Courts
are
originally
civil
,
as
those
concerning
Marriages
,
Wills
and
Testaments
,
Tithes
.
&c.
which
are
mere
arbitrary
concessions
of
Princes
in
favour
of
the
Church
,
as
protected
by
them
.
And
the
rest
that
are
not
,
yet
come
under
the
Princes
cognizance
,
as
the
Churches
Canons
are
made
Laws
of
the
Common-wealth
,
and
her
Censures
are
seconded
by
coercive
secular
penalties
imposed
by
the
Prince
on
such
as
have
proved
refractory
against
her
Spiritual
Authority
.
Upon
which
account
it
is
impossible
but
that
the
Secular
causes
must
needs
prove
more
numerous
,
as
including
all
Ecclesiasticals
,
and
many
proper
to
themselves
besides
.
So
that
this
Disparity
is
every
way
unconvictive
of
your
purpose
.
For
if
you
mean
those
persons
who
are
so
innocent
of
secular
crimes
,
to
be
different
from
those
who
are
supposed
so
very
guilty
of
Ecclesiasticals
,
then
there
can
be
no
just
disparity
pretended
,
because
there
is
indeed
no
equal
comparison
.
But
if
you
mean
the
same
persons
in
both
cases
,
then
the
Disparity
cannot
be
pretended
true
,
because
the
Supposition
is
false
.
BUT
you
object
in
favour
of
me
,
§
XXI
.
That
the
Parish-priest
is
to
reprove
,
exhort
,
and
convince
[
sinners
]
first
,
till
he
prove
them
impenitent
;
and
that
he
is
to
instruct
the
Ignorant
,
Infidels
,
and
Hereticks
;
(
which
must
needs
considerably
lessen
the
number
of
criminals
,
who
onely
in
case
of
their
convicted
impenitency
in
the
use
of
these
means
,
should
be
further
impleaded
in
that
severer
way
of
proceeding
in
the
Bishops
Courts
.
)
To
this
you
answer
.
1.
That
this
is
more
than
an
executive
power
.
If
it
be
so
,
I
do
not
know
any
that
denies
it
you
,
so
that
you
have
no
reason
that
I
know
of
to
complain
on
that
account
.
None
hinders
you
from
reproving
,
exhorting
,
convincing
,
and
instructing
whom
you
please
,
especially
such
as
are
intrusted
to
you
as
Members
of
your
cure
.
But
I
am
sure
this
is
not
more
than
that
executive
power
,
which
I
said
was
communicated
to
the
inferiour
Clergie
,
in
opposition
to
that
which
I
called
decretory
,
reserved
to
our
Ecclesiastical
Monarch
;
for
I
believe
you
will
not
call
this
power
of
reproving
,
exhorting
,
&c.
decretory
.
I
believe
you
meant
a
power
merely
executive
.
But
you
may
remember
,
that
that
was
neither
my
word
nor
meaning
;
nor
do
I
for
my
part
think
this
power
mentioned
by
you
to
be
more
than
that
which
were
merely
executive
.
My
reason
you
will
suddenly
understand
.
SECONDLY
,
§
XXII
.
therefore
you
answer
,
That
you
desire
no
more
at
all
from
Bishops
or
any
.
If
so
,
you
need
not
desire
it
,
for
none
denies
it
you
.
But
you
say
,
You
know
no
other
Episcopal
power
over
the
people
,
but
thus
personally
to
convince
men
,
and
to
declare
to
the
congregation
upon
proof
,
the
fitness
or
unfitness
of
men
for
their
communion
by
penitence
or
impenitence
.
If
you
know
no
other
power
than
this
,
you
know
none
at
all
.
For
this
power
of
convincing
men
will
as
well
agree
to
the
meanest
Laick
who
has
reason
on
his
side
,
as
the
greatest
Bishop
;
seeing
either
of
them
may
convince
if
furnished
with
such
reason
,
but
neither
can
without
it
.
And
yet
sure
you
will
not
say
,
that
the
meanest
Laick
has
any
power
over
him
whom
he
may
thus
convince
,
at
least
not
coherently
to
your
own
principles
,
who
in
opposition
to
our
Lay-chancellours
make
Jurisdiction
inseparable
from
Orders
.
So
also
if
the
power
of
Excommunication
be
no
more
than
declaring
a
person
unfit
for
the
communion
of
the
congregation
as
being
impenitent
,
and
Absolution
be
a
declaration
of
his
fitness
for
such
communion
as
a
penitent
;
then
every
prosecutor
of
a
criminal
,
every
witness
produced
against
him
,
every
prudent
skilful
Canonist
,
every
Laick
that
is
sufficiently
informed
of
the
sense
of
the
Law
and
matter
of
fact
,
may
as
well
excommunicate
as
the
Bishop
or
the
Presbytery
.
For
every
such
skilful
person
may
know
the
fitness
or
unfitness
of
such
a
person
for
communion
,
and
knowing
it
may
declare
his
knowledge
with
the
reasons
of
it
;
and
upon
such
declaration
the
people
may
,
if
they
pleafe
,
do
as
he
would
have
them
,
either
communicate
with
,
or
separate
from
such
a
person
.
For
indeed
no
declaration
of
it self
formally
and
precisely
understood
is
obligatory
,
but
as
it
is
a
promulgation
of
that
which
antecedently
has
a
just
obligative
power
,
In
actu
primo
,
yet
is
not
in
actu
secundo
obligatory
quoad
nos
till
we
know
it
.
As
though
the
King
and
Parliament
have
a
power
of
making
Laws
,
and
therefore
what
has
passed
all
their
Votes
,
in
the
first
moment
when
it
has
done
so
,
is
immediately
a
Law
;
yet
it
is
not
in
actu
secundo
obligatory
on
the
Subject
,
so
as
that
its
violation
by
him
does
incur
the
annexed
penalty
till
it
be
legally
promulged
.
Yet
so
it
is
,
on
the
contray
,
that
this
legal
promulgation
it self
,
that
is
,
such
a
promulgation
as
is
performed
by
the
person
authorized
by
Law
,
with
all
the
requisite
circumstances
,
cannot
make
any
thing
really
obligatory
,
that
has
not
formerly
been
decreed
by
the
Legislative
Power
.
Unless
therefore
there
be
in
the
Church
a
power
antecedent
to
such
declaration
,
the
declaration
can
make
none
,
seeing
every
one
may
declare
his
own
sense
as
well
as
the
Governour
;
and
declaration
does
onely
make
that
obligatory
quoad
nos
,
which
was
so
in
se
antecedently
.
I
did
not
before
charge
you
with
any
of
those
pernicious
Doctrines
to
Church
Authority
taxed
in
my
Preface
,
and
am
sorry
now
you
give
me
so
just
occasion
to
do
it
.
It
may
be
I
may
misunderstand
you
,
and
shall
be
very
glad
to
acknowledge
my
mistake
when
you
shall
call
it
one
.
AND
I
beseech
you
,
§
XXIII
who
have
so
publickly
professed
your self
a
Friend
to
publick
peace
,
and
an
Enemy
to
Church-divisions
,
to
consider
whether
those
disparaging
Doctrines
concerning
the
power
of
the
Church
be
not
Seminaries
of
infinite
and
eternal
Schisms
.
For
if
the
Church
have
no
other
power
but
persuasive
and
declarative
,
then
he
who
either
actually
persuaded
of
the
equity
of
her
particular
impositions
,
or
at
least
pretends
it
,
may
freely
remonstrate
against
them
,
and
refuse
obedience
to
them
,
and
cannot
be
restrained
frm
seditious
behaviour
by
Excommunication
,
unless
at
least
the
greater
part
of
Communicants
be
satisfied
,
and
profess
themselves
to
be
so
,
that
it
is
their
duty
,
not
in
obedience
to
their
Superiours
,
but
on
account
of
the
particular
reasonableness
of
the
thing
,
to
withdraw
themselves
from
his
communion
.
And
even
then
it self
,
if
he
can
persuade
a
few
to
his
Party
he
may
upon
these
principles
,
without
any
scruple
of
conscience
erect
a
new
communion
for
himself
.
For
indeed
what
can
hinder
him
when
government
,
which
is
the
principle
of
unity
in
all
Societies
,
is
thus
deprived
of
all
other
awe
of
conscience
to
oblige
him
to
obedience
,
distinct
from
his
particular
satisfaction
of
the
reasonableness
of
the
things
;
or
of
any
coercive
means
of
his
restraint
,
be
his
cause
never
so
bad
,
and
his
dissatisfaction
never
so
onely
pretended
?
And
when
the
unity
of
the
Catholick
Church
is
thus
made
to
depend
on
so
hazardous
and
rarely-contingent
a
condition
,
as
the
persuasion
of
its
many
thousand
members
,
of
infinite
interests
and
capacities
,
of
the
reasonableness
of
every
particular
indifferent
or
probable
Constitution
,
who
can
ever
secure
it
for
so
long
a
time
,
as
the
Government
of
the
Church
was
designed
for
by
him
,
who
first
did
constitute
it
?
I
know
for
prevention
of
these
inconveniences
you
would
have
Governours
cautious
in
determining
any
thing
but
what
is
clear
and
necessary
.
And
for
my
part
I
wish
it
so
too
,
that
for
matters
of
belief
(
it
not
being
in
Subjects
minds
to
believe
what
they
please
)
they
would
determine
nothing
but
what
were
very
evident
,
and
even
for
matters
indifferent
,
that
they
would
neither
determine
more
of
them
than
were
needful
,
nor
such
of
them
as
were
not
convenient
in
the
circumstances
,
and
suitable
to
the
dispositions
of
the
age
of
their
determination
,
nor
be
too
tenacious
in
maintaining
them
when
their
inconveniences
should
be
found
greater
than
their
advantage
.
Though
I
confess
withall
,
that
it
were
in
prudence
much
safer
,
to
make
any
such
change
by
their
own
free
Election
,
than
to
seem
necessitated
to
it
by
mutinous
and
seditious
Remonstrances
of
their
Subjects
,
such
a
compliance
being
of
greater
consequential
prejudice
to
government
,
and
consequently
to
Ecclesiastical
Unity
,
than
a
maintainance
of
a
thing
indifferent
,
though
inconvenient
.
But
withall
you
know
,
that
Unanimity
even
in
things
indifferent
(
much
more
in
matters
of
Faith
)
is
in
general
and
indefinitely
necessary
,
though
not
particularly
determined
in
the
Scripture
;
that
this
unanimous
observance
of
things
of
such
a
nature
is
not
morally
possible
by
the
particular
conviction
of
every
Subject
of
their
fitness
;
that
therefore
there
is
no
security
for
their
unanimous
observance
but
that
of
authority
,
and
no
authority
so
proper
as
that
which
is
Ecclesiastical
;
that
when
it
is
so
imposed
,
it
is
an
instance
of
obedience
to
the
authority
imposing
;
that
being
so
,
whatever
it
may
be
in
its
own
nature
,
it
cannot
still
remain
indifferent
as
to
its
use
,
seeing
it
is
not
indifferent
whether
Subjects
ought
to
be
obedient
to
their
lawful
Sovereigns
.
And
therefore
methinks
it
would
become
you
in
healing
Church-divisions
,
to
take
a
care
of
preserving
as
well
the
Prerogatives
of
Governours
,
as
the
Christian
Liberty
of
Subjects
,
seeing
extremes
on
both
sides
are
alike
prejudicial
to
Ecclesiastical
Unity
.
Indeed
I
confess
many
of
our
first
Reformers
not
to
have
been
so
cautions
herein
as
the
Interest
of
the
Church
would
have
required
,
who
feeling
themselves
oppressed
by
a
Tyrannical
Ecclesiastical
Power
,
and
being
extremely
exasperated
by
their
violent
and
rigorous
proceedings
,
were
almost
onely
sollicitous
about
Negatives
,
never
satisfying
themselves
with
any
reasonable
retrenchments
of
such
exorbitancies
;
onely
shewing
how
far
Ecclesiastical
Power
might
not
presume
,
but
not
how
far
it
might
proceed
.
And
they
were
then
the
more
excusable
for
not
proceeding
to
such
positives
,
because
the
ends
of
such
Ecclesiastical
Power
,
the
preserrvation
of
unity
both
in
faith
and
practice
were
then
more
easily
attainable
without
the
Interposition
of
the
exercise
of
such
a
power
.
For
their
first
zeal
against
the
common
Adversary
will
oblige
them
in
prudence
to
conceal
their
lesser
Animosities
,
and
the
danger
of
weakening
themselves
,
whose
united
strengths
were
no
more
than
necessary
for
their
common
preservation
,
which
was
a
mischief
so
great
and
imminent
,
as
might
make
many
less
,
at
least
comparatively
,
tolerable
,
and
might
keep
them
from
being
so
dogmatical
in
imposing
or
opposing
Opinions
of
inferiour
concern
.
And
for
matters
of
practice
,
the
zele
of
their
first
beginnings
,
and
the
watchful
eyes
of
their
Adversaries
for
observing
their
lapses
,
and
the
great
use
of
good
personal
Lives
for
the
propagation
of
their
opinions
,
made
them
at
first
less
sensible
of
the
loss
of
Discipline
,
whilest
upon
these
accounts
they
performed
those
things
of
themselves
,
which
Discipline
should
have
compelled
them
to
,
as
far
as
Ecclesiastical
Censures
might
compel
them
,
that
is
,
as
far
they
valued
the
opinion
of
so
many
wise
and
good
men
,
and
as
far
as
they
feared
the
loss
of
the
ordinary
means
of
grace
,
and
those
dangers
they
were
exposed
to
when
cast
out
of
that
Society
,
which
could
alone
entitle
them
to
the
Divine
Protection
,
and
all
the
terrours
that
are
signified
in
their
delivery
to
Satan
,
I
am
necessitated
to
interpose
this
Explication
of
the
compulsion
of
Ecclesiastical
Discipline
,
because
I
see
you
otherwise
apt
enough
to
misunderstand
me
.
And
even
for
the
observation
of
things
indifferent
,
the
very
great
opinion
they
had
entertained
for
some
of
the
first
Reformers
,
and
the
little
leisure
for
reflection
on
their
own
condition
,
when
they
were
so
diverted
by
their
heats
against
the
common
Adversary
,
and
the
little
willingness
they
had
to
dissent
,
at
least
to
make
a
breach
,
for
little
things
,
from
them
whom
they
loved
so
dearly
,
for
their
unanimity
in
their
common
and
greatest
cencern
,
coagulated
the
multitude
in
a
willing
observation
even
of
indifferent
punctilio's
.
YET
we
find
those
Hero's
themselves
complain
of
this
defect
.
§
XXIV
Our
Church
of
England
wishes
that
Discipline
might
be
restored
in
her
Commination
,
a
sign
that
she
was
sensible
of
its
want
and
necessity
;
and
Luther
commends
it
among
the
Bohemians
,
and
wishes
also
that
it
were
restored
among
his
own
;
and
the
want
of
positive
constitutions
in
this
kind
seems
to
have
been
the
greatest
scandal
to
Erasmus
,
to
alienate
him
from
the
Protestants
,
to
whom
he
had
formerly
been
well
affected
.
But
Bullinger
and
Gualther
do
,
as
I
remember
,
in
their
Epistles
to
Erastus
,
confess
their
Helvetian
Churches
to
have
no
other
discipline
than
what
was
exercised
by
the
Civil
Magistrate
.
But
when
upon
a
defervescency
of
their
first
zele
,
and
a
liberty
occasioned
by
their
great
successes
against
the
common
Adversary
,
men
at
length
got
the
leisure
to
enquire
with
the
same
freedom
into
the
Doctrines
of
the
Reformers
,
as
the
Reformers
themselves
had
into
those
of
the
then
extant
Ecclesiastical
Governours
,
and
so
divert
that
zele
which
had
been
enkindled
and
heated
in
the
prosecution
of
the
common
cause
against
each
other
,
in
the
prosecution
of
their
own
private
sentiments
;
and
when
they
grew
more
remiss
in
the
care
of
their
lives
,
and
began
by
degrees
to
take
advantage
of
their
freedom
from
their
former
yoke
of
Ecclesiastical
Governours
,
and
to
relapse
into
their
former
dissoluteness
,
and
to
be
curious
and
critical
in
inquiring
into
the
merit
of
every
Ecclesiastical
observance
,
and
to
make
themselves
Judges
of
the
expediency
as
well
as
lawfulness
of
things
confessedly
indifferent
,
and
not
to
content
themselves
with
their
own
thoughts
,
but
to
discountenance
their
dissenting
Brethren
,
and
to
divide
the
Church
,
and
to
disrespect
their
Superiours
,
who
in
later
times
were
not
held
in
that
great
veneration
as
their
predecessors
;
then
at
length
at
Geneva
,
and
other
places
that
were
swayed
by
the
authority
of
Calvin
,
it
was
found
as
well
in
prudence
,
upon
account
of
its
experienced
reasonableness
and
use
;
as
in
duty
,
upon
account
of
its
Institution
in
the
Scriptures
,
necessary
to
revive
Ecclesiastical
Power
,
that
might
for
future
Ages
prevent
and
restrain
the
exorbitancies
of
men
abusing
their
liberty
,
and
secure
the
peace
of
the
Church
.
And
whatever
they
had
before
disputed
against
their
Adversaries
,
prejudicial
to
Ecclesiastical
Power
in
general
,
it
is
plain
that
the
authority
which
that
very
wise
and
prudent
person
thought
necessary
for
the
preservation
of
peace
and
piety
in
the
Church
,
is
more
than
persuasive
and
declaratory
,
even
coercive
of
persons
otherwise
persuaded
.
I
shall
not
mention
those
excesses
which
I
believe
you
will
not
approve
,
their
encroachments
on
the
Regal
Authority
in
Scotland
,
and
the
burning
of
Servetus
and
Gentilis
at
Geneva
,
and
the
Book
written
by
Beza
to
justifie
that
action
.
It
is
very
plain
that
the
Presbyries
,
where
ever
they
have
been
set
up
,
have
exercised
a
power
coercive
,
whether
in
defining
Heresies
,
or
censuring
prophane
or
refractory
disobedient
persons
.
And
if
Calvin
found
the
necessity
of
this
coercive
power
then
,
I
am
sure
,
as
our
experience
since
his
time
is
much
greater
,
so
we
have
found
much
reason
to
approve
the
truth
of
what
he
onely
foresaw
.
For
all
the
later
Sects
have
prevailed
on
the
concessions
of
the
former
.
And
by
the
same
reason
,
as
the
first
Presbyterians
,
who
broke
the
peace
of
the
Church
,
thought
themselves
to
be
excused
,
because
they
professed
themselves
unsatisfied
with
the
Churches
persuasions
to
her
Impositions
;
so
every
later
Sect
has
pretended
the
same
against
the
Presbyterians
.
And
as
long
as
there
is
any
unanimous
observance
of
the
Church
,
that
is
not
particularly
expressed
in
the
Scripture
,
at
least
not
clearly
,
with
that
evidence
which
may
be
presumed
sufficient
to
satisfie
every
well-meaning
person
as
well
as
our selves
,
(
which
I
doubt
will
be
found
as
long
as
such
a
thing
as
communion
with
the
Church
as
a
body
politick
is
owned
,
that
is
,
as
long
as
it
is
not
dissolved
into
mere
Enthusiasm
)
we
shall
never
be
secure
of
the
communion
)
not
onely
of
pretended
,
but
really
dissatisfied
pious
persons
.
And
till
you
make
a
power
in
the
Church
coercive
of
mens
practice
,
as
well
as
a
belief
of
Fundamentals
,
a
requisite
condition
to
unity
;
I
fear
you
will
never
be
able
to
reach
what
you
are
so
zealously
and
commendably
attempting
,
the
Cure
of
our
Church-divisions
.
BUT
that
which
makes
me
most
of
all
wonder
is
,
§
XXV
that
you
should
pretend
that
this
persuasive
declarative
power
is
denied
to
Parish
Ministers
;
and
the
reason
you
give
for
it
seems
to
me
more
paradoxical
:
That
the
Minister
can
have
no
access
to
the
guilty
by
their
own
wills
,
and
that
there
is
no
law
nor
penalty
that
you
know
of
to
constrain
any
to
come
to
you
,
or
receive
you
,
to
hear
or
answer
you
.
Here
one
would
think
that
you
did
approve
of
coercive
means
,
as
necessary
for
doing
good
to
those
that
are
unwilling
to
be
persuaded
.
For
if
you
did
not
,
why
should
you
blame
our
Diocesan
Discipline
for
not
allowing
you
that
which
you
would
not
have
allowed
?
But
presently
after
you
take
occasion
from
these
coercive
means
,
which
you
confess
are
used
among
us
,
to
inveigh
against
us
,
as
if
our
Prelatick
Christian
Profession
were
onely
to
choose
rather
to
be
Christians
and
communicate
,
than
to
lie
in
Gaol
,
and
have
all
our
Estates
confiscate
.
One
would
think
that
you
were
desirous
to
find
Objections
against
us
,
when
thus
almost
at
the
same
time
you
blame
us
for
having
that
,
which
immediately
before
you
blamed
us
for
wanting
.
For
the
difference
is
not
(
as
one
would
think
)
from
the
most
candid
interpretation
of
your
words
,
That
you
would
have
such
guilty
persons
forced
to
confer
with
you
,
but
not
to
profess
themselves
Christians
,
and
communicate
without
your
leave
:
for
you
afterwards
profess
simply
,
that
you
would
have
no
force
at
all
.
Besides
,
what
force
is
it
that
you
mean
?
is
it
that
exteriour
one
of
laws
and
corporal
penalties
?
(
this
your
words
seem
plainly
to
imply
.
)
This
you
know
does
not
belong
to
the
Church
,
but
the
civil
Magistrates
power
circa
sacra
,
who
is
therefore
to
be
blamed
for
it
,
and
not
the
Church
,
if
it
be
a
crime
,
and
some
body
must
needs
bear
the
blame
.
Or
are
they
the
spiritual
coercions
of
the
Church
?
I
know
none
of
that
kind
but
Excommunication
,
which
is
of
no
force
with
those
who
do
not
value
the
advantage
of
communion
;
and
they
who
do
,
need
not
to
be
forced
to
confer
with
their
Minister
.
Besides
that
,
your self
know
and
have
confessed
,
that
the
power
of
Suspension
of
unworthy
persons
from
the
Sacrament
is
allowed
to
the
Parish
Minister
even
in
our
Church
,
so
that
even
in
that
case
he
has
his
remedy
in
his
own
hand
,
as
far
as
it
can
be
proved
expedient
that
he
should
under
a
Monarchical
Government
.
