to worship God at Westminster in the same acts of worship is a Schisme from that part of this Church which meet for that end in London § 42. Nor is he helped at all by saying Our Churches are not of the same constitution Doctrine of Schisme 55. which he says was Mr. Cawdrys answer to Dr. Owen let Mr. Cawdry or who will say so Dolus versatur in Generatibus What is the difference did Christ constitute theirs We trust he hath constituted ours that is by the Rules given in his Word Were theirs constituted by Parliament that will be hard to prove as to the first constitution Parishes in England were first made by a Popish Arch-Bishop the Parliament afterwards or Custom rather might confirm them Doth it then make a Schismatick to depart to a Church not established by humane Law or Custom How else are we of another constitution Is not the same Doctrine Preached the same Sacraments administred the same acts of Worship performed Where 's the difference In the Modes Rites and Ceremonies only And these all of humane institution This is that which the Church of God never before called Schisme which the Apostles never thought of Do not we agree in the same Government That concerns us not yet while we are clearing our selves only from a Church which the Author must shew us capable of any such Government as Christ hath appointed intrinsecal to his Church In the mean time as to the National Church of England we deny that we are guilty of any Schisme either in it or from it so that the whole charge must rest upon particular Churches and our pretended separation from them § 43. This is that other Church-state mentioned by Mr. Caudry and quoted by our Author ch 9. p. 57. these he calls Parochial Congregations We are he saith guilty of Schisme from them we all agree that these are capable of the name of Churches 1. As they are lesser parts of the Catholick Church and so capable of the name of the whole thus we were indeed united to them as we were united to the Catholick Church and united still to them as unto that owning the Lord Jesus Christ his Word and Ordinances and professing a subjection to them But this is not the other state he speaks of by which he can mean nothing but a governing state 2. Secondly therefore These Parochial Societies may be considered as perfectly or more imperfectly Organized furnished with all Church-Officers requisite and walking in Gospel order or not so furnished or so walking The Author tells his Reader in a latter Book called Advice to the Conformists and Nonconformists That the sum of what the Author of the short Reflections offered lay in two things the latter of which he delivered thus Our Parochial Churches are no true Churches Advice to Conformists c. p. 72. or at lest they are so faulty as they may be lawfully separated from We have read over the Book and good Reader at thy leisure do but read over that Pamplet the second chapt particularly the 13 14 15. pages and see whether this Author hath or no dealt ingeniously with him p. 14. He speaks of these Societies as parts of the Catholick Churches and saith Short Reflections p. 14. In this Notion we cannot deny that every Parish yea Family of Christians is a true Church But he indeed concludes that out of such particular Churches it must be lawful to gather a Church for all particular Churches in the world are gathered out of the Catholick Visible Church even Heathens when converted must be of the Catholick Visible Church before they can form a particular Church In this state and no other must all Parochial Societies be that have no Minister unless we will have Organical Governing Churches without any Governours which we think is a contradiction P. 15. He takes notice of another Notion of them as Ministerial by which he saith he underst ands a competent number of Christians who have either first chosen or after submitted to A. B. as their Pastor he might indeed have spared this Notion I do not remember I have met with it in any Author but Mr. Rutherford and the truth is if it be a single Minister I do not understand how he Preacheth otherwise to them than as he is so far an Officer of the Catholick Church and they a part of that vast body He considers these people Either as living in the use of all Gospel-Ordinances or as at present living without some Ordinances or having them so unduly administred as may offer just cause of doubt to some Christians whether they may lawfully communicate with them or no He adds we do believe that from such a Church as is furnished with a duely sent able painful Minister regularly administring the Ordinances of Christ so as people may communicate with them without sin and pressing forward to that perfection in order which in all things they have not attained Christians as before united to them may not separate without sin He did not indeed say but I dare say for him he believed there were many such Parochial Societies in England and he hints it when he saith This was that indeed which