their Consciences Why do they not obey the present Secular Powers in all other things It is known the King consented to relax this And however this is little to them that go on the Ground of Divine or Ecclesiastical Right And if we must so plunge our selves into Enquiries after the Rights of Secular Governours before we can know whether to stand or set at the Sacrament we are all uncertain what to do in greater Matters for there are as apparent grounds for our uncertainty of five hundred years old and more which this is no place to dive into And it would be as unlawful on this ground to read any other Psalm or Chapter but what was of old appointed for the Day as to forbear kneeling at the Sacrament And perhaps on the Opponents grounds it would be still as sinful to restrain a Child or Servant from Dancing on the Lord's Day And if it be Ecclesiastical Authority that they stick at that must be derived from Christ and so Originally Divine or it is none And then not to wade so unseasonably into the main Controversie 1. Before they have proved their Legislative Authority 2. And that this Congregation is Iure Divino part of their Charge and under their Jurisdiction 3. And that they had power to contradict the Examples of Christ and his Apostles herein and the constant practice of the Primitive Church and the Canons of Councils even General Councils 4. And that their Canons are yet in force against all these I say before all this be well done we shall find that there must go more than a slight Supposition to the making good of their Cause According to their own Principles a lower Power cannot reverse the Acts of a higher But the General Councils Nice and Constantinople that forbad Kneeling on any Lord's Day was a higher Power than the English Convocation Ergo The English Convocation cannot Repeal its Acts. Though for my own part I think that neither of their Acts do need any Repeal to Null them to us in such Cases 5. Besides this if these Canons bind Conscience yet it is either by the Authority that Enacted them or by the Authority of the present Church-Governours that impose them If old Canons bind without or against the present Power then the same Canon that forbiddeth Kneeling bindeth and many an hundred more a great part of which are now made no Conscience of If it be the present Authority that is above the Ancient then 1. They that pretend to such Authority over this Congregation should produce and exercise it For if we know them not not receive any Commands from them we are capable of no Disobedience to them 2. And in the mean time We that are in the place must take it as our Charge or do the Work or for ought I know it will in most Places be undone For the Authority is for the Work 3. We use to take it for the great partiality at least of the Church of Rome that will be judged by none but the present Church that is themselves when we would be tried by the Scripture or the Ancient Church In a word I do not think that when Circumstances tending to Order and Decency are so mutable that God ever gave power to any Bishops to tie all Congregations and Ages to this or that Sacrament Gesture nor at all to make them so necessary as that Bodily Punishment or Excommunications should be inflicted on the Neglecters of them And I think that Calling which hath no better Work than this to do is not worth the regarding And here I should propound to the contrary-minded one Question Whether if a Bishop should command them to stand or sit they would do it Yea or if a Convocation commanded it If they say Yea then must they lay by all their Arguments from pretended irreverence to prove Sitting evil for I hope they would not be irreverent nor do evil at the command of a Bishop or Convocation And then let our Authority from Scripture Example and the Universal Church and a General Council and the present Secular Power and the late Assembly and Parliaments and the present Pastors or Presbyters of the Congregations I say let all this be set against the present Countermand of I know not who nor for what Reason as being not visible But if they say They would not obey the Bishops if they forbad them Kneeling then let them justifie us that obey them not when they command us to Kneel having so much as is expressed to the contrary Thus Sir I have first given you my Reasons about the Gesture it self And of putting it into each Persons hands I have thus much more to say 1. I know nothing to oblige me to it 2. Christ himself did otherwise as appeareth in Matth. 26. 26 27. For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 take ye eat ye drink ye all of it doth shew that it was given to them all in general and not to each man singly 3. And in this also Antiquity is on my side the contrary being much later More Reasons I have that I shall not now trouble you with To this I may well add That no Man can have any Rational pretence that I know of against the Receiving of the Sacrament upon such a General Delivery 1. Because the contrary was never yet pleaded necessary Iure Divino that I know of 2. And if it were a Sin it would be the Ministers Sin so to deliver it and not theirs who as they have not the Rule of his Actions so they shall not Answer for them Having thus told you my thoughts of the Matters in doubt I shall next tell you my purpose as to your Motion 1. I did never hitherto to my remembrance refuse to give the Sacrament to any one meerly because they would not take it Sitting or Standing nor did ever forbid or repel any on that account nor ever mean to do If any of my Charge shall take it Standing or Kneeling I shall not forbid them on any such account 2. If they further expect that I should put it into each Man's hands individually I may well expect the liberty of guiding my own Actions according to my own Conscience if I may not guide theirs It is enough that in such Cases they will refuse to be Ruled by me they should not also usurp the ruling of me but let us be equal and let me have my liberty as I am willing to let them have theirs and if I sin they are not guilty of it Nor have they any ground to refuse the Sacrament rather than so take it 3. Yet if any of my Pastoral Charge shall be unsatisfied if they will but hear my Reasons first and if those Reasons convince them not if they will profess that they think it a Sin against God for them to Receive the Sacrament unless it be put into their hands Kneeling and Ergo that they dare not in Conscience take it otherwise I do purpose to
omnes omnium Charitates inse complectitur Sir I have sent you my Answer written with a more legible hand and with some regard of ease to my self in transcribing with my very hearty love recommended and assured to you I commend you to the Grace and Blessing of Almighty God resting Your very respectful Friend Ra. Exon. Austie in Hartfordshire Iuly 21. 1655. Bishop Brownrigg ' s Answer about Government Prop. 1. YOur first Proposal is In every Parish where there are more Presbyters than one let one be the Chief and his Consent chiefly taken in the guidance of the Church Answ. 1. This Case is rarely to be found in the Parishes of England nor can there be a sufficient Maintenance for a Plurality of Presbyters in our Parochial Congregations yet if such be found it may be a good means to preserve Order and Peace that the ordering of Affairs which shall be referred to them be managed by him that hath the Praesecture of that Parish I wish that in those Churches which beside the Incumbent have had Lecturers this Rule had been observed Prop. 2. Let many such Churches be associated call it a Classis or what you will and let the fittest Man be their President as long as he is fit that is during life unless he deserve a removal Answ. 2. This Proposal looks like our Rural Deaneries or Choriepiscopal Order which hath been laid much aside but for the reducing of it and to make it profitable I wish that it may be bounded with fit Canons prescribing what they may do and with intimation from the Bishop and his Inspection and that such a Dean or President may be continued for Life that being a means to breed Experience if he do not deserve a removal Prop. 3. Let divers of these Classes meet once or twice a Year in a Provincial Assembly and let the fitâ—est Man in the Province be their standing President Answ. 3. This Course hath been by Law and Practice already used in our Church in the Archidiaconal Visitations and Synods which may be more quickened and actuated by sit Canons for their Direction what and who the President must be may be provided for by Canons and his Station continued and that Presbyters having Cure of Souls should not be accounted meer Preachers but Church-Guides and as they are already acknowledged Rectors of Churches Prop. 4. Let it be left to every Man's Conscience Whether the President be called by the Name of Bishop President Superintendent Moderator c. seeing that a Name is no meet Reason of a Breach c. Answ. 4. If by President you understand him that must moderate the Half-year or yearly Synods under the Inspection of the Diocesan as his Order may be newly framed so his Name may be newly imposed but that the Primitive Name of Bishop should be turned into a new Name is as you say no meet Reason for a Breach and we see Presbyters assume that Name to themselves and to put a new Name upon an old Institution is as Augustine speaks in the like Case Indoctis struere fallaciam doctis facere injuriam Prop. 5. Let no Man be forced to Express his Iudgment de Jure Whether the President have a Negative Voice in Ordination or Excommunication or whether he be distinct in Order or Degree seeing it is not the unanimous and right Belief of these things that is of Necessity for then they must have been in our Creed but the unanimous and right Practice but let them all agree that they will constantly joyn in these Classical and Provincial Assemblies and then only Ordain and that they will not Ordain but when the President is one unless in Case of flat Necessity which is never like to befall us if this may be takenâ— Answ. 5. If by President you understand the Diocesan then that the Bishop should be deprived of his Negative Voice in Ordination or Excommunication and so I conceive in other Censures and Acts of Government is to make him a meer Shadow without any Authority like our Scrutators in our University to propound Graces and collect Suffrages and pronounce Sentence Surely St. Paul invested Timothy and Titus with more Power and Authority both for Ordination and Censures but then to remedy the Inconveniencies of a wilful Negative it 's fit that an Appeal may be made to a Provincial Synod that may examine and if need be rectifie what was amiss in the Negative That Church Businesses were Ordered by the Concurrence of more Presbyters besides the Bishop in Cyprian's time was fit at that time when the Government of Church Affairs was Arbitrary and not Regulated by Law in which Case it was safest for the Bishop to have the Consent of others with him This is not our Case we have express Canons and Laws laid upon Bishops beyond which they cannot go and so may well be intrusted with the Execution of the Sentence of the Law the Sentence of the Judge being only Declarativa Executiva and if he transgress those Rules prefixed he is liable to Censure In our Church plurimum legi minimum Episcopo relinquitur as we see in Civil Matters one Justice of Peace hath the Power of Executing the Sentence of a Law or Statute but no Arbitrary Power granted to him That the Bishop be distinct from the Presbyter whether ordine or gradu is the Schoolmens Debate and I conceive may have such accord as may not ingender strife That Ordination be by the Assistance of Presbyters is already required in our Form of Ordination and if it be fixed to the Times of Synods it may be easily granted and sure that Blame that hath been laid upon our Bishops for Ordaining of insufficient Men is most what an undue Charge the Law of the Land hath set that lowness of sufficiency in Men to be ordained and instituted that if a Bishop refuseth to give Orders or Institution to a Man presented by the Patron he is punishable by the Judges As I have heard Archbishop Abbot was fined an Hundred pounds in case he did not admit a Clark so meanly qualified as the Law requires Some other Proposals are added in the End of your Letter Prop. 1. I Am satisfied that the Apostles have Successors in all those Works that are of standing Necessity and that Church Government is one of those Works and that it is improbable that Christ should settle one Species of Church Government in the Apostles Hands for an Age and then Change it for ever after and they that affirm such a change must prove it Answ. 6. Supposing what the Apostles did in ordering of Church Government to be in the Name and by the Authority of Christ this Assertion I conceive to be very true and it doth infer a Subordination of all Officers and Members of the Church to the Apostles and those that were their Successors Prop. 2. Whether the Apostles had a Power by Office to govern the LXX and the Presbyters as inferior Officers besides the
his Conscience to baptize any Child who is not thus offered to God by one of the Parents or by such a pro parent as taketh the Child for his own and undertaketh the Christian Education Be it also Enacted that no person shall be constrained against his Conscience to the use of the Cross in Baptism or of the Surplice nor any Minister to deny the Lord's Supper to any for not receiving it kneeling nor read any of the Apocrypha for Lessons nor to punish any Excommunication or Absolution against his Conscience but the Bishop or Chancellour who decreeth it shall cause such to publish it as are not dissatisfyed so to do or shall only affix it on the Church-Door Nor shall any Minister be constrained at Burial to speak only words importing the salvation of any person who within a year received not the Sacrament of Communion or was suspended from it according to the Rubrick or Canon and satisfyed not the Minister of his serious Repentance III. And whereas many persons having been ordained as Presbyters by Parochial Pastors in the times of Usurpation and Distraction hath occasioned many Difficulties for the present remedy hereof be it Enacted That all such persons as before this time have been ordained as Presbyters by Parochial Pastors only and are qualifyed for that Office as the Law requireth shall receive power to exercise it from a Bishop by a written Instrument which every Bishop in his Diocess is hereby impowered and required to Grant in these words and no other To A. B. of C. in the Country of D. Take thou Authority to exercise the Office of a Presbyter in any place and Congregation in the King's Dominions whereto thou shall be lawfully called And this practice sufficing for present Concord no one shall be put to declare his Judgment whether This or That which he before received shall be taken for his Ordination nor shall be urged to speak any words of such signification but each party shall be left to Judge as they see cause IV. And whereas the piety of Families and Godly Converse of Neighbours is a great means of preserving Religion and Sobriety in the World and lest the Act for suppressing seditious Conventicles should be mis-interpreted as injurious thereto be it declared that it is none of the meaning of the said Act to forbid any such Family Piety or Converse tho more then four Neighbours should be peaceably present at the Reading of the Scriptures or a Licensed Book the singing of a Psalm repeating of the publick Sermons or any such Exercise which neither the Laws nor Canons do forbid they being performed by such as joyn with the allowed Church-Assemblies and refuse not the Inspection of the Ministers of the Parish Especially where persons that cannot read are unable to do such things at home as by Can. 13. is enjoyned V. And whereas the form of the Oath and Declaration imposed on persons of Office and Trust in Corporations is unsatisfactory to many that are Loyal and peaceable that our Concord may extend to Corporations as well as Churches Be it Enacted That the taking of the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy and the Declaration against Religion and Disloyalty here before prescribed shall to all Ends and purposes suffice instead of the said Oath and Declaration VI. And whereas there are many peaceable Subjects who hold all the Essentials of the Christian Faith but conform not to so much as is required to the Established Ministry and Church-Communion Be it Enacted that All and only they who shall publickly take the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy before some Court of â—ustice or at the Open Sessions of the County where they live and that then and there Subscribe as followeth I. A. B. do unfeâ—gnedly stand to my Baptismal Covenant and do believe all the Articles of the Creeds called the Apostles the Nicene and Constantinopolitane and the truth of the holy Canonical Scriptures and do renounce all that 〈◊〉 contrary hereto shall be so far tolerated in the Excercise of their Religion as His Majesty with the advice of his Parliament or Council shall from time to time find consistent with the peace and safety of his Kingdoms VII And lest this Act for Concord should occasion Discord by emboldening unpeaceable and unruly or heretical men be it enacted that if any either in the allowed or the Tolerated Assemblies that shall pray or Preach Rebellion Sedition or against the Government or Liturgy of the Church or shall break the Peace by tumults or otherwise or stir up unchristian hatred and strife or shall preach against or otherwise oppose the Christan verities or any Article of the sacred Doctrine which they subscribe or any of the 39. Articles of Religion they shall be punished as by the Laws against such Offences is already provided I will here also Annex the Copies of some Petitions which I was put to draw up which never were presented I. The first was intended while the Parliament was sitting to have been offered but wise Parliament-Men thought it was better forbear it II. The second was thought fit for some Citizens to have offered but by the same Councel it was forborn III. The third was thus occasioned Sir Iohn Babor told Dr. Manton that the Scots being then suspected of some insurrection it was expected that we renewed the profession of our Loyalty to free us from all suspicion of Conspiracy with them We said that it seemed hard to us that we should fall under suspicion and no cause alledged We knew of no occasion that we had given But we were ready to profess our continued Loyalty but desired that we might with it open our just resentment of our Case They put me to draw it up but when it was read it was laid by none daring to plead our Cause so freely and signify any sense of our hard usage I. May it Please Your Majesty with the Lords and Commons Assembled in Parliament WHen the Common profession of resolved moderation had abated Men's fears of a Silencing Prelacy and the published Declarations of Nobilitie and Gentry against all dividing violence and revenge had helpt to unite the endeavours of Your Subjects which prospered for Your Majestie 's desired Restoration when God's wonderful providence had dissolved the Military Powers of Usurpers which hindered it and when Your welcome appearance Your Act of Oblivion Your Gracious Declaration about Ecclesiastical Affairs for which the House of Commons solemnly gave you thanks did seem to have done much to the Cure of our Divisions we had some hopes that our common revived Love and Concord would have tended to Your Majesty's and our common joy in the harmony strength and prosperity of Your Kingdoms and that we might among your inferiour Subjects have enjoyed our part in the common tranquility But the year 1662. dissolved those hopes fixing our old Difficulties and adding more which since then also have been much increased Beeing consecrated and vowed to the sacred Ministry we
is necessary absolutely to the Being of the Ministerial Calling I doubt not but all the unhappy Consequences will be unavoidable which you mention concerning the Churches of all the West But whether it be you or I that is to be blamed for those Consequences it is not your Word only that must determine and I am willing to try by weight of Reasons Except to Sect. 13. And now for the Proof of all this the whole weight is laid by this Book 1. Upon an Argument a comparatis If they the Protestants beyond Seas are lawful Pastors and Presbyters whose Necessity and Plea of Necessity publickly to have been made by those these our new Presbyterians cannot deny then our new ordained ones by Presbyters are Presbyters also though they want all such Pretence all colour of Necessity for themselves were the first Authors of it to those that ejected them which yet did not bring a Necessity neither which we all know If Necessity be pleaded to be above Ecclesiastical Laws as sometimes it hath dispensed even with divine positive Laws themselves then they pro imperio will be above them by their own Magisterial 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and by Consequence if they will take this to themselves that whatsoever is lawful to others upon necessity is and shall be lawful to themselves without Necessity they may in the next place Pope-like take to themselves to dispense with divine positive Laws also because necessity has sometimes dispensed with them Reply to Sect. 13. 1. You may as well say we dare not say the Sun Shineth as that we dare not deny the Protestant Churches to have been without Bishops to this day through necessity against their Wills when in almost all of them the full Power Civil and Ecclesiastical is supposed to be among themselves though I deny not but some particular Persons among them would fain have Bishops yet I think very few in comparison of those that were willing to be rid of them when they were received here 2. You boldly affirm without Proof that the Ministers of this County who were not ordained by Bishops were Ejectors of them or Authors of the Necessity 3. I shewed you before we have more Necessity than you mention and besides a Necessity whereof we are not guilty there may be a culpable Necessity which yet may free our calling from a nullity though not our selves from Sin What if God should permit all the Churches of Ethiopia or the Greeks to deny the Ius Divinum of Episcopacy which is possible as well as to permit the Reformed Churches to do i◠aud so to set up Ordination by meer Presbyters while I speak to you on your own Grounds I suppose this to be their Error and so their Sin yet would you presently unchurch them all and rather have God's Worship forborn as to the Publick There be many among us who are against Diocesan Bishops who give us good testimony of a sincere Heart impartial studying of the Point with as much self-denial and earnest Prayer for God's Direction as any Episcopal Man that ever I knew and yet remain against Episcopacy This kind of Necessity may sure free their Calling from the Charge of Nullity which needs not this Plea though it could not free them from the Charge of Error Except to Sect. 14. Instead of answering one Word to Ignatius God's Holy Saint and Martyr his renowned Epistles which he knew lately vindicated or to all the ancient Fathers avowing in terminis the jus divinum of Bishops above Presbyters and the Bishops sole Power of ordaining or producing any to the contrary he fills up his Books with Citations of modern Mens Writings which they all wrote charitably for the Patronage of those poor afflicted Protestants who had no Bishops because they could have none So that as well his Authorities as his Reasons are all drawn a loco comparatorum arguing weakly from the Priviledge of necessity to their licentiousness with or without Necessity which is one continued Sophism Reply to Sect. 14. 1. Though Ignatius were both a Saint and Holy yet I know not what call I had in those Papers to meddle with him Unless I must needs dispute the point of Episcopacy which I did disclaim 2. As I would not undervalue the late Vindicacation of Ignatius so I would not have you so far overvalue it as to think it should so easily and potently prevail 1. With all those that see not any Cogency in the Arguments or sufficiency in the Answers to the contrary Objections 2. Or with hose that will take Scripture only for the Test of this Cause 3. Or with those that are confident that you can never prove that Ignatius speaks of Diocesan Bishops but only of the Bishops of particular Churches 3. Your talk of all the Ancient Fathers avowing in terminis the Bishops sole Power of ordaining doth but discredit the rest of your Words You suppose us utter Strangers both to those Fathers and the English Bishops who maintain that Presbyters must be their Coadjutors in Ordination 4. What if I should grant that all the Fathers would have Bishops to have the sole Power of Ordaining ordinarily and for Order Sake And that it is a Sin of Disorder where unnecessarily it is done otherwise that 's nothing to the Question that I had in hand which is whether such Ordination by Presbyters be not only irregular but null and whether an uninterrupted Succession be necessary to our Office 5. I plainly perceive here again that you are loath to speak out your Mind but you seem to dissent from these charitable Maintainers of the Protestants Why else do you set Ignatius and the ancient Fathers as the Party that I should have respected instead of these if you did not think that the Fathers and these Men were contrary 6. My Business was to prove that according to the Principles of the Protestant Bishops in England our Ordination was not null eo Nomine because without a Bishop now I am blamed for proving this by Modern Writers and not Fathers If you will disclaim the Modern Protestant Bishops do not pretend to be of their Party but speak plainly If I fill up my Book with such Citations then I hope I was not deficient in bringing the Testimonies of the Protestant Episcopal Divines and yet many more I could cite to that end 7. To that of the Protestants Necessity enough is said till your Words are canonical or your Proof stronger I do not think but there are some Protestant Bishops so called at least in France and Holland now that went out of Britain and Ireland why cannot they ordain them Bishops in their extream Necessity Why did the angry Bishops so revile poor Calvin Beza the Churches of Geneva Scotland and many others for casting out Bishops and setting up Presbytery if all were done on a justifiable Necessity But enough of this Except to Sect. 15. But that these Authors cited by him may be authentical all the