But
methinks
your
description
of
a
Prelatick
Christian
is
very
harsh
,
and
(
though
for
my
part
I
am
resolved
to
take
nothing
ill
,
because
I
verily
believe
,
not
onely
by
this
Letter
,
but
your
other
publick
writings
,
that
the
heat
of
your
style
,
and
the
extraordinary
expedition
you
make
use
of
,
not
allowing
your self
time
for
second
thoughts
,
do
transport
you
to
such
expressions
,
as
your
serious
reflections
would
not
approve
;
yet
)
would
,
to
other
less
favourable
Judges
of
your
good
meaning
,
rather
tend
to
exasperate
than
cure
those
divisions
,
for
which
you
are
justly
so
much
concerned
.
And
besides
your
own
acknowledgment
of
many
good
Prelatick
Christians
on
other
occasions
,
you
cannot
be
ignorant
,
that
many
of
them
have
been
Christians
of
that
which
you
call
the
old
profession
,
that
is
,
[
have
been
Christians
,
and
held
communion
with
the
Church
,
though
they
have
gone
to
prison
and
death
for
it
]
not
onely
in
Queen
Maries
days
,
but
even
in
your
own
memory
in
England
and
Ireland
,
when
their
being
so
has
brought
sufferings
on
them
,
not
rescued
them
from
them
.
So
that
I
do
not
understand
why
you
should
stigmatize
them
with
the
name
of
Prelatical
.
INDEED
if
you
could
shew
,
§
XXVI
that
it
was
rather
the
extraordinary
good
influences
of
God
,
and
their
own
good
inclinations
,
that
made
them
voluntarily
good
,
against
their
worldly
interests
,
notwithstanding
their
malignant
principles
,
which
of
themselves
would
have
made
them
otherwise
;
I
confess
your
commendable
inclination
to
speak
of
things
as
they
are
might
have
excused
the
rigour
of
such
expressions
.
But
,
1.
You
cannot
but
know
that
these
exterior
compulsions
have
not
been
proper
to
Prelatists
,
but
common
to
all
those
that
have
owned
such
a
thing
as
discipline
,
Presbyterians
as
well
as
Papists
;
so
that
there
is
no
reason
to
appropriate
to
such
Christians
as
are
made
so
by
coercive
discipline
the
invidious
name
of
Prelatical
.
And
,
2.
You
have
not
,
and
I
believe
you
cannot
,
prove
that
such
external
force
must
needs
of
it self
make
Prelatists
dissemblers
:
1.
Because
all
that
are
of
themselves
good
,
will
not
need
such
force
,
this
being
onely
a
secondary
reserve
for
reducing
such
as
are
desperate
,
as
to
that
power
which
alone
you
allow
the
Church
,
that
is
,
of
persuasion
,
none
being
this
way
compelled
,
but
they
who
cannot
be
persuaded
.
And
certainly
for
such
persons
it
is
at
least
a
less
evil
to
profess
themselves
Christians
,
though
dissemblingly
,
than
not
so
much
as
to
profess
themselves
so
,
both
in
regard
of
the
honour
which
is
done
Religion
even
in
professing
it
,
and
the
edification
of
others
,
who
may
be
moved
by
their
example
,
and
that
they
are
by
this
means
taken
from
the
sins
of
open
hostilities
against
the
truth
.
And
,
2.
You
must
not
presently
condemn
all
of
dissimulation
,
who
are
brought
to
a
sense
of
their
duty
by
fear
.
Otherwise
you
will
condemn
all
the
penal
laws
of
the
Commonwealth
,
as
tending
to
make
their
Subjects
dissemblingly
loyal
,
and
all
Gods
providential
crosses
and
menaces
of
hell
,
as
tending
rather
to
make
men
profess
themselves
Christians
rather
than
be
damned
,
&c.
For
frequent
experience
cannot
but
have
informed
you
,
who
are
so
very
experienced
,
that
the
fear
of
Man
,
as
well
as
of
God
,
has
to
many
proved
the
beginning
of
true
wisdom
;
that
good
Christians
have
found
more
occasion
to
bless
God
for
their
crosses
than
their
consolations
;
that
the
terrible
vengeance
of
God
against
sinners
,
even
in
this
life
,
under
the
Old
Testament
,
was
a
great
restraint
to
that
hard-hearted
people
,
to
deterr
them
from
their
sins
,
and
to
reduce
them
to
solid
real
piety
,
whom
we
find
less
efficaciously
moved
to
their
duty
by
any
other
means
.
For
I
pray
consider
,
3.
That
this
dissimulation
which
you
seem
to
suppose
to
be
the
ordinary
consequent
of
exterior
compulsion
,
cannot
indeed
have
any
place
but
upon
these
conditions
;
that
,
1.
The
sufferer
do
believe
his
cause
to
be
good
;
and
,
2.
That
such
belief
be
grounded
on
conscientious
motives
,
(
whether
really
or
apparently
conscientious
I
now
dispute
not
,
seeing
the
person
must
act
according
to
the
evidence
of
his
own
conscience
,
however
really
erroneous
,
after
he
has
used
his
best
endeavours
for
its
information
;
)
and
,
3.
That
this
persuasion
of
his
conscience
be
unalterable
;
or
at
least
,
4.
That
such
exteriour
compulsion
be
neither
a
means
nor
a
probable
occasion
to
make
men
alter
their
opinions
,
atleast
not
to
make
good
and
conscientious
persons
to
alter
,
at
least
not
ordinarily
;
so
that
it
be
presumed
,
that
the
multitude
of
goodmen
cannot
be
altered
upon
such
terms
,
and
therefore
that
if
the
multitude
do
,
they
cannot
be
generally
presumed
to
do
it
on
just
and
conscientious
motives
;
and
yet
,
5.
That
,
notwithstanding
his
being
persuaded
as
formerly
,
he
be
by
his
exterior
compulsion
wrought
on
to
make
an
unveracious
exteriour
profession
.
NOW
to
shew
briefly
that
none
of
these
hold
,
§
XXVII
.
at
least
not
all
of
them
,
which
is
requisite
for
your
purpose
;
I
must
premise
,
1.
That
the
design
of
this
kind
of
discourse
against
these
coercive
means
,
if
it
be
to
hinder
them
,
must
be
to
persuade
them
in
whose
power
they
are
,
that
is
,
the
Church
or
the
Magistrate
,
that
their
practice
were
sinful
to
them
.
That
,
2.
Nothing
can
be
imputably
sinful
to
Governours
,
but
what
either
does
or
may
,
in
the
use
of
their
utmost
moral
diligence
,
appear
to
them
to
be
so
.
So
that
it
is
not
your
opinion
of
the
sinfulness
of
such
coercion
,
that
can
prove
it
sinful
to
them
,
unless
they
be
of
the
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
,
§
XXVIII
.
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
,
being
more
awed
by
the
persecution
of
the
tongue
than
of
the
sword
.
Nor
,
4.
Is
it
true
,
that
this
coercion
is
not
a
probable
means
of
bringing
even
good
men
to
a
conscientious
change
of
their
Opinions
.
For
,
1.
It
is
of
it self
likely
to
allay
that
tumour
and
rigour
of
spirit
,
to
which
even
good
men
themselves
are
frequently
betrayed
by
prosperity
,
which
does
usually
alienate
them
from
all
sober
thoughts
of
accommodation
,
and
even
of
sober
and
impartial
inquiry
.
And
I
believe
you
who
have
so
well
studied
the
peace
of
the
Church
,
do
very
well
understand
,
that
in
very
many
things
mens
spirits
,
are
at
a
greater
distance
than
their
principles
,
in
all
which
for
making
peace
it
is
sufficient
to
make
men
peaceable
.
Indeed
for
a
while
such
a
way
of
proceeding
may
rather
exasperate
than
calm
them
;
but
by
that
time
that
the
strangness
of
it
is
over
,
and
the
sudden
tumour
has
evaporated
and
spent
it self
,
they
are
at
length
reduced
to
a
more
composed
temper
.
And
I
believe
your
own
experience
,
which
is
great
in
the
late
and
present
posture
of
Affairs
,
cannot
but
let
you
understand
the
much
greater
moderation
of
those
Presbyterians
of
your
temper
and
acquaintance
now
than
formerly
.
For
it
is
natural
for
men
,
as
well
in
wars
of
opinions
as
of
swords
,
when
they
have
wearied
themselves
with
fighting
to
desire
peace
.
And
,
2.
As
this
coercion
brings
good
men
themselves
to
this
more
sedate
and
candid
temper
,
which
makes
them
more
competent
Judges
of
rational
discourses
;
so
it
usually
obliges
them
to
a
more
faithful
and
accurate
inquiry
than
formerly
.
For
good
men
can
no
more
than
others
endure
afflictions
willingly
and
patiently
,
unless
they
be
animated
by
the
goodness
of
the
cause
,
and
that
they
cannot
so
well
satisfie
themselves
of
,
without
an
impartial
inquiry
into
its
merits
.
Besides
that
good
men
themselves
,
and
that
reasonably
enough
are
unwilling
to
suffer
,
unless
it
be
indeed
necessary
for
the
preservation
of
their
more
momentous
interests
,
and
therefore
are
willing
to
admit
of
any
satisfactory
favourable
construction
of
their
duty
,
that
may
dispense
with
such
severe
performances
,
which
cannot
be
attained
but
by
a
more
close
inquiry
into
the
merit
of
the
thing
,
and
the
nature
of
the
Obligation
.
And
hence
it
follows
,
3.
That
they
must
upon
prudential
,
and
yet
just
and
rational
accounts
,
be
favourably
enclined
to
the
Opinions
of
their
prosecutors
,
as
far
as
any
favour
may
be
just
and
conscientious
.
And
this
may
do
much
for
determing
them
in
all
such
cases
,
as
are
not
either
very
evident
or
very
momentous
;
and
such
not
very
many
would
be
found
on
a
severe
examination
.
And
,
4.
Affliction
does
very
much
quicken
good
mens
consciences
,
to
approve
themselves
to
God
when
they
are
destitute
of
humane
consolations
.
And
this
also
may
exceedingly
contribute
to
a
conscientious
change
,
when
by
this
they
are
freed
from
those
carnal
prejudices
,
which
before
had
blinded
or
diverted
them
from
a
clear
discovery
,
and
are
excited
to
a
greater
industry
in
the
inquiry
of
means
,
and
obliged
to
a
greater
sincerity
in
following
conviction
,
when
they
consider
how
much
their
greatest
Interests
are
concerned
in
it
,
and
how
vain
it
is
to
hope
to
escape
his
discovery
in
case
of
negligence
or
dissimulations
,
who
is
the
immediate
Lord
of
conscience
.
Upon
all
these
accounts
therefore
Governours
,
who
are
to
be
presumed
to
believe
their
own
Opinions
true
,
may
justly
believe
external
coercion
to
be
a
means
of
reducing
others
to
them
,
conscientious
as
well
as
such
as
are
not
.
But
,
5.
Though
you
might
with
more
plausibility
pretend
,
that
dissimulation
would
indeed
be
the
ordinary
consequent
of
coercive
means
alone
,
they
being
alone
no
rational
arguments
for
working
a
conscientious
change
;
yet
when
they
are
not
designed
as
the
principal
arguments
inviting
to
such
a
change
,
but
merely
as
dispositions
to
prepare
and
qualifie
the
persons
for
receiving
conscientious
arguments
,
the
case
will
be
clearly
otherwise
.
Now
this
I
believe
you
do
already
know
to
be
the
case
with
us
.
Besides
what
coercive
means
may
have
been
pretended
,
the
means
of
information
are
freely
communicated
to
any
that
desires
them
.
Our
Books
are
extant
,
our
learned
men
and
Parish
Ministers
are
freely
to
be
consulted
with
;
and
why
these
may
not
ordinarily
be
presumed
likely
to
make
a
conscientious
change
,
onely
because
people
are
necessitated
to
use
them
,
I
do
not
understand
.
And
,
6.
The
case
is
not
such
as
you
have
proposed
it
.
None
was
obliged
to
be
Christian
rather
than
go
to
Gaol
,
&c.
I
believe
you
cannot
instance
any
Law
lately
in
use
,
that
obliged
people
to
profess
any
thing
not
believed
by
them
.
All
I
think
that
can
be
pretended
was
to
restrain
persons
,
not
from
the
publick
profession
,
nor
from
the
private
practice
of
their
Opinions
;
but
onely
from
practising
them
in
publick
or
great
assemblies
,
that
might
create
suspicion
to
the
State
.
Otherwise
I
know
nothing
restrictive
of
those
persons
you
are
concerned
for
,
from
being
commonly
known
to
be
such
as
they
were
.
And
I
pray
,
what
necessity
is
there
then
of
dissimulation
?
The
onely
Canon
of
that
kind
that
I
can
think
of
,
is
that
of
communicating
once
a
year
at
Easter
,
the
exacting
whereof
whether
by
infliction
of
Civil
or
Ecclesiastical
penalties
,
whether
of
Non-conformists
,
or
even
Conformists
themselves
,
has
been
at
least
where
I
have
been
,
so
generally
neglected
,
that
I
do
not
know
any
reason
you
have
to
complain
of
it
.
For
any
other
coercive
means
for
compelling
Dissenters
to
communicate
with
us
,
I
know
none
that
have
been
rigorously
executed
to
my
knowledge
in
Ireland
.
What
has
been
done
in
England
your self
know
better
,
and
therefore
I
shall
very
willingly
leave
you
to
your
own
information
,
wherein
I
hope
you
will
be
ingenuous
.
Yet
,
7.
Suppose
that
coercive
means
were
not
for
the
good
of
the
persons
concerned
,
but
did
indeed
make
them
Prelatical
Christians
,
as
you
call
them
,
that
is
,
dissemblers
;
this
were
not
sufficient
to
shew
that
they
are
therefore
not
to
be
used
,
if
their
punishment
and
dissimulation
it self
may
prove
for
the
advantage
of
the
publick
.
For
you
know
that
Governours
are
not
to
heed
private
advantages
any
otherwise
,
than
in
subordination
and
coincidency
with
the
publick
,
and
that
even
in
civil
affairs
there
are
some
few
punishments
imposed
,
which
are
known
to
be
utterly
inconsistent
with
the
civil
interests
of
the
party
punished
,
(
and
their
civil
interests
are
properly
obnoxious
to
the
care
of
Governours
)
for
such
are
all
that
are
capital
,
especially
such
of
them
as
are
withall
rigorous
and
painful
.
For
in
publick
punishments
there
are
other
ends
more
considerable
than
private
emendation
,
namely
the
prevention
of
future
offences
from
the
same
person
,
and
the
terror
of
others
by
his
example
.
Nor
is
this
way
of
proceeding
blamed
by
any
just
(
however
favourable
)
Judge
of
such
things
,
when
personal
emendation
has
been
first
attempted
,
and
no
criminals
are
subjected
to
such
censures
,
but
such
as
have
been
found
,
in
the
use
of
all
other
prudential
rational
means
,
incorrigible
.
To
such
it
is
not
thought
any
more
cruelty
to
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
,
§
XXIX
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
,
§
XXX
.
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
)
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
.
Edit.
Vsser
.
p.
3.
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
,
Ep.
ad
Magn.
p.
11.
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
(
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
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
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
p.
17.
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
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
p.
28.
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
,
p.
30.
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
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
;
p.
36.
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
.
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
,
§
XXXI
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
,
De
Baptism
.
c.
17
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
.
Ep.
75.
apud
S.
Cyprian
.
p.
182.
ed.
Pamel
.
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
,
p.
184.
&
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
,
§
XXXII
.
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
;
In
Concil.
Carthag
.
init
.
that
makes
the
Church
in
the
Bishop
,
as
well
as
the
Bishop
in
the
Church
;
Ep.
4.
ad
Cornel.
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
;
§
XXXIII
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
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
,
§
XXXIV
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
,
Exhort
.
Cast
.
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
,
§
XXXV
.
(
that
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
)
if
these
words
be
understood
as
commonly
they
are
.
p.
54.
edit.
Junii
.
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
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
,
§
XXXVI
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
,
Under
Domitian
in
the
year
83
,
according
to
Eurychius
.
(
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
;
Tertul.
and
the
great
Elogies
of
Tertullian
and
S.
Cyprian
,
Praescr
.
and
the
confident
Appeals
to
the
Roman
Church
as
well
as
others
,
Iren.
l.
3.
adv.
Hoer
.
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
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
(
so
it
is
to
be
read
)
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
.
Epiphan.
Haeres
.
69.
N.
1.
Vide
etiam
Haeres
.
68.
N.
4.
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
Presbyters
succeeding
in
order
to
the
Episcopacy
,
was
in
Alexandria
,
(
where
it
seems
observed
as
a
special
custom
)
practised
from
the
Apostles
time
to
Heraclas
,
(
who
was
Scholar
to
Origen
)
as
S.
Hierom
and
Eutychius
say
it
was
,
and
there
ceased
at
S.
Hierom
seems
to
intimate
,
then
it
would
be
very
probable
that
this
subdivision
into
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
was
introduced
at
least
before
that
time
of
Heraclas
;
because
some
reliques
of
that
practice
remained
even
in
Arius
his
time
,
whose
place
as
Presbyter
of
Baucalis
is
made
next
to
the
Bishop
.
Act.
Concil.
Nicen.
l.
2.
c.
1.
(
So
Gelasius
Cyricenus
speaking
concerning
Alexander
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
.
)
Whence
also
the
relation
in
Nicephorus
Calistus
of
the
quarrel
of
Arius
with
one
Baucalus
,
being
the
first
and
second
Presbyters
of
that
Church
of
Alexandria
,
which
is
given
as
an
occasion
of
his
Heresie
;
a
story
very
probably
raised
by
occasion
of
his
mistaking
Baucalis
the
name
of
his
Parish
for
the
name
of
a
Man
,
who
is
made
second
because
Arius
was
known
to
be
the
first
.
For
this
Precedeny
of
Arius
is
no
way
probable
to
have
been
because
of
his
longer
standing
in
his
office
of
Presbytery
,
seeing
Alexander
is
said
expresly
to
have
given
him
it
,
who
was
the
first
that
made
him
Presbyter
,
for
he
was
onely
made
Deacon
by
Achillas
the
Predecessor
of
Alexander
.
Now
Alexander
himself
is
by
Baronius
thought
to
have
succeeded
Achillas
in
the
Year
311
,
and
if
he
be
mistaken
,
seems
rather
to
erre
in
placing
him
too
soon
after
Peter
,
and
the
difference
betwixt
him
and
Arius
arose
about
the
Year
315
,
not
above
four
years
after
,
too
small
a
time
to
make
him
in
course
the
senior
Presbyter
.
This
Precedency
therefore
seems
to
be
upon
account
of
his
Parish
,
which
at
the
first
distribution
had
in
all
probability
been
allotted
to
that
Presbyter
,
who
had
been
senior
in
due
course
of
standing
,
which
therefore
seems
to
have
been
introduced
whilest
that
seniority
was
observed
,
that
is
,
at
least
before
the
time
of
Heraclas
.
AND
how
long
before
Heraclas
his
time
this
distinction
might
have
been
introduced
you
cannot
tell
;
§
XXXVII
.
yet
I
believe
you
will
hardly
say
,
I
am
sure
much
more
hardly
prove
,
that
discipline
failed
there
in
the
time
of
Heraclas
,
or
for
a
long
time
after
.
Apud
Euseb.
l.
4.
c.
40
,
41.
l.
7.
10
,
11.
After
Heraclas
,
how
much
the
Church
of
Alexandria
and
himself
particularly
suffered
for
Christianity
,
you
have
fully
related
by
his
Successor
Dionysius
in
Eusebius
,
in
the
time
of
Decius
and
Valerian
;
and
how
severe
they
were
in
their
Fasts
,
appears
from
the
Canonical
Epistle
of
that
same
Dionysius
to
Basilides
,
besides
his
other
penitential
Treatise
now
lost
.
What
the
Alexandrians
also
suffered
in
the
most
bloudy
Persecution
of
Dioclesian
,
●
.
8.
c.
10
,
12
,
13.
you
may
find
in
the
same
Eusebius
,
and
particularly
in
Thebais
,
(
which
by
the
Nicene
Canon
establishing
the
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
we
find
to
have
been
influenced
by
the
Alexandrian
Discipline
)
the
number
of
Martyrs
was
so
great
as
to
denominate
a
famous
Epocha
,
which
those
Countries
observe
to
this
day
,
called
the
Annus
Martyrum
or
Dioclesiani
.
Which
severity
is
by
so
much
the
more
remarkable
,
because
it
followed
an
intervall
of
rest
,
which
usually
corrupts
that
discipline
which
is
onely
voluntary
,
and
unseconded
by
good
Laws
.
I
need
not
mention
the
Martyrdom
of
their
Bishop
S.
Peter
in
this
Persecution
;
his
very
severe
Canonical
Epistle
is
sufficient
to
shew
how
rigorous
discipline
was
then
practised
,
when
in
the
heigth
of
persecution
such
severe
Penances
against
lapsed
persons
were
not
judged
unseasonable
to
be
exercised
on
such
persons
,
over
whom
they
had
no
coercive
power
,
but
the
obligation
of
the
Penitents
conscience
.
I
might
have
proceeded
to
have
shewn
the
same
severity
still
maintained
in
that
City
,
(
which
you
so
particularly
reflect
on
as
unworthy
to
be
made
a
precedent
)
during
the
Prelacy
of
Alexander
and
the
great
Athanasius
,
from
the
great
Elogies
given
to
those
excellent
Prelates
by
the
Fathers
,
and
the
courage
shewn
by
them
,
in
ejecting
and
keeping
out
Arius
,
and
the
very
slight
Exceptions
urged
by
the
Arians
their
Enemies
against
them
,
especially
in
the
several
Synods
convened
in
the
cause
of
Athanasius
.
Euseb.
l.
9.
c.
8.
But
for
evincing
the
general
severity
of
the
Lives
of
Christians
,
that
memorable
Example
of
their
great
diligence
in
providing
for
those
who
had
been
formerly
their
severest
Persecutors
,
in
the
great
Plague
and
Famine
which
immediately
followed
the
Persecution
of
Dioclesian
,
and
venturing
many
of
their
own
lives
in
the
service
,
when
they
had
been
deserted
by
their
nearest
Friends
,
may
be
an
illustrious
evidence
.
Besides
the
Controversie
betwixt
S.
Pet.
of
Alexandria
and
Meletius
,
Epiph.
the
occasion
of
the
Meletian
Schism
,
Haeres
.
68.
N.
3.
shews
how
generally
the
Alexandrians
were
affected
to
discipline
.
For
when
S.
Pet.
though
severe
enough
against
lapsed
persons
,
as
appears
by
his
forementioned
Epistle
,
yet
thought
it
a
necessary
Indulgence
to
admit
Penitents
to
Communion
during
the
Persecution
,
even
Priests
as
well
as
others
,
that
they
might
be
the
better
animated
to
new
occasions
of
sufferings
;
Meletius
opposed
it
,
and
was
followed
by
much
the
greater
part
of
the
Clergie
.