some Presbyterians reflected upon our Brethren of the Congregational persuasion and these were those Parochial Churches which they contended for as true Churches Was this to say Parochial Societies were no true Churches Reader judge in his 15. page He tells us There is yet a more perfect Notion of a particular Church as perfectly Organical and furnished with all its affairs and walking in all points of Gospel Order He adds such particular Churches were in many Parochial Societies in England and there is no doubt but such Parochial Churches were True Churches from which causeless and unnecessary separation is sinful Indeed he says How far other Parochial Churches were true Churches avowed so by Presbyterians he was yet to learn And his Answer is for any thing I see in his Remarques yet to teach him and I believe will so continue For his guesses at what the Author meant by Perfection of Order He I am sure will tell him he means no more Than a capacity to administer all the Ordinances of Christ proper to a particular Church The Word Sacraments and Censures of Jundical Admonition Suspension and Excommunication which they cannot do till they have Officers I believe it must be a case of Extraordinary necessity must justifie a single Minister in Suspending or Excommunicating but that those that help him must needs be persons not ordained to the Ministry I do not think he believes but that there may be more Ministers if the Parochial Society hath more than one or others chosen by that Church And if any will contend that the body of the people must joyn with him in those acts though he reserves his private judgment in the case yet he will not contend especially as to Excommunication because he understands not to what purpose
endeavouring to oblige me to none but himself I fear always they have no good meaning toward me and I should fear my self that I meant not to deal well with Souls if I went about to stake them to my Ministry I should suspect my self of Pride or Self-interest or some other scurvy Lust or Passion If I think none so able as my self 't is Pride if I would have them to fill my Congregation it is Self-interest If I would save their Souls so may another and possibly be a better instrument for it at least he is more likely if sound in the Faith able and painful because they have a more fancy to him In short I have for some good time been an unworthy Minister of the Gosel I thank God I can say that as I never denyed any Christian desirous to leave me my License to do it so I never had an ill thought of any that did it but said with my self The fewer Souls I have will be under my charge the lesser my account will be And that which much confirm'd me in this was my reading Chrysostom's expressing a fear that but a few Ministers would be saved because their work and charge was so great which if well considered would abate our trouble for the diminution of our Auditory and rather make us rejoyce I have a number not inconsiderable under my charge now and I can say I dearly love them and should think I did not if I should not declare my free leave for them to leave my Ministry and joyn with any other of sound faith and holy life under whom they should think they could profit more than by me and I do think this the duty of every Minister I do not think this is any sinful separation which Schisme doth import § 59. But lastly Supposing such a departing from a Church to which we are united be to be called Separation yet it is not sinful in the judgment of all Divines if it be necessary or if it be not causeless now possibly this may be the case of many I remember in the case of Marriage Divines distinguish between Repudiation and Divorce Divorce they say can only be for Adultery but Repudiation may be lawful and necessary in several other cases in short in all cases where it appears there ought to have been no Union had it been known as suppose 1. One had Married another through deceit of his or her own Sex 2. His very near Relation as Mother Sister c. 3. or 3dly One appearing evidently unfit for the chief ends of Marriage c. I think the same is to be said in this case Let us try a little Suppose Christians by an error had chosen a man to be their Pastor and ordinarily heard him and communicated in the Lords Supper with him whom at last they found to be no Minister And when they discover it should leave him This I hope were no sinful separation If any shall say it is he should complain and have him orderly removed We will suppose the case so that it could not be obtained Of this the late times gave us some instances 2. Secondly Suppose Christians by an errour and through ignorance had done the like to one whom after they discover to be corrupt in matter of Doctrine suppose some points of Popery Arminianisme Socinianisme which they in their Consciences judge false and makes a trade of this Is it a sin for them to go to another Minister not being able to get this removed 'T is plain they ought not