Ordainer to do it where it will be needful to consider what is of Necessity to the Constitution of such Authority and what destroys it Before all which it would be necessary to know what the Ordainer's Work is and to what and how far his Power extends But this I am not now to meddle in That a Divine Ordination is of Necessity to the Ligitimation of our Calling in foro Dei I grant as also in foro Conscientiae Ministrantis That authoritative Ordination of Men is necessary Ordinis Gratiâ when it may be obtained and where God's Providence doth not make it naturally or morally impossible I also grant That Imposition of Hands with solemn Prayer is the most convenient manner and necessary for the Ordainer to use Necessitate Praecepti Medii ad bene esse Ordinationis I also grant That the Power of Ordaining is ordinarily only in the Hands of Christ's Ecclesiastical Ministers I acknowledge whether Bishops or Presbyters we now question not and that it is not divolved to any others but in Case of Necessity The Things then that I deny are that Imposition of Hands or present Prayer or the Presence of the Ordainer are of Necessity to our Office That the true just Authority of an Ecclesiastical Ordainer is of Necessity to the being of our Office And consequently that an uninterrupted Succession of Just Authoritative Ecclesiastical Ordination from the Apostles is of absolute necessity to the being of our Calling Nay that any Authoritative Human Ordination at all besides the Peoples meer Consent is of such absolute indispensable Necessity ad esse Officii all this I deny And my Opinion is that in Case of a failing of all Ecclesiastical Authoritative Ordination the Magistrates Ordination may suffice ad esse Officii And in case both fail the Peoples meer Acceptance Consent or Election may suffice supposing the Person meetly qualified And whether you will call this act of the People a Constitution or Ordination or not I am indifferent Certainly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 oft signifies the Constituting which is not an Act of Government or superior Authority But no Term hath so much need of Explication as the Word Office or Ministry which is the Terminus of Ordination An Office is a stated Power or Authority or Faculty with Duty of doing certain Works to certain Ends. The Ministerial Office of a Presbyter is to be differenced ab objecto a fine The Authority and the Duty in a lawful Officer go together Such a one only is in sensu primario proprio an Officer But he that is a Usurper or hath no lawful Call may yet both 1. Have all the Duty of that Office lying upon him and by his own Intrusion oblige himself to the Performance and yet want the true Authority for performing it seeing he came in without God's Call and there is no Power but of God 2. And he may have the Name of an Officer though given him but analogically or in sensu secundario ecclesiastico 3. And the Church may owe him that Respect and Observance due to a lawful Officer the Reason is because it is one thing to know who is a truly lawful Officer as in Matter of Membership I am bound to use many as true Christians even all that have the Profession of such who yet are not such So am I bound to take all those for lawful Officers that have the external Tokens of such seeing we cannot know any further though they be not such indeed 4. And all that Man 's Ministerial Actions are valid to the Church that doth her Duty in observing him and yet they are all null or unlawful and flat Sins to the Performer The Reason of the later is both because no Mna can lawfully do that which he hath no Authority given him for and because nemini ex proprio crimine debetur beneficium and Ergo his Usurpation cannot secure him The Reason of the former is because Duty and Benefit go together and therefore the Church that performeth but her Duty in taking those to be truly called Pastors that seem so to be having those Tokens which she is bound to judge by as probable must needs have the Benefit of his Ministry in their way of Duty for God requireth no Duty in vain As also because nemini debetur pâ—na ex aliena culpa qua talis est Now whether we shall dispute de necessitate ordinationis ad officium verum legitimum proprie primario sic dictum in foro Dei Or only as ad Officium analogicum secundario minus proprie in foro tantum ecclesiae sic dictum is to be considered How far your Sense will concur I know not but in respect of both these do I hold my former Negations Yet further before I either answer your Arguments or determine of the Sense of our Question it is very necessary that the end of our Enquiry be understood which in order must go before the means I take it for granted that you do not dispute this question as necessary to be determined in order to our Association before you can join with the present Ministry Or yet as necessary to the Determination of that further Question whether those are true Ministers that are not Ordained by Bishops and those true Organized Churches that have only such Ministers for if I thought this were your end 〈◊〉 would dispute many other Questions first before we came to this and try first whether you could prove that the Presbyterian Churches cannot produce a Succession of true Ordination on the same Grounds as the Episcopal for the main But I suppose your Ends are some other and in special those mentioned in your Paper I conjecture that I shall nearest approach your Sense if I state the Question thus Whether an Ordination by Ecclesiastical Men having just Authority thereto be in all Times and Cases since the Apostles of absolute Necessity to the very being of the Ministerial Office both coram Deo coram Ecclesiâ and consequently an uninterrupted Succession of such Ordination be of the same Necessity For if I should put the Question about Imposition of Hands or de modo aliquo ordinandi I know not but I might miss of your Sense on one Side and on the other if I should extend it to all Ordination whether by Magistrates or others Ad 1 um Your First Argument I suppose should be formed thus That which the English Bishops thought necessary to prove against the Papists that is necessary to be proved against them But the English Bishops thought it necessary against the Papists to prove the Non-interruption of their Succession in just Ordination Ergo Resp. 1. Concedo totum It was necessary to prove it against the Papists arguing ad Hominem because it is the way of fuller Conviction and Satisfaction when a Man can confute an Adversary on his own Grounds It will much shorten the Dispute when we shew them that though we should
Rome where none shall be admitted that will not swear to do wickedly and to false Ways And in the great Arrian Defection when scarce Six or Seven Bishops were to be found that did not turn Arrians among whom the Bishop of Rome was one that revolted and they would ordain none but those that would be of their Way and so would engage Men against Christ. God did not give them Power to destroy the Church but to preserve Order and propagate it They can do nothing by any Power from God against the Truth but for the Truth When Ergo They will not ordain to the Preservation but to the apparent Destruction of the Church we are not obliged to receive their Ordination And that the failing of regular Ministerial Ordination doth not destroy the Ordination or Law of God de Specie conservandâ and that it was never the Will of God that there should be no Ministry at all longer than they might be so regularly Ordained appears thus 1. The Office of the Ministry is of standing Necessity to the very Being of a Political Church whereas the Ecclesiastical Authoritative Ordination is but necessary to the well being and ordering of it Ergo the failing of the later causeth not a failing of the former The Reason of the Consequence may appear in that God hath oft suffered his Church in all Ages to fall into Disorders and Distempers when yet he hath preserved the Being 2. God hath not inseparably tyed a necessary certain End to one only mutable uncertain means But the Office of the Ministry is the necessary certain End of Regular Ecclesiastical Ordination viz. by one in Just Power and this is a mutable uncertain means Ergo God hath not tyed the Office of the Ministry to this alone The Necessity of the Ministry and the certain Continuance of it to the Church I suppose will be granted even to every Church while it remains a Church Political The Uncertainty and Mutability of that means is before proved 3. God hath not put it into the Power of Bishops or other Ordainers to destroy his Church for ever but if the Ministry were inseparably annexed to their authoritative Ordination it would be so Ergo It is in the Power of their Wills whether they will ordain any other Bishops to succeed them which if they should not do the Succession is interrupted and the Office must for ever fail If you say it is not to be supposed that all will deny to Ordain others I answer 1. What Promise or Certainty of the contrary 2. It is not possible their own Judgments may be turned against Bishops and so renounce that Calling or may they not turn most of them Heretical and so will ordain none that will not be so too As it was actually when the whole World turned Arrian except six or seven Bishops there were none left and a tenth Part nay the Hundredth part of the Church could not have recourse to six or seven persecuted Bishops hidden in Wildernesses or Corners or Fugitives that Men knew not where to find And that it was then unlawful to have submitted to the Arrians Ordination on their Terms I suppose will not be denied And the few that do not turn Hereâ—icks may yet clogg their Ordinations with such unlawful Impositions and Engagements as that no Man fearing God may justly submit to them which is at best the Case of all the Romish Church as is said So that if all Men else obey God they must not be Ordained by these Men and consequently these Men have Power to destroy the Church which if it were affirmed but of the Churches in one Nation is not true No nor of one Congregation for the Sense of the Precept for Ordination is this That the Churches may be edified and well guided and my Worship rightly performed do you ordain Elders c. 4. God hath made it indispensably necessary to his People to the World's End to assemble in solemn Congregations and then to perform his publick Worship viz. In Prayer Praises Sacraments Preaching and Hearing c. But without the Ministry this cannot be performed Ergo he hath made it indispensably necessary that they have a Ministry and consequently the failing of Authoritative Ecclesiastical Ordination doth not destroy the Ministry Both by necessity of Precept and of Means is Publick Worship necessary to the World's End Ordinary teaching publickly and being the Mouth of the People in Praising God and Administring Sacraments and blessing the People c. are Ministerial Actions Now suppose you come into a Nation or Country where such Ordination fails as if you had lived in the Reign of the Arrians durst you absolve all the Churches from all God's Publick Worship Durst you have said to whole Countries Never Assemble to Worship God by Solemn Praises Never baptize any Never communicate in the Lord's Supper This were to contradict a Precept in Force that binds them to do what you forbid them and it were to destroy their Souls and bid them forsake God and quench his Graces For without God's Publick Ministerial Ordinances Grace and Christianity it self could not be long continued at least ordinarily and in many Witness the Unchristianing of the vast Kingdom of Nubia for want of Ministers If you would have such to appoint Private Men to do these Things pro tempore in this Case of Necessity that is to grant all for then the People do make those Private Men Ministers pro tempore whether they give them that name or not for the Office is but Power to do those Works which belong thereto and if they have Power to do the Work they have the Office The like may be said of those Reformed Christians that live under the Romish Power if they must have no Miniâ—â—â—rs they must have no Worship or Sacraments which Ministers are to perform If they must have Ministers either Romish or Reformed Not Romish for they cannot follow them or join with them but by known sinning in wicked Engagements and wicked Actions Not Reformed if there be a Necessity of Authoritative Ordination For the Romish Bishops if they have Authority will not Ordain without forcing Men to open Sin nor may any Pious Man submit to their Ordinations on their Terms and many People cannot have Reformed Bishops no nor Presbyters to ordain them 5. The Law of Nature and the express unchangable written Word agreeing thereto do require Men to do the Offices of Ministers who have a fitness for it and where there is an undeniable Necessity of their Help But the failing of Authoritative Ecclesiastical Ordination will not dispence with the Law of Nature and the express moral written Law agreeing therewith Ergo It will not dispense with such Men for the neglect of such Ministerial Works I think none will question the Minor For the Major understand that those whom I call fit are they that have the Qualifications which I mentioned before Here I take it as undenyable that Duty and
Antbony Tuckny Dr. in Divinity Iohn Conant Dr. in Divinity William Spurstow Dr. in Divinity Iohn Wallis Dr. in Divinity Thomas Manton Dr. in Divinity Edmund Calamy Batchelour in Divinity Richard Baxter Clerk Arthur Iackson Clerk Thomas Case Samuel Clark Matthew Newcomen Clerks and to our trusâ—y and well-beloved Dr. Earles Dean of Westminster Peter Heylin Dr. in Divinity Iohn Hacket Dr. in Divinity Iohn Barwick Dr. in Divinity Peter Guâ—â—ing Dr. in Divinity Iohn Pierson Dr. in Divinity Thomas Pierce Dr. in Divinity Anthony Sparrow Dr. in Divinity Herbert Thorndike Batchelour in Divinity Thomas Horton Dr. in Divinity Thomas Iacomb Dr. in Divinity William Bates Iohn Rawlinson Clerk William Cooper Clerk Dr. Iohn Lightfoot Dr. Iohn Collins Dr. Benjamin Woodbridge and William Drake Clerk Greeting Whereas by our Declaration of the Five and twentieth of October last concerning Ecclesiastical Affairs we did amongst other things express an esteem of the Liturgy of the Church of England contained in the Book of Common Prayer and yet since we find some Exceptions made against several things therein we did by our said Declaration declare we would appoint an equal number of Learned Divines of both Perswasions to review the same and to make such Alterations therein as shall be thought most necessary and some additional Forms in the Scripture phrase as near as might be suited to the nature of the several Parts of Worship we therefore in accomplishment of our said Will and Intent and of our continued and constant Care and Study for the Peace and Unity of the Churches within our Dominions and for the removal of all Exceptions and Differences and Occasions of Differences and Exceptions from amongst our good Subjects for or concerning the said Book of Common Prayer or any thing therein contained do by these our Letters Patents require authorize constitute and appoint you the said accepted Archbishop of York Gilbert Bishop of London Iohn Bishop of Durham Iohn Bishop of Rochester Henry Bishop of Chichester Humphrey Bishop of Sarum George Bishop of Worcester Robert Bishop of Lincoln Benjamin Bishop of Peterburgh Bryan Bishop of Chester Richard Bishop of Carlisle Iohn Bishop of Exeter Edward Bishop of Norwich Anthony Tuckney Iohn Conant William Spurstow Iohn Wallis Thomas manton Edmund Calamy Richard Baxter Arthur Iackson Thomas Case Samuel Clark and Matthew Newcomen to advise upon and review the said Book of Common Prayer comparing the same with the most ancient Liturgies which have been used in the Church in the primitive and purest Times And to that end to assemble and meet together from time to time and at such times within the space of four Kalender Months now next ensuing in the Masters Lodgings in the Savoy in the Strand in the County of Middlesex or in such other place or places as to you shall be thought fit and convenient to take into your serious and grave Considerations the several Directions Rules and Forms of Prayer and Things in the said Book of Common Prayer contained and to advise and consult upon and about the same and the several Objections and Exceptions which shall now be raised against the fame And if occasion be to make such reasonable and necessary Alterations Corrections and Amendments therein as by and between you and the said Archbishop Bishops Doctors and Persons hereby required and authorized to meet and advise as aforesaid shall be agreed upon to be needful or expedient for the giving Satisfaction unto tender Consciences and the restoring and continuance of Peace and Unity in the Churches under our Protection and Government But avoiding as much as may be all unnecessary Alterations of the Forms and Liturgy wherewith the People are already acquainted and have so long received in the Church of England And our will and pleasure is that when you the said Archbishop Bishops Doctors and Persons authorized and appointed by these our Letters Patents to meet advise and consult upon about the Premises aforesaid shall have drawn your Consultations to any Resolution and Determination which you shall agree upon as needful or expedient to be done for the altering diminishing â—r enlarging the said Book of Common Prayer or any part thereof that then you forthwith certifie and present unto us in Writing under your several Hands the Matters and Things whereupon you shall so determine for our Approbation And to the end the same or so much thereof as shall be approved by us may be established And forasmuch as the said Archbishop and Bishops having several great Charges to attend which we would not dispense with or that the same should be neglected upon any great occasion whatsoever and some of them being of great Age and Infirmities may not be able constantly to attend the Execution of the Service and Authority hereby given and required by us in the Meetings and Consultations aforesaid We Will therefore and do hereby require and authorize you the said Dr. Earles Peter Heylin Iohn Hacket Iohn Barwick Peter Gunning Iohn Pearson Thomas Pierce and Anthony Sparrow and Herbert Thorndike to supply the place or places of such of the said Archbishop and Bishops other than the said Edward Bishop of Norwich as shall by Age Sickness Infirmity or other occasion be hindred from attending the said Meeting or Consultations That is to say that one of you the said Dr. Earles Peter Heylin Iohn Hacket Iohn Barwick Peter Gunning Iohn Pearson Thomas Pearce Anthony Sparrow and Herbert Thorndike shall from time to time supply the Place of each one of them the said Archbishop and Bishops other than the said Edward Bishop of Norwich which shall happen to be hindred or to be absent from the said Meeting or Consultations and shall and may advise and consult and determine and also certifie and execute all and singular the Power and Authority before mentioned in and about the Premises as fully and absolutely as such Archbishop or Bishops which shall so happen to be absent should or might do by Vertue of these our Letters Patents or any thing therein contained in case he or they were personally present And whereas in regard of the Distance of some the Infirmities of others the multitude of constant Imployments and other incidental Impediments some of you the said Edward Bishop of Norwich Anthony Tuckney Iohn Conant William Spurstow Iohn Wallis Thomas Manton Edmund Calamy Rich. Baxter Arthur Iackson Thomas Case Samuel Clarke and Matthew Newcomen may be hindred from the constant Attendance in the Execution of the Service aforesaid We therefore will and do hereby require and authorize you the said Tho. Horton Thomas Iacomb William Bates Iohn Rawlinson William Cooper Iohn Lightfoot Iohn Collins Benjamin Woodbridge and William Drake to supply the Place or Places of such the Commissioners last above mentioned as shall by the means aforesaid or any other Occasion be hindred from the said Meeting and Consultations that is to say that one of you the said Thomas Horton Thomas Iacomb William Butes Iohn Rawlinson William Cooper Dr.