Nor
ought
you
to
conclude
,
that
the
like
subdivision
was
not
introduced
into
other
Churches
,
because
we
have
no
Records
attesting
it
to
have
been
so
,
seeing
there
is
so
little
extant
of
the
Histories
of
those
earlier
Centuries
,
much
less
any
thing
so
minute
and
particular
in
describing
the
Customs
of
particular
Churches
,
as
that
it
would
be
safe
to
argue
negatively
,
from
their
omission
of
a
custom
to
conclude
that
there
was
none
.
For
my
design
,
it
is
sufficient
that
the
ancient
Dioceses
had
as
many
Presbyters
,
besides
other
Clergie
requisite
to
rule
them
,
in
conjunction
with
the
Bishop
,
as
are
now
thought
sufficient
,
since
their
distribution
into
particular
Parishes
;
besides
the
Chorepiscopi
and
the
Clergie
under
them
,
all
subject
to
the
Government
of
the
City
Bishop
.
Which
is
enough
to
shew
,
that
the
charge
of
a
Diocese
was
as
great
then
as
now
,
and
much
beyond
what
you
would
have
it
,
the
abilities
of
a
particular
person
without
Parochial
Subrulers
.
4.
YOU
say
,
§
XXXVIII
.
At
Antioch
(
the
third
Patriarchate
)
Ignatius
professeth
that
every
Church
had
one
Altar
,
and
one
Bishop
with
his
Presbyters
and
Deacons
,
Fellow-servants
.
)
If
you
mean
every
Church
at
Antioch
,
as
if
that
or
any
other
City
in
that
time
,
had
more
than
one
Bishop
presiding
over
a
Presbytery
;
that
is
more
than
you
will
find
in
Ignatius
,
or
any
Authentick
Writer
of
that
time
.
But
if
you
mean
at
Antioch
as
a
Patriarchate
,
that
is
,
within
that
circuit
which
was
afterwards
subject
to
the
Bishop
of
Antioch
as
a
Patriarch
,
including
the
whole
Oriental
Diocese
,
there
were
many
Cities
that
had
in
them
but
one
Altar
with
one
Bishop
and
his
Clergie
,
that
I
have
already
granted
probable
;
but
have
withall
shewn
how
little
it
will
advantage
your
Cause
,
or
prejudice
mine
,
and
I
am
not
desirous
to
trouble
you
with
Repetition
.
The
name
of
Fellow-servants
I
doubt
you
misunderstand
;
it
is
indeed
true
if
related
to
God
,
that
persons
of
all
Orders
in
the
Church
are
his
Fellow-servants
;
but
if
you
mean
it
(
as
I
doubt
you
do
)
that
they
are
Servants
coequal
among
themselves
,
that
is
clearly
against
the
whole
current
of
Ignatius
his
Epistles
,
and
against
the
supposition
of
their
being
distinct
Orders
;
and
,
I
believe
,
against
your
own
opinion
concerning
Priests
and
Deacons
,
whom
I
think
you
will
not
say
to
be
thus
coequal
.
But
for
what
you
add
further
,
(
as
if
you
had
it
out
of
the
same
Ignatius
,
though
indeed
you
have
not
scored
it
as
you
did
the
former
part
)
That
in
this
one
Church
the
Bishop
must
enquire
[
](A36252-e68640-b)*
*
The
place
intended
is
I
believe
Ep.
ad
.
Polycrap
.
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
&c.
p.
139.
Ed.
Vsser
.
all
by
name
,
even
Servant
Men
and
Maids
,
and
see
that
they
absented
not
themselves
from
the
Church
;
whence
you
ask
,
Why
is
not
Ignatius
.
confuted
if
he
erred
?
and
refer
me
to
Mr.
Mede
on
the
point
.
I
am
confident
that
you
will
find
no
such
thing
in
Ignatius
or
Mr.
Mede
that
will
need
confuting
.
For
this
inquiry
by
name
need
not
have
been
performed
by
personal
visitation
of
them
,
but
by
Schedules
delivered
to
him
by
his
subordinate
Clergie
,
which
if
any
of
our
Bishops
would
do
,
I
should
be
so
far
from
offering
to
confute
,
as
that
I
should
highly
honour
and
reverence
him
for
it
.
BUT
you
say
,
§
XXXIX
5.
That
Alexandria
and
Rome
by
not
multiplying
Bishops
as
Churches
or
Converts
needed
it
,
began
the
great
sin
and
calamity
which
hath
undone
us
,
and
therefore
are
not
to
be
our
patern
.
If
you
mean
by
Bishops
your
Parish
Ministers
,
(
as
you
seem
to
do
)
who
must
have
no
greater
charge
than
one
particular
person
,
unassisted
with
a
Presbytery
,
may
give
a
particular
account
of
;
then
sure
you
cannot
but
know
,
that
as
they
are
by
you
thought
singular
in
introducing
this
distinction
of
Altars
in
the
same
City
;
so
they
must
have
been
so
in
multiplying
such
a
kind
of
Bishops
that
might
attend
them
,
at
least
in
more
accurately
proportioning
them
to
the
multitudes
of
Churches
and
Converts
.
But
if
you
mean
a
multitude
of
Parish
Priests
,
whom
you
would
fain
call
Bishops
,
independent
on
a
principal
President
;
then
it
would
concern
you
to
prove
,
1.
That
Alexandria
and
Rome
were
herein
singular
,
which
you
will
find
impossible
to
be
done
.
And
,
2.
That
their
guilt
herein
was
not
onely
an
occasion
(
for
occasions
of
evil
cannot
be
proved
evil
,
and
so
unfit
for
being
paterns
)
but
natural
causes
of
that
grand
sin
and
calamity
you
so
lament
.
YOU
answer
or
rather
argue
,
§
XL.
6.
That
were
Bishops
necessarily
to
be
distributed
by
Cities
,
the
Empires
that
have
few
or
no
Cities
,
must
have
few
or
no
Bishops
;
and
an
Emperour
might
(
aliud
agendo
)
depose
all
the
Bishops
by
disfranchising
the
Cities
.
This
does
not
shew
the
impossibility
of
a
Bishops
maintaining
discipline
in
a
City
that
is
great
and
populous
,
(
which
is
indeed
our
question
)
but
onely
the
inconvenience
of
scrupulously
multiplying
Bishops
according
to
the
multitude
of
Cities
.
And
that
,
as
it
is
not
to
our
purpose
,
so
I
know
no
Adversary
you
have
in
it
.
For
there
are
no
humane
Establishments
whatsoever
that
can
fit
all
circumstances
;
yet
are
not
such
possible
inconvenient
cases
thought
sufficient
to
abrogate
them
though
known
and
foreseen
.
And
therefore
it
were
not
in
prudence
a
sufficient
reason
for
the
Church
to
alter
her
general
rule
of
multiplying
Bishops
by
Cities
,
because
the
cases
mentioned
by
you
are
but
rare
and
improbable
,
which
kind
are
not
taken
notice
of
by
humane
Legislators
.
They
are
rare
;
for
where
will
you
find
that
Empire
that
hath
few
or
no
Cities
,
at
least
in
those
civilized
parts
of
the
world
they
were
then
acquainted
with
?
They
are
improbable
;
for
the
administration
of
justice
among
Subjects
,
and
the
encouragement
of
traffick
,
which
are
the
Governours
Interests
,
do
require
such
Privileges
to
be
given
to
places
not
too
distant
from
each
other
.
But
if
the
inconveniences
were
greater
than
indeed
they
are
,
and
sufficient
to
persuade
a
deviation
from
such
a
general
rule
in
such
cases
.
Yet
,
1.
The
Church
never
acknowledged
any
unalterable
divine
obligation
to
observe
it
,
but
has
always
reserved
a
power
to
her self
of
deviating
in
such
cases
,
of
which
she
might
be
satisfied
that
they
were
sufficiently
momentous
.
And
,
2.
She
has
in
such
cases
actually
taken
the
liberty
of
exerting
her
own
power
;
as
in
those
Nations
which
had
but
one
Bishop
,
though
many
Cities
,
of
which
instances
were
already
given
;
and
in
those
places
where
Cities
too
numerous
,
and
too
little
frequented
,
against
which
she
has
made
those
express
Canons
,
Can.
6.
Concil.
Sandicens
.
that
Bishops
should
not
be
placed
over
them
,
Can.
57.
Conc.
Laodic
.
Epist.
nè
vilesceret
nomen
Episcopi
,
1.
Pseudo-Clementin
.
ad
Jacob
.
ep.
1.
Pseudo-Anacleti
&
Dist.
80.
ep.
3.
Pseudo-Anacleti
n.
2.
which
those
of
your
Persuasion
do
so
often
take
notice
of
with
offence
.
BUT
,
§
XLI
.
7.
You
say
,
Every
Corporation
,
Oppidum
,
like
our
Market
Towns
,
was
then
truly
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
.
And
if
we
will
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
,
not
faithful
Preachers
of
the
Gospel
;
all
our
Controversies
of
Prelacy
are
then
at
an
end
.
But
I
fear
though
you
had
your
desire
,
that
in
analogy
to
Cities
Bishops
should
be
multiplied
according
to
the
number
of
Cities
,
(
which
Rule
you
lately
seemed
to
dislike
)
and
that
every
Market
Town
should
be
accounted
a
City
,
as
you
conceive
it
to
have
been
practised
among
the
Ancients
,
and
that
Bishops
discharged
their
duty
as
you
have
described
it
;
yet
you
would
hardly
suffer
our
Controversies
to
end
so
,
especially
if
you
acted
consequently
to
your
own
Principles
.
For
you
know
,
by
the
same
rule
that
small
Cities
,
as
you
have
described
them
,
must
have
distinct
Bishops
;
the
greatest
that
are
,
London
it self
for
example
,
must
have
but
one
,
together
with
the
Villages
about
it
;
and
I
doubt
that
would
be
found
to
be
a
charge
as
disproportionable
to
the
abilities
of
a
single
man
,
as
some
of
our
Country
Dioceses
,
especially
here
in
Ireland
.
The
15th
.
part
in
Taxes
,
14th
.
really
,
p.
83
,
84
Nay
,
by
Captain
Grants
Calculation
London
bears
a
greater
proportion
to
all
England
than
any
single
Diocese
,
which
is
onely
the
25th
.
part
.
Now
according
to
your
Principles
,
our
Communion
quâ
Diocesan
,
that
is
,
if
I
understand
you
as
exceeding
the
abilities
of
a
single
man
,
is
not
to
be
embraced
.
Therefore
even
in
this
case
you
must
refuse
to
communicate
with
the
Church
of
London
.
And
considering
that
in
communicating
with
a
particular
,
you
do
communicate
with
all
with
whom
that
particular
Church
holds
Communion
,
(
for
Communion
with
a
particular
Church
is
no
where
understood
as
a
profession
of
union
with
her
alone
,
but
also
with
all
such
whom
she
accounts
orthodox
members
of
the
Catholick
Church
)
you
must
by
the
same
sequel
conceive
your self
obliged
to
decline
the
Communion
of
all
particular
Churches
communicating
with
London
.
Unless
therefore
you
suppose
a
Schism
of
all
other
Churches
from
her
,
you
must
make
one
from
them
;
and
so
be
in
the
same
condition
wherein
you
are
at
present
.
I
confess
you
do
not
act
consequently
to
this
later
Principle
,
whilest
you
refuse
not
our
Parish
Communion
,
which
communicates
with
our
Diocesan
quà
Diocesan
;
and
so
I
had
much
rather
decline
the
Dispute
,
than
urge
you
too
far
to
approve
your self
more
rational
by
your
being
more
uncharitable
,
which
may
too
probably
be
the
event
if
you
should
prove
too
tenacious
of
your
present
Opinions
.
But
I
believe
,
Sir
,
if
you
would
be
pleased
to
examine
,
you
would
certainly
find
your self
mistaken
in
thinking
their
ordinary
Cities
to
have
been
no
more
considerable
than
our
ordinary
Market
Towns
;
for
sure
you
know
that
then
as
well
as
now
Cities
were
the
highest
denomination
;
and
that
in
those
flourishing
Countries
,
proportionably
much
more
populous
than
England
,
it
is
likely
their
Cities
were
accordingly
frequented
.
Nay
,
most
of
the
Cities
of
those
times
,
especially
the
Oriental
the
Greeks
and
Asiaticks
,
had
been
little
Republicks
among
themselves
,
before
the
success
of
war
had
subdued
them
to
the
yoke
of
a
common
Master
,
which
must
in
all
likelihood
have
made
them
more
considerable
,
when
their
Governours
care
and
interests
were
more
confined
to
them
,
than
if
they
had
originally
been
included
in
a
greater
Society
.
Besides
the
wars
waged
by
them
,
and
the
resistance
made
against
numerous
Armies
,
and
the
multitude
and
capaciousness
of
their
Temples
and
Theatres
,
then
so
frequent
in
ordinary
Cities
,
(
as
you
may
see
for
the
small
Tract
of
Greece
very
fully
in
Pausanias
,
besides
what
other
Authors
have
mentioned
occasionally
concerning
that
and
other
places
)
are
sufficient
Arguments
of
their
ordinary
populousness
.
And
considering
that
those
Cities
that
were
among
them
eminent
for
greatness
,
did
rather
exceed
than
fall
short
of
those
which
are
accounted
so
now
;
we
have
reason
to
believe
that
the
common
Cities
did
likewise
hold
the
like
proportion
.
NAY
,
§
XLII
.
according
to
all
the
qualifications
of
our
modern
Cities
,
those
ancient
ones
were
every
way
as
considerable
as
ours
.
They
were
Towns
corporate
among
themselves
.
This
appears
from
the
Government
mentioned
as
exercised
among
them
;
the
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
Acts
19.
39.
the
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
and
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
and
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
so
very
frequently
mentioned
in
Greek
Cities
,
and
the
Praetors
and
Aedibes
among
the
Latines
.
They
were
walled
,
whence
the
ordinary
Etymology
of
Urbs
quasi
Orbis
,
from
the
compass
allotted
for
the
walls
by
the
plow
,
and
the
customs
for
plowing
,
for
founding
,
and
demolishing
their
walls
,
so
famous
among
the
Romans
.
And
the
same
you
may
observe
to
have
been
the
general
custom
;
for
you
will
,
I
believe
,
never
meet
any
mention
of
City
a
unwalled
,
though
possibly
not
with
those
ceremonies
and
formalities
.
And
this
seems
to
have
been
one
of
their
principal
distinctions
from
places
of
a
near
,
but
inferiour
account
;
that
the
O●●ida
among
the
Latines
,
and
the
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
among
the
Greeks
,
were
not
walled
as
our
Market
Towns
usually
are
not
.
They
had
Suburbs
subject
to
their
Jurisdiction
frequently
mentioned
in
the
Scriptures
,
particularly
those
of
the
Levites
,
Numb.
35.
5.
have
2000
cubits
on
every
side
without
the
walls
,
which
is
near
a
mile
.
So
the
Romans
had
their
Pomoeria
and
Suburbana
,
and
the
Greeks
their
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
or
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
obvious
in
Authors
.
And
besides
these
Suburbs
there
were
several
places
of
inferiour
denomination
subject
to
the
ancient
Cities
;
these
you
have
frequently
mentioned
Josh.
16.
and
in
several
other
passages
of
that
and
other
Books
of
Scripture
,
and
are
rendered
Towns
in
our
English
Translation
,
Vici
and
Villulae
,
Castella
,
and
sometimes
Oppida
,
in
the
Vulgar
;
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
and
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
in
the
LXXII
.
And
expresly
Aristotle
defines
a
City
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
.
Polit.
l.
1.
c.
2.
And
as
the
Grecians
had
their
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
subject
to
their
Cities
,
so
the
Romans
particularly
had
their
Pagos
,
places
of
some
natural
advantage
for
strength
,
to
which
the
Rusticks
might
have
a
ready
recourse
in
time
of
danger
,
instituted
by
Servius
Tullius
,
yet
subject
to
their
City
,
as
you
may
see
in
Halicarnassaeus
;
whence
you
know
the
name
Paganus
first
signified
a
Country
Clown
,
in
opposition
to
a
Citizen
,
or
a
person
of
civil
education
.
And
generally
through
Italy
you
may
find
mention
of
Vici
and
Villae
and
Oppida
,
and
the
Ager
denominated
from
the
City
,
who
in
all
affairs
of
consequence
had
recourse
to
their
neighbouring
Cities
.
And
besides
the
Examples
now
mentioned
from
the
Scriptures
,
the
same
practice
seems
to
have
been
observed
in
other
Oriental
parts
,
as
appears
from
Isidorus
Characenus
,
who
in
his
Parthick
Stages
mentions
not
only
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
but
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
in
contradiction
to
Cities
;
as
also
in
Xenophon
in
exped
.
Cyr.
And
that
they
were
subject
to
the
Cities
might
have
been
shewn
from
the
manner
of
their
Census
described
by
S.
Luke
3.
2.
that
they
were
to
be
taxed
in
their
own
Cities
,
which
seems
to
have
been
the
common
custom
of
the
whole
Roman
Empire
,
and
the
ordinary
practice
of
the
men
of
those
Ages
,
to
denominate
themselves
from
the
City
they
had
relation
to
,
though
born
in
the
Villages
,
and
their
usual
recourse
on
solemn
occasions
to
the
City
Sacrifices
,
a
practice
very
much
conformed
to
their
secular
dependences
by
the
ancient
Legislators
;
besides
their
repairing
thither
for
secular
justice
.
But
besides
all
this
,
the
right
of
a
City
was
given
to
places
,
not
upon
account
of
their
greatness
and
populousness
,
but
by
special
Charter
.
A
clear
instance
hereof
we
have
in
13
Action
of
the
Council
of
Chalcedon
;
there
we
find
Anastatius
Nicaenus
pleading
a
a
right
to
Basilinopolis
,
because
it
had
been
formerly
a
Region
of
Nice
,
(
what
Regions
were
,
is
notorious
from
the
divisions
of
Rome
and
Constantinople
into
them
)
till
it
was
made
a
City
by
Julian
or
some
other
Emperour
.
Here
we
see
a
place
so
considerable
,
as
that
it
was
afterwards
made
a
City
,
yet
formerly
onely
a
Ward
of
another
City
,
which
Ward
was
in
all
likelyhood
equivalent
our
ordinary
Market
Towns
.
Nay
more
than
that
,
for
he
gives
instances
of
two
such
others
,
Tatiens
and
Doris
,
that
were
then
acknowledged
Regions
of
Nice
.
We
see
also
this
Region
raised
to
the
dignity
of
a
city
by
the
Imperial
Rescript
.
And
further
he
proves
the
dependence
of
Basilinopolis
on
Nice
by
this
argument
,
that
the
Emperour
who
made
it
a
City
took
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
or
Curiales
,
(
whence
the
Imperial
Rescripts
themselves
are
frequently
called
Pragmatica
)
from
Nice
;
and
that
the
custom
was
still
observed
,
that
the
Vacancies
of
Basilinopolis
,
as
they
fell
,
were
supplied
from
Nice
,
and
that
they
were
frequently
translated
from
thence
back
to
Nice
again
;
and
that
thus
that
which
had
formerly
been
a
Region
became
a
City
.
Where
several
things
are
observable
to
my
purpose
:
1.
That
that
which
made
the
Region
a
City
,
was
the
having
Court-officers
of
their
own
,
whence
it
appears
that
Courts
were
appropriated
to
Cities
,
and
that
therefore
all
other
Towns
not
thus
privileged
must
have
been
subject
to
the
Jurisdiction
of
the
Cities
.
2.
That
these
Courts
were
granted
by
special
Charter
of
the
Emperour
.
And
,
3.
that
the
borrowing
these
Officers
from
another
City
,
if
constantly
observed
,
signified
some
secular
dependence
of
such
a
place
on
such
a
City
,
from
whence
they
were
borrowed
.
And
now
I
pray
what
an
such
a
Town
walled
,
incorporated
,
and
having
Jurisdiction
,
not
onely
over
Suburbs
,
but
a
proportion
of
the
Villages
and
Towns
adjacent
,
by
special
Imperial
Charters
,
want
of
our
modern
notion
of
a
City
,
even
as
contradistinct
to
our
Market
Towns
?
AND
that
the
Government
of
the
Church
was
proportioned
to
that
of
the
State
is
so
commonly
observed
by
learned
Men
,
§
XLIII
as
that
I
cannot
think
it
necessary
to
be
tedeous
in
proving
it
.
And
that
in
this
very
particular
of
the
subjection
of
the
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
to
the
City
Bishop
,
appears
from
the
17th
.
Canon
of
this
same
Council
,
where
it
is
not
onely
for
this
,
but
all
other
affairs
of
a
like
nature
,
established
as
a
general
Rule
,
(
very
probably
occasioned
by
the
forementioned
Controversie
;
)
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
.
And
though
we
had
no
express
Testimony
,
yet
the
multitude
of
the
Clergy
requisite
for
the
Government
of
their
ordinary
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
a
whole
Presbytery
in
the
City
,
besides
the
Deacons
,
and
the
other
inferiour
Orders
there
,
and
others
in
the
Country
subject
to
the
Chorepiscopus
or
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
and
all
subject
to
the
City
Bishop
,
do
plainly
shew
that
the
Bishops
Jurisdiction
,
if
not
as
large
as
now
,
was
at
least
much
larger
than
our
ordinary
Market
Towns
,
which
usually
have
but
one
Parish
,
and
are
therefore
thought
sufficiently
governable
by
an
ordinary
single
Presbyters
.
And
this
form
of
governing
Cities
was
so
universal
,
as
that
your
Assertion
to
the
contrary
is
not
credible
even
in
Africa
,
or
any
other
place
where
Bishops
or
Cities
are
observed
to
have
been
most
frequent
or
numerous
:
But
if
it
had
indeed
been
otherwise
in
some
singular
places
,
yet
it
is
plain
that
the
general
rate
of
Cities
among
the
Ancients
was
equal
to
ours
.
Whence
it
will
follow
,
that
the
Dioceses
generally
designed
were
such
as
ours
are
now
,
though
in
some
particular
more
anomalous
Instances
they
were
(
it
may
be
)
as
small
as
you
would
have
them
.
Whence
two
things
will
follow
very
apposite
to
my
design
:
1.
That
the
Judgment
of
those
Ages
themselves
were
certainly
more
for
us
than
you
,
seeing
their
judgment
is
onely
to
be
concluded
from
their
general
rules
,
not
from
their
particular
anomalous
practices
.
And
,
2.
that
the
case
of
discipline
must
have
been
the
same
with
them
as
us
.