to have chosen him as their Pastor 3. Suppose Christians by an error have so chosen and joyned with one whom they then judged of a very sober life but they find him a notorious Drunkard Swearer c. Such a one ought not to have been chosen but doth factum valet here must they not leave him If any say they may have him removed I desire to know by what Law of England if he be neither Jew nor Schismatick I am mistaken if I have not read or heard the Law allows no other cases or very few of Deprivation 4. Suppose Christians by the like Errour to have chosen one who they thought would have been faithful watching his Flock and to that end cohabiting with them the thing of the Law of Nature saith our Author and that is Divine for Members of the same Church but they find he rarely comes near them or rarely Preacheth to them if amongst them possibly once a moneth hardly more seldom or never administring other Ordinances In this case may Christians depart to another yea or no will any say No still then he is bound to live without God's Ordinances all his life time for ought I know § 60. But lastly Must it appear demonstratively or is it enough for it to appear to the Christian probably that is so far as his Conscience can discern or judge sinful to Communicate with a Church before he separates from it If any say Demonstratively let him prove it will any say it is enough as to his practice if it propably appears so then why are we so boldly called Schismaticks before our probable Arguments be made appear to us to have no probability to But They are the people and have said Wisdom shall dye with them We must be Schismaticks and sinful Separatists and for no other reason but because they say so § 61. Once more If it be Schismatical for the Members of a Chuch to separate from the Minister and Congregation to which they are united Then it is Schismatical for Ministers also to separate from the Congregations to which they were once so united unless at least commanded by the Governours of the Church for the publick good If any say No he will I hope give us a Reason is not the Minister United Doth not he break the Union yea destroy the Organical Church by removing which private Christians do not I am afraid the Author will rather quit us from Schisme from Parochial Societies than grant us the consequence to the prejudice of if not himself yet of so many of his Friends One of them he must do if I understand sense Will our Author think to excuse this by saying It is no Schisme in them because they but remove to Churches of the same Communion which he said before for peoples removing from one Parish to another It lyes upon him to prove that persons agreeing in the same Doctrine and in the same acts of Worship though they differ in the words and syllables and forms of mere humane constitution be of a different communion from their Brethren otherwise the Presbyterians do not separate and are but Sister-Churches of the same Communion with their Brethren not separated from them § 62. The Author of the Reflections had told the Author That themselves with us had separated from Rome which yet they or some of them acknowledg a True Church Therefore we might separate from a True Church The sum of
A PLEA FOR THE NON-CONFORMISTS TENDING To Justifie them against the Clamorous Charge of SCHISME By a Dr. of Divinity With two Sheets on the same Subject by another Hand and Judgment Vexatio dat intellectum LONDON Printed in the Year 1674. A PLEA for the Nonconformists tending to justifie them against the Clamourous Charge of Schisme § 1. IT was doubtless one of the greatest infelicities which ever befel the whole body of people in these three Nations considering them as universally professing the Doctrine of Christ that in the year 1662. the Settlement of the affairs of Religion with relation to Worship Government was made to no more universal satisfaction but that some thousands of Ministers many of whom their greatest Adversaries being judges were men of no inconsiderable worth and usefulness took themselves obliged rather to lay down the publick exercise of their Ministry then to do what was by Law required of them if they would preserve it and that such a rigid interpretation was at that time in practice put upon the Act of Uniformity as they were not only incapacitated to hold or take Livings but also to Preach occasionally in the publick Temples Whether the Act will necessitate any such sense may deserve the second thoughts of our Superiours § 2. Whether this was Originated in the anger resting in the bosom of some Church-men at that time who had been Sufferers Or in their zeal to continue some Bishops the repute of Martyrs who had suffered for the rigorous enforcing of some of the things now enjoyned or in the desire of some of that filthy lucre which ariseth from pluralities of Livings Dignities sine curare or in their desire to propagate some Doctrines to which they knew the persons who would be ejected would be no