which the People cannot know nor are bound to search after The words of the Vow it self are in our several Places and Callings we shall endeavour And this was the expressed work and end And this was not doing any thing against Law If a discontented Person now should say that the Parliaments End in the Act of Uniformity and that against Conventicles was Persecution and the Suppression of Religion and therefore they are not to be obeyed how would this hold while Uniformity and Peace are the published Ends and the rest are either uncertain or impertinent to us 2. Whether indeed the Imposers Ends were ill is a Controversie fit to be touched by it self They thought such a Change of Church-Government was a good End And for doing it against Law they put not that into the Swearers part in this Clause and proâ—essed the contrary themselves But if they did themselves purpose to do that against to Law which others swear to do in their Places and Calling that is according to Law are those others therefore not obliged to do what they vowed to do according to Law because the Imposers intended to do their part against Law 3. I suppose all the King's Party who took the Oath at their Composition had no ill end in it and are they not then to interpret it by their own Ends as it is their Personal Vow 4. If we reach Men that the bad Ends of the Imposers do disoblige Men from performing Vows materially good take heed left it follow that it will disoblige them much more from obeying Commands and Laws materially good And then every Subject will take himself to be disobliged who is but confident that Persecution Oppression c. were his Rulers Ends. What if a Man for evil Ends command me to obey the King or to worship God or to give to the Poor Or make me swear to do all this Doth not my Vow oblige me because he had evil Ends that drove me to it Nay if I had my self vowed to do all these for some evil end though it is certain that I must not do it to that end yet whether the change of my End does disoblige me also from my Vow as to the Matter is a difficult question which I think Casuists commonly resolve in the Negative But if any Man did mistake their Design and had good Ends himself while theirs were bad yea and the End commanded him were good the Case is much plainer 5. Who can say that the King had an ill End in taking it Or that his Place and Calling did not impower him to do that which in a Subject would have been illegal and that he may not lawfully endeavour accordingly And whereas it is said That the very War it self expounded their meaning who imposed it they being then in Arms against the King It is answered by the Non-Subscribers 1. That they openly professed to take up Arms only against Delinquent Subjects according to Law 2. That their misapplication made not good words to be bad to others 3. That if they make me swear to do it in my Place and Calling I am not obliged to expound this to be out of my Place and Calling because they go out of their Place and Calling And whereas it is said That the Bishops were part of the Parliament and so of the Civil Government â— It is answered 1. That the Parliament declared that they were no Constitutive Essential Unchangeable Part without whom the Acts of both Houses were invalid They were but part of the Lords House where they might be over-voted 2. The Scruple of the Non-Subscribers is not at all whether they are obliged to endeavour to dispossess them of their Baronies or Places in Parliament which is in the power of the King to give them but only about their Ecclesiastical Power and Government as here formed And if it could be proved that the Covenant intended both the Ejection of them from their Church Power and their Places in Parliament it followeth not that it obligeth not to the lawful act because it obligeth not to the unlawfulâ— 3. Nor can it easily be proved unlawful for the King and Parliament either to make a separation of these Powers or to take both from them and so set up the Primitive sort of Bishops either with or without any Civil Authority Abbots had once also a place in Parliament and yet they are now taken down it is supposed not unlawfully The King himself doth lawfully make Members of both Houses by making Earls and Barons and by giving Corporations power to choose Burgesses who before had none And as the new making of these so the excluding of some Members may be without any change in the Form of Civil Government Certainly many Fathers and Canons are against the Civil Government of the Clergy § 372. 2. The second objection is That the Authority of the Imposers was null as to that Act Answ. That is a distinct Controversie which here I shall pass by But granting it to be so no more will follow but that the People were not bound by any Command of theirs to take it But a Vow that is taken in my Closet without any Man's imposition or knowledge may be obligatory or one that a Robber forceth me to by the High-way The nullity of the Obligâ—â—on to take it is all that followeth the nullity of their Authority which will not infer the nullity of the Obligation to keep it for it maketh it but equal to a Vow which is made of a private Will without any Command of Authority at all § 373. 3. The third Reason which most nearly toucheth the Controversie is That the Matter vowed to extirpate Prelacy was unlawful both as against the Laws of God and of the Land Answ. If this be proved no doubt but the Obligation is void and of no effect But 1. It is before proved to be far from being against the Law of God to alter this Prelacy by warrantable means And also that it is not against the Law of the Land for Subjects modeâ—â—y to petition or Parliament Men to speak or the King and Parliament to change which are the Actions which belong to their Places and Callings And if it had been expresly part of the matter of that Vow to do this by unlawful means the question is Whether this can disoblige the Swearer from the lawful part adjoying which is to do it in their Places and Callings Whatever other matter is this matter is not yet proved to be unlawful § 374. Object But Episcopacy is Jure Divino and the Covenant mentioneth the extarpatien of Prelacy which is of the same Species with the other Episcopacy And therefore it is to be understood as to the extirpation of all Episcopacy and so not obligatory Answ. 1. It is before proved that our Prelacy is not of Divine Right but against it 2. And that it differeth even specically from the Primitive Episcopacy 3. But that 's nothing to the
Deleatur unlawful 2. I crave an Answer to these Questions 1. Can you certainly say That the Church-Government is so purely Divine and Perfect as that no Reformation is either necessary or lawful Is all the Diocesan Frame such and the Lay-Chancellors Power of the Keys also 2. If there be need of any Reformation is it not a Covenant against Repentance and Obedience to God to covenant never to endeavour it at all 3. What if the King should by Commission require some Alterations or command us to endeavour it are you sure that we are all bound to disobey him 4. What if a Parliament-man make a Speech or pass a Vote for it are you sure that he sinneth 5. Are you sure that the King may not lawfully endeavour any Reformation Or was his Declararation about Ecclesiastical Affairs a sin 6. What if any humbly petition the King and Parliament for any such Reformation as that Laymen may not have the Power of the Keys over a whole Diocess and all the Parochial Pastors be denied it is it certainly a sin 7. If a man Vow though sinfully to do a thing which he may lawfully do if he had not vowed it are you sure it is a sin and not Duty to keep that Vow in Materia Licita which he thinketh Necessaria I put the Question as de futuro if I and Millions should make such a Vow culpably without and against the Will of my Superiours for the time to come are you sure that it bindeth no man of them all I believe that no private arbitrary Vow can forestall my due Obedience to my Governours But antecedent Duty so made by God as Reforming by lawful means of Endeavour it is supposed they do not forbid For every Member of the Church is in his place obliged to promote the Common Good by lawful means as they might forbid us all to exhort or admonish any sinner or to pray or preach or dispute against sin as well as to petition against it 2. And 't is supposed that every Bishop or Parliament-man or Ruler is not forbidden all sueh lawful Endeavours and so that a Prohibition rendereth it not to them at least unlawful For I speak of no other Case But how sad a Case is that Nation in where the Clergy would have all men take them for so infallible and perfect without the smallest Fault or Errour in their Government as that neither Parliament-man Clergy-man nor any one of the People may by lawful means endeavour the least Reformation of them when even the Roman Bishop of Gloucester Godfrey Goodman writeth so sharply against the Lay-Chancellor's Power of the Keys 2. Prop. The Nonconformists hold it high Sacriledge to alienate themselves Strict e But what if they be suspended or silenced by Authority Ans. 1. When it is by true Authority doing it either justly or else unjustly in case their preaching be unnecessary or less necessary than Obedience to the unjust prohibition we will surcease and take it as a sickness or disablement But if it be done by Vsurpers like Papal Prelates or by our Governours uâ—lawfully in case that our preaching remain more necessary to the Publick Good than obedient forbearance we will exercise our Ministry till Death Prison or other Force disable us If you ask Who shall be Iudge I answer 1. The Magistrate by publick Decision in Order to his own Execution and if he do it unjustly God is the Avenger 2. And the Minister by a private Rational Judgment of Discretion discerning Duty from Sin and if he were God and Man will punish him if not God will reward him 2. I also ask Were not Constantius and Valens tho Erroneous Lawful Princes And did not the holy Bishops of the East refuse to surcease their Ministration when they prohibited them And do not Papists and other Protestants as well as Bp. Bilson and Andrews agree That we must do the like upon such unjust Prohibitions And hath our Diocesan more power to silence us than the King Or were we Consecrated to the Ministry in our Ordination on that Condition to preach till forbidden unjustly And did not the Apostles and all Pastors for 300 Years Exercise their Ministry against the Wills of Lawful Magistrates tho Heathens 2. Prop. To preach Lectures with the Incumbent's Consent Strict f And with the Allowance of the Bishop Ans. And that is Let King and Parliament by Law allow us to preach Christ's Gospel if the Bishop will allow us so to do and let the Law leave it to his power to forbid us And what Good will Laws then do us for our Ministry when these Eleven Years have already told us what we must trust to from the Bishops some at least Provide such supply for the Subjects Souls as their Numbers and Necessities require that the meaning may not be Let men be saved if the Bishop consent and for my part I `ll Joyfully be silent But I will not so far deny my Sense and Reason and the Sense of the Countrey also as to believe this is done if another will but confidently say it 's done or say that we do more harm than good no more than I will believe there are no Englishmen in England 2. Prop. Let not the Incumbent be discouraged by the Bishop from receiving them Strict g So they will conform Ans. So they will conform as far as aforesaid or as in the Proposals But otherwise if it be present full Conformity that must still be necessary what are we speaking for This was written in order to our Concord by the means of some Alterations or Abatements of Conformity because it was told abroad that some Bishops were willing of such a thing And is it meant that if we Conform they will abate us some Conformity 3. Prop. Let it be forbidden c. about joyning in Family Worship Strict h That is let Conventicles be allowed in all places Answ. Yes if needful and orderly Worshipping God and helping each other towards Heaven be Conventicling the Heathens so called the Christian Assemblies This Stricture more mortifyeth our hopes of healing than any of the rest For we see here that the Silencing and Imprisoning and Undoing of the Ministers will not satisfy the People also must have their Cross and Conventicles must be Written on it One would think the Limitations here put should have satisfied any man that is for Faith Hope and Charity 1. We moved it for none but those that attend the Publick Assemblies 2. And so it be not at the Hours of Publick Worship 3. And but for Neighbours of the same Parish because many cannot Read nor remember what they have Read nor help their own Families nor understand themselves the Christian Faith 4. We desired this Liberty in no Exercises but reading the Scriptures or Licensed Pious Books and repeating the Publick Sermons of their Pastors and Praying and Singing Psalms 5. We motioned this much for none but those that herein refufe not the Inspection of
grant the Necessity of such Succession yet we need not grant the Nullity of our Calling 2. I deny that the English Bishops much less the Church of England did ever judge it necessary any farther than ad Hominem 1. Because it is apparent that they do ordinarily in their Writings speak against the Papists supposed Necessity of Ordination as I instanced out of some of them in my Book It is known to be a Point wherein the Protestants have commonly opposed the Papists 2. It is known to be but the later declining Generation of Bishops such at Montague Laud and their Confederates most in King Charles his Days very few in King Iames's and scarce any at all in Queen Elizabeth's that do join with the Papists in pleading the Necessity of Succession Even such Men as were as zealous against Queen Elizabeth's Episcopal Protestants as against the Papists at least many of them 3. The rest do expresly mention Succession and confute the Fâ—ble of the Nag's-Head Ordination in Cheapside to prove the Papists Slanderers So much to your Minor 3. If that will not serve I deny your Major All is not necessary that they thought necessary Protestants pretend not to Infallability in Controversals Many more perhaps ten to one at least of the English Clergy held it not necessary unless as aforesaid Ad 2 um Your second Argument hath all the Strength in it or rather shew of Strength â— first we must needs distinguish of your Terms Mediately and Immediately A Constitution may be said to be from Christ mediately either in Respect to a mediating Person or to some mediating Sign only Also it may be said to be mediante persona 1. when the Person is the cause totalâ—â— subordinata constituendi as having himself received the Power from God and being as from himself to convey it unto Man 2. Or when the Person is but Causa per accidens 3. Or when he is only Causa sive qua non vel quatenus impedementa â—emovit vel quatenus ejus Actiones sunt conditiones necessarie And so I answer 1. Immediately in the first absolute Sense excludendo personâ—â— res no Man ever had any Right communicated or Duty imposed on him by God unless perhaps the immediate Impress or supernatural Revelation of the Holy Ghost to some Peophet or Apostle might be said to do this Moses himself had the Ten Commandments written in Stone which were signa mediantia Those that heard God speak if any immediately without Angelical Interposition did receive God's Commands mediante verborum signo So did the Apostles that which they had from the Mouth of Christ. 2. God is so absolutely the Fountain of all Power that no Man can either have or give any Power but derivatively from him and by his Commission Man being no farther the Efficient of Power than he is so constituted of God the general way of his giving it must be by the Signification of God's Will and so far as that can be sufficiently discovered there needs no more to the Conveyance of Power Whether Men be properly efficient Causes of Church Power at all is a very hard Question especially as to those over whom they have no superior governing Power As Spalatensis hath taken great pains to prove that Kings or other Sovereigns of the Common-wealth have their Commission and Power immediately from God though the People sometimes may choose the Man for the Power was not given to the People first and then they give it the King but God lets them name the Man on whom he will immediately confer it so possibly may it be in Ordination of Church-Officers Three ways do Men mediate in the Nomination of the Person 1. When they have Authority of Regiment over others and explenitudine potestatis do convey efficiently to inferior Officers the Power that these have Thus doth the supream Rector of the Commonwealth to his Officers and Ergo they are caled the Kings Officers and he hath the choice of the very Species as well as of the individual Officers Now this way of mediating is not always if at all necessary or possible in the Church for the Papists themselves confess that the Pope is Ordained or authorized without this way of Efficiency for none have a Papal Power to convey to him His Ordination cannot be Actus Superioris And the Council of Trent could not agree whether it were not the Case of all Bishops to hold their Office immediately from Christ though under the Pope or whether they had their Power immediately from the Pope as the prime Seat on Earth of all Church Power who is to convey their Parts to others How the Spanish Bishops held up their Cause is known And it was the old Doctrine of the Church that all Bishops were equal and had no Power one over another but all held their Power directly from Christ as Cyprian told them in the Council of Carthage Add to this that the true old Apostolical Episcopacy was in each particular Church and not over many Churches together I speak of fixed Bishops till the matter becoming too big to be capable of the old Form Corruptio unius fuit generatio alterius and they that upon the increase of Christians should have helpt the Swarm into a new Hive did through natural Ambition of ruling over many retaine divers Churches under their Charge and then ceased to be of the Primitive sort of Bishops Non eadem fuit res non munus idem etiamsi idem nomen retinerent So that truly our Parish Ministers who are sole or chief Pastors of that Church are the old sort of Bishops for as Ambrose and after him Grotius argues qui ante se alterum non habebat Episcopus er at That is in eadem Ecclesia qui superiorem non habet So that not only all Diocesan Bishops but also all Parochial Bishops are Ordained per pares and so not by a governing Communication of Power which is that second way of Ordination when men that are of equal Authority have the Nomination of the Person Now whether or no he that ordaineth an Inferior as a Deacon or any other do convey Authority by a proper Efficiency as having that first in himself which he doth Convey yet in the Ordination of Equals it seems not to be so for they have no Government over the particular Persons whom they Ordain or Churches to whom they Ordain them nor could they themselves exercise that governing Power over that other Congregation which they appoint another to so that they seem to be but Causae Morales or sine quibus non as he that sets the Wood to the Fire is of its burning or as he that openeth you the Door is of your bringing any thing into the House So that if you will call the Ordainer of an Inferior causam equivocam and the Ordainer of an Equal causam univocam yet it is but as they morally and improperly cause The Third way of Mediating in the