For
the
general
observation
of
discipline
cannot
be
effected
by
singular
,
but
general
practices
and
designs
.
Whence
it
will
be
easie
to
infer
,
that
if
discipline
was
then
generally
observed
,
then
it
is
observable
under
a
Diocesan
Government
,
in
the
sense
we
are
now
disputing
concerning
it
.
For
such
I
have
proved
to
have
been
generally
practised
then
,
and
if
it
was
observed
then
,
you
can
give
no
disparity
why
it
may
not
be
so
now
,
if
Governours
would
be
equally
industrious
.
YOUR
intimation
concerning
to
Bishops
you
would
have
in
your
Par●chial
Dioceses
;
§
XLIV
(
that
their
office
must
be
to
drive
men
from
sin
,
and
not
to
it
and
to
silence
Blasphemers
,
and
not
faithful
Preachers
of
the
Gospel
;
)
as
if
our
Bishops
were
guilty
of
the
contrary
,
is
methinks
very
sharp
and
uncharitable
.
We
are
all
agreed
,
you
as
well
as
we
,
that
this
is
our
Diocesan
Bishops
office
.
Our
onely
difference
is
,
that
you
conceive
their
actual
practice
to
be
otherwise
.
But
I
pray
consider
seriously
what
good
meaning
you
can
have
herein
if
your
desire
had
been
granted
?
Is
it
that
the
Bishop
must
not
do
that
which
himself
thinks
to
be
driving
men
to
sin
?
You
cannot
but
know
that
they
pretend
,
(
and
how
can
you
know
that
they
do
not
really
believe
)
their
prosecutions
of
Dissenters
to
be
not
a
driving
them
to
sin
,
but
from
it
,
from
disobedience
to
that
which
they
think
lawful
Ecclesiastical
Government
,
and
from
those
Separations
which
themselves
judge
Schismatical
,
and
from
the
defence
and
malice
of
unlawful
Oaths
.
And
certainly
what
they
think
to
be
Disobedience
and
Schism
,
and
the
maintaining
of
unlawful
Oaths
,
your self
〈◊〉
blame
them
if
they
believe
them
〈◊〉
〈…〉
And
the
Preachers
silenced
by
〈…〉
not
by
them
thought
faithful
〈…〉
of
the
Gospel
,
at
least
not
in
the
〈◊〉
of
their
silencing
;
but
●●eachers
of
〈…〉
and
Founders
and
Fomenters
of
parties
,
to
the
great
weakning
of
the
common
Interest
of
the
Gospel
.
And
can
you
think
it
faulty
in
them
to
be
zealous
against
them
,
whom
they
conceive
to
be
such
enemies
to
the
Gospel
,
at
least
while
they
think
them
so
,
and
profess
themselves
unable
to
find
any
reason
to
think
otherwise
?
Or
do
you
mean
that
the
Bishop
must
not
drive
to
that
which
the
Criminal
will
pretend
to
be
a
sin
,
or
prosecute
that
which
he
calls
faithful
Preaching
of
the
Gospel
?
If
so
,
you
had
dealt
more
plainly
to
have
denied
the
Bishop
any
power
at
all
to
drive
men
from
sin
,
or
silence
Blasphemers
;
than
to
grant
him
it
,
and
yet
to
make
it
useless
and
unpracticable
,
as
it
must
needs
be
if
he
must
not
practise
it
till
the
Sinner
or
Blasphemers
confess
themselves
so
,
for
how
rarely
do
you
find
real
Criminals
plead
guilty
at
the
Bar
?
Besides
that
,
by
this
means
the
most
innocent
if
any
must
onely
suffer
;
and
the
most
dangerous
must
generally
escape
.
For
they
who
confess
their
crime
must
generally
be
presumed
penitent
,
and
they
who
are
so
are
almost
innocent
,
if
we
may
believe
the
Tragedian
;
but
he
who
denies
his
guilt
,
aggravates
it
by
the
disingenuity
of
his
Apologie
.
Besides
,
he
who
confesses
himself
a
Sinner
or
a
Blasphemer
,
is
onely
chargeable
with
a
personal
guilt
;
but
he
who
denies
sins
and
blasphemies
to
be
sins
,
sins
more
heinously
,
not
onely
sinning
himself
,
but
teaching
others
to
do
so
too
.
Nor
is
the
multitude
onely
more
considerable
,
that
is
drawn
aside
by
this
later
sort
of
disingenuous
sinners
,
but
the
quality
of
the
persons
seduced
,
and
the
greatness
of
their
danger
is
much
more
considerable
,
than
in
those
who
are
prejudiced
by
the
former
.
For
none
are
likely
to
be
seduc'd
by
professed
debauchees
,
but
such
as
are
ill-inclined
themselves
.
But
they
who
are
deceived
by
them
who
teach
ill
principles
,
not
onely
defending
sins
ad
excusing
them
,
but
pretending
them
to
be
duties
,
are
usually
such
who
are
of
the
best
lives
,
and
the
most
innocent
meaning
,
whose
Errors
are
like
to
be
authenticated
by
their
personal
authority
and
reputation
.
And
those
who
acknowledge
their
sins
are
more
easily
recoverable
,
their
own
consciences
being
ready
upon
any
occasion
to
joyn
with
external
conviction
whensoever
offered
to
them
;
but
they
who
mistake
their
sins
for
the
service
of
God
,
do
both
alienate
their
minds
from
conviction
,
by
laying
out
their
zeal
against
hearing
or
impartial
considering
that
which
they
look
on
as
a
temptation
;
and
in
the
event
resolve
their
conviction
into
an
issue
of
more
difficult
proof
.
For
it
is
generally
more
easie
even
to
the
meanest
most
popular
capacity
,
to
prove
a
matter
of
fact
than
a
matter
of
right
,
how
unquestionable
soever
.
Certainly
you
would
your self
acknowledge
him
to
be
much
the
greater
and
more
dangerous
person
,
who
should
preach
for
drunkenness
,
and
maintained
it
to
be
an
evangelical
duty
,
and
call
this
his
Preaching
a
faithful
preaching
of
the
Gospel
,
and
accordingly
be
guilty
of
it
,
without
any
thing
of
remorse
or
shame
,
than
he
who
should
ingenuously
confess
his
guilt
and
blame-worthiness
for
it
.
NOW
this
you
know
is
the
sense
of
Superiours
concerning
Dissenters
;
§
XLV
they
think
that
to
be
their
Subjects
duty
,
which
their
Subjects
pretend
to
be
sins
.
And
can
you
blame
them
for
obliging
their
Subjects
to
perform
their
duty
?
If
you
do
,
you
will
thereby
make
their
Government
useless
and
unsignificant
.
They
think
Schism
to
be
a
sin
really
much
greater
than
those
which
sound
louder
in
the
vulgar
esteem
,
than
drunkenness
,
&c.
and
more
nearly
relating
to
their
trust
as
Governours
,
as
being
more
directly
prejudicial
to
the
publick
,
to
take
care
of
which
is
their
peculiar
office
as
Governours
.
They
think
that
which
is
called
faithful
preaching
of
the
Gospel
,
not
to
be
for
reforming
of
mens
lives
,
which
is
the
great
design
of
the
Gospel
,
(
for
God
be
praised
we
do
not
differ
in
Subjects
of
that
kind
,
but
men
may
be
as
zealous
as
they
please
against
vice
,
though
Conformists
)
but
the
constituting
and
perpetuating
of
Schism
,
which
is
by
so
much
the
more
dangerous
by
how
much
it
is
more
palliated
by
specious
titles
,
such
as
is
that
now
mentioned
;
so
that
though
themselves
may
believe
them
faithful
in
other
things
,
yet
in
this
they
are
far
from
thinking
them
so
,
and
therefore
as
far
from
prosecuting
them
as
faithful
Preachers
.
And
I
believe
your self
will
hardly
pretend
,
that
their
fidelity
in
some
things
must
excuse
their
unfaithfulness
in
others
.
Or
do
you
mean
,
that
persons
of
a
pious
conversation
and
conscientious
,
must
not
be
driven
to
that
which
they
think
sin
,
or
from
that
which
they
think
faithful
Preaching
of
the
Gospel
?
If
you
mean
that
all
truly
pious
conscientious
persons
ought
to
be
treated
with
all
candour
and
respect
,
before
severer
means
be
used
;
or
that
the
use
of
severer
means
is
utterly
to
be
forborn
,
as
far
as
may
be
,
that
is
,
as
far
as
such
forbearance
may
be
reconcilable
with
the
publick
Interest
,
which
is
to
be
preferred
before
the
private
of
any
single
person
how
pious
soever
;
I
could
for
my
part
heartily
wish
it
were
so
too
,
and
I
believe
most
of
the
Bishops
do
practice
accordingly
with
those
concerning
whom
they
have
entertained
such
a
good
opinion
,
and
do
endeavour
to
shew
the
same
charitable
demeanour
to
them
on
earth
,
which
they
think
God
will
in
heaven
.
BUT
,
§
XLVI
Sir
,
you
know
that
they
who
are
indeed
free
from
carnal
vices
,
and
such
as
are
obnoxious
to
observation
,
may
yet
be
guilty
of
spiritual
,
such
as
Obstinacy
in
yielding
to
conviction
,
or
Disobedience
to
Superiours
,
or
Negligence
in
inquiry
,
or
too
much
prejudice
or
aversation
to
the
persons
or
reasons
of
their
adversaries
,
before
they
have
given
them
an
equal
hearing
,
or
some
such
other
prejudice
,
which
unawares
seduces
the
very
best
and
wisest
persons
;
and
their
guilt
upon
some
of
these
accounts
may
be
discerned
and
judged
by
their
Superiours
,
from
their
perverse
demeanour
under
those
milder
Treatments
.
And
when
it
is
discerned
,
though
their
innocence
as
to
carnal
crimes
may
indeed
,
in
prudence
and
charity
,
be
thought
sufficient
for
the
expiation
or
preterition
of
smaller
delinquences
,
yet
they
can
upon
neither
account
be
judged
so
,
in
regard
of
crimes
of
a
more
heinous
nature
than
their
virtues
are
eminent
,
and
of
such
a
kind
would
Schism
and
Factiousness
appear
to
such
as
would
equally
and
soberly
consider
them
.
But
suppose
that
Governours
do
indeed
believe
,
that
their
Subjects
do
bonâ
fide
believe
as
they
profess
,
and
conceive
themselves
obliged
in
conscience
to
deny
their
due
obedience
,
and
to
follow
those
factious
courses
they
were
engaged
in
;
yet
sure
you
cannot
think
but
that
well
meaning
men
,
as
well
as
others
,
may
be
mistaken
,
and
that
very
dangerously
;
nor
does
their
goodness
secure
their
judgment
from
error
,
in
thinking
that
evil
which
is
good
,
and
on
the
contrary
;
but
onely
their
practice
,
that
they
are
not
likely
to
be
guilty
of
what
themselves
think
evil
,
nor
to
be
negligent
of
what
themselves
think
good
.
One
would
verily
think
,
that
Raviliac
and
several
such
resolute
persons
,
who
engaged
themselves
without
any
private
provocation
,
on
dangers
they
could
never
hope
to
escape
,
and
much
greater
than
any
possible
secular
ends
,
if
in
their
wits
,
could
have
been
animated
by
nothing
to
such
desperate
enterprizes
,
but
onely
a
strong
persuasion
of
the
goodness
of
their
cause
,
and
the
hope
of
future
rewards
.
And
yet
you
would
not
think
that
a
sufficient
reason
to
exempt
them
from
the
severity
of
the
Law
.
God
may
indeed
be
merciful
to
such
in
regard
of
their
pious
intentions
.
But
,
1.
Their
practises
by
being
acknowledged
to
need
mercy
,
must
be
supposed
blamable
,
not
commendable
;
S.
Paul
confesses
himself
the
chief
of
sinners
,
in
regard
of
those
persecutions
,
for
which
he
owns
his
ignorance
as
the
reason
of
his
pardon
.
And
,
2.
Even
God
himself
does
often
chastize
them
for
the
terror
of
others
,
with
temporal
afflictions
,
whom
he
intends
to
spare
in
the
world
to
come
.
A
clear
example
hereof
we
have
in
David
,
2
Sam.
12.
13
,
14.
where
after
his
sins
of
murdering
Uriah
,
and
defiling
Bathsheba
,
had
been
forgiven
him
;
it
is
yet
expresly
added
,
that
because
by
this
deed
he
had
given
occasion
to
the
enemies
of
God
to
blaspheme
;
the
child
that
had
been
born
of
that
adulterous
mixture
should
surely
die
.
And
therefore
good
men
themselves
,
when
guilty
of
Schism
,
giving
the
like
scandal
to
the
enemies
of
the
truth
,
and
drawing
others
to
the
like
sin
by
their
persuasion
〈◊〉
example
,
may
in
this
life
be
punished
for
the
good
of
others
.
And
,
3.
God
himself
cannot
be
thought
merciful
to
men
good
for
all
other
things
,
and
peccant
onely
in
one
kind
,
especially
if
of
so
heinous
a
nature
,
as
Schism
without
their
repentance
,
either
particular
by
an
actual
explicite
confession
and
reformation
of
it
when
known
;
or
general
and
implicite
,
and
in
voto
,
when
they
are
penitent
for
all
sins
unknown
as
well
as
known
,
and
are
in
a
ready
preparation
of
mind
to
use
and
accept
of
all
moral
means
of
discovery
,
and
to
reform
what
might
be
convicted
by
such
discovery
how
dear
soever
otherwise
.
And
this
you
know
is
the
case
of
the
Church
in
punishing
well
meaning
persons
who
are
guilty
of
Schism
.
It
is
plain
,
that
they
are
so
far
from
being
penitent
for
what
she
thinks
to
be
sin
,
as
that
they
defend
it
,
and
draw
others
to
it
.
And
as
to
general
repentance
,
she
thinks
she
has
not
reason
to
believe
it
in
them
,
when
upon
proposal
of
her
reasons
they
shew
themselves
perverse
,
and
factious
,
and
incorrigible
.
If
it
be
pretended
,
that
the
Church
may
be
mistaken
in
censures
,
I
pray
consider
,
4.
That
she
must
act
according
to
her
own
conscience
,
though
erroneous
;
and
though
God
may
prove
indeed
indulgent
to
many
persons
,
whom
he
as
a
searcher
of
their
hearts
may
know
to
be
penitent
;
yet
the
Church
being
obliged
to
accommodate
her
demeanour
to
them
,
to
her
own
knowledge
,
may
at
the
same
time
justly
and
commendably
prosecute
them
,
if
they
seem
otherwise
to
her
.
And
I
believe
you
will
find
it
a
general
occasion
of
your
mistakes
in
this
kind
,
that
you
look
upon
Superiors
as
obliged
to
act
according
to
your
own
private
conscience
.
But
if
your self
had
been
a
Governour
,
and
had
to
do
with
a
person
of
a
reputation
otherwise
unblamable
,
but
yet
notoriously
guilty
of
some
very
remarkable
offence
coming
under
your
cognizance
,
and
so
far
from
being
penitent
for
it
,
as
that
he
should
defend
it
,
and
preach
it
to
others
,
and
call
such
Preaching
a
faithful
Preaching
of
the
Gospel
;
I
believe
you
would
think
your self
more
secure
in
acting
according
to
your
own
conscience
,
than
that
of
the
criminal
,
though
you
might
confess
your self
as
liable
to
mistakes
as
him
.
And
believe
it
,
that
it
is
the
most
equal
way
to
clear
your self
from
prejudices
,
and
to
prevent
uncharitable
censures
to
represent
their
case
as
if
it
had
been
your
own
.
YOU
answer
,
§
XLVII
.
8.
That
I
must
remember
that
great
Cities
had
long
but
few
Christians
in
comparison
of
the
Heathens
till
Constantine's
time
,
and
mostly
long
after
.
But
,
1.
Though
this
had
indeed
been
true
,
yet
it
will
not
follow
that
the
Government
must
have
been
proportioned
onely
to
the
necessities
of
those
few
,
both
because
Heathens
as
well
as
Christians
,
the
reducing
of
Infidels
,
as
well
as
the
government
of
Believers
,
belonged
to
their
charge
.
Which
must
have
been
by
so
much
greater
rather
than
less
,
as
there
was
much
more
difficulty
in
reducing
one
from
his
vicious
practises
as
well
as
his
opinions
,
to
the
severe
rules
of
Christianity
,
than
to
govern
many
,
especially
such
good
and
excellent
persons
as
Converts
were
generally
in
those
times
,
when
actually
reduced
;
and
because
Christianity
was
in
a
growing
condition
,
and
therefore
the
Government
was
to
be
proportioned
to
their
future
hopes
,
as
well
as
their
present
fruitions
.
But
,
2.
The
supposition
,
That
Christians
were
so
few
till
Constantine's
time
or
afterwards
,
is
a
great
mistake
.
In
the
Church
of
Jerusalem
we
find
3000
converted
by
one
Sermon
,
Acts
11.
41.
besides
those
who
had
already
been
converted
by
our
Saviours
personal
Preaching
,
(
which
may
be
supposed
to
have
been
very
many
,
by
the
multitude
that
sung
Hosannahs
before
him
,
which
amazed
the
whole
City
,
and
the
terror
of
the
Pharisees
,
who
durst
not
seize
on
him
by
force
for
fear
of
the
people
,
and
their
profession
,
that
all
the
world
went
after
him
,
&c.
)
and
those
who
were
afterwards
daily
added
,
ver.
47.
besides
5000
men
more
expresly
said
to
have
been
converted
by
another
Sermon
,
Acts
4.
4.
and
multitudes
of
men
and
women
,
chap.
5.
14.
added
through
all
Judaea
,
under
which
Jerusalem
was
also
comprehended
)
Acts
9.
31.
And
in
the
same
place
after
Herod
Agrippa's
death
the
Word
of
God
further
grew
and
multiplied
,
Acts
12.
24.
and
many
thousands
are
mentioned
(
though
imperfectly
,
for
in
the
Greek
is
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
ten
thousands
)
Acts
21.
20.
Yet
were
all
these
under
single
Bishops
,
S.
James
and
his
Successors
,
as
far
as
History
can
inform
us
,
though
in
all
likelyhood
this
number
was
vastly
increased
,
when
most
of
the
refractory
Jews
,
who
most
of
all
hindered
the
progress
of
the
Gospel
,
were
destroyed
in
the
Siege
of
Titus
,
and
generally
banished
,
when
it
was
reedified
by
Adrian
,
and
by
him
called
Aelia
.
This
is
very
observable
,
because
it
is
most
likely
to
have
been
established
by
the
Apostles
as
a
patern
for
other
Cities
.
But
it
was
not
herein
singular
even
in
those
times
;
for
Samaria
seems
generally
to
have
been
converted
.
This
appears
,
in
that
all
the
people
are
said
to
have
been
deceived
by
Simon
Magus
,
Acts
8.
9.
all
from
the
least
to
the
greatest
,
ver.
10.
and
the
same
number
seems
to
have
been
converted
by
S.
Philip
,
and
to
have
been
baptized
both
men
and
women
,
ver.
12.
and
therefore
Samaria
is
said
to
have
received
the
word
of
God
,
ver.
14.
Now
the
least
that
can
be
understood
by
these
expressions
is
,
that
much
the
greater
part
received
the
faith
,
which
must
have
very
much
exceeded
the
Government
of
a
single
solitary
person
.
In
the
Church
of
Antioch
Ignatius
his
charge
,
(
by
which
you
in
some
part
understand
the
extent
of
the
Diocesan
Government
mentioned
in
his
Epistles
)
a
great
number
is
said
to
have
believed
,
Acts
11.
21.
and
after
Barnabas
his
coming
,
much
people
is
said
to
have
been
added
to
the
Lord
,
ver.
24.
who
are
therefore
to
have
been
supposed
distinct
from
the
former
.
And
again
,
ver.
26.
Saul
and
Barnabas
together
for
a
year
together
taught
much
people
,
who
there
first
received
the
name
of
Christians
,
very
probably
from
the
great
multitudes
observable
there
above
other
places
adjacent
,
which
could
hardly
have
been
so
likely
,
if
they
had
not
held
some
great
proportion
to
the
Inhabitants
,
which
if
they
did
must
have
very
much
exceeded
our
ordinary
Parochial
Cures
.
For
Antioch
was
the
third
City
of
the
Roman
Empire
in
Secular
as
well
as
Ecclesiastical
Dignity
;
so
in
Antiochia
Pisidiae
many
of
the
Jews
and
religious
Proselytes
followed
Paul
and
Barnabas
,
Acts
13.
43.
And
afterwards
almost
all
the
City
came
together
to
hear
the
word
of
God
,
ver.
44.
and
with
what
event
may
be
conceived
from
that
which
follows
,
ver.
48
,
49.
That
the
Gentiles
were
glad
,
and
glorified
the
word
of
the
Lord
;
and
as
many
as
were
ordained
,
to
eternal
life
believed
:
and
that
the
word
of
the
Lord
was
published
in
all
regions
.
Which
,
besides
the
opposition
mentioned
onely
by
the
Jews
and
devout
and
honourable
women
,
(
that
is
,
Proselytesses
of
the
Gates
,
as
some
understand
)
acted
by
them
,
ver.
50.
must
imply
the
number
of
Converts
to
have
been
extremely
considerable
in
proportion
to
the
whole
,
which
must
have
included
a
great
multitude
,
this
City
being
a
Metropolis
of
a
Province
.
In
Thessalonica
some
(
of
the
Jews
)
believed
,
and
of
the
devout
Greeks
a
great
multitude
,
and
of
the
chief
women
not
a
few
,
Acts
17.
4.
And
in
Beraea
,
another
remarkable
City
,
they
were
more
noble
than
those
of
Thessaloniea
,
ver.
11.
And
accordingly
many
of
the
Jews
believed
;
also
of
honourable
women
which
were
Greeks
,
and
of
men
not
a
few
,
v.
12.
In
Ephesus
S.
Timothy's
Diocese
,
S.
Paul
himself
disputeth
first
three
moneths
in
the
Synagogue
,
Acts
19.
8.
afterwards
two
years
in
the
school
of
Tyrannus
;
so
that
all
which
dwelt
in
Asia
(
that
is
,
the
Lydian
or
Proconsular
,
whereof
Ephesus
was
the
Metropolis
)
heard
the
word
of
the
Lord
Jesus
,
both
Jews
and
Greeks
,
ver.
9.
10.
fear
came
upon
all
of
them
;
and
the
name
of
the
Lord
Jesus
was
magnified
,
ver.
17.
And
you
may
guess
at
the
great
multitude
of
Converts
by
the
vast
summe
which
their
conjuring
books
then
burnt
were
valued
at
,
50000
pieces
of
silver
,
v.