more friends then are the Articles of the Church of England as interpreted by King James former all Professors of Divinity in our Universities very many eminent Bishops and once and again by the whole Parliament of England or from one or all of these causes is uncertain to be determined a better Original is hard to fancy while the things required are by our most knowing Eccles Superiours granted not necessary antecedaneously to the Superiors command § 3. Nor could they ever have been made necessary as is now said by the King and Parliament of England had they not been suggested to them as things that in themselves might lawfully be done Nor probably would that suggestion have prevailed with our civil Superiours who in things meerly lawful know sufficiently that they are to govern themselves in their commands by Prudence had they not been also told that the Numbers both of Ministers and People that would refuse were very inconsiderable Their persons and circumstances very invaluable that if once the things were enjoyned the Generality would do them notwithstanding all their pretences of Conscience c. § 4. How true these suggestions were quickly appeared to our Prudent States-men which made the then Lord Chancellour a sufficient friend to Conformity and a Prudent Person before ever the Act took place send for some very valuable persons and propound a Medium to them that they might yet abide in their stations foreseeing the gap would be made the Parishes only providing some who might read the Liturgy but this was too late and the Act would not when it came out admit any such thing § 5. With that rigour the Act was pressed is sufficiently known and how soon after fortified with another Act against private Meetings and with another when that but a probationer for a few years was expired more severe than the former nor did there want those in all parts of the Nation that executed all the Acts with severity so far beyond what those Acts Authorised that they saw need of Indemnity for their actions by further Acts of Grace and Favour How many Godly Ministers and People were during these years not only publickly reviled in Pamphlets and Pulpits but Imprisoned and how many dyed in their imprisonments spoiled of their Livelihoods driven from their Habitations and Trades is but an unpleasant story to reflect upon and with how little success as to the bringing them to conform is abundantly known § 6. In the mean time it pleased his most Excellent Majesty as a tender Father of his People and he who considered his interest lay not in the Division and Ruine of his People but in their Peace and Freedom to attend their several Trades Professions and Callings the King himself as Solomon saith being nourished from the Field to inspect the state of Ecclesiastical affairs and hearing so many Crys from his People with the Advice of his Counsel to direct means for his or their better information about the numbers of Ministers and People dissenting for which purpose Letters were directed in the ordinary course from the Arch-Bishop to the Bishops who by their Registers were to inform themselves and then his most Sacred Majesty of the Number of dissenting Ministers c. § 7. How imperfect the information must be in this method is obvious enough to every one the Return could only be made of those who being possest of Livings Aug. 24. 1662. left them for not Subscribing into which number came not a 5th part of Ministers dissenting 1. None came which 1661 were turned out to give room to others who had a praevious Title to their Livings and were not possest so soon of any other which were very many 2. No Congregational Ministers who had no Legal Titles to Churches 3. None that fore-seeing they could not conform the Act being out did chuse rather to resign their Livings than abide a turning out 4. No young men not possest of Livings though ready for them To say nothing of Anabapt c. To advantage this imperfect account the Author of the Ecclesiastical Polity tells the World of but an hundred Ministers that hindred all Uniformity § 8. But our Wise and Prudent States-men quickly saw through these Fallacies and from their more perfect information of his most Sacred Majesty and the meltings of his own bowels towards the distresses of his People the sound of which came almost from every Court of Judicature and corner of the Nation his most Excellent Majesty and his Privy Counsel took a fuller estimate of the Number both of Ministers and private Christians dissenting from the publick modes of worship § 9. Upon this it was that his Majesty conceiving himself empowred thereto by his Prerogative and a liberty reserved to him by the last Act against Conventicles was pleased to issue out his Gracious Declaration for Indulgence date Mar. 17. § 10. What Power his Majesty had or what was reserved by that Act to him we are no Judges to determine It is enough for us That as his most Sacred Majesty hath asserted to himself such a power so the denial of it to him hath been by no publick Act made known to us much less his Majesties