the Error For if I had understood that it contained two Propositions 1. That Men thus and thus qualified shall preach the Word or it is the Duty of Men thus and thus qualified to preach the Word And then 2. That Men thus and thus qualified ordinis gratia shall be set apart to it or shall be appointed to Preach I never had made this Animadversion but should have acknowledged a formal Answer But I understood it only thus that Men thus and thus qualified shall be appointed that is it is their Duty being so and so qualified to seek for Ordination or it is their Duty being so and so qualified to be appointed to the Work which I thought might be true and yet they no Ministers till they were de facto set apart But now very well understanding that it may well bear both Propositions and the first coming up close to the Question in hand I shall willingly retract all that I said upon that Point and acknowledge a formal Answer which I think may satisfie But whereas you say that by disclaiming my last Argument I denied Imposition of Hands to be so necessary and by urging something hereabouts did seem to forget what I said anon I answer I did never intend to deny Imposition of Hands to be of necessity to legitimate Ordination I said indeed an Argument drawn from thence against the Question in Hand was frivolous But I did not intend to disparage the thing it self any farther than Relatively to the Question then in debate And whereas you say that Fasting was not used I answer that there never was any Ordination but Fasting was previous to it by the Appointment of the Church in Ember-Weeks which were constantly kept by the Sons of the Church though neglected by others and this I think might serve though it was not the same Day and I believe you will say so too But in these things neither will I be boisterous till I am better informed what may be the substantial or essential Parts of Christ's Ordinances and what not which I confess I have not yet such an Idea of So as to say in every Ordinance what is essential and what not Ad. 3 um Whereas you wonder that upon such slight Grounds I should so tenaciously stand to part of my third Argument I answer that I did not intend to inforce that the Case of extream inculpable necessity was the Sectaries Case But such a Necessity as did inevitably intangle them in their Invasion of the Ministry which though it doth no ways make them lawful Ministers yet it makes them inconfutably lawful Ministers till the Opinions which first made them separate be proved to them to be erroneous my meaning is this I think if this Hypothesis be true that in case of extream Necessity Men may and some must enter irregularly into the Ministry it is not possible to convince an Anabaptist that his Invasion of the Ministerial Work is unlawful till we can first convince him that Anabptism is erroneous Now hereupon I thought their Hands was much strengthened over what it would have been had that Hypothesis been false For then we could incontroulably have cleared their Invasion of the Work though they had in the mean time remained unconvinced of their erroneous Opinion But now if we cannot convince them of their Error but their way still appear Truth to them then they need do no more to justifie their Practice to themselves but borrow our Principle and that sets them right and so their Invasion is inconfutable from what they borrow from our selves And so though they do not justifie themselves to us because we think their Necessity culpable and through their own default yet they so far justifie by this very Principle their Practice to themselves that it renders them unconfutably lawful till we can prove and make it out plain to them that their very Opinions are erroneous So that you mistook while you thought that I intended to prove their Practice lawful whereas all that I intended was to shew that upon such a Principle their Invasion became less confutable and their Hands something strengthned over they could have been upon the contrary Hypothesis by which you may perhaps see what Link of your Chain I intended to break But enough of this I shall now come to the Business I first spake of First therefore you lay down the Episcopal Principles pag. 65. viz. That no Church is a true Church without Ministers and no Man a Minister that is not Ordained by a Bishop and no Man a Bishop that is not ordained by a Bishop lawfully called and not deprived again of his Power And this Bishop must be Ordained by a former Bishop and he by a former and so the Succession must be followed up to the Apostles Having done thus you catechize these Seekers as you call these Doctors And then proceed to prove that these Reverend Learned Pious Bishops which you acknowledge to be now in this Nation are no lawful Bishops upon the Principles laid down because they were ordained by such as had no Authority to ordain This you prove because they were Ordained at length by the Popish Bishops in Hen. VIII Time who had no Authority to Ordain this you prove because they derived their Authority from the Pope who had no Authority to give them any That the Pope had no Authority you prove by an Interruption of Succession of lawful Bishops in that Chair That there hath been an Interruption in that Chair you prove by the Instances of Liberius Honorias Dame Ione and many others as you say out of Bishop Iewel The Strength of these Instances depend upon that Hypothesis that Heresy or notorious Impiety doth evacuate holy Orders Now if it can be infallably proved that Heresy or Impiety doth not evacuate Holy Orders or rather if you cannot infallably prove as it is my part at this time to deny I being upon the defensive that Impiety or Heresy doth evacuate Holy Orders then it will not follow that there was an Interruption though Liberius was an Heretick And if no Interruption then Pope Clement the Incumbent at Rome in Henry VIII Days was notwithstanding what is urged in full Power to Ordain And then if he had Authority then the Popish Bishops which derived from him had full Authority and if they had then our Bishops who at length derive from them have also full Athority and so the whole Structure will fall at once in that Hypothesis which is the Foundation of all shall chance to shake And therefore Sir in the first place I pray you take notice that I deny that Heresy or Impiety doth evacuate Holy Orders and expect the Proof of it â—â—But then suppose I should grant this which I never intend I may I conceive falsly debate that though there should be an Interruption in the Succession of the Chair at Rome yet the Pope that now is or the Pope that sat at Rome in Hen. VIII Days were
fully authorized to ordain if they were but ordained by such who neither were Heretical or Impious For the Authority or Power of Ordination I conceive doth not come to any Bishop by Vertue drawn from his Predecessor in sede but by Vertue derived from him who laid Hands upon him at his Consecration For Example that you may understand my meaning suppose Dr. Winneffe the late Bishop of Lincoln was consecrated by the Imposition of the Bishop of Worcestor's Hand I conceive it is unreasonable to affirm that this Doctor received his Episcopal Orders rather from Dr. Williams his Predecessor in the Chair at Lincoln than from the Bishop of Worcester who is supposed to lay Hands upon him at his Consecration Or if the Question be whether he was a lawful Bishop that gave him Orders I conceive that it is equally unreasonable that we should go and inquire rather after Dr. Williams his Authority who was his Predecessor in sede than after the Bishop of Worcester who was or is supposed in the â—aâ—e to be his Consecrator Or if Iohn Williams who was his Predecessor should have de facto proved an Arrian or a Conjurer while he sat in the Diocesan Chair aâ— Lincoln I think it is every whit as unreasonable to affirm that therefore Dr. Winneffe who succeeded him in that Seat should lose his Episcopal Authority when as his Consecrator can have no such thing fastened upon him In like manner though Liberius was an Arrian while he sat in the Pontifical Chair at Rome yet if that Bishop whoever he was and look you to that who consecrated Pope Clement were Orthodox and so forward till we come to the Apostles his Authority was good enough though one or more of his Predecessors in sede were Heretical If you shall say that the Case is not alike betwixt the Succession of Popes and other Bishops I ask where 's the difference If you say that the difference is in this that the Pope claims not his Authority from his Consecrator but from his Predecessor I answer That it is very probable that he doth do so But let him and the Popish Doctors therefore see how they can quit their Hands of this Interruption For our parts we conceive we need not be engaged in this Controversy It is enough for us to reply to this asserted Difference That the Question is not what they lay claim to but what they ought de jure to lay claim to If you say That de jure they do challenge their Authority from their Predecessors I expect that you must prove it before I will promise you that I will believe it But if you say that the Difference is only this That they do de facio claim their Authority after another manner than other Bishops then I rejoyn that it doth not follow that they have their Authority after another manner than other Bishops because they say they have If therefore the facultas Ordinandi doth not come from the Bishop's Predecessor in sede but from the Bishop who is the Consecrator Then Sir you must prove that some of those Bishops who Consecrated Pope Clement e're the Succession reach the Apostles were Hereticks It little avails to prove that some of his Predecessors in Cathedre was such at least to me who are unwilling to be thought a Protestant But then Thirdly Suppose we should grant this which we likewise never intend how will you make it appear that our Bishops in Hen. VIII Time had their Authority from the then incumbing Pope If you say they went over to him for Imposition of Hands that 's improbable if you say he came over to them that 's intollerable if you say that he did delegate his Authority to some of our English Bishops or sent a Deputy or Nuncio authorized to those Ends I answer that it may be true that he did so But then the Question will again be whether our English Bishops had not full Authority to have done all this without his Knowledge or whether rather an Expectation of a Commission from him were not a Fruit of the Error of those times holding him to be the universal Bishop If it was though it be Argumentum ad hominem and will again I think press fore upon the Papists who assert the same yet it doth nothing trouble us who assert no such Universality I ask therefore must we acknowledge the Pope to be universal Bishop or must we not if we must why do we not If we must not why should any Man urge that Practice in his own Defence which he himself judgeth to be erroneous I speak plainlier if the Bishops in Hen. VIII Time had their Authority from the Pope then this must be pretended I think upon others Grounds either because the Bishops had indeed no Power to Ordain without his Commission or because they thought they had none or because they could not exercise that Power which they both had and knew they had without his leave If you say they had indeed no Power to Ordain without his Commission I say that you are more than a Cassandrian Papist If you say they had no Power because they judged they had none I deny the Consequence and expect you should prove it Or 3. If you say they had their Authority from him because they could not exercise it without his leave I shall only propound this Case in answer to you Suppose General Cromwell should put in so between you and the Exercise of your Ministry that without his leave you should not preach or administer the Sacraments would you say if you had leave from him that you derived your Authority from him because the external Exercise of your Authority depends upon his Leave I think you would not Well Sir I shall now only rehearse what I expect you should prove And the first thing that is expected is this That Heresy or Impiety doth evacuate Holy Orders 2. That the Power of Ordination is derived from the Predecessor in sede 3. That some of Pope Clement's Consecrators e're his Line reach the Apostles were heretical or impious 4. You must prove that the Bishops in Hen. VIII Time did not only judge that they had dependance upon the Pope for Authority but that indeed they had no Authority but what they derived from him If you can indeed make good all this then I shall confess that the Interruption of Succession is made good also But till then I shall 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Yet in the mean time shall be a very great Admirer of your Worth and Lover of your Industry M. Iohnson Wamborn Dec. 8. 1653. For my Reverend and very Worthy Friend Mr. Baxter Minister of the Word at Kidderminster These Mr. Iohnson's Fifth Letter to Mr. Baxter SIR THE Question as I remember was stated between us thus Whether an infallible Knowledge that our Ordainers have full Authority to ordain be necessary to make us have true Peace of Conscience in the Exercise of our Ministry To which Question
4. Most Presbyters that I know do perform all Ecclesiastical Matters upon supposition of a Divine Direction and not upon the Command of Humane Powers Ad 9m. The Ordination of meer Presbyters is not null and the Presbyters so ordained now in England are true Presbyters as I am ready to maintain But wait for the Accuser's proof of the nullity Ad 10m. 1. This calls me to decide the Controversie about the late Wars which I find not either necessary or convenient for me to undertake 2. The like I must say of deciding the Legality of Inductions and Admissions 3. If a worthy Man be cast out had you rather that God's Worship were neglected and the People perished for lack of Teaching then any other Man should be set over them though one that had no hand in casting him out Must the People needs have him or none as long as he lives Was it so when Bishops were cast out heretofore by Emperours or Councils I think may take the Guidance of a destitute People so I hinder not a worthy Man from recovering his Right 4. I never desired that any should be Excluded but the Unworthy the Insufficient or Scandalous or grosly Negligent And I know but too few of the Ejected that are not such And this Question doth modestly pass over their Case or else I should have said somewhat more to the Matter Ad 11m. 1. It is a necessary Christian Duty to see that we do not the least Evil for our own safety And all God's Ordinances must be maintained as far as we can But as I before disclaimed the Arrogance of determining the Controversie about our Diocesan Episcopacy so I think not every Legal Right of the Church which it hath by Man's Law nor every thing in our Liturgy to be worthy so stiff a maintenance as to the loss of Life nor the loss of Peace Nor did the late King think so who would have let go so much But I think that they that did this carnally for Self-interest and Ends did grievously sin whether the thing it self were good or bad especially if they went against their Consciences 2. I think there is no unlawful Prayers or Service now offered to God in the Church ordinarily where I have had opportunity to know it And I think we pray for the same things in the main as we were wont to do and offer God the same Service And that Mr. Ball and others against the Separatists have sufficiently proved that it is no part of the Worship but an Accident of it-self indifferent that I use These Words or Those a Book or no Book a Form premeditated or not And no Separatist hath yet well answered them Ad 12m. Such as you described you can hardly know and therefore not knowingly scruple their Communion for a Man's ends and knowledge are out of your sight You can hardly tell who did this against Knowledge and Conscience carnally for Self interest But if you mean it of your ordinary Ministers and Congregations I am past doubt that you are Schismatical if not worse you avoid the Assemblies and Ordinances mentioned upon such Accusations and Suppositions And I shall much easier prove this than you will make good your Separation Ad 13m. Permitting you to suppose Orthodox and Episcoparian to be the same at present you may easily know that the Episcopal are not all of a Mind but differ I think much more among themselves than the moderate Episcopal and Presbyterians differ some maintaining that the Ordination of meer Presbyters is not null with divers the like things which the novel sort doth disclaim The old Episcopal Protestant may not only take a Cure of Souls now without any Contradiction to his Principles but may comfortably Associate with the peaceable Ministry of the Land and may not conscionably avoid it The Novel sort before mentioned ought to rectifie their mistakes and so to take up their duty but as they are I see not how they can do it in consistency with their Principles unless under the Jurisdiction of a Bishop Ad 14m. For the Point of the legality of the Liturgy you call me to determine Cases in Law which I find my self unfit for And for the Directory its Nature is according to its Name not to impose Words or Matter nor bind by human Authority but to direct Men how to understand God's Word concerning the Ordering of his Worship Now either it directeth us right or wrong If wrong we must not follow such Directions If right it 's no unlawful disturbance of the Churches Peace to obey God's Word upon their Direction Circumstances wherein some place most of their Government they very little meddle with And indeed I know but few that do much in the order of Worship eo Nomine because it is so in the Directory but because they think it most agreeable to God's Word or most tending to Concord as things now stand Would you have us avoid any Scripture or orderly Course meerly because it is expressed in the Directory And think you those are Ways of Peace Ad 15m. I think on the Credit of others that the Jewish Church had a Liturgy I am sure they had Forms of Praises and Prayer in some Cases I know Christ taught his Disciples the Lord's Prayer I will not determine whether as a Directory for Matter and Order or whether as a Form of Words to be used or when or how oft used I conjecture you regard the Judgment of Grotius who saith in Matt. 6. 9. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In hunc Sensum Non enim praecipit Christus verba recitari quod nec legimus Apostolos fecisse quanquam id quoque fieri cum fructu potest sed materiam precum hinc promere i.e. Pray thus that is to this Sense For Christ doth not command the saying of the Words nor do we read that the Apostles did it though that also may profitably be done but hence to fetch the Matter of Prayer You know the Directory adviseth the use of the Words And how it was that Iohn taught his Disciples to pray I cannot tell nor will herein pretend my self wiser than I am The Example of the Primitive Church is never the more imitable for the Cessation of Persecution and its Example before is most to be regarded that being purest that is next the Fountain We are sure that the Church long used extemporate Prayers and its probable betimes some Forms withal I think they are strangely Dark and addicted to Extreams that think either that no Forms are lawful or that only prescribed or premiditated Forms are lawful And if you will condemn all publick extemporate Prayers you will err as grosly as they that will have no other Ad 16m. I know no necessity of any Godfather or Godmother beside the Parents unless you will call those so that in case of their necessary Absence are their Delegates Nor do I know that ordinarily among us any Dictates or Prayers are used that
Power that they had by the meer Interest of their Gifts and Priviledge of being Eye Witnesses of the Works of Christ and Ear Witnesses of his Words Answ. 7. The extraordinary Gifts of the Apostles and the Priviledge of being Eye and Ear Witnesses to Christ were Abilities which they had for the infallible Discharge of their Function but they were not the Ground of their Power and Authority to govern the Church That the Seventy and so other Presbyters were inferior to the Apostles and under their Government doth appear to me though at their first sending by Christ they were immediately subject to Christ the Apostles not being then established in the Government of the Church but when Christ authorised his Apostles with the Power of Government Potestas Clavium was committed to them only not to the Seventy and so we must conceive that the Colledge of Apostles were invested with the Government of the Church and the Seventy not having the Keys committed to them were under the Authority of the Apostles and so were Presbyters to the Apostles Successors Prop. 3. If the Apostles Example will prove the right of an unfixed ambulatory Episcopacy yet I would see how it appears that ever they were fixed to particular Charges or ever any of them had a distinct and limited Diocess where the rest had not Charge as well as they Answ. 8. I conceive the Apostles as Apostles had an unlimited and as you call it an unfixed ambulatory Episcopacy being sent into the whole World and not by Christ's Institution confined to any one fixed Seat but yet that hinders not but that by Consent and Agreement among themselves they might have a Distribution of their several Circuits as it is seen in the Agreement between St. Peter and St. Paul which as it did not exclude their original Power over all Churches so it did accommodate them to a more opportune Discharge of their Function and accordingly they setled their Successors in those Places not committing to them an universal Jurisdiction which was a Personal Priviledge of their Apostleship Prop. 4. I am satisfied that very early after the Apostles the common Government of each Church was by a Bishop and Presbytery but yet I can see no Evidence that this Church for 150 or 200 Years was any more than one Congregation like one of our Parishes for Number of People which was congregated in a City and from the circumjacent Villages as our Independant or Anabaptist Churches now are while the Multitude were Infidels I would therefore crave any clear Proof that the first fixed Bishops ruled any more standing Congregations having ordinarily Assemblies and Communion in the Lord's Supper than one only and whether the multiplying of Believers did not make a real Change of the former Species of Government while the Bishop of the City took on him the Government of many particular Churches who had but one before and whether Bishops should not have been multiplied as fast as Churches were and Presbyters were Answ. 9. That the Government of the Churches was not only Vicatim but Regionatim appears by those Deputies and Successors which the Apostles constituted in particular Titus is authorised to ordain and govern not one Parish but the many Churches in Crete That those primitive Bishops did employ their ordinary Function of Preaching and adminstring the Sacrament in their City of Residence may well be granted which hinders not but that they might have Inspection into the circumjacent Villages for ordaining of Presbyters and other Administrations of Government and what needed a Colledge of Presbyters residing in the City with the Bishop if they were not sent out by him to officiate in those Villages adjacent as the Number of Believers required not did the multiplying of Believers in the adjacent places require several Bishops in several Congregations independent on the City Bishop but the ordinary Discharge of those Places was committed to them in Subordination to the City-Bishop and Presbyters there assembled as occasion required In this Case it fared with the Church as in Philosophy they say it is in the matter of Nutrition and Augmentation where the form is not multiplied but only extended ad novam materiam These Answers not changing my Judgment I made the following Notes upon them Ad 1. Every Church Primae magnitudinis speciei should be as great and no greater than is capable of PERSONAL Communion as our greater Parishes and every such Church had of old a Bishop One Altar and one Bishop was Ignatius's Note of one Church and such a one may maintain divers Ministers and the Rich should not burden the Church for maintenance but help freely Ad 2. This is a President of a Synod of Bishops Ad 3. I thank you for granting Presbyters to be Church-Rectors Ad 4. If he be but a President he is but a Bishop Primi Ordinis of one Church as the rest But if he be the stated Rector of many Churches he is really an Archbishop Ad 5. This was written when our Diocesane Frame was taken down to reconcile them that were for and them that were against such Bishops pro tempore If you take liberty to cast off the Example of Cyprian's times on pretence that the Case is altered by the Kings Laws then you will never know where to rest while Laws are alterable Qu. Whether the Practice of the Church till Cyprian's time be not a probable Notice to us what was the Apostolical instituted Government If not why use you the Argument of Antiquity for Episcopacy If yea Qu. Whether Rulers may alter the Apostolick Institution and the Office and work of Presbyters may be changed on pretence that now Bishops can do it without them He that ever tryed true Discipline will find one Parish big enough for one Man's or divers Mens right Performance of it and Six hundred or a Thousand Parishes too many Alas do you think it Lawful to ordain insufficient unmeet Men if the Law of the Land so command you what then are Christ's Laws for Ad. 6. Here I granted you the major of your grand Argument for Episcopacy Ad 7. The Apostles Superiority of Power I deny not but that the Power of the Keys was given to the Apostles only I deny If Christ immediately gave it to no other yet by his Spirit he did and by the Church-Law which he left to be the Instrument of continued conveyance and Title by which the Apostles were to invest others with that Power which the Schoolmen ordinarily acknowledge to belong to Presbyters as such who may use them to the People Ad 8. 1. De facto it is no where proved truly that the Twelve or Thirteen Apostles did by consent limit their Provinces But contrarily that they Officiated together at Ierusalem and Peter if at Rome as some think he was and Paul in the same Diocess at Rome c. and Paul and Iohn at Ephesus and Timothy also as is said 2. If they had this had been