19.
which
is
observed
by
the
Holy
Ghost
himself
,
as
an
Argument
how
mightily
the
word
of
God
grew
and
prevailed
,
ver.
20.
And
it
must
argue
a
very
great
number
,
considering
that
books
were
a
commodity
which
is
not
to
have
been
presumed
a
considerable
part
of
the
riches
of
each
,
much
less
of
that
particular
subject
,
(
however
the
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
be
celebrated
among
the
Ancients
)
and
the
total
number
of
the
persons
concerned
must
needs
be
greater
,
by
how
much
the
particular
proportions
to
be
distributed
among
them
are
likely
to
have
been
less
to
the
particulars
;
and
it
is
accordingly
observable
,
that
no
particular
is
noted
to
have
been
considerably
impoverished
by
so
great
a
loss
.
THESE
are
the
most
remarkable
Cities
mentioned
in
the
Acts
,
§
XLVIII
which
we
have
reason
to
believe
to
have
abounded
with
numbers
of
Christians
,
too
great
for
the
Cure
of
a
single
person
.
And
it
is
to
be
considered
,
that
as
in
their
preaching
you
find
little
mention
of
their
preaching
in
villages
,
but
in
Cities
;
so
it
is
most
credible
that
they
left
them
to
the
care
of
the
Government
established
in
the
Cities
.
Whence
it
will
follow
,
that
the
Ecclesiastical
as
well
as
the
Secular
Government
of
Villages
depended
on
the
Cities
,
and
that
therefore
they
were
Dioceses
in
the
modern
extent
,
and
that
the
Government
established
in
Cities
seems
to
have
been
most
agreeable
to
the
design
of
the
Apostles
.
And
of
all
Cities
those
are
to
be
supposed
most
accurately
provided
for
by
the
Apostles
,
which
were
converted
by
their
personal
preaching
,
and
which
in
their
times
had
numbers
sufficient
for
Government
;
and
therefore
if
other
places
had
deviated
from
the
examples
of
these
,
as
those
in
Africa
and
Ireland
,
which
you
cannot
prove
to
have
been
converted
by
the
Apostles
,
you
ought
rather
to
have
corrected
those
by
these
,
than
as
you
preposterously
do
,
to
confine
the
Dioceses
converted
and
established
by
the
Apostles
,
to
the
dimensions
of
them
which
were
not
.
But
besides
these
Scripture
Arguments
evincing
the
great
number
of
Christians
,
even
in
the
times
of
the
Apostles
themselves
;
another
may
be
drawn
from
the
multitudes
of
Heresies
,
which
must
have
needs
drawn
great
numbers
from
the
Church
,
not
onely
that
swarm
which
rose
immediately
after
the
decease
of
the
Apostles
,
as
the
Basilidians
,
Valentinians
,
&c.
but
also
those
who
were
contemporary
with
the
Apostles
themselves
as
the
Simonians
,
Nicolaitans
,
Ebionites
,
Corinthians
,
&c.
For
though
some
few
of
these
did
,
even
in
the
Apostles
times
themselves
,
separate
,
as
is
clear
from
1
John
11.
19.
and
several
other
places
of
the
Epistles
,
where
they
are
blamed
and
confuted
,
and
the
multitudes
of
them
that
perished
in
Jerusalem
in
the
Captivity
;
yet
most
of
them
did
then
act
more
covertly
,
and
were
followed
by
smaller
parties
,
in
regard
of
what
was
done
after
the
decease
of
the
Apostles
,
which
is
the
reason
why
Hegesippus
in
Eusebius
calls
the
Church
a
pure
Virgin
till
the
time
of
Trajan
,
in
whose
time
S.
John
the
last
of
them
died
,
not
long
after
his
return
from
Patmos
.
Now
if
the
Christians
were
so
numerous
,
as
it
appears
they
were
,
even
after
these
deductions
of
their
own
members
by
relapse
,
and
the
hinderance
of
the
conversion
of
others
,
whom
we
find
to
have
been
alienated
at
a
greater
distance
by
this
scandal
of
the
multitude
of
their
Sects
,
(
for
about
that
time
we
find
it
objected
by
Celsus
,
who
wrote
his
Book
against
the
Christians
under
Hadrian
,
the
immediate
Successor
of
Trajan
,
if
we
may
believe
Origen
)
we
cannot
think
their
number
so
small
as
you
conceive
in
the
times
of
the
Apostles
,
when
they
did
not
labour
under
these
disadvantages
.
But
when
they
had
overcome
these
difficulties
,
and
were
exercised
with
new
persecutions
,
it
is
strange
how
exceedingly
they
encreased
.
In
Severus
his
time
,
about
the
Year
of
our
Lord
201
,
Sect.
37.
&
Anno
200.
Sect.
7.
according
to
Baronius
,
Tertullian
wrote
his
Apologie
,
which
was
above
100
years
before
Constantine
;
yet
even
then
there
were
such
multitudes
of
Christians
,
as
that
he
prefers
them
before
the
Moors
,
and
Marcomans
,
and
Parthians
;
as
being
spread
over
all
the
Roman
world
.
His
words
,
though
they
be
so
known
that
I
wonder
that
you
forgot
them
,
yet
are
withall
so
very
pertinent
and
full
to
my
purpose
,
as
that
I
think
it
necessary
to
transcribe
them
;
thus
therefore
he
is
in
Cap.
37.
Apolog.
Plures
nimirum
Mauri
&
Marcomanni
,
ipsique
Parthi
,
vel
quantaecunque
unius
tamen
loci
,
&
suorum
finium
,
gentes
,
quàm
totius
orbis
?
Externi
sumus
,
&
vestra
omnia
implevimus
,
urbes
,
insulas
,
castella
,
mancipia
,
conciliabula
,
castra
ipsa
,
tribus
,
decurias
,
palatium
,
senatum
,
forum
.
Sola
vobis
relinquimus
templa
.
Here
you
see
Cities
,
and
throughout
the
whole
world
,
(
that
is
,
according
to
the
language
of
those
times
,
the
Roman
Empire
)
full
of
them
.
What
can
be
more
contrary
to
your
Assertion
?
Yet
fulness
may
be
understood
with
a
latitude
,
for
a
great
,
though
not
the
greatest
number
.
But
that
he
understood
the
greatest
,
will
easily
appear
from
what
he
afterwards
adds
;
Potuimus
&
inermes
,
nec
rebelles
,
sed
tantummodo
discordes
,
solius
divortii
invidiâ
adversus
vos
dimicâsse
.
Si
enim
tanta
vis
hominum
in
aliquem
orbis
remoti
sinum
abrupissemus
à
vobis
,
suffudisset
utique
dominationem
vestram
tot
qualiumcunque
amissio
civtum
,
imò
&
ipsâ
destitutione
punisset
.
Proculdubio
expavissetis
ad
sobitudinem
vestram
,
ad
silentium
rerum
&
stuporem
quendam
,
quasi
mortuae
urbis
quaesissetis
,
quibus
ves
vobis
remansissent
;
nunc
enim
pauciores
hostes
habet
is
prae
multitudine
Christianorum
pene
omnium
civium
,
pene
omnes
cives
Christianos
,
habendo
.
And
again
,
Suffecisset
hoc
solùm
nostrae
ultioni
,
quòd
vacuae
exinde
possessio
immundis
spiritibus
pateret
.
Certainly
they
whose
very
secession
would
leave
nothing
but
solitude
,
and
silence
,
and
amazement
,
and
empty
possessions
for
unclean
spirits
behind
them
;
they
who
had
left
their
City
as
it
were
dead
,
almost
destitute
of
Citizens
to
be
governed
,
and
their
Enemies
more
numerous
than
their
Subjects
,
must
needs
have
been
much
the
greater
number
.
But
when
he
says
expresly
,
that
almost
all
their
Citizens
were
Christians
,
what
can
be
clearer
than
that
?
(
notwithstanding
what
allowances
may
be
made
for
the
confidence
of
the
man
,
and
the
humour
of
the
opressed
parties
to
advance
their
numbers
.
)
Christians
were
so
far
from
being
few
in
comparison
of
the
Heathens
,
as
that
the
contrary
seems
most
probable
,
that
the
Heathens
in
the
Roman
Empire
were
considerably
outnumbered
by
them
.
AND
that
in
other
Cities
besides
Rome
and
Alexandria
,
§
XLIX
(
which
though
Apostolical
Sees
you
will
not
admit
as
〈…〉
numbers
were
under
the
Government
of
Ecclesiastical
Monarchs
with
their
Presbyteries
,
than
had
been
governable
by
any
single
(
however
able
)
Presbyter
.
Instances
may
be
given
(
besides
the
general
proofs
already
intimated
)
out
of
the
good
Records
of
those
times
,
as
imperfect
as
we
have
them
extant
at
present
.
One
is
of
Neocaesarea
a
metropolis
of
the
Province
of
Pontus
Polemoniacus
,
(
which
I
take
notice
of
that
you
may
understand
how
great
a
City
it
was
.
)
Here
though
the
persons
are
expresly
said
to
have
been
[
](A36252-e77200-b)*
*
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
&c.
S.
Greg.
Nysser
.
Vit.
S.
Greg.
Thaumaturgi
,
edit.
inter
opera
Thaumaturgi
,
à
Gerard.
Voss
.
p.
255.
infinite
,
that
inhabited
the
City
it self
and
the
adjacent
Region
,
(
by
which
you
may
understand
the
extent
of
the
Diocese
of
those
times
,
that
it
included
the
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
as
well
as
the
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
and
that
the
number
of
the
Inhabitants
of
such
a
Diocese
did
far
exceed
the
Government
of
a
single
Presbyter
;
)
yet
there
were
but
17
Christians
when
S.
Gregory
Thaumaturgus
was
first
made
their
Bishop
,
who
managed
his
charge
with
such
good
success
,
as
that
in
a
Visitation
of
his
Diocese
a
little
before
his
death
,
again
expressed
as
formerly
,
p.
313.
ib.
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
he
found
onely
the
same
number
of
17
Pagans
.
Yet
this
infinite
number
he
had
governed
himself
,
without
any
addition
of
coordinate
coadjutors
upon
the
increase
of
his
charge
,
and
left
them
in
the
same
condition
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
that
is
,
to
his
succeeding
Bishop
.
Sure
you
cannot
but
think
this
Diocese
exceeded
the
greatest
Parish
in
London
.
Another
is
that
of
Carthage
,
the
multitude
of
Christians
wherein
,
intimated
in
my
former
Letter
,
you
tell
me
plainly
,
you
believe
not
.
Not
to
insist
on
the
general
Argument
I
formerly
made
use
of
;
from
the
multitude
of
Presbyters
here
as
well
as
elsewhere
,
which
sure
would
not
have
been
multiplied
if
one
had
been
sufficient
;
the
testimony
of
Pontius
concerning
the
great
multitude
of
Christians
,
that
were
present
at
the
Martyrdom
of
S.
Cyprian
,
(
of
which
himself
seems
to
have
been
one
,
which
may
make
him
the
more
credible
)
is
somewhat
considerable
.
He
tells
us
,
Pont
in
vit.
S.
Cypr.
fin
.
that
comitatu
ejus
infinitus
exercitus
adhaerebat
,
quasi
ad
expugnandam
mortem
manu
fact
â
veniretur
.
Which
military
expressions
of
their
readiness
to
die
,
are
not
so
applicable
to
any
as
to
Christians
,
who
were
onely
concerned
on
that
account
.
But
a
more
pregnant
presumtion
of
their
numbers
is
the
summe
collected
out
of
the
Contributions
of
his
Diocese
for
the
relief
of
Captives
.
Ep.
60.
ed.
Pamel
.
Misimus
autem
(
says
he
)
sestertia
centum
millia
nummûm
,
quae
istic
in
Ecclesia
cui
de
Domini
indulgentiâ
praesumus
,
cleri
&
plebis
apud
nos
consistentis
eollatione
,
collecta
sunt
,
&c.
This
100000
sestertia
being
reduced
to
our
English
Coyn
,
according
to
the
rate
observed
by
Mr.
Brereuood
and
Dr.
Hakewill
,
will
amount
to
781250
l.
and
more
according
to
the
Bishop
of
Hereford
;
a
summe
so
vast
in
the
judgment
of
Pamelius
and
Baroni●●s
,
as
without
the
Authority
of
any
new
MS.
and
against
the
consentient
readings
of
the
former
Editions
of
Manutius
and
Morellius
,
by
no
greater
warrant
than
their
own
conjecture
of
the
incredibility
of
the
thing
,
they
venture
to
correct
it
by
leaving
out
the
later
words
millia
nummûm
,
reading
onely
sestertia
centum
,
and
by
that
means
reducing
it
to
1000
part
.
Yet
even
so
it
rose
to
781
l.
5
s.
a
summe
very
considerable
for
a
single
Parish
of
those
times
,
especially
considering
that
they
were
newly
recovered
from
a
severe
persecution
,
which
may
be
presumed
considerably
to
have
exhausted
them
,
both
by
the
summs
confiscated
,
and
the
loss
of
all
their
lands
and
rising
rents
,
and
the
multiplication
of
the
domestick
objects
of
their
charity
;
(
for
we
find
the
necessities
of
the
Martyrs
and
Confessors
to
have
been
supplied
out
of
the
Treasury
of
the
Church
from
the
story
of
Peregrinus
in
Lucian
,
and
several
passages
in
S.
Cyprian's
Epistles
)
besides
the
greater
value
of
Money
in
those
times
before
the
discovery
of
the
Indies
,
and
the
readiness
of
that
Church
to
a
new
contribution
,
if
the
Numidian
Bishops
to
whom
they
write
should
think
it
necessary
.
A
sign
that
they
had
not
been
extremely
impoverished
by
their
former
charity
,
whereas
such
a
summ
would
,
even
in
these
days
,
since
the
great
supplies
from
America
,
have
ruined
several
of
our
modern
Parishes
.
BUT
notwithstanding
these
difficulties
I
confess
a
single
Parish
(
I
mean
the
same
multitude
of
Christians
than
which
might
have
made
up
a
Parish
according
to
our
late
estimation
)
might
have
advanced
a
summ
as
great
as
this
later
of
Pamelius
and
Baronius
,
§
L.
without
disabling
themselves
for
future
contributions
.
For
I
consider
that
in
those
times
,
as
well
as
the
Apostles
there
were
those
who
sold
their
lands
,
and
brought
the
prices
to
the
Bishop
,
who
(
as
S.
Justin
Martyr
tells
us
)
was
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
Apolog.
11.
p.
99.
of
which
we
have
S.
Cyprian
himself
for
an
example
,
Pont.
vit.
Cypr.
who
disposed
of
his
own
Land
that
way
at
his
conversion
,
and
had
the
same
Land
returned
into
his
hands
when
Bishop
,
which
he
again
intended
to
sell
if
he
had
not
been
prevented
by
the
persecution
,
as
Pontius
his
Deacon
assures
us
.
Besides
,
there
was
the
Offertory
at
every
Communion
,
which
we
find
practised
in
S.
Justin
Martyr's
time
,
and
the
same
S.
Cyprian's
,
and
in
the
time
of
the
Author
of
the
Constitutions
called
Apostolical
,
and
in
those
times
was
reckoned
as
a
part
of
the
Communion
it self
,
and
accordingly
criminals
were
as
well
excluded
from
the
Offertory
as
from
the
blessed
Sacrament
;
and
it
was
then
the
general
practice
to
communicate
daily
.
To
which
may
be
added
their
more
solemn
Synaxes
and
Offertories
on
Sunday
,
on
which
the
Apostle
himself
particularly
advised
a
provision
for
the
poor
,
and
their
occasional
contributions
,
such
as
that
mentioned
by
the
Apostle
for
the
poor
Christians
in
Judaea
,
and
this
of
S.
Cyprian's
we
are
speaking
of
.
And
indeed
besides
the
great
propension
of
the
Christians
of
those
ages
to
works
of
charity
,
and
the
particular
diligence
of
S.
Cyprian
,
to
stir
them
up
to
it
by
his
own
example
,
as
well
as
exhortation
,
(
as
appears
from
Pontius
,
and
from
his
Treatise
de
Opere
&
Elemosynis
still
extant
.
)
It
was
in
reason
the
most
prudent
course
they
could
take
,
to
convert
their
Lands
into
Moneys
to
prevent
forfeiture
,
and
to
lay
out
the
Moneys
on
such
good
uses
which
might
entitle
them
to
future
rewards
,
rather
than
hazard
their
loss
in
such
times
,
when
they
were
unsecure
how
long
they
might
keep
them
;
besides
,
that
such
a
disposal
of
their
riches
was
the
most
likely
way
to
animate
them
for
future
accidents
,
and
to
make
them
unconcerned
for
temporal
fruitions
,
and
to
raise
their
minds
to
Heaven
,
where
their
Treasures
had
been
deposited
.
Besides
the
great
fruitfulness
of
the
Country
adjacent
observed
by
[
](A36252-e78500-b)*
*
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
Strabol
.
11.
Greg.
p.
131.
vide
l.
18.
p.
833.
Strabo
,
and
several
other
ancient
and
modern
Authors
,
which
must
have
enhanced
the
price
of
their
Lands
when
exposed
to
sale
;
and
not
onely
that
,
but
its
great
improvements
,
if
we
may
judge
of
S.
Cyprians
time
,
by
what
it
was
when
Agathocles
invaded
the
Carthaginians
,
which
you
may
see
described
in
Diodorus
Siculus
,
Bibl.
l.
20.
p.
731.
edit.
Graeco-Latin
.
Hannov.
1604.
that
it
was
admired
by
the
Sicilians
themselves
,
whose
own
Countrey
was
admired
for
the
same
causes
by
the
rest
of
the
World
;
and
the
vastness
of
the
City
it self
,
if
estimated
with
what
it
was
before
it
was
destroyed
by
the
Romans
.
L.
18.
The
Island
it
stood
in
was
(
as
Strabo
tells
us
)
460
stadia
in
compass
,
all
walled
in
,
which
being
reduced
to
our
miles
,
will
amount
to
about
45
miles
.
A
scope
very
much
larger
than
London
,
and
their
Walls
so
vast
and
capacious
,
as
to
contain
Stables
for
Elephants
,
and
4000
Horses
,
and
Lodgings
and
Guard-houses
for
20000
Foot
and
4000
Horse
,
which
were
their
ordinary
constant
Guards
,
as
Appian
.
Bell.
Punic
.
p.
56.
edit.
Graeco-Latin
.
Stephani
1592.
And
when
it
was
destroyed
by
Scipio
Africanus
junior
or
Aemilianus
,
had
700000
Inhabitants
.
Strabo
ib.
And
though
at
its
rebuilding
by
Julius
Caesar
it
might
possibly
fall
short
of
its
ancient
magnificence
;
yet
it
was
certainly
a
very
great
City
even
then
,
after
the
rate
which
then
they
counted
great
,
which
rate
I
might
easily
have
shewn
to
be
as
great
as
now
.
So
[
](A36252-e78790-b)a
a
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
.
Id.
ib.
Strabo
,
who
lived
not
long
after
the
Restauration
,
says
that
it
was
even
then
inhabited
as
well
as
any
other
City
in
Libya
;
and
after
him
it
is
by
[
](A36252-e78830-b)b
b
Ptolem.
l.
4.
Greg.
c.
3.
Ptolemy
,
who
yet
flourished
about
100
years
before
St.
Cyprian
,
called
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
;
and
[
](A36252-e78870-b)c
c
Tertullian
.
de
Pall.
Tertullian
and
[
](A36252-e78890-b)d
d
Apul.
Florid.
Apuleius
call
the
Carthaginians
Principes
Africae
,
relating
to
their
own
as
well
as
former
times
,
(
for
Alexandria
,
which
was
under
a
Praefectus
Augustalis
,
was
excluded
from
the
ordinary
notion
of
Africa
,
according
to
the
Notitiae
of
those
times
)
as
very
well
they
might
,
considering
that
of
the
six
African
Provinces
that
of
Carthage
onely
was
[
](A36252-e78980-b)e
e
See
Pamel
.
in
Tertullian
.
de
Pall.
&
S.
Cyprian
.
epist.
45
,
49.
Proconsular
,
and
the
City
was
the
residence
of
the
Proconsul
himself
,
which
must
very
considerably
have
contributed
to
its
greatness
.
And
now
considering
the
very
great
fertility
,
and
improvements
,
and
populousness
of
the
City
,
and
the
adjacent
Region
under
its
Civil
,
if
not
Ecclesiastical
,
Jurisdiction
;
considering
that
in
times
of
persecution
it
is
most
probable
,
that
as
much
of
this
as
belonged
to
Christians
was
converted
into
ready
money
;
that
of
these
very
vast
summs
,
which
may
have
been
thought
credibly
have
been
levied
by
these
means
,
many
were
entirely
bestowed
on
charitable
uses
,
and
that
generally
so
much
was
as
could
be
spar'd
from
the
owners
necessary
expences
,
and
therefore
might
be
reputed
superfluities
,
were
so
;
that
according
to
the
state
of
Christian
Affairs
in
those
times
,
much
more
could
have
been
reputed
superfluities
than
now
,
when
not
onely
all
expences
not
adequate
to
the
dignity
of
their
persons
were
accounted
so
,
but
even
such
as
were
,
it
being
neisafe
nor
prudent
,
nor
agreeable
to
the
heroical
magnanimity
so
common
then
to
maintain
that
dignity
;
that
as
the
former
summs
were
exhausted
,
more
were
daily
brought
in
,
that
saying
of
Tertullian
appearing
then
experimentally
true
,
that
the
Sanguis
Martyrum
was
Semen
Ecclesiae
.
These
things
▪
I
say
,
being
considered
,
it
cannot
be
thought
so
incredible
as
Pamelius
and
Baronius
conceive
,
that
a
considerable
proportion
of
the
Inhabitants
of
the
Diocese
of
Carthage
,
according
to
the
rate
of
Dioceses
in
those
times
,
might
indeed
contribute
the
greater
summ
,
so
well
attested
by
consent
of
MSS.
so
that
there
will
be
no
necessity
to
leave
the
received
reading
upon
account
of
their
onely
conjectures
,
which
have
hence
appeared
so
groundless
.
But
then
as
this
summ
of
100000
Sestertia
is
in
a
parallel
case
granted
by
Seneca
,
Conso
.
ad
Helv.
c.
10
to
have
been
equal
to
the
Revenues
of
a
Province
,
and
so
too
great
for
a
Parish
after
the
rate
now
in
use
;
so
it
is
no
way
improbable
that
considerable
part
of
the
Diocese
might
indeed
have
given
the
Revenue
of
a
Province
,
(
upon
the
terms
now
described
)
without
disabling
themselves
for
further
future
Contributions
.