Church Catholick Visible Do we break Charity with our Brethren do we Revile them or Reproach their Persons or Societies Let them bear the blame who do it we plead not for them in the mean time let not all other Non-Con be called Schismaticks for their sake We know very many of the Non Con. have been uncharitably enough dealt with by those three famous Authors of the Friendly debate Ecclesiastical Polity and of Knowledge of Communion with Christ have they rendred reviling for reviling though the Masters of Morality have so treated their Brethren as if Veracity Comity and Urbanity were not in the Catalogue of their Moral Virtues When the Author opens himself a little plainer and tells us what he meaneth by a Schisme in the Church of England considered as a part of the Church Catholick Visible we shall better understand him § 23. But he saith we sinfully separate from the Organical National Church of England and indeed this he must mean or nothing by what he said before for it is not possible to separate sinfully from a National Church considered only as a large part of the Church-Catholick Visibles while they keep in the profession of Christ and his Gospel and in the practice of the same Acts of worship with them and in the same Doctrines of Faith unless they fail in love refusing all kind of occasional Communion with their Brethren condemning them as no parts of the Church of Christ The worshipping of God by different phrases and forms of Prayers in different habits of Vestment by different rites and ceremonies c. will not do it for these are things which belong not to any National Church as a part of the Church Catholick Visible Christ left no Liturgy to his Catholick Church nor any such rites and ceremonies and habits nor was ever the Catholick Visible Church uniform in them our Brethren themselves confess these mutable things wherein several parts of the Catholick Church differ each from other These things proceed from the Church considered as Organical not as a part of the Catholick Visible Church for then the major part of all particular Christians must consent to the imposition of them § 24. Now truly for this Particular Organical National Church it is possible we may have separated from it for we never knew there was any such Creature and at last our Author doth confess that Mr. Caudry hath told him that the Presbyterians do generally agree That the Disciplinary part or form of Government is not essential to a National Church he should therefore first have proved that there is such a thing under the Gospel as A Stated National Organical Church and we should then have tried whether the same Arguments would not have served the Papists to have proved a Catholick organical Church and that something better than they serve our Author because they have found out a single head for it which we find our Author p. 43. at great loss to find for his particular National Organical Church § 95. He knows not whether he should fix it upon the King for he is to be considered as a mixed person Or The Arch-Bishop of Canterbury because he is Primate of all England or all the Bishops and Pastors That the King is the Supreme Political Head and Governour of the National Church of England is our of doubt to all Protestants but such a one as will not claim Authority to any one strictly called Ecclesiastical act neither to Preach nor administer a Sacrament nor Ordain Ministers Are we discoursing of such a head think we The Arch-Bishop of Canterbury indeed may do all these but may he execute any acts of Discipline in the Province of York must the Arch-Bishop of York be taken in Then we have one National Church Organical with two heads yet that is better than 26. for so many must be if all the Bishops make the head and that yet is better than 9000 heads as must be if the Pastors of all Parishes be the Head In short none of these can by an act of Ecclesiastical jurisdiction influence the whole body and what kind of head is that The King indeed as Political Head of the Church may influence the whole with his commands relating to Ecclesiastical affairs but surely we have no Arçh-Bishop Bishop or Pastor can Excommunicate from Dan to Beershaba Our Author not being able to fix his thoughts in this point at last tells us It is not material for it is a certain Vanity to say 43. Because I cannot find the the Head I will deny the Body Is it so can there then be a living Organical Body without an Head It is not the body we are discoursing of but an Organical Body We may know our Mother as our Author saith though we do not know our Father but we must know we had a Father and that Father is or was a visible Creature or else he could not be known § 26. Well but what is this same National Organical Church of England He p. 42. gives us this Description of it It is a community consisting of professed Christians united in the same