daily expect the Communications of his Grace and Comfort especially seeing that these Ceremonies have been imposed and urged upon such Consideratioms as draw too near to the significancy and moral efficacy of Sacraments themselves That they have together with Popery been rejected by many of the Reformed Churches abroad amongst whom notwithstanding we doubt not but the Lord is worshipped decently orderly and in the beauty of Holiness That ever since the Reformation they have been Matter of Contention and endless Disputes in this Church and have been a Cause of depriving the Church of the Fruit and Benefit which might have been reaped from the Labours of many Learned and Godly Ministers some of whom judging them unlawful others unexpedient were in Conscience unwilling to be brought under the power of them That they have occasioned by the offence taken at them by many of the People heretofore great Separations from our Church and so have rather prejudiced than promoted the Unity thereof and at this time by reason of their long disuse may be more likely than ever heretofore to produce the same Inconveniencies That they are at best but indifferent and in their Nature mutable and that it 's especially in various Exigencies of the Church very needful and expedient that things in themselves mutable be sometimes actually changed lest they should by perpetual permanency and constant use be judged by the People as necessary as the Substancials of Worship themselves And though we do most heartily acknowledge your Majesty to be Custos utriusque Tabulae and to be Supream Governour over all Persons and in all Things and Causes as well Ecclesiastical as Civil in these your Majesty's Dominions yet we humbly crave leave to beseech your Majesty to consider whether as a Christian Magistrate you be not as well obliged by that Doctrine of the Apostle touching Things indifferent not occasioning an offence to weak Brethren as the Apostle himself then one of the highest Officers in the Church of Christ judged himself to be obliged and whether the great Work wherewith the Lord hath intrusted your Majesty be not rather to provide by your Sacred Authority that the things which are necessary by virtue of Divine Command in his Worship should be duly performed then that Things unnecessary should be made by Humane Command necessary and penal And how greatly pleasing it will be to the Lord that your Majesty's heart is so tenderly and religiously Compassionate to such of his poor Servants differing in so small matters as to preserve the Peace of their Consciences in God's Worship above all their Civil Concernments whatsoever May it therefore please your Majesty out of your Princely Care of healing our Breaches graciously to grant That Kneeling at the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper and such Holydays as are but of Humane Institution may not be imposed upon such as do conscientiously scruple the Observation of them And that the use of the Surplice and Cross in Baptism and bowing at the Name of Iesus rather than the Name of Christ or Emanuel or other Names whereby that Divine Person or either of the other Divine Persons is nominated may be abolished these things being in the Judgment of the Imposers themselves but indifferent and mutable in the Judgment of others a Rock of Offence and in the Judgment of all not to be valued with the Peace of the Church We likewise humbly represent unto your most Excellent Majesty That divers Ceremonies which we conceive had no Foundation in the Law of the Land as erecting Altars bowing towards them and such like have been not only introduced but in some places imposed whereby an Arbitrary Power was usurped divers Ministers of the Gospel though Conformable to the Established Ceremonies troubled some Reverend and Learned Bishops offended the Protestants grieved and the Papists pleased as hoping that those Innovations might make way for greater Changes May it therefore please your Majesty by such ways as your Royal Wisdom shall judge meet effectually to prevent the imposing and using of such Innovations for the future that so according to the pious intention of your Royal Grandfather King Iames of blessed memory the Publick Worship may be free not only from blame but from suspicion In obedience to your Majesty's Royal Pleasure graciously signified to us we have tendered to your most Excellent Majesty what we humbly conceive may most conduce to the Glory of God to the Peace and Reformation of the Church and to the taking away not only of our Differences but the Roots and Causes of them We humbly beg your Majesty's favourable Acceptance of these our Loyal and Conscientious Endeavours to serve your Majesty and the Church of Christ and your gracious Pardon if in any Thing or Expression we answer not your Majesty's Expectation professing before your Majesty and before the Lord the Searcher of Hearts that we have done nothing out of strife vain Glory or Emulation but have sincerely offered what we apprehend most seasonable and conducing to that happy End of Unity and Peace which your Majesty doth so piously prosecute We humbly lay our selves and these our Addresses at your Majesty's feet professing our unfeigned resolution to live and die your Majesty's faithful loyal and obedient Subjects and humbly implore your Gracious Majesty according unto your Princely Wisdom and Fatherly Compassion so to lay your Hand upon the bleeding Rents and Divisions that are amongst us that there may be an healing of them so shall your Throne be greater than the Throne of your Fathers in your days the Righteous shall flourish Peace shall run down like a River and the Generations to come shall call you blessed This following Paper I drew up at this time and offered to the Brethren to have been presented to the King as the Summary of our Judgment that he might see in a few plain words what it was that we indeed desired But it was not consented to both because that all of us were not agreed among our selves in granting so much of Episcopacy and because we would not hinder our Success by adding any more to Bishop Usher's Model hoping that his Authority might have facilitated the Reception of it to which Reasons I consented The brief Sum of our Iudgment and Desires about Church-Government 1. POwer is 1. Imperial and Coercive by Mulcts and Penalties 2. or Doctoral and Suasory The first belongeth only to the Magistrate The second to the Pastors of the Church 2. Though in Cases of Necessity the same Man may be both a Magistrate and a Pastor yet out of such Case it is unlawful or very unmeet Each Calling will find a Man work enough alone And our work being perswasive is successful but as it procureth Complacency and Consent and therefore we should be put upon no such Actions as will render us more feared and hated than desired to our Flocks We therefore humbly beseech your Majesty to trust no Church-men with the Sword with any degree of Imperial
effectual with none but wicked Men and Hypocrites who dare Sin against their Consciences for fear of Men And is it worth so much ado to bring the Children of the Devil into your Church The third way of Efficacy is but to kill or banish all the Children of God that are not of your Opinion for it is they that dare not Sin against Conscience whatever they suffer And this is but such an Efficacy as the Spanish Inquisition and Queen Mary's Bonfires had to send those to God whom the World is not worthy of You know every Man that is true to his God and his Conscience will never do that which he taketh to be Sin till his Judgment is changed and therefore with such it can be no lower than Blood or Banishment or Imprisonment at least that is the Efficacy which you desire And if no such rigour be too much its pity the French that murthered 30000 or 40000 at their Bartholoâ—â—ew days or as Dr. Peter Moulin saith 100000 within a few Weeks and the Irish that murthered 200000 had not had a better Cause For they took the most effectual way of rigour But when God maketh Inquisition for the Blood of his Servants he will convince Men that such rigour was too much and that their Wrath did not fulfil his Righteousness You shew your Kindness to Men's praying in the Pulple without your Book Make good what you say that such Praying is of no great Antiquity and we will never contradict you more Or if we prove it not the Ancientest way of Praying in the Christian Church we will give you free leave to hang or banish us for not Subscribing to the Common Prayer Book which the Apostles used and which was imposed on the Church for some hundred years But it seems you think that we are beholden to meer Sufferance without Law or Canon for conceived Prayers How long then it will be suffered we know not if we must live by your Patience § 20. It seemeth that our Converse and yours much differ The most that we know or meet with had rather be without the Liturgy and you say That the People generally are well satisfied with it By this time they are of another Mind If it were so we take it for no great honour to it considering what the greater Number are in most places and of what Lives those Persons are of our Parishes and Acquaintance generally or for the most part who are for it Or what those are that are against it and whom for itsâ— sake you desire your effectual rigour may be exercised against The Lord prepare them to undergo it innocently § 21. Doth there need no more to be said for the Ceremonies How little will satisfie some Men's Consciences Lawful Authority hath in other Countreys cast out the same Bishops and Ceremonies which are here received Doth it follow that they are good in one Country and disorderly and undecent in another Or that our Authority only is infallible in judging of them Is not God's Worship perfect without our Ceremonies in its Integrals as well as its Essentials As for Circumstantials when you saw us allow of them you need not plead for them as against us But the Question is whether our Additions be not more then Circumstances § 22. We suppose that you give all to the Cross in Baptism which is necessary to a Humane Sacrament And this we are ready to try be just Dispute When you say that never was Moral Efficacy ascribed to them you seem to give up all your Cause for by denying this ascribed Efficacy you seem to grant them unlawful if it be so And if it be not so let us bear the blame of wronging them The informing and exciting the dull mind of Man in its duty to God is a Moral Effect from Moral Efficacy But the informing and exciting the dull Mind of Man in its Duty to God is an Effect ascribed to our Ceremonies Ergo a Moral Effect from Moral Efficacy is ascribed to our Ceremonies The major cannot be denied by any Man that knoweth what a Moral Effect and Efficacy is that which worketh not per modum Naturae in genere Causae efficientis naturalis only but per modum objecti vel in genere causae finalis upon the Mind of Man doth work morally but so do our Ceremonies Ergo sure the Arminians that deny all proper Physical Operations of God's Spirit as well as his Word and reduce all to Moral Efficacy will not say that Ceremonies have such a Physical Efficacy more than Moral And if not so the good Effects here mentioned can be from no lower Efficacy than Moral And the minor which must be denied is in the words of the Preface to the Common Prayer Book and therefore undeniable The Word of God it self worketh but moraliter proponendo objectum and so do our Ceremonies § 23. There is a great difference between Sacramental Ceremonies and meer Circumstances which the Reformed Churches keep These we confound not and could have wished you would not Our Cross in Baptism is A dedicating sign saith the Canon or transient Image made in token that this Child shall not be ashamed of Christ crucified but manly fight under his Banner against the Flesh the World and the Devil and continue Christ's faithful Servant and Soldier to his Lives end So that 1. It is a Dedicating Sign performed by the Minister and not by the Person himself as a bare Professing Sign is 2. It engageth the Party in a Relation to Christ as his Soldier and Servant 3. And in the Duties of this Relation against all our Enemies as the Sacramentum Militare doth a Soldier to his General and that in plainer and fuller words than are annexed to Baptism 4. And it is no other than the Covenant of Grace or of Christianity it self which this Sacrament of the Cross doth enter us into as Baptism also doth It is not made a part of Baptism nor called a Sacrament but as far as we can judge made essentially a Humane Sacrament adjoyned to Baptism The Reformed Churches which use the Cross we mean the Lutherans yet use it not in this manner § 24. This is but your unproved Assertion That the Fault was not in the Ceremonies but in the Contenders we are ready to prove the contrary but if it had been true how far are you from Paul's mind expressed Rom. 14. 15. and 1 Cor. 8. You will let your weak Brother perish and spare not so you can but charge the Fault on himself and lay Stumbling-blocks before him and then save him by your effectual rigour by Imprisonment or Punishment § 25. Those seem a few to you that seem many to us Had it been but one hundred such as Cartwright Amesius Bradshaw Parker Hildersham Dod Nicolls Langley Paget Hering Baynes Bates Davenport Hooker Wilson Cotton Norton Shephard Cobbet Word c. they had been enough to have grieved the Souls of many Thousand godly
Men are about to do § 213. You have had the Substance of our wandering Discourses you are next to have our as unprofitable Disputes In which all was to be managed in Writing ex tempore by Dr. Pierson Dr. Gunning and Dr. Sparrow with Dr. Pierce on one side and Dr. Bates Dr. Iacomb and my self on the other side we withdrawing into the next Room and leaving the Bishops and them together while we wrote our part And we began with the Imposition of Kneeling upon two Accounts though I took the Gesture it self as lawful 1. Because I knew I had the fullest Evidence and the greatest Authority of Antiquity or Church-Law and Custom against them 2. Because the Penalty is so immediate and great to put all that kneel not from the Communion And it was only the Penalty and to the Imposition on that Penalty which we disputed against § 214. Oppon Arg. 1. To enjoin all Ministers to deny the Communion to all that dare not kneel in the Reception of the Sacrament on the Lord's days is sinful But the Common-Prayer-Book and Canons enjoin all Ministers to deny the Communion to all that dare not kneel in the Reception of the Sacrament on the Lord's Days Ergo the Common-Prayer-Book and Canons do or contain that which is sinful Resp. Not granting nor denying the Major in the first place prove the Minor Oppon We prove both 1. Prob. Major To enjoin Ministers to deny the Communion to Men because they dare not go against the Practice of the Apostles and the universal Church for many hundred Years after them and the Canons of the most venerable Councils is sinful But to enjoin Ministers to deny Communion to all that dare not kneel in the Reception of the Sacrament on the Lord's Days is to enjoin them to deny Communion to them because they dare not go against the Practice of the Apostles and the universal Church for many hundred Years after them and the Canons of the most venerable Councils Ergo. To enjoin all Ministers to deny Communion to all that dare not kneel in the Reception of the Sacrament on the Lord's Day is sinful Prob. Minor The Words of the Common-Prayer-Book and Canons prove it Resp. The Minor viz. as to the Common-Prayer-Book of which the Proof must proceed is not yet proved But the Major which we had not then spoke to but now do clearly denying that Major also of the first Syllogisin you prove by the Syllogism brought in which we deny the Minor § 215. Here we told them That for the Proof of both Propositions denyed the Presence of the Book is necessary which we desired them to procure us but they were not fatcht And first we had a large Debate about the Words of the Common-Prayer He shall deliver it them kneeling on their knees Dr. Pierson confessed that the Canons did reject them that kneel not from the Communion but these Words of the Common-Prayer-Book do not But they only include Kneelers but exclude not others We answered them that either the Common-Prayer-Book doth exclude them that kneel not or it doth not If it doth the Proposition is true If it do not then we shall willingly let fall this Argument against it and proceed to another Therefore I desired them but to tell us openly their own judgment of the Sense of the Book for we professed to argue against it only on Supposition of the exclusive Sense § 216. Hereupon unavoidably they fell into Discord among themselves Dr. Pierson who was to defend the Book told us his judgment was that the Sense was not exclusive Bishop Morley who was to offend the Nonconformists gave his judgment for the exclusive Sense viz. That the Minister is to give it to Kneelers and no others So that we professed to them That we could not go any further till they agreed among themselves of their Sense § 217. And for the other Minor denied though the Books were not present I alledged the 20th Canon Concil Nicaen Concil Trull and Tertullian oft and Epiphanius with the common Consent of ancient Writers who tell us it was the Tradition and Custom of the universal Church not to adore by Genuflexion on any Lord's Day or on any Day between Easter and Whitsuntide Ergo not so to adore in taking the Sacrament § 218. Bishop Morley answered That this was the Custom but only between Easter and Whitsuntide and therefore it being otherwise the rest of the Year was more against us I answered him that he mistook where a multitude of Evidences might rectifie him it was on every Lord's Day through the Year that this Adoration by Genuflexion was forbidden though on other Week-days it was only between Easter and Whitsuntide § 219. Next he and the rest insisted on it that these Canons and Customs extended only to Prayer To which I answered That 1. The plain words are against them where some speak of all Adoration and others more largely of the publick Worship and offered to bring them full Proof from the Books as soon as they would give me time 2. And if it were only in Prayer it is all one to our Case For the Liturgy giveth the Sacrament with Words of Prayer and it is the common Argument brought for kneeling that it 's suitable to the conjunct Prayer And I told them over and over that Antiquity was so clear in the point that I desired all might be laid on that and I might have time to bring them in my Testimonies But thus that Argument was turned off and the Evening broke off that part of the Dispute The next Days Argument § 220. Oppon To enjoin Ministers to deny the Communion to such as the Holy Ghost hath required us to receive to the Communion is sinful But to enjoin Ministers to deny the Communion to all that dare not kneel in the Reception of the Sacrament is to enjoin them to deny the Communion to such as the holy Ghost hath required us to receive to the Communion Ergo. to enjoin Ministers to deny the Communion to all that dare not kneel in the Reception of the Sacrament is a Sin Resp. We deny the Minor Oppon The Holy Ghost hath required us to receive to the Communion even all the weak in the Faith who are charged with no greater Fault than erroneously refusing things lawful as unlawful But many of those who dare not kneel in the Reception of the Sacrament are at the worst but weak in the Faith and charged with no greater Fault than erroneously refusing things lawful as unlawful Ergo To enjoin Ministers to deny the Communion to all who dare not kneel in the Reception of the Sacrament is to enjoin them to deny the Communion to such as the Holy Ghost hath required us to receive to the Communion Resp. We say This is no true but a fallacious Syllogism of no due Form For this Reason That whereas both Subject and Predicate of the Conclusion ought to be somewhere