It
being
therefore
so
well
attested
by
the
consent
of
Copies
,
that
the
summ
given
was
so
great
,
as
not
to
be
thought
crediconcerning
a
Parish
,
and
it
being
no
way
credible
that
any
but
converted
Christians
did
contribute
to
it
;
it
must
hence
follow
,
that
the
number
of
Christian
Converts
was
even
then
greater
in
Carthage
,
than
in
any
of
our
modern
Parishes
.
TO
these
Christian
Authors
concerning
the
multitude
of
Christians
I
shall
add
a
Heathen
.
§
LI.
It
is
Pliny
whom
I
mean
,
who
thus
dissuades
Trajan
from
his
severity
against
the
Christians
by
an
argument
from
the
multitude
of
the
persons
likely
to
be
concerned
in
it
:
Plin.
ep.
l.
10.
ep.
97.
Visa
est
mihi
res
digna
consultatione
,
maximè
propter
periclitantium
numerum
.
Multi
enim
omnis
aetatis
,
omnis
ordinis
,
utriusque
sexus
etiam
vocantur
in
periculum
,
&
vocabuntur
.
Neque
enim
civitates
tantum
,
sed
vicos
etiam
atque
agros
superstitionis
istius
contagio
pervagata
est
,
quae
videtur
sisti
&
corrigi
posse
.
Certè
satis
constat
,
prope
jam
desolata
templa
coepisse
celebrari
,
&
sacra
solennia
diu
intermissa
repeti
,
passimque
voenire
victimas
,
quarum
adhuc
rarissimus
emptor
inveniebatur
,
ex
quo
facilè
est
opinari
,
quae
turba
hominum
emendari
possit
,
si
sit
poenitentiae
locus
.
You
see
that
many
,
not
as
you
say
few
,
were
Christians
,
that
not
onely
Cities
,
but
Villages
and
Towns
were
overrun
with
that
contagion
,
(
as
he
calls
it
)
that
he
thence
concludes
what
a
great
multitude
(
that
is
,
turba
)
might
be
gain'd
by
a
more
indulgent
way
of
treating
them
.
And
that
this
multitude
was
to
be
understood
comparatively
to
the
Heathens
,
(
directly
contrary
to
what
you
say
,
that
in
comparison
of
them
they
were
but
few
)
appears
clearly
from
what
he
adds
,
that
their
Temples
had
been
almost
desolate
,
(
exactly
herein
agreeing
with
Tertullian's
Sola
vobis
relinquimus
templa
)
that
their
solemn
Festivities
had
been
long
intermitted
,
that
their
Sacrifices
(
which
we
find
to
have
been
exposed
to
sale
in
the
Markets
,
1
Cor.
10.
25.
)
found
few
buyers
;
which
could
not
have
been
if
the
number
of
Heathens
had
been
then
considerable
,
I
do
not
say
as
you
do
,
comparatively
with
the
Christians
,
but
even
absolutely
in
it self
.
And
then
for
discerning
the
pregnancy
of
this
Testimony
I
pray
consider
,
1.
That
this
Epistle
of
Pliny
is
mentioned
by
Tertullian
,
Tertul.
Apol.
Euseb.
Chron.
num.
2223
Oros
.
l.
7.
Eusebius
,
and
Orosius
;
so
that
there
can
be
no
doubt
of
its
being
genuine
.
Consider
,
2.
That
this
Epistle
was
certainly
written
very
soon
after
S.
John's
death
,
who
died
in
Trajan's
time
,
(
Baronius
places
S.
John's
death
in
the
second
year
of
Trajan
,
and
the
writing
of
this
Epistle
in
the
fifth
or
thereabouts
;
)
and
therefore
the
words
diu
intermissa
will
in
all
likelihood
extend
the
paucity
of
Heathens
in
those
parts
to
S.
Johns
time
,
at
least
certainly
very
long
before
your
Period
of
Constantine
.
3.
That
this
Church
of
Bithynia
,
of
which
Pliny
gives
account
being
his
own
Province
,
was
converted
in
the
Apostles
times
,
as
appears
1
S.
Pet.
1.
1.
and
therefore
the
Government
there
settled
must
have
been
,
●f
not
instituted
,
yet
at
least
approved
by
them
,
especially
being
so
near
those
Sees
which
were
undoubtedly
founded
by
the
Apostles
.
Yet
it
cannot
even
here
be
shewn
,
that
ever
one
City
had
more
than
one
presiding
Bishop
.
4.
That
this
Testimony
is
of
an
Adversary
,
whose
Interest
had
been
to
have
made
the
Christians
more
despicable
by
concealing
their
numbers
,
if
he
could
have
done
it
veraciously
.
And
,
5.
That
as
Pliny
must
in
all
probability
be
presumed
veracious
in
telling
what
he
knew
,
so
he
had
means
of
knowing
what
was
really
true
,
being
Governour
of
the
Province
,
and
having
actually
made
enquiry
after
the
Christians
in
their
persecutions
of
them
.
I
BELIEVE
the
great
reason
that
inclines
you
to
believe
the
paucity
of
Christians
in
those
times
is
,
§
LII
.
that
in
great
and
popular
Cities
they
were
able
to
communicate
at
one
Altar
,
upon
which
account
you
conceive
them
to
have
been
no
more
than
what
may
assemble
in
our
ordinary
Parochial
Congregations
.
But
you
might
as
well
have
concluded
whole
Cities
indeed
,
nay
whole
Nations
,
to
have
no
more
people
in
them
than
our
ordinary
Parochial
Assemblies
.
You
know
every
clean
Male
in
Jewry
was
to
appear
before
God
at
the
two
solemn
Feasts
of
Easter
and
of
Tabernacles
,
whose
numbers
computed
by
Cestius
Gallus
,
amounted
to
a
number
sure
too
great
for
a
Parish
,
and
the
number
in
Jerusalem
when
besieged
by
Titus
,
taken
there
upon
occasion
of
Easter
,
is
a
plain
Argument
of
the
vastness
of
their
religious
Assemblies
.
Nor
was
it
onely
proper
to
the
Jews
thus
to
confederate
and
unite
their
Commonwealth
by
their
Conventions
on
account
of
Religion
to
partake
of
the
same
Altar
,
but
the
same
Policy
was
observed
among
the
Heathens
.
The
Assemblies
of
whole
Cities
are
so
ordinary
,
that
it
were
but
pedantick
to
give
instances
of
them
.
For
those
of
Nations
you
may
observe
the
Athenian
Panathenaicks
,
the
Olympick
Solemnities
which
were
of
all
Greece
,
and
then
the
Panionia
of
the
Asiatick
Iones
,
not
now
to
mention
those
of
the
Barbarians
.
Nor
were
onely
Sacrifices
common
to
these
vast
Assemblies
from
the
same
Altar
,
which
is
more
easily
intelligible
,
but
speeches
also
were
made
to
numbers
much
greater
than
our
Parochial
Assemblies
,
which
I
believe
you
will
think
the
greater
difficulty
,
how
the
Bishop
,
who
you
say
then
was
the
principal
,
if
not
the
onely
Preacher
,
should
be
heard
in
a
Multitude
proportionable
to
a
populous
City
.
Yet
is
this
so
far
from
being
incredible
,
as
that
it
was
in
those
Ages
frequently
practised
.
I
will
not
instance
in
places
of
special
contrivance
,
as
that
at
the
Roman
Rostra
,
the
Theatres
,
and
Amphitheatres
,
where
many
thousands
,
sometimes
100000
or
more
,
have
heard
with
convenience
.
And
yet
it
is
very
probable
,
that
these
publick
places
of
religious
Assemblies
were
contrived
with
conveniency
for
that
purpose
.
Nay
it
is
certain
,
that
the
Jews
had
their
Suggesta
and
Cathedrae
raised
on
high
for
that
end
.
Nor
shall
I
mention
the
Orations
of
Generals
to
their
Armies
,
who
had
the
like
advantages
.
It
is
very
clear
that
upon
occasions
not
so
solemn
nor
prepared
,
great
Routs
of
tumultuous
people
,
wanting
heads
to
whom
a
particular
address
might
have
been
confined
,
have
yet
been
spoken
to
.
I
will
not
again
instance
in
the
Speeches
of
Petronius
and
King
Agrippa
to
the
generality
of
the
Jewish
Nation
,
of
which
we
are
discoursing
.
Scripture
Examples
,
though
purely
historical
,
I
find
most
easily
admitted
by
you
,
and
therefore
I
am
the
rather
willing
to
insist
on
them
.
Rehoboam
speaks
to
all
Israel
,
1
Kings
12.
1
,
13
,
16
,
20.
So
Jehoiada
makes
a
covenant
with
all
the
people
of
the
Land
,
2
Kings
11.
17
,
18
,
20.
Our
Saviour
preaches
his
Sermon
on
the
Mount
to
great
multitudes
from
several
places
,
S.
Matth.
4.
25.
v.
1.
And
several
other
places
,
to
4000
at
one
time
,
and
5000
at
another
,
though
in
wildernesses
;
by
which
we
may
guess
how
much
greater
his
Auditories
were
in
populous
Cities
.
The
Town
Clerk
of
the
Ephesians
to
the
whole
City
,
Acts
19.
29
,
35.
S.
Paul
to
all
the
City
of
Jerusalem
,
Acts
21.
30
,
36
,
39
,
40.
And
by
the
multitudes
converted
by
single
Sermons
of
the
Apostles
,
you
may
easily
conjecture
the
vastness
of
their
Auditories
.
Which
will
be
the
rather
credible
when
it
is
considered
,
that
the
principal
preaching
of
the
first
Propagators
of
Christianity
,
was
generally
in
places
of
greatest
frequent
,
such
as
the
Temple
,
or
Synagogues
,
or
Streets
,
or
or
Schools
,
or
Market-places
.
Thus
you
see
that
it
will
not
follow
,
that
the
number
of
Christians
must
have
been
few
,
if
they
assembled
in
one
place
for
the
Word
and
Sacraments
,
and
if
the
Bishop
alone
had
preached
.
BUT
neither
supposition
is
so
very
certain
,
§
LIII
.
at
least
not
so
general
,
as
you
seem
to
believe
it
.
For
preaching
,
we
see
that
while
the
extraordinary
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
of
prophecy
lasted
,
under
which
preaching
was
comprehended
as
well
as
prayer
,
(
which
by
the
way
is
observable
against
them
who
allow
studied
Sermons
,
and
yet
complain
of
the
Spirit
's
being
quenched
if
their
prayers
be
other
than
extemporary
)
several
Prophets
met
and
officiated
in
their
Synaxes
,
1
Cor.
14.
29
,
30
,
31.
so
far
was
it
then
from
being
confined
to
any
person
;
Bishop
or
other
,
to
preach
to
the
people
.
And
even
afterwards
we
find
preaching
not
always
performed
by
the
Bishop
,
though
I
am
apt
indeed
to
think
it
was
ordinarily
.
The
Catechists
were
usually
Presbyters
,
and
Origen
,
though
a
Presbyter
,
yet
preached
before
Bishops
.
But
for
the
times
of
persecution
,
wherein
they
could
not
meet
so
numerously
in
one
Assembly
;
yet
other
provisions
might
have
been
made
agreeably
enough
to
the
Principles
of
those
Ages
,
for
supplying
the
necessities
of
much
greater
than
parochial
multitudes
.
Such
was
that
of
reserving
the
species
,
which
I
believe
was
a
shift
found
out
in
times
of
persecution
,
when
every
particular
person
could
not
get
any
opportunity
of
frequenting
the
Synaxes
as
often
as
he
was
desirous
to
communicate
,
which
was
then
daily
,
it
being
the
first
meat
they
tasted
.
This
reservation
is
clear
from
S.
Cyprian
de
laps
.
the
Author
De
Spectaculis
among
his
works
,
Tert.
l.
11.
and
Ux.
Dionys.
Alex.
ep.
ad
Fab.
Antioch
.
in
Euseb.
S.
Iren.
to
Pope
Victor
.
Now
by
this
means
very
great
multitudes
might
frequently
communicate
,
though
their
Synaxes
were
rarely
and
thinly
celebrated
,
that
they
might
not
give
their
Governours
any
just
offence
by
their
numerousness
.
For
by
Pliny's
Epistle
to
Trajan
it
appears
,
that
they
did
upon
this
account
utterly
forbear
their
feasts
of
charity
,
upon
his
putting
of
the
Law
De
Hetaeriis
in
force
;
and
in
all
probability
yielded
as
far
as
lawfully
they
conceived
they
might
in
the
Eucharist
it self
.
A
second
shift
was
that
of
sending
the
Sacraments
by
the
Deacons
to
those
that
were
absent
.
So
S.
Justin
Martyr
expresly
,
Apol.
11.
p.
97.
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
.
And
again
,
Ib.
p.
98.
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
.
And
who
knows
whether
the
breaking
of
bread
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
or
from
house
to
house
,
as
we
read
it
Acts
11.
46.
(
if
it
be
meant
of
the
Sacrament
,
and
not
rather
of
their
feasts
of
love
)
may
not
allude
to
this
custom
?
I
shall
not
now
dispute
it
,
but
onely
observe
that
this
practice
,
though
not
grounded
on
this
Text
,
yet
certainly
used
in
those
times
,
might
from
the
same
Altar
have
communicated
much
greater
multitudes
than
are
contained
in
our
ordinary
Parishes
.
But
there
was
also
a
third
Expedient
for
these
numerous
Communions
,
that
though
indeed
the
Roman
Altar
,
where
the
blessed
Sacrament
was
ordinarily
and
solemnly
administred
,
were
onely
one
,
even
in
those
populous
Cities
,
and
that
in
the
power
of
the
Bishop
;
yet
in
private
and
occasional
Assemblies
Presbyters
were
permitted
to
do
it
by
leave
of
the
Bishop
,
without
any
prejudice
to
the
Unity
of
the
Church
,
which
was
signified
by
the
Unity
of
their
Altar
.
I
will
not
mention
the
instances
hereof
in
the
Acts
of
the
Martyrs
,
which
are
not
so
secure
to
be
trusted
.
Ignatius
and
Tertullian
are
very
clear
to
this
purpose
in
the
places
already
produced
.
Now
this
account
being
given
how
,
notwithstanding
the
multitude
of
Communicants
,
and
though
the
Sacrament
were
the
greatest
obligation
to
meet
in
publick
Assemblies
,
yet
much
greater
numbers
than
our
Parishes
might
have
been
supplied
conveniently
enough
from
one
President
and
one
Altar
;
it
will
be
easie
to
give
an
account
of
other
things
.
For
as
for
preaching
,
which
is
now
more
insisted
on
as
a
reason
of
Church
Assemblies
than
the
Sacraments
,
though
certainly
very
differently
from
the
sense
of
those
Ages
.
First
,
you
cannot
prove
that
to
have
been
so
appropriated
to
the
Bishop
,
as
that
ordinary
Presbyters
were
excluded
from
it
.
All
that
can
be
pretended
to
this
purpose
is
,
that
the
Exhortation
with
the
Communion
Office
was
then
generally
in
the
presence
of
the
Bishop
,
and
that
in
his
presence
it
was
not
usual
for
Presbyters
to
preach
;
(
for
this
is
the
onely
thing
that
was
thought
so
strange
in
preaching
of
Origen
before
Theophilus
,
and
S.
Augustine
before
Valerius
,
that
it
was
done
in
the
presence
of
their
Bishops
)
and
that
the
power
of
Ecclesiastical
Assemblies
,
upon
what
pretence
soever
,
preaching
as
well
as
other
Offices
was
appropriated
to
the
Bishops
.
But
,
1.
All
private
visitations
and
conferences
which
were
much
better
suited
to
the
exigencies
of
those
times
,
might
undoubtedly
be
performed
by
single
Presbyters
;
and
these
being
performed
with
that
diligence
as
they
were
then
,
would
in
a
great
measure
supersede
the
necessity
of
publick
Sermons
.
And
,
2.
Even
for
those
publick
preachings
,
which
had
no
relation
to
the
Communion
Office
,
where
that
one
Altar
was
concerned
,
might
have
been
ordinarily
permitted
them
by
the
Bishop
.
And
,
3.
Even
those
which
were
connected
with
that
Office
,
might
yet
by
the
Bishops
leave
have
been
permitted
in
places
distinct
from
the
one
Altar
,
as
well
as
the
Communion
it self
.
YOUR
instance
of
St.
Patrick
founding
365
Churches
,
§
LIV.
(
for
I
onely
take
notice
of
the
more
probable
number
)
and
ordaining
in
them
365
Bishops
,
and
under
them
3000
Presbyters
,
does
not
methinks
seem
any
thing
to
your
purpose
.
You
say
,
Here
is
no
more
Bishops
than
Churches
;
I
believe
you
meant
the
contrary
,
that
there
were
no
more
Churches
than
Bishops
,
for
this
is
onely
to
your
design
,
of
having
as
many
Bishops
as
Churches
,
that
is
,
in
your
notion
of
the
word
,
as
Parishes
.
And
you
know
though
we
pretend
many
Parish
Churches
may
be
subject
to
one
Bishop
.
Yet
we
are
far
from
saying
that
there
ought
to
be
many
Bishops
in
one
Parish
.
But
admitting
there
were
in
S.
Patrick's
time
no
more
Churches
than
Bishops
,
yet
how
can
it
follow
thence
,
that
there
were
no
more
Parishes
,
or
that
the
word
Church
in
those
Ages
used
without
any
restrictive
Particle
,
must
signifie
that
onely
which
were
equivalent
to
our
present
Parishes
?
For
you
know
that
we
do
not
pretend
,
that
there
ought
to
be
any
more
liberty
for
a
Bishop
to
hold
plurality
of
Dioceses
,
than
for
a
Minister
to
have
plurality
of
Parishes
,
though
I
will
not
defend
all
practices
in
both
particulars
;
so
that
if
the
word
Church
imply
that
which
is
Diocesan
,
as
most
probably
it
did
according
to
the
sense
of
those
times
,
then
we
do
not
think
there
ought
to
be
more
Churches
than
Bishops
.
Indeed
I
confess
the
Dioceses
of
those
times
must
have
been
for
scope
of
Land
,
as
much
less
as
the
number
365
is
greater
than
21
,
or
thereabouts
,
which
is
our
number
now
.
But
it
is
withall
most
clear
,
1.
That
as
small
as
they
were
,
they
were
yet
greater
than
Parishes
,
there
being
about
nine
Presbyters
to
a
Bishop
,
as
your self
observe
.
For
your
own
notion
of
a
Parish
containing
no
more
than
are
capable
of
being
governed
by
a
single
person
,
where
nine
persons
were
thought
necessary
,
there
must
be
supposed
nine
times
that
proportion
,
that
is
,
nine
Parishes
.
And
then
if
you
think
your self
obliged
to
abstain
from
that
Communion
where
Discipline
is
impossible
,
and
think
it
impossible
where
the
Bishop
undertakes
the
government
of
any
more
than
he
is
able
to
give
an
account
of
by
his
own
personal
care
;
you
must
have
conceived
your self
obliged
as
much
to
separate
from
Diocesan
Communion
quà
Diocesan
then
as
now
,
and
therefore
should
not
plead
those
Dioceses
as
precedents
.
But
,
2.
Your
own
principles
will
warrant
the
enlargment
of
your
Dioceses
now
;
for
if
Bishops
might
in
the
primitive
times
take
the
charge
of
whole
Cities
,
not
because
the
Cities
were
small
,
or
the
Inhabitants
few
,
but
because
they
who
owned
Episcopal
Authority
,
that
is
,
Christians
,
were
so
;
then
I
may
say
our
present
Dioceses
may
be
very
much
inlarged
since
the
divisions
of
Christians
.
For
whereas
then
they
were
all
unanimous
,
the
case
is
otherwise
how
,
when
Papists
and
Scots
,
and
other
Non-conformists
,
being
deduced
of
all
Sects
and
Opinions
,
those
onely
are
accounted
that
own
our
present
Episcopal
Authority
,
would
be
so
few
comparatively
,
so
that
you
see
that
by
Separation
upon
account
of
the
too
great
extent
of
our
Dioceses
,
the
inconvenience
is
not
remedied
,
but
confirmed
in
consequence
of
your
own
Principles
.
But
,
3.
What
inconvenience
soever
may
indeed
be
in
things
of
this
nature
,
is
to
be
judged
as
well
as
reformed
by
the
Governours
,
(
whose
proper
care
it
is
)
not
to
be
remedied
by
worse
,
such
as
are
the
undutifulness
and
separations
of
private
persons
from
their
Superiours
on
that
account
.
I
CONFIRMED
this
by
Argument
from
experience
,
§
LV.
from
an
instance
of
Rome
which
though
so
great
in
Cornelius
his
time
,
as
to
need
the
Services
of
above
1000
Clergie
,
was
yet
at
the
same
time
under
the
Government
of
one
onely
Bishop
.
To
this
you
answer
,
1.
That
this
was
above
250
years
after
Christs
Birth
.
But
this
is
not
the
question
,
how
soon
it
was
,
but
whether
it
was
not
when
discipline
was
severely
enough
observed
?
For
from
hence
it
follows
,
that
experience
has
then
shewn
,
that
discipline
was
sufficiently
reconcilable
with
a
Diocesan
Government
,
and
therefore
may
be
so
now
if
Governours
would
be
equally
industrious
.
And
that
discipline
was
then
observed
,
I
believe
you
will
not
deny
.
You
answer
,
2.
That
you
never
took
all
the
impotent
persons
,
poor
,
and
widows
,
in
the
Church
,
to
be
Clergie-men
and
Clergie-women
.
I
shall
not
dispute
the
propriety
of
my
expression
,
(
not
but
that
I
know
that
the
word
has
indeed
been
used
in
a
very
large
sense
,
so
as
to
comprehend
most
persons
relating
to
the
Church
,
and
possibly
all
there
enumerated
)
both
because
I
do
not
conceive
the
thing
material
to
my
present
purpose
,
which
is
onely
to
shew
the
numerousness
of
the
Church
from
the
multitude
of
Presbyters
,
whom
you
will
not
deny
to
be
properly
Clergie-men
;
and
because
I
confess
I
too
much
trusted
my
memory
in
quoting
the
place
,
and
upon
consulting
the
place
find
my self
to
have
been
mistaken
in
two
things
:
1.
That
I
thought
the
word
Clergie
to
have
been
used
by
Cornelius
.
2.
That
I
thought
that
all
the
several
sorts
there
mentioned
,
Presbyters
,
Deacons
,
&c.
to
have
been
comprized
in
the
number
1500
,
whereas
I
now
find
,
that
the
later
sort
of
the
poor
maintained
on
the
charges
of
the
Church
were
onely
therein
included
.
Omitting
therefore
these
mistakes
,
which
now
I
know
I
will
not
undertake
to
justifie
,
the
thing
I
insist
on
is
,
that
here
are
46
Presbyters
mentioned
,
and
that
there
were
in
Rome
quadraginta
,
Optat.