Doctrine Government and Worship according to the 39. Articles and Homilies her Liturgy and Canons and Laws and divided into Parochial Assemblies for the more convenient Worship of God And p. 45 Schisme from the Church of England is a sinful dividing from or dissolving our Union or Communion with her in her Governours Worship Members or Assemblies We can neither allow his descriptis on of the National Church of England nor yet of his description of Schisme or sinful separation from it and we would gladly hear by what Scripture or reason either of them can be made good § 27. It will be no wonder if denying the thing of a National Governing Church we deny the description of it for Non eus non potest definiri Now we do believe that under the Gospel there never was nor can be a stated National governing Church unless what is indeed somtimes though far from the sense we are now speaking to and perhaps not so properly called a Church according to the dialect of Scripture made up of all the Messengers of all the particular Churches in a Nation in an Assembly for deliberations advice and determinations in some weighty emergent cases to obviate which we put in the term stated for this is only an Occasional National Church or Synod which hath but a temporary being pro renatâ and meets and acts at the pleasure of the Prince the Supreme Political Head § 28. When we speak of a Church we understand Church as a Scriptural term in the Religious usage of it applicable to no body of people but such a one as the Scripture calleth so So that if there be any such body as may be called a National Governing Organical Church we must either find it in the New Testament or at least find some directions there for the constitution ordering of it some
Commissions given for a succession of National Officers but we find none of this we find indeed a general commission to Ministers to go and Preach and Baptize but this referred as well to the Heathens as to professed Christians If any will say that the Apostles were General Officers and from thence will argue for a succession of them it will better serve the Papists to prove an Universal Organical Church than it will serve any to prove a National Organical Church and we think that is what our Brethren will not be very free of granting If any urge the Example of the Jewish National Church which was Organical they will be also obliged to find our Saviours directions for the Hereditary discent of an High-Priest or the Election of one into his place We always thought the Jewish H. Priest was a type and Christ the Antitype whose coming abolished the type besides that that also will prove an Universal Organical Church for the Jewish High Priest govern'd the whole Visible Church which God in his days had upon the Earth besides we must have found some rules and laws left us by Christ for this High Priest Finally who so will erect a stated National governing or Organical Church in England must find us an Officer cloathed with Authority to Excommunicate from Michaels Mount in Cornwall to Carlile and Berwick Such a one we suppose there neither is nor ever was in England since the reformation § 29. But if we could allow such a Creature of God as a National governing Church in England we should have put Governours being certainly one of the Essential parts of such a Church into the description of it as well as into the Notion of Schisme from it Nor should we have so straitned the Notion of it as to necessitate all the members of it to be united in Doctrine Worship and Government without saying how far they must in these things be united Whether in every point of Doctrine delivered in the 39. Articles and Homilies so far as to approve and embrace all And in every point of Government according to the Canons or in every mode rite or ceremony according to the Liturgy or if not in what and how far they must be thus united And for the Laws as distinguished from the Canons we should have left them quite out being but civil constitutions about the affairs of the Church not properly Laws of the Church or in the more intrinsick matters of it but Impetus cuncta male ministrat this is the unlucky effect of long Definitions and too great eagerness to prove all Nonconformists Schismaticks The Author should have done well to have considered what he as well as we long since learned at the University 1. Definitiones debent esse breves It is the length of this description that spoils it and makes it by no art defensible 2. Debet constare ex attributis preoribus notioribus simpliciter had this been thought of the 39 Articles Homilies Liturgy Canons Laws had been quite left out nor certainly did our Author consider what would follow upon this description § 30. Let us but a little shew what inferences follow his Description of the National Governing Church of England 1. All Arminians without bail or mainprise must be Hereticks They are none of the Community of professed Christians in England united in the Doctrine of the 39 Articles will they tell us they are Let us ask King James once the very learned Head of this Church He tell us That Arminians was an Enemy to God Reg. Jacobi Dec. contra Vorstium p. 12. 