Lives zealously and constantly continue therein against all Opposition and promote the same according to our power against all Lets and Impediments whatsoever And that we are not able our selves to suppress or overcome we shall reveal and make known that it may be timely prevented or removed All which we shall do as in the sight of God And because these Kingdoms are guilty of many Sins and Provocations against God and his Son Iesus Christ as is too manifest by our present Distresses and Dangers the Fruits thereof We profess and declare before God and the World our unfeigned desire to be humbled for our own Sins and for the Sins of these Kingdoms especially that we have not as we ought valued the inestimable benefit of the Gospel that we have not laboured for the purity and power thereof and that we have not endeavoured to receive Christ in our hearts nor to walk worthy of him in our lives which are the Causes of other Sins and Transgressions so much abounding amongst us And our true and unfeigned purpose desire and endeavour for our selves and all others under our power and charge both in publick and in private in all Duties we owe to God and Man to amend our Lives and each one to go before another in the Example of a real Reformation That the Lord may turn away his Wrath and heavy Indignation and establish these Churches and Kingdoms in Truth and Peace And this Covenant we make in the presence of Almighty God the Searcher of all hearts with a true intention to perform the same as we shall answer at that great Day when the Secrets of all hearts shall be disclosed Most humbly beseeching the Lord to strengthen us by his Holy Spirit for this end and to bless our Desires and Proceedings with such Success as may be Deliverance and Safety to his People and encouragement to other Christian Churches groaning under or in danger of the Yoke of Antichristian Tyranny to ioyn in the same or like Association and Covenant to the Glory of God the Inlargement of the Kingdom of Iesus Christ and the Peace and Tranquility of Christian Kingdoms and Common-wealths The Oath and Declaration imposed upon the Lay-Conformists in the Corporation Act the Vestry Act c. are as followeth The Oath to be taken I. A. B. do declare and believe That it is not lawful upon any pretence whatsoever to take up Arms against the King and that I do abhor that Traiterous Position of taking Arms by his Authority against his Person or against those that are Commissioned by him So help me God The Declaration to be Subscribed I. A. B. do declare That I hold there lyes no Obligation upon me or any ot her Person from the Oath commonly called The Solemn League and Covenant and that the same was in it self an unlawful Oath and imposed upon the Subjects of this Realm against the known Laws and Liberties of this Kingdom All Vestry Men to make and Subscribe the Declaration following I. A. B. do declare That it is not lawful upon any pretence whatsoever to take Arms against the King and that I do abhor that Traiterous Position of taking Arms by his Authority against his Person or against those that are Commissioned by him And that I will Conform to the Liturgy of the Church of England as it is now by Law established And I do declare That I do hold there lyes no Obligation upon me or any other Person from the Oath commonly called The Solemn League and Covenant to indeavour any Change or Alteration of Government either in Church or State and that the same was in it self an unlawful Oath and imposed upon the Subjects of this Realm against the known Laws and Liberties of this Kingdom The Declaration thus Prefaced in the Act of Uniformity Every Minister after such reading thereof shall openly and publickly before the Congregation there assembled declare his unfeigned Assent and Consent to the use of all things in the said Book contained and prescribed in these words and no other I. A. B. do here declare my unfeigned Assent and Consent to all and every thing contained and prescribed in and by the Book Instituted The Book of Common Prayer and Administration of the Sacraments and other Rites and Ceremonies of the Church according to the use of the Church of England together with the Psalter or Psalms of David pointed as they are to be sung or said in Churches and the Forms or Manner of Making Ordaining and Consecrating of Bishops Priests and Deacons The Declaration to be Subscribed I. A. B. d◠declare That it is not lawful upon any pretence whatsoever to take Arms against the King and that I abhor that Trayterous Position of taking Arms by his Authority against his Person or against those that are Commissionated by him and that I will Conform to the Liturgy of the Church of England as it is now by Law established And I do declare that I do hold there lyes no Obligation upon me or any other Person from the Oath commonly called The Solemn League and Covenant to endeavour any Change or Alteration of Government either in Church or State and that the same was in it self a◠unlawful Oath and imposed upon the Subjects of this Realm against the known Laws and Liberties of this Kingdom The Oath of Canonical Obedience EGo A. B. Iuro quod praestabo Veram Canonicam Obedientiam Episcopo Londinens◠ejusque Successoribus in omnibus licitis honestis § 302. II. The Nonconformists who take not this Declaration Oath Subscription c. are of divers sorts some being further distant from Conformity than others some thinking that some of the forementioned things are lawful and some that none of them are lawful and all have not the same Reasons for their dissent But all are agreed that it is not lawful to do all that is required and therefore they are all cast out of the Exercise of the Sacred Ministry and forbidden to preach the Word of God § 303. The Reasons commonly given by them are either 1. Against the Imposing of the things forementioned or 2. Against the Using of them being imposed Those of the former sort were given into the King and Bishops before the Passing of the Act of Uniformity and are laid down in the beginning of this Book and the Opportunity being now past the Nonconformists now meddle not with that part of the Cause it having seemed good to their Superiours to go against their Reasons But this is worthy the noting by the way that all that I can speak with of the Conforming Party do now justifie only the Using and Obeying and not the Imposing of these things with the Penalty by which they are Imposed From whence it is evident that most of their own Party do now justifie our Cause which we maintained at the Savoy which was against this Imposition whilst it might have been prevented and for which such an intemperate Fury hath
only to the Holy Canonical Scriptures in general and to the Creeds and 36 Articles in particular And no Oath Promise or Consent he required save only the renewing of the Covenant which in Baptism we made to God and a promise of Fidelity in our Ministry and the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy to the King And for all lesser matters let it suffice that the Laws may restrain us from preaching against any Established Doctrine or against Episcopacy Liturgy or Ceremonies and from all Male-Administrations or Church-Tyranny or Injustice about the Sacraments and that we be punishable according to the quality of the Offence II. The Fire having now caused a Necessity of many more publick Assemblies for God's Worship besides those in the yet standing Parish-Churches we humbly conceive that it would much conduce to the re-edifying of the Churches and City and the contenting of many and the drawing off the people from more private Meetings if a competent Number of the Ruin'd Cnurches be allowed to such sober Protestants as will repair them with the same liberty and Security for possession as the French and Dutch in London have their Churches the people chusing their Pastors and maintaining them Or if his Majesty's Bounty allow them any Stipend that none have that Stipend whom his Majesty approveth not And that the Pastors be not suffered to introdâ—ce there any Heresie or Idolatry but shall preach the Doctrine of the sacred Scriptures not opposing the Doctrines or Orders of the Church and shall worship God according to the Liturgy or the Assembly's Directory or the Reformed Liturgy offered by the Commissioners 1660. as they desire III. That all such be capable of Benefices who subscribe and swear as is aforesaid and being of Competent Abilities shall be lawfully Ordained or if already ordained are confirmed by the late Act or shall be confirmed by any Commissioned by his Majesty they being obliged some time to read the Liturgy and sometimes to administer the Sacrament according to it abating the Ceremonies And to be often present when it is read which shall be ordinarily or constantly done and the Sacrament administred as oft as is required by Law by himself or some other allowed Minister And that those who will only subscribe and swear as is abovesaid being ordained also as aforesaid but cannot so far conform to the Liturgy may be allowed to preach and Catechize publickly as Lecturers or Assistants to some others and to have such further Liberty about the Sacraments as by just Regulations shall be made safe to Religion and the publick peace There is another way which would satisfie almost all by allowing each party such a Minister whose Ordination and Ministration they do make no scruple at which would prevent all private Churches and perhaps all Face of Schism among us which is if in every Parish where any party dissenteth from the Established way the Dissenters be left at liberty either to communicate with any Neighbour-Parish or to chuse an Assistant for the Incumbent which Assistant shall be maintained by themselves unless the Incumbent will voluntarily contribute And shall officiaâ—e one half of the Day as the Incumbent doth the other having leave to do it according to the foresaid Directory or the Additional Liturgy offered 1660. or at least to have the use of the Church at such Hours as the Incumbent doth not there officiate The people receiving the Communion from each according to their several Iudgments And though so great a Rupture as ours is cannot be cured without some inconveniences which may be here objected yet such Laws may be made for the Regulation of this Liberty as may restrain all Faction Contention and Mutual Contempt or Injuries and even the Naming themselves Members of distinct Churches as might be shewed § 66. The Copy of the Lord Keeper's or Dr. Wilkins's Proposals In order to Comprehension it is Humbly Offered 1. That such persons as in the late times of disorder have been ordained by Presbyters shall be admitted to the Exercise of the Ministerial Function by the Imposition of the Hands of the Bishop with this or the like Form of Words Take thou Authority to Preach the Word of God and to Minister the Sacraments in any Congregation of the Church oâ— England where thou shalt be lawfully appointed thereunto An Expedient much of this Nature was practised and allowed of in the Case of the Catharists and Melesians Vid. 8th Canon Concil Nic. â—ynodical Epistle of the same to the Churches of Egypt Gelasius Cyzicenus Hist. Con. Nic. 2d part 2. That all persons to be admitted to any Ecclesiastical Function or Dignity or the Employment of a School-master after the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy shall instead of all former Subscriptions be required to subscribe this or the like Form of Words I A. B. do hereby profess and declare That I do approve the Doctrines Worship and Government Established in the Church of England as containing all things necessary to Salvation and that I will not endeavour by my self or any other directly or indirectly to bring in any Doctrine contrary to that which is so Established And I do hereby promise That I will continue in the Communion of the Church of England and will not do any thing to disturb the Peace thereof 3. That the Gesture of Kneeling at the Sacrament and the use of the Cross in Baptism and bowing at the Name of Iesus may be left indifferent or may be taken away as shall be thought most expedient 4. That in Case it be thought fit to review and alter the Liturgy and Canons for the satisfaction of Dissenters that then every person to be admitted to preach shall upon his Institution or Admission to preach upon some Lord's Day within a time to be limited publickly and solemnly read the said Liturgy and openly declare his Assent to the Lawfulness of the use of it and shall promise That it shall be constantly used at the time and place accustomed In order to Indulgence of such Protestants as cannot be comprehended under the publick Establishment it is Humbly offered 1. That such Protestants may have liberty for the Exercise of thâ—r Religion in publick and at 〈◊〉 Charges to build or procure places for their publick Worship either within or near Tâ—â—s as shall be thought most Expedient 2. That the Names of all such persons who are to have this Liberty be Registred together with the Congregations to which they belong and the Names of their Teachers 3. That every one admitted to this liberty be disabled to bear any publick Office but shall fine for Officers of Burden 4. And that upon shewing a Certificate of their being listed among those who are indulged they shall be freed from such legal penalties as are to be inflicted on those who do not frequent their Parish-Churches 5. And such persons so indulged shall not for their meeting in Conventicles be punished by Confiscation of Estates 6. Provided that they be
required but I think it should be the Congregation's And what if the Elders dissent Shall that hinder the Relation or not 93. The number of chosen Ministers in National Synods will be inconsiderable as to the rest 96. The use of a National Synod where all Bishops and Moderators are chosen by the King and the Commissioner ruleth being before-hand resolved to be to Compile a Liturgy and Rules for all Points of Divine Worship with the Methods Circumstances and Rites to be observed therein Many knowing what Liturgy Subscriptions Declarations and Rites are pleasing to Authority in England will imagine them in fierâ— if not virtually set up already in Scotland when these Rules are set up 107. Publick Pennance And why not and Suspension from Communion till penitent Confession be made But I know not why Compensations should serve instead of Confession and Promise of Reformation without which Money will not make a Man a Christian nor fit for Church-Communion But for any other Pennance besides one penitent Confession and Promise of Amendment and desire of the Churches Prayers for Pardon I know nothing of it and therefore meddle not with it 132. No Act Order nor Constitution may be Expounded to reach to Scripture Constitutions and Orders and the proper Acts of the Ministerial Office if not better explained 133. The Word Ecclesiastical Meeting may be interpreted of particular Synaxes or Congregations of a Parish for Worship if not limited which Convocating of the People is part of the Pastor's proper Office and for a thousand Years was so accounted by the Catholick Church And if in case of Discord or Heresie a few Neighbour Ministers meet for a Friendly Conference to cure it it seemeth hard to charge them with Sedition 140. If the Parties be able to come 143. Many of these Faults should be Corrected by Mulcts before Men be forbidden to Preach the Gospel If every Man be Suspended which I suppose is prohibiting him to Preach and Endeavour Mens Salvation who useth unsound Speeches Flattery or Lightness I doubt so many will talk themselves into Silence that a sharp Prosecution will leave many Churches desolate 145. But what if there be no Preachers to be had May not the Suspended Preach 146. Disobedience to some of the small Ecclesiastical Rules may be punished with Mulcts without absolute Silencing especially when able Preachers are wanting Shall the instructing of the Peoples Souls so much depend on every Word in all these Canons But oh that you would make that good in Practice that Labouring to get Ecclesiastical Preferment should be punished if it were with less than Deposition It would be a happy Canon 147. But shall the Synod or Presbytery carry by Vote or not 149. If every Church-Session have this power of Suspension with power but to say We declare you unfit for Communion of this particular Church till you repent it would give me great Satisfaction were I in Scotland For to speak freely I take these two Things to be of Divine Appointment 1. That each particular Church have its proper Pastor who have the Ministerial Power of Teaching Worship Sacraments Prayer Praise and Discipline and I desire no more Discipline than you here grant that is Suspension from Communion in that particular Church if also the Person may be declared unfit for it till he Repent 2. That these Pastors hold such Correspondency as is necessary to the Union of the Churches in Faith and Love And 3. For all the rest I take them to be Circumstances of such prudential Determination that I would easily submit to the Magistrates determination of them so they be not destructive to the Ends and would not have Ministers take too much of the trouble of them upon themselves without necessity 152. But then you seem here to retract the particular Churches Power again For if a Man may be debarred the Communion for once sinning by Fornication Drunkenness c. why not much more for doing again after Repentance I differ more from this than all the rest Is it not enough that the Party may Appeal to the Presbytery And that the Sessions or Pastor be responsible for Male-Administration or Injury if proved This one Canon would drive me out of the Ministry in Scotland I would never be a Pastor where I must after the first Crime ever after give the Sacrament to every flagitioâ—s Offender till the Presbytery suspend him unless they do it very quickly which perhaps they may never do 153 154. No doubt but Iure Divino every true particular Church hath the Power of Excommunicating its own Members out of that particular Church-Communion Delivering up to Satan is a doubtful Phrase which I shall not stand on But an Excommunication which shall bind many Churches to avoid the Sinner must be done or Consented to by those many Churches Therefore Excommunication should be distinguished 156. Sure some few Ecclesiastical Rules and Proceedings may be so low as that a Contempt of them may be easilyer punished than with this terrible Excommunication Impenitency must be joyned with Scandalous Sins or else they make not the Person Excommunicable as is implyed in what followeth 162. No doubt but every Church may absolve its own Members from that sort of Excommunication which it self may pass And so may a Presbytery But if the Magistrate will have a more formidable Diocesane or National Excommunication and an answerable Absolution those Circumstances are to be left to his Prudence so be it he deprive not each particular Pastor and Church of their proper Power and Priviledge plainly found in Scripture and used many hundred Years through the Catholick Church Honourable Sir The Copy which you sent me goeth no further than to the Visitation of the Sick viz. to Can. 176. And so much according as I was desired I have freely and faithfully Animadverted And in general here are many excellent Canons though of many things I cannot Judge and those few Exceptions I humbly offer to your Consideration craving your Pardon for this boldness which I should not have been guilty of if the worthy Messenger had not told me that it was your desire Sir I rest Your Humble Servant Rich. Baxter Iuly 22. 1670. § 173. I had forgotten one passage in the former War of great remark which put me into an amazemeut The Duke of Ormond and Council had the cause of the Marquess of Antrim before them who had been one of the Irish Rebels in the beginning of that War when in the horrid Massacre two hundred thousand Protestants were murthered His Estate being sequestred he sought his restitution of it when King Charles II. was restored Ormond and the Council judged against him as one of the Rebels He brought his cause over to the King and affirmed that what he did was by his Father's Consent and Authority The King referred it to some very worthy Members of his Privy-Council to examine what he had to shew Upon Examination they reported that they found that he had