Milev
.
l.
11.
cont.
Parm.
&
quod
excurrit
,
Basilicae
,
(
as
we
learn
from
Optatus
)
when
Victor
Garbiensis
was
sent
from
Africa
to
be
made
the
Schismatical
Bishop
of
Rome
,
which
was
about
the
persecution
of
Dioclesian
,
when
the
Schism
of
the
Donatists
commenced
.
Which
numberof
Basilicae
or
Parish
Churches
(
for
you
have
already
seemed
to
grant
,
that
Rome
was
then
divided
into
Parishes
)
may
very
well
agree
with
the
number
of
Presbyters
mentioned
by
Cornelius
.
There
being
therefore
even
then
so
many
Christians
in
Rome
,
as
were
able
to
make
up
46
Parishes
,
besides
those
of
the
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
or
Region
adjacent
subject
,
according
to
the
practice
of
those
times
,
to
the
Jurisdiction
of
the
City
Bishop
;
it
is
plain
that
the
Diocese
was
even
then
of
a
larger
extent
than
Parochial
,
as
your self
had
already
granted
,
(
though
here
you
endeavour
to
answer
the
arguments
,
that
are
designed
to
prove
no
more
than
what
you
had
granted
;
)
and
therefore
46
times
exceeding
the
ability
of
a
single
person
.
Yet
I
believe
you
will
not
deny
,
but
that
all
this
number
was
then
sufficiently
governed
by
one
Bishop
,
without
any
visible
decay
of
discipline
observable
in
those
times
.
I
know
indeed
that
Mr.
Potter
in
order
to
his
own
design
does
endeavour
to
prove
the
number
of
Presbyters
and
Titles
originally
derived
from
Cletus
,
Interp.
of
the
number
666
,
c.
19.
Euaristus
,
Dionysius
,
and
Marcellus
to
have
been
25.
Nor
shall
I
now
digress
to
shew
the
ground
of
his
mistake
.
All
that
I
shall
desire
you
to
observe
at
present
is
,
that
his
Authors
are
either
evidently
late
,
or
suspicious
if
pretendedly
ancient
;
not
comparable
in
credibility
to
Cornelius
and
Optatus
produced
by
me
.
But
if
I
should
admit
all
that
he
pretends
,
yet
25
Parishes
themselves
are
too
large
an
extent
for
such
Dioceses
,
as
you
desire
,
that
might
not
exceed
the
personal
abilities
of
one
.
BUT
you
endeavour
to
give
some
account
how
their
Clergie
might
be
numerous
though
their
people
were
few
,
§
LVI
.
from
the
conceived
extraordinary
exigencies
of
those
times
.
But
neither
does
it
appear
that
the
exigencies
were
indeed
so
extraordinary
,
there
appearing
no
ground
to
believe
any
Innovation
accommodated
to
present
exigencies
;
but
rather
that
that
had
been
the
ordinary
Government
:
if
it
had
,
were
it
to
your
purpose
.
For
the
same
extraordinary
exigencies
,
which
then
required
the
united
helps
of
a
multitude
of
Clergie
,
made
the
burthen
too
great
for
one
;
and
therefore
if
a
Bishop
cannot
(
as
by
your
Principles
he
cannot
)
undertake
the
government
of
a
number
too
great
for
his
personal
care
,
without
prejudice
of
discipline
;
it
will
follow
that
he
could
not
do
it
then
.
But
it
appearing
clearly
otherwise
,
namely
that
discipline
was
severely
maintained
under
a
Government
properly
Diocesan
,
that
is
including
a
multitude
of
subordinate
cures
;
it
is
plain
,
that
what
neglects
are
now
in
that
kind
,
are
not
to
be
imputed
to
the
Government
but
the
Governours
.
BUT
I
shall
consider
the
disparities
themselves
:
§
LVII
.
1.
The
Christians
meetings
were
then
obscure
and
small
in
houses
,
(
as
the
tolerated
Churches
in
London
.
)
But
I
have
already
shewn
you
how
the
multitudes
of
Christians
were
(
according
to
the
practises
of
those
Ages
)
suppliable
without
any
unnecessary
multiplication
of
Altars
,
or
Priests
,
or
Churches
;
and
that
this
multitude
of
Priests
was
not
accommodated
to
their
extraordinary
meetings
in
houses
occasionally
,
but
their
solemn
appointed
places
for
Parochial
Assemblies
,
for
such
were
the
Tituli
or
Basilicae
.
You
consider
,
2.
That
these
meetings
were
in
so
vast
a
City
in
so
many
distinct
places
.
But
the
Christians
of
those
times
were
not
so
sparing
of
their
pains
,
as
to
scruple
the
distances
of
places
in
the
greatest
Cities
,
for
the
comfort
of
their
Synaxes
;
for
in
S.
Justin
Martyr's
time
they
came
out
of
the
Country
to
the
City-meetings
,
much
more
from
the
most
distant
places
of
the
same
City
.
And
therefore
it
is
not
probable
that
the
distance
of
place
,
but
the
multitude
of
the
persons
,
occasioned
the
multiplication
of
the
Clergie
.
And
by
the
multitude
of
their
poor
,
1500
not
onely
1050
as
you
mistake
)
you
may
guess
at
their
multitudes
.
For
it
was
too
great
a
proportion
for
the
multitudes
of
one
Parish
,
especially
where
S.
Paul's
Rule
was
severely
observed
,
that
none
should
be
maintained
on
the
Churches
account
,
but
such
as
were
poor
indeed
,
and
where
none
should
eat
who
did
not
labour
if
he
were
able
.
Besides
,
the
treasures
of
that
Church
were
thought
worthy
the
design
of
the
Secular
Magistracy
,
and
great
multitudes
of
poor
are
said
to
have
been
maintained
on
the
Church
account
in
the
time
of
Pope
Sixtus
and
S.
Laurence
.
Prudent
.
Perist
.
in
Laurent
.
You
consider
,
3.
The
Suburbicarian
Assemblies
;
I
suppose
you
mean
the
Assemblies
in
the
Suburbs
of
Rome
,
not
those
of
the
Regiones
Suburbicariae
,
(
which
I
believe
you
will
not
doubt
but
that
they
contained
a
number
too
great
for
a
single
Parish
)
and
then
the
former
Answer
will
suffice
,
that
they
who
ordinarily
came
out
of
the
Country
to
the
City
Assemblies
,
were
not
likely
to
scruple
coming
to
them
from
the
Suburbs
,
if
their
numbers
might
be
entertained
in
one
place
with
convenience
.
4.
You
say
,
many
Presbyters
used
still
to
be
with
the
Bishop
in
the
same
Assembly
.
If
you
mean
it
on
solemn
occasions
of
great
concernment
for
the
Government
of
the
Church
,
I
confess
it
;
but
you
cannot
thence
infer
,
that
they
being
deducted
few
would
remain
for
Parochial
Cures
,
being
those
being
but
rare
,
they
might
all
be
spared
from
their
Parochial
Affairs
.
But
if
you
think
,
that
in
all
ordinary
Synaxes
such
a
number
of
them
were
obliged
to
a
personal
attendance
on
him
,
as
must
distract
them
from
their
other
Imployments
;
I
believe
you
have
no
ground
to
think
so
.
In
the
Form
of
their
Offices
by
S.
Justin
Martyr
you
find
no
mention
but
of
the
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
and
the
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
a
sign
that
there
was
no
part
of
the
Office
obliging
Presbyters
to
be
present
.
5.
You
observe
,
that
here
were
in
all
but
seven
Deacons
.
But
this
is
no
argument
to
conclude
the
paucity
of
Believers
;
for
it
was
an
Opinion
taken
up
in
that
Age
,
from
that
unsecure
principle
of
making
Apostolical
Practice
even
in
Ecclesiasticals
obligatory
,
that
no
Church
,
how
great
soever
,
must
have
any
more
than
seven
,
because
there
were
no
more
in
the
Church
of
Jerusalem
at
their
first
Institution
.
The
words
of
the
Neocaesarean
Canon
are
plain
;
Can.
14.
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
.
And
that
this
number
was
not
casually
taken
up
in
the
Church
of
Rome
,
Conc.
Neocaesar
.
but
upon
some
such
designed
account
,
Pseudo-Euarist
.
ep.
1.
may
very
probably
be
conjectured
because
we
find
it
observed
in
S.
Laurence
his
time
,
who
being
Archdeacon
of
Rome
is
called
Primus
è
septem
viris
qui
stant
ad
aram
proximi
,
Perist
.
ubi
supra
.
&c.
by
Prudentius
.
And
you
will
accordingly
find
constantly
in
the
Author
of
the
Pontifical
,
the
number
of
Deacons
ordained
by
every
Bishop
of
Rome
to
be
less
than
of
Presbyters
;
and
this
comparative
paucity
of
Deacons
in
respect
of
Presbyters
was
accounted
by
S.
Hierom
an
occasion
of
the
Deacons
presumption
,
in
his
Epist.
85.
ad
Euagr.
And
if
the
form
of
Christs
appearing
in
the
Revelations
,
be
taken
from
the
Bishops
sitting
in
the
Church
(
as
if
I
be
not
mistaken
the
most
learned
and
judicious
Mr.
Thorndike
thinks
it
is
)
then
as
the
24
Elders
may
allude
to
the
Christian
Presbyteries
,
derived
from
the
lesser
Sanhedrims
of
the
Jews
consisting
of
24
;
Vid.
Orig.
tract.
24.
in
Matth.
so
the
seven
ministring
Spirits
may
in
conformity
to
the
septenary
number
of
Angels
,
so
famous
among
the
Jews
,
(
as
Mr.
Mede
proves
professedly
)
which
are
called
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
by
the
Apostle
,
Heb.
1.
allude
to
the
septenary
number
of
Deacons
,
which
were
always
attending
on
the
Bishop
,
in
a
readiness
to
execute
his
commands
,
as
the
Angels
are
supposed
by
the
Jews
to
do
on
God
himself
.
Nor
need
you
wonder
that
so
small
a
number
of
Deacons
might
be
conceived
sufficient
to
answer
so
great
a
proportion
of
Presbyters
,
considering
that
their
special
Office
was
to
distribute
the
Alms
of
the
Church
to
such
as
were
maintained
on
publick
charity
,
and
to
attend
more
immediately
on
the
Bishops
person
,
as
ordinary
Executioners
of
his
commands
.
For
I
believe
you
will
never
find
that
they
performed
any
service
to
Presbyters
acting
separately
from
their
Bishop
.
And
certainly
for
distribution
of
Alms
,
and
personal
attendance
on
the
Bishop
,
as
small
a
number
as
seven
might
be
sufficient
in
a
great
City
.
6.
You
say
,
§
LVIII
That
many
then
were
Presbyters
that
used
not
to
preach
,
but
for
privater
oversight
,
and
as
the
Bishops
Assessors
.
This
,
though
for
my
part
I
conceive
it
very
true
,
seems
strange
to
me
to
proceed
from
a
person
of
your
principles
,
who
usually
teach
publick
preaching
in
Ecclesiastical
Assemblies
to
be
the
indispensible
duty
of
every
particular
Gospel
Minister
,
by
which
name
they
include
,
if
they
do
not
onely
mean
,
Priests
.
But
supposing
it
true
as
I
believe
it
was
,
that
there
were
several
Priests
who
did
not
preach
;
yet
will
not
this
diminish
the
multitude
of
Parishes
,
as
you
seem
to
conceive
.
For
I
believe
you
cannot
prove
that
publick
preaching
was
then
accounted
an
ordinary
parochial
imployment
.
And
though
it
were
not
,
yet
there
were
others
equivalent
sufficient
to
take
up
the
time
and
pains
bestowed
on
it
now
,
with
equal
edification
;
such
were
visiting
,
communicating
,
exhorting
,
persuading
,
resolving
cases
of
conscience
,
and
satisfying
themselves
concerning
the
lives
of
penitents
,
for
discerning
who
were
fit
or
unfit
for
their
communion
;
all
those
Offices
which
were
performed
out
of
their
publick
Synaxes
,
and
all
that
were
performed
in
them
besides
preaching
,
that
is
,
their
ordinary
prayers
,
their
hymni
antelucani
,
their
reading
of
the
Scriptures
,
their
catechizings
,
their
general
Exhortations
pro
re
nata
not
designed
and
solemn
,
their
collections
and
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
.
So
that
though
there
had
not
been
so
many
Preachers
,
in
our
modern
notion
of
the
word
,
yet
there
might
have
been
as
many
Parochial
Priests
as
Titles
or
Parishes
.
7.
YOU
say
,
§
LIX
.
That
the
poorer
sort
most
commonly
received
the
Gospel
.
If
your
meaning
herein
be
to
conclude
,
that
the
1500
poor
were
the
most
considerable
part
of
Believers
,
that
you
might
conclude
the
whole
number
of
Converts
to
have
been
small
;
you
should
have
remembered
what
poor
they
were
,
such
as
were
maintained
on
the
publick
charity
,
that
is
,
such
as
were
not
onely
poor
but
impotent
,
unable
to
get
their
livings
otherwise
.
And
sure
you
cannot
but
think
,
that
the
multitude
of
other
Believers
upon
whose
charity
they
were
maintained
,
especially
if
poor
themselves
,
(
though
able
to
earn
a
livelyhood
)
as
you
seem
to
suppose
,
must
have
been
great
,
especially
considering
the
other
expenses
of
their
charity
on
the
Clergie
,
on
the
Martyrs
and
Confessors
,
on
their
hospitality
to
strangers
,
&c.
all
which
may
be
sufficient
presumptions
that
these
1500
poor
did
not
in
any
probability
bear
any
considerable
proportion
to
the
multitudes
of
the
Roman
Church
by
whom
they
were
maintained
.
And
I
believe
in
few
Cities
in
our
Kings
Dominions
,
if
any
,
will
be
found
so
great
a
number
of
poor
,
who
by
reason
of
impotency
are
thought
by
the
Magistrates
fit
objects
of
the
publick
charity
,
even
in
these
our
Ages
,
wherein
all
are
supposed
Professors
of
Christianity
.
8.
You
say
,
§
LX.
That
none
of
these
but
the
46
Presbyters
had
any
power
in
the
discipline
.
If
you
mean
a
decretory
power
in
the
sense
I
have
explained
it
,
then
I
think
I
have
proved
that
the
45
Presbyters
themselves
had
it
not
,
but
the
Bishop
alone
.
But
you
can
thence
no
more
conclude
the
paucity
of
Believers
in
one
of
the
Dioceses
of
those
times
,
than
in
any
one
of
ours
now
,
when
it
is
plain
that
the
Bishop
himself
has
monopolized
it
,
as
your self
complain
.
But
if
you
mean
an
executive
or
even
a
consultory
power
of
giving
consent
or
advice
in
affairs
of
discipline
,
to
be
decreed
by
the
Bishop
;
that
was
so
far
from
being
confined
to
the
Presbyters
,
as
that
it
was
communicated
to
the
Deacons
,
nay
to
the
common
people
themselves
.
This
might
easily
have
been
cleared
from
Cornelius
his
Contemporary
S.
Cyprian
,
(
from
whom
we
have
the
clearest
account
of
the
discipline
of
that
Age
)
if
I
had
not
been
unwilling
to
be
more
tedeous
than
needs
I
must
;
and
because
upon
reflection
I
believe
your self
will
acknowledge
it
,
and
because
it
is
usually
undertaken
by
Presbyterian
,
but
especially
Independent
,
Authors
.
Indeed
there
were
some
privileges
of
the
Presbyters
,
that
they
onely
sate
in
the
Bishops
presence
,
as
S.
Hierom
tells
us
,
besides
other
distinctions
in
Synaxes
.
But
it
is
sufficient
for
my
purpose
that
the
execution
of
discipline
,
which
is
the
main
thing
which
necessarily
requires
plurality
,
was
managed
by
all
;
and
that
for
counsel
here
was
a
number
exceeding
the
Councils
of
several
Princes
of
Dominions
larger
than
any
Dioceses
.
But
,
§
LXI
.
9.
You
say
,
That
by
all
this
reckoning
the
whole
Church
maintained
not
(
besides
the
Officers
)
near
1000
poor
,
we
may
probably
conjecture
that
the
whole
Church
of
that
Bish.
was
not
bigger
than
some
one
London
Parish
,
(
Stepney
,
S.
Giles
Cripplegate
)
where
are
about
50000
Souls
.
But
,
1.
You
are
mistaken
in
your
account
:
For
,
1.
The
number
of
the
poor
besides
the
Officers
were
not
near
1000
onely
,
but
1500
;
for
the
Officers
are
not
included
in
that
number
,
as
you
suppose
.
2.
That
number
of
poor
maintained
on
the
publick
charity
,
does
imply
a
greater
number
than
you
suppose
For
consider
,
1.
That
no
poor
were
reckoned
in
that
number
,
but
such
as
were
unable
to
earn
a
livelyhood
for
themselves
,
according
to
S.
Pauls
Rule
already
mentioned
.
Consider
,
2.
That
even
of
those
impotent
poor
none
were
to
be
charged
on
the
Church
that
had
believing
Friends
able
to
maintain
them
,
according
to
another
Rule
of
the
same
S.
Paul
,
1
Tim.
5.
4
,
8.
by
which
means
none
were
likely
to
have
been
maintained
by
the
Church
,
but
such
as
might
have
been
starved
if
they
had
not
been
so
relieved
.
Now
considering
that
,
according
to
Captain
Graunts
Calculation
of
229250
in
London
,
not
above
51
were
starved
,
which
he
reckons
as
the
4000th
.
part
,
but
with
too
great
latitude
,
for
it
is
indeed
the
4495th
.
part
,
besides
a
Fraction
of
5
,
or
thereabouts
,
if
his
Numbers
be
rightly
printed
;
let
1500
be
multiplied
by
4495
,
and
the
summ
will
be
6742500
;
or
if
it
be
multiplied
by
his
own
proportion
of
4000
,
it
will
amount
to
6000000
,
a
summ
too
great
for
the
City
.
And
by
all
deductions
that
may
be
made
,
for
the
unkindness
of
some
Christian
Friends
,
and
of
most
Heathen
,
that
would
leave
many
destitute
of
their
help
,
for
no
other
reason
than
their
being
Christians
;
and
of
others
that
were
maintained
by
the
Church
,
not
for
want
of
callings
,
but
of
lawful
ones
,
as
the
Stage-player
in
S.
Cyprian
;
and
the
remisness
of
some
Officers
of
those
many
entrusted
in
this
affair
,
who
either
might
have
not
used
their
utmost
diligence
in
informing
themselves
of
the
poverty
and
helplesness
of
the
persons
admitted
by
them
,
or
might
have
failed
of
the
success
,
and
being
misinformed
after
all
humane
diligence
,
and
have
had
persons
sufficient
either
in
themselves
,
or
by
help
of
their
Friends
,
obtruded
on
them
;
or
all
other
failings
imaginable
,
(
for
I
confess
moral
affairs
are
not
to
be
estimated
by
Mathematical
measures
;
)
yet
it
will
be
hard
after
all
to
bring
the
summ
so
low
as
460000
,
which
Captain
Graunt
conceives
to
be
the
whole
number
of
Inhabitants
in
London
,
much
more
to
reduce
it
to
the
limits
of
the
greatest
Parish
mentioned
by
you
.
But
,
2.
If
you
had
indeed
computed
right
,
and
the
number
had
been
no
greater
than
of
one
of
those
great
Parishes
you
speak
of
;
yet
why
should
not
the
numbers
of
people
here
mentioned
be
thought
sufficient
for
a
Diocese
even
in
our
modern
sense
?
For
I
doubt
there
are
no
Cities
in
the
Kings
Dominions
that
have
Episcopal
Sees
,
that
have
50000
Inhabitants
,
except
London
.
Ours
of
Dublin
,
which
is
thought
by
most
that
have
seen
it
,
to
be
second
to
London
for
greatness
and
populousness
,
is
by
a
Bill
of
Mortality
,
and
an
account
of
the
Poll-money
sent
to
Captain
Graunt
,
estimated
to
contain
onely
30000
,
or
thereabouts
,
(
though
I
can
hardly
believe
that
to
be
our
full
number
;
)
according
to
which
estimation
the
Parishes
you
speak
of
will
exceed
us
by
two
thirds
more
;
and
so
I
believe
they
will
equal
our
whole
Diocese
;
for
I
believe
the
rest
of
it
put
together
can
hardly
exceed
the
proportion
of
two
third
parts
to
the
City
.
And
can
you
think
the
same
number
in
a
Parish
governable
by
the
single
unassisted
abilities
of
a
single
Parish
Minister
,
and
not
think
it
so
by
a
Bishop
seconded
by
his
Presbytery
,
Dignitaries
,
and
Parochial
Curates
.
Or
,
if
the
case
of
preserving
discipline
be
harder
in
such
a
Parish
than
such
a
Diocese
,
(
as
certainly
upon
the
accounts
now
mentioned
it
needs
must
be
;
)
then
I
pray
consider
what
equality
is
it
to
communicate
with
our
Parishes
indiscriminately
,
(
such
great
ones
themselves
not
being
excepted
;
)
and
yet
to
separate
as
indiscriminately
from
our
Diocesan
Communion
,
even
of
such
as
exceed
not
those
greater
Parishes
in
the
numbers
of
their
people
,
though
they
do
in
numbers
of
their
Governours
.
And
if
you
think
that
as
many
may
meet
in
one
place
,
as
may
make
up
our
ordinary
present
Dioceses
,
(
as
you
must
do
if
they
may
be
conveniently
included
in
a
Parish
;
)
then
how
can
you
conclude
the
less
populousness
of
the
ancient
than
our
modern
Dioceses
,
from
that
very
Topick
of
their
meeting
in
one
place
?
For
my
part
I
verily
believe
that
it
is
by
accident
,
not
designedly
,
that
those
Parishes
have
so
vastly
exceeded
their
ordinary
proportion
,
merely
from
the
encrease
of
the
trade
of
the
City
in
those
parts
,
which
were
more
thinly
inhabited
when
the
Parishes
were
first
distributed
,
as
you
may
easily
conjecture
from
the
disproportion
,
some
of
them
exceeding
other
Parishes
in
your
City
an
hundredfold
,
as
is
observed
by
Captain
Graunt
,
which
is
more
than
there
are
Parishes
in
some
of
our
Dioceses
;
and
from
the
disproportion
of
their
ancient
Churches
,
when
they
were
designed
Parishes
,
with
their
present
multitudes
,
and
their
equality
with
those
other
Parish
Churches
,
whose
present
Parishioners
are
so
extremely
unequal
,
and
that
these
vast
Parishes
are
generally
in
the
Suburbs
,
where
the
City
was
very
likely
to
encrease
.