14. that his Disciples are Pests Hereticks Arrogant persons Sectaries Atheists That the very Title of Bertius his Book concerning the Apostacy of the Saints required the fire Shall we be judged by the Parliament they make the Laws put into the description of this Church they confirmed the Articles We find them Anno 1628. crying aloud We Claim Protest and avow for Truth the sense of the Articles of Religion which were established by Parliament Mr. Rushworths Collections p. 650. 130. Eliz. which say they by the Publick Act of the Church of England and by the general and currant exposition of the Writers of our Church have been delivered to us and we reject the sense of the Jesuits and Arminians and all others wherein they differ from us Shall we ask the Professors of Divinity forty years since and upward in either University They joyntly agreed these points contrary to the 39 Articles one Dr. Baro only excepted and we know who was the first Doctor of that Divinity knowingly created at Oxford and the Professors course complement to him at his Creation after he had defended one of them Hujus te Theologiae creo Doctorem meaning the Arminian Divinity whence ever after to his Death possibly he took the liberty to Profess it as the Doctrine of our Church yea and they must be Schismaticks too though not from yet in the National Church and that 's the worst sort of Schisme because that which the Scripture chiefly if not only taketh notice of 2. Those who will sing no Psalms must be Schismaticks too for surely that 's an act of Worship in the Church of England and owned by her yea and those that do not ordinarily conform to all Rites and Ceremonies and Formes in the Liturgy do they approve of them The worse they still according to this description make a Shisme in the Church Quaery Whether none of the Conformists do this I could tell him of some nay One and he no mean One neither that openly told the People singing of Psalms was one of the Idols of the Church of England there were three Preaching and keeping the Sabbath were the two other § 40. Now if the Author could have been content to have described the National Church of England the number of professed Christians in it united in the same Doctrines necessary to Salvation and in the same Acts of Worship the Definition had been shorter many of these had been included and we had all been agreed But to be sure to make all the Nonconformists Shismatick he first Describes a thing not in being and which never was since Christ came and then describes it in such a manner as if he could create it would do very many of his own friends far more hurt than us § 41. In the mean time we must freely yeild him such a National Church as we before described and the King the Supreme Head of it not in a capacity to Preach or administer the Sacrament or exercise any act in it strictly an Ecclesiastical by Divine institutions but to Protect it to enjoyn the fulfilling in it what God hath commanded to do as much in it in short as any King of Israel and Judah as a King might do and to make rules and constitutions about it But we deny that our Meetings are any more Schismes in or from this Church then the Meeting of Christians
Bishop Curates he should have said no more then the Kingdom when the King dyes and yet certainly the King and People are as much constitutive parts of a Kingdom as Pastor and People of a Church who will say that considers what he saith that a particular Church is dissolved by the death or removal of the Pastor Afterward he tell us the Opinion of Dr. Gouge then of Mr. Baxter as to the removing of Abiather and lastly p. 77. That he hath thought hitherto that the distinction of the Office and of the exercise of the Office had gone uncontrouled amongst Presbyterians and though the Ministers of Christ depend not not upon the Christian Magistrate for their Office and he cannot degrade them yet quoad Exercitium as to the Exercise of it in his Dominions he might and that he had power to silence such as are judged unmeet to Preach and in this Mr. Baxter confirms him c. § 52. He will at least ex abundanti grant that man hath no power to say to those Do not preach to whom Christ and his Church hath said Go and Preach it is some relief yet that he will in any thing suffer us to acknowledge Imperatorem coeli The Ministers were not put out of Office 1662. then Onely forbidden to exercise that Office within the Kingdom of England but where was this prohibition The Law only saith in publick Churches and Chappels But the Churches he saith were not dissolved any more by having new Pastors than the Kingdom is dissolved when the King dyes he should have said by having a new King The Question is whether the Churches were not dissolved by the removal of their Pastor