think it a heinous sin to conform yet do it or Suffer for your Dissent Q. 6. Was it not an Act of Christ's Wisdom Mercy and Soveraignty to make the Baptismal Covenant which the Church explained by the Creed to be the Stablished Universal Test and Badge of his Disciples and Church-Members And did it not seem good to the Holy Ghost and the Apostles Acts 15. to Impose only necessary things And is it not a Condemning or Contradicting God needlesly to take a Contrary Course Q. 7. Is not Christ's way and the first Churches most likely to save the People's Souls and yours to damn them For you will confess that Christ's few evident necessary Conditions of Christianity would save Men if Bishops and Rulers added no more But if a multitude more which you count Lawful are added then the Nonconformists to them are in danger of Damnation for the Crime of Contempt of your Authority So that consequently you make all your Impositions needful to Salvation and so make it far harder to be saved than otherwise it would have been Q. 8. What hindereth any debauched Conscience from entering into your Ministry who dare Say or Swear any thing while he that feareth an Oath or a Lie may be kept out And against which of these should you more carefully shut the Door Q. 9. If Agreement be desirable Which side may more easily and at a cheaper rate yield and alter you or we If you forbear Imposing an Oath Subscription Declaration or Ceremony it would not do you a Farthing's-worth of hurt If we Swear Subscribe Declare Conform we take our selves to be heinous and wilful sinners against God You call that Indifferent which we believe is Sin Q. 10. Do you not confess that you are not Infallible yea and subscribe that General-councils are not even in matters of Faith And yet must we subscribe our Assent to every word in these Books or else be Silenced or Suffer Do these well consist Q. 11. Dare you deny that many of your Silenced Brethren Study as hard as you to know the Truth and have as good Capacity And are they not as like to be Impartial who suffer as much by their Judgment as you gain by yours Judge but by your selves Doth their kind of Interest tempt you more than â—our own to partiality Q. 12. Is it not gross Uncharitableness and Usurpation of God's Prerogative to say That they do it not out of Conscience when you have no more from the nature of their Cause Motives or Conversation to warrant such a Censure And they are ready to take their Oaths as before God that were it not for fear of sinning they would Conform Q. 13. Do your Consciences never startle when you think of Silencing 1800 such Ministers and depriving so many Thousand Souls of their Ministry 1 Thess. 2. 15 16. Q. 14. Can you hope to make us believe while we dwell in England that the People's Ignorance and Vice is so far Cured or the Conformists for Number and Quality are so sufficient without the Nonconformists that they should rest Silent on supposition their Labours are unnecessary Q. 15. Is not the loss of a Faithful Teacher where through Paucity or Unqualifyedness of the Conformable he is necessary a very great Affliction to the People And Do the Innocent Flocks deserve to suffer in their Souls for our Nonconformity Q. 16. Could not Men of your great Knowledge find out some other Punishment for us such as Drunkards Swearers Fornicators have which may not hurt the People's Souls nor hinder the Preaching of Christ's Gospel Q. 17. Seeing at Ordination we profess that all things necessary to Salvation are in or provable by the Scripture Do you not confess that your â—nventiunculae are not necessary to Salvation And is the Nonconformist's Ministry no more necessay Q. 18. How say you That only Christianity is necessary to a Member of the Universal Church and so much more be necessary to the Members of particular Churches and the Universal consist of them Q. 19. Did any National Church Impose any one Liturgy or Subscription besides the Creed or any Oath of Obedience to the Bishops for 300 400 500 years after Christ's Nativity Q. 20. Can you Read Rom. 14. and 15 and not believe that it bindeth the Church-Rulers as well as the People Q. 21. Did the Ancient Discipline not enforced by the Sword for 300 years do less good than yours Or was any Man Imprison'd or Punish'd by the Sword eo nomine because Excommunicate as a Contemner of Church-power in not repenting for many Hundred years after there were Christian Magistrates Q. 22. Hath not the making false Conditions of Communion and making Unnecessary things necessary thereto been the way by which the Papists have Schismatically divided Christians Q. 23. Should not Bishops be the most skilful and forward to heal and the most backward to divide or persecute Q. 24. Could you do more to extirpate Episcopacy than to make it hateful to the People by making it hurtful 25. Would you do as you do if you loved your Neighbour as your selves and loved not Superiority Q. 26. Were not those that Gildas called no Ministers such as too many now obtruded on the People And was not the Case of the Bishops that St. Martin separated from to the Death like yours or much fairer § 257. A little after some Great Men of the House of Commons drew up a Bill as tending to our Healing to take off our Oaths Subscriptions and Declarations except the Oath of Supremacy and Allegiance and Subscriptions to the Doctrine of the Church of England according to the 13th of Eliz. But shewing it to the said Bshop of Winchester he caused them to forbear and broke it And instead of it he furthered an Act only to take of Assent and Consent and the Renunciation of the Government which would have been but a Cunning Snare to make us more remediless and do no good seeing that the same things with the repeated Clauses would be still by other continued Obligations required as may be seen in the Canon for Subscription Act 2. and in the Oxford-Act for the Oath and confining Refusers And it 's credibly averred that when most of the other Bishops were against even this ensnaring shew of abatement he told them in the House that had it been but to abate us a Ceremony he would not have spoken in it But he knew that we were bound to the same things still by other Clauses or Obligations if these were Repealed § 258. But on Feb. 24. all these things were Suddenly ended the King early suddenly and unexpectedly Proroguing the Parliament till November Whereby the Minds of both Houses were much troubled and Multitudes greatly exasperated and alienated from the Court Of whom many now saw that the Leading Bishops had been the great Causes of our Distractions but others hating the Nonconformists more were still as hot for Prelacy and their Violence as ever § 259. All this
men at a Meeting being assaulted defended themselves and so were many drawn into resistance of the Magistrate and were destroyed § 50. There came from among the Papists more and more Converts that detected the Plot against Religion and the King After Oates Bedlow Everard Dugdale â—ranse came Ienrison a Gentleman of Gray-Inn Smyth a Priest and others But nothing stopt them more than a Plot discovered to have turned all the odium on the Presbyterians and Protestant Adversaries of Popery They hired one Dangerfield to manage the matter but by the industry of Colonel Mansel who was to have been first accused and Sir William Waller the Plot was fully detected to have forged a Plot as of the Presbyterians or Dissenters and many great Lords And Dangerfield confest all and continueth a stedfast Convert and Protestant to this day § 51. But my unfitness and the Torrent of late Matter here stops me from proceeding to insert the the History of this Age It is done and like to be done so copiously by others that these shreds will be of small signification Every year of late hath afforded matter for a Volume of Lamentations Only that Posterity may not be deluded by Credulity I shall truly tell them That Lying most Impudently in Print against the most notorious Evidence of Truth in the vending of cruel Malice against Men of Conscience and the fear of God is become so ordinary a Trade as that its like with Men of Experience ere long to pass for a good Conclusion Dictum vel scriptum est a Malignis Ergo falsum est Many of the Malignant Clergy and Laity especially Le Strange the Observator and such others do with so great Confidence publish the most Notorious Falshoods that I must confess it hath greatly depressed my Esteem of most History and of Humane Nature If other Historians be like some of these Times their Assertions when-ever they speak of such as they distaste are to be Read as Hebrew backward and are so far from signifying Truth that many for one are downright Lies It 's no wonder Perjury is grown so common when the most Impudent Lying hath so prepared the way § 52. Having published a Confutation of Mr. Danvers about Infant-baptism one Mr. Hut binson an Anabaptist in a reproachful Letter called me to review what I had written on that Subject And in a few sheets I published it called A Review of my thoughts of Infant-Baptism which I think for the brevity and perspicuity fittest for the use of ordinary doubters of that point And Mr. Barret hath contracted my other Books of it in certain Quaere's § 53. The act restraining the Press being expired I published a Book that lay by me to open the case of Nonconformity called A Plea for Peace which greatly offended many Conformists tho I ventured no farther but to name the things that we durst not conform to Even the same Men that had long called out to us to tell them what we desired and said We had nothing to say could not bear it The Bishop of Ely Dr. Gunning told me He would petition Authority to command us to give the reasons of our Nonconformity and not thus keep up a Schism and give no reason for it The Bishop of London Dr. Compton told me That the King took us to be not sincere for not giving the reasons of our dissent I told them both it was a strange Expectation from Men that had so fully given their reason against the old Conformity in our Reply and could get no Answer and when their own Laws would Excommunicate Imprison and Ruin us for doing any such thing as they demanded But I would begg it on my knees and return them most hearty thanks if they would but procure us leave to do it Yet when it was but half done it greatly provoked them And they Wrote and said That without the least provocation I had assaulted them Whereas I only named what we stuck at professing to accuse none of them And they thought Seventeen years Silencing Prosecuting Imprisoning Accusations of Parliament men Prelates Priests and People and all their Calls What would you have Why do you not tell us what you stick at to be no provocation Yea Bishops and Doctors had long told Great Men That I my self had said That it was only things inconvenient and not things sinful which I refused to Conform to Whereas I had given them in the Description of Eight Particular things in the old Conformity which I undertook to prove sinful and at the Savoy began with one of them And in the Petition for Peace offered our Oaths that we would refuse Conformity to nothing but what we took to be sin And now when I told them what the Sins were O what a common Storm did it raise among them When Heathens would have let Men speak for themselves before they are Condemned its Criminal in us to do it Seventeen years after § 54. Dr. Stillingfleet being made Dean of Pauls was put on as the most plausible Writer to begin the assault against us which he did in a printed Sermon proving me and such Others Schismaticks and Separatists To which I gave an answer which I thought satisfactory Dr. Owen and Mr. Alsoy also answered him To all which be wrote some what like a Reply § 55. Against this I Wrote a second Defence which he never answered § 56. One Mr. Cheny an honest weak Melancholy-Man wrote against my Plea for Peace to which I Published an Answer § 57. One Mr. Hinkley Wrote against me long ago which occasioned some Letters betwixt us and now he Published his Part and put me to publish mine which I did with an Answer to a Book called Reflexions c. and another called The Impleader and a Re-joynder to Mr. Cheny-Long of Exeter was one of them § 58. Because a Book called The Counterminer Le Strange and many others endeavoured still as their Chief Work to perswade Rulers and all that we cherished Principles of Rebellion and were preparing for Treason Sedition or a War I much desired openly to publish our Principles about Government and Obedience but our Wise Parliament-Gentlemen were against it saying You can publish nothing so truly or warily but Men will draw Venom out of it and make use of it against you But having been thus stopt many years it satisfied not my Conscience and I published all in a Book called A second Plea for Peace And it hath had the strange fate of Being Unanswered to this day nor can I get them to take notice of it Though it was feared it would have been but â—ewel to their Malice for some ill effect I added to it The Nonconformists Iudgment about things indifferent about Scandal The difference between Grace and Morality and what Nonconformity is not § 59. Upon Mr. H. Dodwell's provocation I published a Treatise of Episcopacy that had lain long by me which fully openeth our Judgment about the difference between
in with such an Advantage as the turning of the Papist Bishops would have brought But what is that to prove that they would have Bishops and could not Grotius knew France as well as you whoever you are and he tells us another Story of them Discus Apologet. Rivet That they wilfully cast out the Order of Bishops as far as their Authority could reach what impossibility hath their been these hundred Years for France Belgia Helvetia Geneva with the rest of the Protestant Churches to have had Bishops if they had been willing They had Hermannus of Colen Vergerius of Iustinop came among them Spalatensis would have ordained some in his Passage if no English Bishop could have been got thither how easy had it been to have sent one to receive Episcopal Consecration here and then to have gone home and ordained more It may be you would make us believe the like of the Church of Scotland too that they would fain have Bishops and could not If you alledge 〈◊〉 Inconvenience that necessitates all these Protestant Churches to continue without Bishops even to this Day I say 3. Our Necessity is as great as any of theirs for ought you can manifest to the contrary for 1. Our Rulers are as much against them 2. We cannot exercise publickly our Ministerial Office unless we be ordained according to the Laws of the present Rulers 3. There is a heavy Penalty ordained to all Ordainers that do otherwise 4. We have no Bishop in our Diocess 5. We read Canons that null Bishops Ordination out of their Diocesses 6. We know not of above two Bishops in England nor where to find the rest that are latent and we hear those two will not ordain 7. Divers of them were justly ejected for destroying the Church and we cannot take them for Bishops 8. We are but Subjects and a small part of the Ministry and cannot set up Bishops among our selves if we were of that Judgment as much as others But Nations Commonwealths and Free-cities might if they would The Cloak which you say is too short is indeed much larger than our Case requires If our Nation or any part of it did voluntarily cast off Bishops so did the Protestant Churches and continue to keep them out to this Day But you cannot prove that the Ministers of this Association did cast them off And for your surmise of the Countenance of our Christian Charity I answer we never yet gave you Cause to suppose that we distinguish not between Protestant Bishops and Papists Except to Sect. 5. An Argument a Fortiori all Logick admits of but I never heard a Suspicion of any Firmness in concluding ab Imbecilliori thus Perhaps perhaps I say and as many Moderns would charitably think they may be true Presbyters who were ordained by Presbyters where morally to speak and as to consciential possibility there was an impossibility of procuring Orders from any Bishops but such as would oblige them to betray both Presbyters and Bishops Authority to Papal Usurpation and arrogated Supremacy therefore we also who might have had Ordination by Bishops and those such who have as well as we oft hindred that papal Usurpation yea had renued that Duration by an Oath in Synod a little before these late sad Schisms and this new attempted Ordination and chose to be ordained without them contrary to all the Canons of the Church Universal of all Ages till these last Ages of this Cotroversy We I say also for all that are true Pastors and Presbyters and we will be acknowledged for such in this Agreement and others to be Popish Divines lurking under the Name of Episcopal Divines Lo here a goodly Consequence and a Christian Presbyterian Charity Reply to Sect. 5. 1. Our Argument is not only a pari but a fortiori as is manifested 2. You give us reason here to fear that your self are one of those Persons whom we except against and that it is your own Cause that you strive for and that your Guilt is it that makes you angry for you seem to me to intimate to us that you own not their Opinion that make the Protestant Ministers to be Ministers indeed and consequently their Churches true organized Churches for all the necessity which you pretend they had for you make it but a perhaps and your double that perhaps that we may see you own it not and you say it is as many would think as if it were but their Thought and as if you were none of those many And it is but the Moderns that so think as if you intimated that Antiquity iudged otherwise which doubtless you prefer before the Moderns and you say they would think it intimating that Will prevails against Judgment or Judgment follows not that Will yea it is charitably that they would think it as if Affection misled them and other Passages afterward do yet further reveal your Mind in this though you are loath I perceive to speak out because of the harshness of it to Protestants Ears I therefore again say 1. Those churches were not nor are to this Day under any impossibility of having Bishops if they judged them necessary 2. That you prove not what you say that they in this Country might have had Ordination by a Bishop who were ordained by Presbyters only We leave therefore our Consequence and our Christian Presbyterian Charity to a more equal Judge whether that Man be like to be a Protestant that taketh the Church of Rome for a true Church and all the reformed Churches except the Episcopal for no true Churches and that taketh their Priests for Lawful Ministers and all the Protestant Ministers for none except those that were ordained by Bishops nay that argue as here you do to have us and consequently all so ordained disclaimed by Pastors and People and consequently all our Churches nullified and publick Worship forsaken Are we so blind as not to see that you thus not only prefer the Papists before us as much as a true Ministry before no Ministry and a true Church before no Church but hereby would deliver us up into their Hands If we dispute with them in the hearing of the People and confess that their Church is true and ours is not may not the People easily see that it 's better join with them than with us and would not you your self rather submit to a Mass Priest than to those whom you take for no Ministers at all If you say you would have us submit to neither but to the Episcopal yet 1. It follows nevértheless that the Papists of the two are to be preferred as true Ministers before them that are none 2. And if we dispute with the Papist which is the true Church and set against them only Eleven or Twelve for so many you reckon on English Bishops and if there be any Irish or Scotish with those of the Clergy that adhere to them Quality and Number considered whom the People know not where to find nor can