And
therefore
seeing
the
greatness
of
those
Parishes
seem
never
yet
to
have
been
approved
,
though
they
were
not
yet
amended
;
you
cannot
thence
conjecture
,
what
has
certainly
appeared
false
as
to
matter
of
fact
,
that
the
Roman
Christians
were
no
more
than
one
Parish
,
under
the
personal
and
immediate
care
of
their
Bishop
.
10.
You
say
,
§
LXII
.
When
none
were
Christians
but
persecuted
Voluntiers
,
they
were
the
holiest
and
best
of
men
,
and
you
have
tried
that
600
such
make
less
work
for
discipline
,
than
10
of
the
Rabble
that
are
driven
into
our
Churches
,
and
choose
them
rather
than
the
Gaol
.
Upon
account
of
which
conceived
disparity
,
I
presume
your
meaning
is
to
conclude
,
that
one
Bishop
might
rule
a
greater
number
than
now
,
and
therefore
though
Diocesan
Churches
might
indeed
have
been
rulable
by
one
Bishop
then
,
yet
we
are
not
thence
to
conclude
that
it
may
be
so
now
.
But
I
have
already
shewn
that
Government
must
not
be
proportioned
onely
to
the
good
humours
of
men
,
but
must
be
able
to
prevent
and
reform
those
lapses
to
which
men
easily
and
naturally
degenerate
,
and
therefore
that
there
must
have
been
the
same
power
in
Governours
then
as
now
,
though
there
was
not
the
same
necessity
of
its
actual
exercise
.
And
that
the
Bishops
power
was
not
onely
over
orderly
Converts
,
but
over
lapsed
criminals
,
who
had
then
more
temptations
to
fall
,
and
being
so
to
behave
themselves
refractorily
against
the
discipline
of
their
Church
,
when
their
lapses
were
countenanced
,
than
now
when
they
are
discouraged
by
the
Civil
Magistrate
;
and
over
the
Heathens
who
were
to
be
converted
and
severely
disciplined
for
the
trial
of
their
veracity
,
and
securing
them
from
a
relapse
.
And
if
you
find
it
so
hard
a
matter
now
to
persuade
such
as
know
their
duty
,
and
acknowledge
their
reasonableness
,
and
have
a
reverence
of
such
persuaders
and
persuasions
,
instilled
in
them
by
the
principles
of
their
Christian
Education
,
to
the
practice
of
what
they
cannot
deny
themselves
obliged
to
;
certainly
the
difficulty
of
reclaiming
Heathens
must
have
been
much
greater
,
who
were
as
debauched
in
their
lives
as
ours
now
,
and
less
disposed
for
correction
,
in
all
the
regards
now
mentioned
than
vicious
Christians
,
nay
contrarily
prejudiced
,
not
onely
by
practical
but
dogmatical
prejudices
against
the
wisest
and
most
rational
exhortations
,
as
proceeding
from
the
mouth
of
a
Christian
,
of
whom
they
had
conceived
so
unworthy
an
opinion
,
by
reason
of
the
slanders
raised
against
them
then
so
commonly
believed
.
BUT
when
all
is
done
(
you
say
)
two
Cities
under
the
power
of
great
temptations
,
§
LXIII
are
not
to
be
our
rule
against
Gods
word
,
and
the
state
of
all
other
Churches
in
the
world
,
and
undeniable
experience
.
So
that
it
seems
you
are
at
last
diffident
of
your
Exceptions
against
those
two
instances
,
and
yet
unwilling
to
yield
though
you
should
be
convinced
of
their
weakness
.
Indeed
if
what
you
pretend
were
true
,
that
they
were
against
Gods
word
,
&c.
I
should
confess
so
great
evidence
sufficient
to
reject
them
.
But
it
is
certainly
otherwise
,
and
I
believe
you
cannot
give
an
instance
of
a
Parochial
Church
in
the
sense
we
now
understand
it
;
for
such
a
multitude
of
Believers
as
were
governable
by
a
single
Presbyter
alone
,
either
in
the
Scriptures
,
or
in
any
other
Church
in
the
world
,
(
excepting
those
two
so
much
decried
by
you
)
for
the
first
three
Centuries
,
so
far
you
are
from
proving
what
you
seem
to
design
,
that
Bishops
ought
to
be
multiplied
in
proportion
to
them
.
Your
volume
of
proof
from
Antiquity
of
one
Altar
and
one
Bishop
in
one
Church
will
not
do
it
;
for
I
have
already
shewn
that
Church
to
be
the
Church
of
a
whole
City
how
great
soever
,
and
therefore
to
have
been
Diocesan
not
Parochial
.
And
for
the
Argument
from
Experience
,
though
it
will
hold
well
enough
as
I
have
managed
it
,
that
discipline
has
once
been
preserved
under
a
Diocesan
Government
,
therefore
it
may
be
so
again
;
yet
not
vice
versâ
as
you
do
,
discipline
is
not
observed
,
(
for
this
is
all
the
undeniable
experience
you
so
much
insist
on
)
therefore
it
cannot
.
MY
instance
of
Ulphilas
Bishop
of
the
whole
Nation
of
the
Goths
,
§
LXIV
which
sure
were
greater
than
one
Parish
,
you
seem
to
deny
,
when
you
say
he
was
Bishop
onely
of
a
few
Goths
,
who
were
presently
presecuted
to
the
death
by
Athanarichus
,
(
ut
Socrat.
l.
4.
c.
32.
)
which
few
you
say
I
may
call
a
Kingdom
if
I
please
.
But
the
number
were
not
so
small
as
you
suppose
;
for
they
were
converted
long
before
they
were
persuaded
to
the
Arrian
Communion
,
which
was
no
sooner
than
the
time
of
Valens
,
when
Eudoxius
prevailed
with
Ulphilas
to
bring
them
to
it
.
For
they
were
vanquished
by
Constantine
,
Soc.
l.
1.
c.
18.
and
by
admiration
of
his
success
against
themselves
were
drawn
to
embrace
his
Religion
,
to
which
they
imputed
his
victories
so
strange
beyond
their
expectation
;
and
accordingly
had
a
former
Bishop
in
their
Nation
one
Theophilus
before
Ulphilas
,
Ib.
l.
11.
c.
41.
so
that
though
even
at
the
first
the
Nation
,
that
is
,
at
least
the
generality
of
them
were
converted
to
Christianity
;
yet
before
the
time
you
speak
of
they
had
a
considerable
time
to
allow
for
further
propagation
.
And
accordingly
when
Vlphilas
was
brought
over
to
the
Arrians
,
he
is
said
to
have
separated
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
Sozom.
l.
6.
c.
37.
(
an
expression
certainly
as
comprehensive
as
that
I
used
of
a
Kingdom
)
from
the
Communion
of
the
Catholick
Church
.
For
his
Authority
is
described
to
have
been
so
great
with
the
Goths
,
as
that
they
took
his
words
for
irrefragable
Laws
,
Theod.
l.
4.
c.
37.
and
yet
certainly
was
not
so
great
with
any
but
converted
Christians
.
Sozom.
l.
6.
c.
37.
But
you
say
,
They
were
presently
persecuted
to
the
death
by
Athanaricus
.
If
you
mean
this
as
an
Argument
that
they
were
few
,
because
they
were
presently
extirpated
by
persecution
,
you
are
certainly
mistaken
.
For
Athanaricus
his
storm
lasted
not
long
,
but
upon
Phritigernes
his
return
,
Socr.
Hist.
who
by
the
assistance
of
the
Romans
prevailed
against
them
,
Eccl.
4.
33
the
Christian
Religion
again
returned
,
Soz.
4.
37.
and
was
countenanced
and
so
far
advanced
,
as
that
in
their
Invasions
of
the
Roman
Empire
afterwards
in
Honorius
his
time
ther
Army
was
generally
Christian
,
which
could
not
have
probably
been
,
if
they
had
been
extirpated
by
Athanaricus
.
But
you
say
,
That
Ulphilas
was
an
Arian
.
But
,
1.
If
he
had
been
so
,
yet
that
cannot
weaken
his
Authority
in
our
present
case
,
both
because
this
practice
of
a
Nations
having
but
one
Bishop
,
is
never
reckoned
by
the
Haeresiographers
as
a
point
of
Arianism
,
no
nor
as
a
singularity
of
the
Arians
themselves
upon
personal
accounts
.
Nay
,
my
other
instances
of
Tiramentus
and
Moses
were
both
Catholicks
;
nay
,
the
Goths
themselves
whilest
Catholicks
had
the
same
form
of
Government
that
is
,
till
Ulphilas
was
wrought
on
by
Eudoxius
.
Till
that
time
not
onely
his
Predecessor
Theophilus
,
but
himself
maintained
the
Nicene
Faith
in
opposition
to
the
Arian
Communion
,
and
yet
in
all
likelyhood
they
were
not
much
less
numerous
when
Catholicks
than
when
Arians
;
for
the
whole
Nation
which
is
said
by
him
to
have
been
reconciled
to
the
Arian
Communion
,
were
in
all
likelyhood
none
but
Christians
,
and
therefore
Catholicks
,
seeing
they
seem
at
that
time
to
have
been
unanimous
.
But
,
2.
It
does
not
appear
that
he
was
a
real
Arian
.
I
confess
he
did
communicate
with
the
Arians
,
and
that
not
onely
with
the
more
moderate
Homousians
,
but
also
with
those
who
owned
Christ
to
be
a
creature
,
and
by
degrees
from
communicating
with
the
Arians
the
Goths
afterwards
used
the
Arian
Forms
of
speaking
,
and
from
them
proceeded
to
embrace
much
of
their
Opinion
,
and
so
at
length
alienated
themselves
from
the
Catholick
Communion
,
as
appears
in
their
later
persecutions
of
the
Catholicks
in
Italy
and
Africa
.
But
at
first
the
very
reason
that
prevailed
with
Ulphilas
was
,
that
Eudoxius
pretended
the
difference
betwixt
themselves
and
the
Catholicks
to
be
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
Theod.
ubi
suprae
.
as
Theodoret
shews
,
and
Sozomen
censures
his
proceeding
herein
as
done
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
as
inconsiderate
rather
than
out
of
any
ill
design
.
And
there
were
other
deceits
as
disingenuous
as
this
used
by
the
Arians
,
to
draw
such
to
their
Communion
who
were
known
really
to
retain
the
Nicene
Faith
.
You
know
how
the
greatest
part
of
the
Latine
Fathers
were
imposed
on
in
the
Council
of
Ariminum
by
Valens
and
Ursacius
,
who
read
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
instead
of
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
in
the
Nicene
Creed
,
and
how
a
Confession
of
their
Faith
was
drawn
up
by
them
at
Nice
in
Thrace
,
and
imposed
on
the
Catholicks
under
the
name
of
the
famous
Nicene
Creed
of
Bithynia
.
So
that
there
were
two
reasons
that
in
those
Ages
prevailed
with
some
Catholicks
to
communicate
with
the
Arians
;
one
that
the
first
quarrel
betwixt
Alexander
and
Arius
was
thought
onely
personal
,
not
on
account
of
any
real
difference
,
at
least
that
that
betwixt
the
later
Arians
and
the
Catholicks
was
so
;
another
was
that
,
if
there
was
any
real
difference
,
yet
it
was
rather
in
expressions
mutually
misunderstood
,
than
in
things
,
or
at
least
in
things
not
conceived
sufficiently
momentous
to
divide
Communion
.
As
therefore
you
woud
not
I
believe
in
your
own
practice
have
it
concluded
,
that
you
are
an
Independent
or
Prelatist
,
because
you
are
for
communicating
with
such
as
are
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
,
Of
this
kind
of
Dispensation
even
in
matters
of
faith
see
Examples
of
S.
Greg.
Naz.
S.
Basil
,
Maximus
in
Petr.
de
Marc.
l.
3.
de
concord
.
Sacr.
&
Imper.
c.
13.
sect.
10
,
11.
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
,
§
LXV
.
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
.
Socr.
l.
1.
c.
19.
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
.
Soz.
l.
11.
c.
24.
Sozomen
says
,
that
he
did
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
in
the
Plural
Number
;
Theod.
l.
1.
c.
23.
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
,
Soz.
l.
4.
c.
38.
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
.
Theodoret
is
indeed
indefinite
,
Theod.
l.
4.
c.
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
.
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
,
§
LXVI
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
,
§
LXVII
.
It
's
strange
that
we
that
have
eyes
and
ears
must
be
sent
to
the
Persians
(
you
mean
the
Indians
)
and
ancient
History
,
to
know
whether
one
Bishop
can
hear
,
and
try
,
and
admonish
so
many
thousands
at
once
,
as
we
see
by
experience
are
those
objects
of
discipline
,
which
the
Scripture
describeth
;
and
when
we
see
that
it
is
not
done
.
But
all
this
need
not
have
been
thought
so
strange
,
if
you
had
remembred
the
true
state
of
the
question
;
that
it
was
not
whether
discipline
were
actually
maintained
by
our
Diocesan
Government
?
but
whether
it
could
not
possibly
be
maintained
under
it
?
and
that
it
does
no
way
follow
that
it
cannot
because
it
is
not
.
That
although
this
argument
ab
actu
ad
potentiam
negativè
(
which
is
yours
)
do
not
hold
,
yet
mine
which
proceeds
affirmatively
will
,
That
discipline
has
actually
been
maintained
under
a
Diocesan
Government
,
therefore
it
is
still
possible
to
be
maintained
under
it
.
That
for
concluding
this
possibility
it
is
not
requisite
that
it
must
be
maintained
in
all
times
and
places
,
but
it
is
sufficient
that
it
was
in
any
,
and
that
sure
may
be
proved
as
well
by
ancient
and
exotick
Histories
,
as
by
those
which
are
modern
and
of
our
own
Country
.
And
for
shewing
the
possibility
,
I
have
already
proved
,
that
so
many
thousands
may
as
well
be
disciplined
by
one
Ecclesiastical
as
one
Secular
Monarch
.
That
of
those
many
thousand
objects
of
discipline
you
conceive
described
in
the
Scripture
,
many
are
onely
Objects
of
private
cognizance
,
which
is
not
denied
to
ordinary
Parish
Ministers
.
That
they
who
are
of
publick
are
not
so
extremely
numerous
,
or
if
they
were
,
they
may
be
dealt
with
as
in
Seculars
,
some
punished
in
terrorem
,
and
others
equally
guilty
permitted
to
escape
without
any
great
charge
of
partiality
,
than
what
is
ordinarily
thought
equitable
in
great
multitudes
by
secular
persons
.
And
that
of
those
which
remain
,
it
is
not
so
requisite
that
all
be
tried
at
once
,
and
that
one
must
hinder
the
procedure
against
the
other
.
But
after
all
this
you
say
,
We
have
talked
but
of
a
Phantasm
;
for
it
is
not
one
Bishop
but
one
Layman
,
a
Chancellour
,
that
useth
this
decretory
power
of
the
Keys
,
&c.
and
that
the
Bishop
rarely
meddleth
with
it
.
Still
you
forget
that
I
did
in
my
former
Letter
expresly
decline
this
Controversie
,
and
intimated
that
our
present
question
was
not
concerning
the
decorum
of
the
person
,
but
the
possibility
of
discipline
under
him
;
(
and
sure
you
will
not
deny
that
a
Laymans
abilities
for
Government
may
be
as
great
as
a
Clergie-mans
,
whence
it
will
follow
,
that
discipline
may
as
well
be
preserved
under
him
;
)
that
our
question
was
concerning
Diocesan
Government
as
such
,
that
is
,
as
including
under
it
the
Cures
of
several
Presbyters
,
to
which
this
office
of
Laychancellour
is
accidental
.
The
business
of
the
Covenant
I
am
unwilling
to
engage
in
,
because
I
do
not
know
whether
it
can
be
done
conveniently
without
offence
.
Your
Explication
of
my
Information
concerning
the
words
[
consent
to
the
use
,
&c.
]
in
the
Act
for
Uniformity
,
I
verily
believe
to
be
true
,
both
because
you
say
it
,
and
because
it
doth
not
deny
,
but
onely
give
a
further
account
of
some
passages
not
mentioned
by
my
worthy
Author
;
and
because
the
word
[
use
]
is
omitted
in
the
Form
it self
,
though
mentioned
immediately
before
.
What
the
Reasons
were
that
were
urged
by
the
House
of
Commons
for
proving
them
intolerable
I
know
not
,
nor
have
been
informed
by
you
;
yet
I
could
conjecture
several
that
were
very
apposite
and
expedient
,
notwithstanding
they
might
not
intend
to
oblige
to
an
internal
assent
,
in
case
exteriour
peaceable
acquiescency
,
as
it
is
usually
understood
by
Conformists
themselves
;
and
that
they
did
not
intend
to
exclude
peaceable
Conformists
,
though
otherwise
not
satisfied
of
the
expedience
of
every
single
Imposition
,
seems
very
credible
,
because
there
is
not
the
least
intimation
of
so
rigid
an
exposition
as
that
is
which
is
mentioned
by
you
,
That
you
must
never
endeavour
any
alteration
,
no
not
by
a
request
or
word
.
All
that
is
desired
is
,
that
you
would
not
,
while
you
are
a
private
person
,
endeavour
any
further
than
by
request
and
words
;
(
as
indeed
you
cannot
lawfully
and
justly
do
without
encroaching
on
the
offices
of
others
,
which
cannot
be
excused
by
the
conceived
justice
of
your
cause
.
)
That
you
would
give
leave
,
when
all
is
done
,
to
the
persons
requested
by
you
to
judge
of
the
reasonableness
of
your
requests
,
not
obliging
them
to
act
by
yours
but
their
own
consciences
,
which
when
all
is
done
must
be
the
measure
of
their
own
proceedings
.
That
in
case
of
their
dissent
from
you
,
you
neither
raise
parties
against
them
,
nor
encourage
them
that
do
by
communicating
with
them
.
That
you
would
in
such
a
case
not
easily
conclude
the
error
to
be
in
your
Superiours
,
considering
that
your
self
are
at
least
as
fallible
as
they
;
or
if
you
did
indeed
think
the
cause
so
evident
,
as
might
justly
warrant
your
dissent
,
(
as
I
confess
thet
there
are
some
degrees
of
evidence
to
private
persons
sufficient
to
countervail
any
authority
whatsoever
)
yet
that
you
would
use
no
other
means
for
prevailing
against
the
conceived
prejudices
of
Governours
,
than
such
as
would
become
the
modesty
of
a
private
person
,
powerful
persuasions
and
hearty
prayers
.
That
even
in
such
cases
they
would
give
active
obedience
in
things
not
sinful
,
and
passive
in
such
as
were
.
This
behaviour
would
salve
the
difficulties
on
both
sides
,
would
both
preserve
the
peace
of
the
Church
,
and
the
peace
of
a
Dissenters
conscience
,
if
invincibly
persuaded
;
would
minister
more
comfort
to
him
,
and
satisfie
him
of
his
own
sincerity
in
designing
the
glory
of
God
,
when
there
were
less
suspicions
of
any
ends
of
his
own
;
and
his
sufferings
for
the
peace
of
the
Church
would
be
as
glorious
and
rewardable
,
if
we
may
believe
S.
Cyprian
,
as
if
they
were
for
the
faith
of
the
Church
.
IF
I
had
been
dealing
with
a
person
less
zealous
and
industrious
for
this
peace
than
you
have
approved
your self
by
publick
Monuments
,
§
LXVIII
it
had
here
been
seasonable
to
have
conjured
you
by
all
that
is
or
can
be
dear
to
a
Lover
of
God
,
or
of
the
honour
of
Religion
;
by
all
your
sacred
or
civil
Interests
,
by
your
respects
either
to
the
Church
or
Country
of
your
birth
and
education
,
which
are
not
more
prejudiced
by
any
thing
than
our
Ecclesiastical
Divisions
;
that
you
would
be
pleased
to
lay
out
those
great
Talents
of
Parts
and
Interest
in
the
Peoples
Affections
,
wherewith
God
has
so
abundantly
enriched
you
,
on
the
reconciliation
of
the
people
with
themselves
and
with
their
Governours
,
(
I
am
confident
you
would
find
that
a
more
effectual
course
of
promoting
discipline
,
for
which
you
are
so
zealous
,
than
the
unsettlement
of
the
present
and
forcible
Establishment
of
another
Form
of
Government
as
much
maligned
as
this
when
it
has
prevailed
,
and
has
attempted
the
execution
of
discipline
.
)
That
you
would
consider
it
as
your
greatest
security
,
to
be
inquisitor
and
wary
in
a
cause
of
so
dangerous
consequence
,
if
you
should
prove
mistaken
,
and
your
greatest
honour
to
yield
to
truth
,
and
to
relinquish
any
opinions
,
how
long
maintained
,
or
how
dear
soever
,
when
they
shall
appear
to
be
erroneous
.
That
you
would
be
pleased
in
order
thereunto
,
to
consider
impartially
what
I
confess
has
here
been
weakly
represented
,
not
as
an
adversary
to
my
cause
;
but
as
a
diligent
enquirer
after
truth
,
where
ever
it
may
be
found
,
as
our
most
serious
common
interest
.
That
therefore
you
would
excuse
my
failings
in
the
impropriety
of
words
,
and
correct
those
that
may
be
found
in
the
disadvantage
of
my
management
,
and
consider
all
not
according
to
the
unskilfulness
of
my
proposal
,
but
the
nature
,
strength
,
and
evidence
of
the
Arguments
themselves
,
as
discoverable
in
order
to
your
own
satisfaction
,
by
your
own
more
discerning
judgment
.
That
you
would
beware
of
precipitancy
in
resolving
,
and
of
tenaciousness
in
maintaining
unsufficiently
grounded
resolutions
,
in
a
question
of
so
great
consequence
for
catholick
peace
.
These
(
I
say
)
and
the
like
Topicks
might
have
been
urged
and
insisted
on
to
another
,
that
had
been
less
skilful
or
sincere
;
but
to
you
I
believe
it
is
sufficient
to
have
intimated
them
,
rather
as
warnings
what
you
may
avoid
,
than
as
instructions
in
what
you
need
to
be
informed
.
I
shall
therefore
recommend
the
whole
success
to
God
,
who
has
often
manifested
strength
out
of
the
mouths
of
babes
and
sucklings
,
and
to
your
own
ingenuous
and
pious
industry
and
favourable
judgment
,
in
an
affair
so
nearly
concerning
the
Churches
peace
,
and
the
good
of
Souls
,
for
which
you
are
deservedly
so
zealous
;
and
conclude
,
onely
desiring
the
continuance
of
your
prayers
(
if
I
have
already
impetrated
any
portion
in
them
)
for
Trin.
Coll.
near
Dublin
,
June
26.
1673.
Your
sincerely
affectionate
Friend
and
Servant
,
HENRY
DODWELL
.