We think not so he saith Are we not agreed the Governours were in being the Governed in being only the Governours were in Prison and for a time could not exercise their Office in their Churches But if the Governours were discommissioned unordained surely the Governing Church was dissolved as the Governing Kingdom so far as the Governours act by commission is by his leave dissolved at the death of a King as we all know § 53. He asks who will say That a particular Church is dissolved upon the Death or Removal of the Fastor I answer any one that understands sense if there were no other Governour and he be not in being surely the particular organical Governing Church is dissolved the body is not necessitated to part but at liberty whether they will agree to the next Pastor yea or no his Friend Mr. Candry hath said so Mr. Hooker had said If the Church be not a Church without Officers Cawdrys Answer to Mr. Hookers Survey chap. 8. page 133. then as oft as the Officers dye the Church dyeth also That is an Authoritative Governing Church and indeed for any to say a Church is a Ministerial Church without a Minister or a Governing Church without a Governour is a piece of sence I cannot understand § 54. But to return to the Case of Abiathar which is brought to prove the power of Magistrates to put Ministers as well out of their Office as out of their Preferments Possessions and publick Temples all which is granted and excluded the Question I have nothing to do with any mans Opinion in the case Let us fairly debate and understand the case and see whether it will conclude for the Author yea or no. Aaron was Gods undoubted High-Priest immediately constituted so by himself His Sons were also ordained by God to succeed him Aaron had four Sons 1 Chron. 6.4 Nanab and Abihu these Lev. 10. dyed before their Father Eleazar and Ithamor By Gods special order Eleazar was made the High-Priest instead of Aaron Numb 20.26 28. Eleazer died Josh 24.33 Phinehas his Son succeeded him Jud. 20.28 Here the Scripture leaveth us The next High Priest we read of was Eli for his neglect to correct his scandalous Sons God threatneth that he would cut off his Posterity from his Altar 1 Sam. 2.33 35. and raise up unto himself a saithful Priest This was the known will of God declared to Eli by two Prophets his Sons Hophni and Phinehas died before him Ahilub is by Divines concluded to have succeeded him he is called Ichabods Bother 1 Sam. 14.3 That is Elies Grandchild Ahiah succeeded Ahilub as is plain from 1 Sam. 14.3 Ahimelech succeeded him as is plain 1 Sam. 22.11 Here God's Vengeance on Elies Family began to appear Saul slays him and all his Fathers House 1 Sam. 22.16 only v. 20. Abiathar escapeth and fleeth unto David and was with him in all his troubles by Saul but in the mean time it would be enquired who was High Priest for Saul at Jerusalem and this the Scripture saith not possibly he little regarded the Ecclesiastical Order instituted by God But it is a greater difficulty how the H. Priesthood came out of the line of Eleazer Aarons Eldest Son into the line of Ithamar the Younger Son of Aaron Nor doth the Scripture resolve us nor Josephus who assureth us Eli was of the Family of Ithamar and the first of it but says only He took the Priesthood of whose Family Abiathar was the last Josephus v. 62.12 This Abiathar was one of those who during Davids life and contrary to his Will proclaimed Adonijah King 1 Sam. 1.25 which was no less than High Treason Solomon calling him to account for it spares his life for the kindness he had shewed to his Father telling him he was worthy of death but confineth him to Anathoth where he could not execute the Priests Office 1 King 2.26 27. So saith the Text He thrust out Abiathar from being Priest unto the Lord and it is added That he might fulfil the Word of the Lord which he spake concerning the House of Eli in Shiloh yet 1 King 4.3 In the rool of the Officers we find Zadock and Abiathar were the Priests so that it seems he was a Priest still Whatever is to be understood by He put him out of the Priests Office 't is certain 1 King 2.35 he made Zadoc in his room who was of the Sons of Eleazar 1 Chron. 24.3 We cannot understand from Scripture but that the High-Priesthood ought to have been in the Family of Eleazer and it is like the disorderly times of the Judges altered it Solomon restoreth it and in doing it fulfilled what he knew was the will of God about Elies Family It is not improbable but David had done it before but for Abiathars peculiar Service to him in his troubles Now we have the case 1. Solomon knew that Abiathar was of the younger House from Aaron whereas the High-Priesthood truly belong'd to the Elder 2. He knew also God had declared his Will to root out the House of Eli. 3. This Abiathar had committed the highest crime Solomon might have put him to death but for his kindness to his Father as to life he spares him but thinks fit to send him far enough from the Court and the place