enjoy what Success is such a Dispute like to have either with the People or with the Adversary will they not tell us our Church is invisible especially when these few Bishops are dead Except to Sect. 6. 2. Whether in this Worcestershire Association whosoever will enter into it doth not therein oblige himself to acknowledge that Presbyters while there remain alive fourteen or thirteen or twelve Catholick Protestant Bishops may proceed to publick Excommunications and Absolutions in foro Ecclesiastico without asking those Bishops Consent allowance or taking any notice of them See Resolution 12 13 14 15. and the Scope of the whole Book Reply to Sect. 6. To your second Question I answer The Term Excommunication we use not This Term is used to signify sometimes a delivering up to Satan and casting out of the Catholick Church sometimes only a Ministerial Declaration that such a Person should be avoided by the People acquainting them with their Duty and requiring them to perform it sometimes it signifies the Peoples actual Avoidance In the former Sense we have let it alone and that which you call your Excommunicatio Major we meddle not with much less do we usurp a compelling Power for the Execution The other we know to be consistent with the Principles of Episcopal Protestants if not also with Papists yea even when there is a Bishop resident in the Diocess it being but part of our teaching and guiding Office as Presbyters of that Congregation but I have said enough of this in my Explications already 2. But what if there be twelve latent Bishops in England when for my part I I hear not of above two or three have they Power not only to ordain but also to govern other Diocesses which have no Bishops Yea must they needs govern them 1. Woe then to the Churches of England that must live under such Guilt devoid of all Government 2. Woe to the Sinners themselves that must be left without Christ's Remedy 3. Woe to particular Christians that must live in the continual Breach of God's known Law that saith with such go not to eat c. for want of a Bishop to Execute it 4. Woe to the few Bishops that be for it all the Authority be in them then the Duty and Charge of executing it is only on them and then they are bound to Impossibilities one Bishop must Excommunicate all the Offenders in a great part of the Land when he is not sufficient to the hundredth part of the Work Then when all the Bishops in England are dead save one or two they are the sole Pastors of England and all Discipline must be cast away for want of their Sufficiency Then it seems the Death of one Bishop or two or three doth actually devolve their Charge to another and who knoweth which other This is new Canon Not only Protestant Bishops but some Papists confess that when a Bishop is dead the Government remains in the Presbyters till another be chosen sure they that govern the People at least with him whilst he is living as is confessed need not look on it as an alien supereminent transcendent Work when he is dead Bishop Bromhall against Mil. p. 127. gives People a Judgment of Discretion and Pastors a Judgment of Direction and to the chief Pastors a Judgment of Jurisdiction You may go well allow us by a Judgment of Direction to tell the People that they should avoid Communion with an open wicked Man even while a Bishop is over us Selden de Syne c. 8 9 10. and will tell you another Tale of the way of Antiquity in Excommunication and Absolution than you do hear But of this enough in the Books Except to Sect. 7. 3. Doth not he oblige himself also to acknowledge that not only Presbyters incommuni governing but one single one of them may proceed to Excommunicatiand Absolution in foro Ecclesiastico Reply to Sect. 7. Your third Question I answer by a Denial There is no such Obligation The Declaration of the Peoples Duty to avoid such an one is by one so is every Sermon so is your Episcopal Excommunication Doth not one and that a Presbyter declare or publish it But for advising and determining of it we have tyed our selves not to do it alone though for mine own private Opinion I doubt not easily to prove that one single Bishop or Pastor hath the Power of the Keys and may do all that we agree to do Except to Sect. 8. 4. That not only one single Presbyter but one whose Ordination was never by any Bishop to be Presbyter where also Bishops were that might have been sought unto hath that Power also of Excommunication c. Reply to Sect. 8. Your fourth is answered in the rest if his Ordination have only in the Judgment of Episcopal Protestants yea of some Papists an Irregularity but not a Nullity then he hath Power to do so much as we agree on Your Exception is as much against his other Ministrations Except to Sect. 9. I speak only of the Essence of their Association not insisting on what Mr. Baxter declares to the World that in some Cases the People not satisfied with the Bishops or Presbyters Ordination may accept or take a Man of themselves without any Ordination by Bishops or Presbyters to be their Pastor and Presbyter with Power of Excommunication and Absolution in himself alone without the People see p. 83. Reply to Sect. 9. That this may be done in some Cases I have lately disputed it with a learned Man of your Party and convinced him And methinks Nature should teach you if you were unordained but qualified by Gifts cast among the Indians that you should not let them perish for want of that publick constant teaching which is Ministerial or of Sacraments and Discipline only for want of Ordination that the Substance of Duty should not be thrown by for want of that Order which was instituted for its Preservation and not for its Destruction You dare scarce openly and plainly deny that Necessity warrants the Presbyters of the Reformed Churches to ordain And I doubt you allow it them then on no other grounds then what would warrant this that I am now pleading for Except to Sect. 10. And for any Votum or desire of Bishops Protest Bishops if they might have them or access unto them which was so oft the publick avowed Desire of the chiefest Reformers and Protestants beyond Sea much unlike the Spirit of our Presbyterians see what Mr. Baxter gives us to know p. 85. where comparing our present Bishops with a Leader in an Army he faith Nay it is hard trusting that Man again that hath betrayed us and the Church ibid. These have so apparently falsified their Trust that if we were fully resolved for Bishops yet we cannot submit to them for Ordination or Jurisdiction and then he proves it by Canon he thinks that the Presbyters now should not submit to the present Bishops by Canon Concilii Rbegien ut
perversi ordinatores nullis denuo ordinationibus intersunt and least you may reply that he speaks not this of all our present Bishops he immediately subjoins these Words Where then shall we have a Bishop to ordain of the old accused Tribe Is not this Christian Filial Duty of Presbyters toward the Bishops their Fathers Reply to Sect. 10. 1. For that Desire you again mention of Bishops in the Reformed Churches it is an unproved vain Assertion against full Evidence It is only of a few particular Persons in those Churches that you can prove it If so many Writings against Bishops and Constitutions and actual Practice will not prove them willing to be without them or at least not necessitated there is no Proof of any Man's Will or Necessity 2. What I said I must needs maintain till you say somewhat to change my Judgment I am past doubt it 's ill trusting the Betrayers and Destroyers of the Church with the Government of it And this I did prove and can with great Ease and Evidence prove it more fully 3. I pray you do not persuade Men that by the old accused Tribe I meant all the late English Bishops they were not all accused of destroying or betraying the Church that I ever heard of Where be the Articles that were put in against Usher Hall Davenant Potter Westfield Prideaux c. All those that I call the accused Tribe you may find Articles against in Parliament for their Devastations or Abuses Should the Arrians or other Heretick Bishops say to those that forsook them as you do of me is not this Christian Filial Duty of Presbyters towards the Bishops their Fathers There is no Duty to any Episcopal Father that will hold against God and his Church Take heed of making their Sins your own Except Sect. 11. And elsewhere by Irony he adds O what a rash thing it was to imprison though when he was imprisoned I believe it was by the Name of Dr. Wren or Bishop Wren for excommunicating depriving c. p. 51. and p. 68. To begin at home it is most certain according to many ancient Canons which are their Laws our English Bishops were incapable of ordaining for they lost their Authority by involving themselves in secular and publick Administrations Canon 80. Apostolig N B. That Canon is 30. beyond the Canons Apostolical for even the Papists themselves admit but of fifty genuine and he would eject all our Bishops by the 80th Canon Apostolical Lost their Authority also for neglect of instructing their Floâ—â— most or many of them and many more for non Residence c. Reply to Sect. 11. And why not Wren without any further Title as well as Calvin Luther Beza Zanchy Grotius c. 2. Let the indifferent Reader peruse all my words and blame me if he can What seems it so small a matter in your eyes to expel so many thousand Christian Families and silence and suspend and deprive so many able Ministers in so small a room and so short a time as that it is disobedience to our Fathers not to consent to their punishment It seems then these silly Lambs must be devoured not only without resistance but without complaint or accusing the Wolves because they say they were our Fathers God never set such Saturnine Fathers over his Church so as to authorize them in this or to prohibite a just remedy He never gave them power for Destruction but for Edification 3. What I said of our Bishops incapacity upon that reason was expresly ad hominem against mine own Judgement viz. upon supposition that those Canons are of such force as those imagine against whom I dispute 4. The Canon 80 Apost was also brought ad hominem for though it be confessed not of equal Antiquity with the rest yet for that Antiquity they have it is known how much use those men make of their supposed Authority But are there not enough others that may evince the point in hand besides that you may easily know it and in many Canons that null their Office who come in by the Magistracy Exception to Sect. 12. And whereas we are ready to make good against all the Papists in the world that our English Protestant Bishops had due Ordination in Queen Eliz. and King Edwards time by such who had been Ordained in King Henry the Eighths time Mr. Baxter tells us the Popish Bishops who Ordained in the days of Hen. 8. and many Ages before had no power of Ordination and this he speaks as his own judgment not only from the consequences of his Adversaries for he adds this I prove in that they received their Ordination from no other Bishops of the Province nor Metropolitan but only from the Pope singly yet this is all the Argument he hath to overthrow consequentially upon our objections the Ordination of those Protestant Bishops which himself acknowledges Learned Pious Reverend Men and all that Ordained or were Ordained in Hen. 8. 7. and many Ages before as he saith And indeed if his Discourse were of any force not only in our English Church but also in all the Churches of the West France Spain Polonia Swedland Denmark and throughout the Empire of Germany for these and those many Ages before which he speaks of and all this that our new Presbyterians of Enngland Volunteers in Ordaining and being Ordained without Bishops without pretence of necessity yea or difficulty or colour of difficulty except what themselves had created wherein they have as little Communion with the Protestants beyond seas as they have with the Episcopal Protestants of the true Reformed Church of England may be acknowledged good and lawful Presbyters and Pastors with power conjunctim divisim any one of them alone as Mr. Baxter thinks to Excommunicate and Absolve in foro Ecclesiastico Reply to Sect. 12. The word Due may signifie either such as is not null or else such as is fully regular or else such as they had Authority to perform who did ordain though they might have some Faults or Irregularities If you take it in the first Sense many will yield it who yet deny it in the last as supposing in some Cases Ordination Passive may be valid and so due in the Receiver when yet Ordination Active is without all just Authority in the Ordainer Though this may seem strange I am ready to give some Reasons for it It must be in the last Sense conjunct with the first that you must take the Word Due if you will speak to the point in Hand 2. I do expresly say there that it is according to the Doctrine of the Objectors consequentially that I affirm this not affirming or denying it to be mine own Judgment and to that end bring the Proof which is mentioned And yet you are pleased to affirm that I speak it as my own Judgment and not only from the Consequences of Adversaries Supposing your Grounds which I confidently deny that an uninterrupted Succession of due Authoritative Ordination
Protestant Divines of England are branded as Popish that since the Reformation have defended against the Pope that Bishops are jure Divino for so I say it was direct Popery that first denied Bishops to be jure Divino witness the Pope's and Papelins canvassing in the Council of Trent to oppress by Force and Tyranny the far major and more learned part of the Council that contended for so many Months with Suffrages Arguments and Protestations Protestant like to have it defined that Bishops were jure Divino and only the Pope and his Titulars and Courtiers suffered it not to be propounded least it should be as certainly it would have been defined for then Popes and Presbyterians could not have lorded it so Thus the chiefest and most pious and learned Bishops of our English Church must be branded for Popish Bishop Andrews Mountague White c. Reply to Sect. 15. 1. If you deny the Authors cited by me to be authentick pretend not to adhere to the Episcopal Protestants for sure these are such 2. You do not well to say that all the Protestant Bishops are branded as Popish that since the Reformation have defended against the Pope that Bishops are jure Divino either shew the Words where I so brand them or else do not tell us that your Words are true though in a matter of Fact before your Eyes we may well question your Argument when we find you so untrue in reporting a plain Writing Indeed our late Bishops and those most that were most suspected to be Popish did stand most upon the jus Divinum which many of the first did either disclaim or not maintain But it never came into my Thoughts to brand all for Papists that did own it Do I not cite Downame and others as Protestant Bishops who yet maintain it yea Bishop Andrews whom you name this is not fair 3. As for the Trent Quarrel about Bishops I say but this if the Spanish Bishops and the rest that stood for the jus Divinum of Episcopacy there were no Papists then those that I spoke of in England were none much less And I must cry you mercy for so esteeming them Except to Sect. 16. The 3d Argument is from the uncertainty of Succession which might have done the Hereticks good Service in the old times when St. Irenaeus and Tertullian muster up against them Successions of Catholick Bishops that ever taught as the Church then taught against the Hereticks Reply to Sect. 16. 1. It seems you are confident of an uninterrupted Succession of authoritative Ordination though you seem to think none authoritative but Episcopal But so were not the Protestant Bishops who took the Reformed Churches to have true Ministers and to be true Churches when yet Episcopal Ordination is interrupted with them Such are all those with whose Words you say I fill my Book to whom I may add Men which is strange that were thought nearer your own way As Bishop Bromhall in his late Answer to Militerius who yet would have the Pope to be the Principium Unitatis to the Church and the Answer to Fontanus's Letter said to be Dr. Stewards besides Dr. Fern yea if you were one of those that would yield that Presbyters may ordain yet I am still unpersuaded that you are able to prove an uninterrupted Succession of Authoritative Ordination and if you are able I should heartily thank you if you would perform it and seeing it is so Necessary it is not well that no Episcopal Divine will perform it If you are not able methinks you should not judge it so necessary at least except you know them that are able If you cast it on us to disprove that Succession I refer you to our Answer to Bellarmine and others in those Papers as to that point 2. As for Tertullian and Irenaeus and others of the primitive Ages pleading such Succession I answer 1. It is one thing to maintain an uninterrupted Succession then when and where it was certain and another to maintain it now when it is not 2. It is one thing then to maintain that such a Succession was de facto and another to affirm that it must be or would be to the end of the World which those Fathers did not It was the Scope of Irenaeus and Tertullian not to make an uninterrupted Succession of standing absolute necessity ad esse Officii nor to prophecy that so it should still be and the Church should never want it but from the present certainty of such a Succession de facto to prove that the Orthodox Churches had better Evidence of the Soundness of their Faith than the Hereticks had If this be not their meaning I cannot understand them it was easy then to prove the Succession and therefore it might be made a Medium against Hereticks to prove that the Churches had better Evidence than they But now the Case is altered both through time and Sin It might have been proved by Tradition without Scripture what was sound Doctrine and what not before the Scripture was written An Heretick might have been confuted in the Days of the Apostles without their Writings and perhaps in a great measure some time after but it follows not that they may be so to the End of the World Those that heard it from the Mouth of the Apostles could tell the Church what Doctrine they taught but how uncertain a way Tradition would have been to acquaint the World with God's Mind by that time it had passed through the puddle of depraved Ages even to 1653. God well knew and therefore provided us a more certain way So is it also in this Case of Succession as the Fathers pleaded it against the Hereticks to prove the Soundness of the Tradition of those Churches Except to Sect. 17. Against all which a Quirk it seems lay that if secretly any of them had had but a secret Canonical Irregularity all the following Successions were null But the evident Truth is much otherwise that the Church never anulled the Acts or Ordinations made by Bishops which the Catholick Church then had accepted and reputed Catholick Bishops though afterwards they came to know of any Secret Irregularities or canonical Disablings had they then been urged or prosecuted by any against those Bishops and then they should have been accepted for Bishops by the Church no longer Reply to Sect. 17. 1. I have proved and more can do open and not only secret Irregularities in the Church of Rome's Ordinations known a Priâ—re and not only after the Ordinations The Multitude of Protestant Writers even English Bishops have made that evident enough against the Pope which you call a Querk general Councils have condemned Popes as Hereticks and Infidels and yet they have ordained more 2. If it were otherwise yet all your Answer would only prove that we must sometimes take them for Bishops who were none when the Nullity is secret but not that they are Bishops indeed or have Authority It is one thing to
may say as much for the proving of the Universal Churches Practice in this Point as in most it being of constant and solemn use and none that I know of that ever opposed it But if you hold this universal Practice to be the other part of God's Law and do lay any thing much on it in other Points especially in Doctrinals I would advise you to get better Proof of the Universality than others use to bring who go that way As the Romish Church is not the the Universal nor the Romish and Greek together so the Opinion of four or five or more Fathers is no Evidence of the Judgment of the universal Church Till they are better agreed with themselves and one another it is hard taking a view of the Judgment of the Church universal in them in controverted Points Till Origen Tertullian c. cease to be accounted Hereticks till Firmilianus Cyprian and the Council of Carthage be better agreed with Stephen Bishop of Rome till Ruffinus cease to be a Heretick to Hierom and many the like Discords it 's hard seeing the Face of the Church universal in this Glass I was but even now reading in Hierom where he tells Austin that there were quaedam Haeretica in his Writings against him when yet to the impartial Reader the angry Man that morosus Senex had the unsounder Cause As long as the Writings of Clem. Alexandr Origen â—atianus pretended Dyonisius Lactantius with so many more do tot erroribus scatere as long as many Councils have so erred and Council is a great Council and someâ—things are imposed by them under the terrible Pennalty of Anathematizing which Rome it self doth take unlawful to be observed these are not perfect Indices of the Mind of Christ or the universal Church Read Baronius himself Tom. 3. what abundance of Errors in History he chargeth upon Epiphanius and others I suppose you to have read Daille and the Lord Digby on this yet think not that I would detract from the due Estimation of the Fathers or Councils or from the necessity of Tradition to the use which I have expressed in the Preface to the Second part of my Book of Rest. But I know not well in the matter of Not-kneeling and Not-fasting on the Lord's Day Not-reading the Books of Heathens c. how a Man should obey both the former Councils and the present Church of Rome it self yea or how in matter of giving the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper to Insants and other things the present Church and the former do agree And I would know whether it was not the Practice of that which you call the universal Church then which the following Ages did alter and contradict But all this part of the Answer is but occasional as to your Amplifications and not to the matter under debate I further answer you therefore that the universal Practice of the Church doth prove no more but that it was done and therefore by them judged a Duty to be done and so not to be omitted while they could use it all which I grant you I am not one that would have Ordination used without Imposition but in case of necessity But it follows not from all this that it is essential to Ordination suppose a Church institute a new Ceremony that every Bishop ordained shall have a Helmet on to signify that he must fight valiantly as a Captain under Christ and the Ordainer must lay his Hands on this If I can prove that it hath been the universal Practice of the Church in nudum apertum caput manus imponere doth it follow that this is essential and the contrary null If you ask what necessity there can be of Ordination sine manum Impositione I answer very great and ordinary viz. ut absentes ordinentur for want of which the Church hath suffered and may suffer very much When a Man is in remote Parts of the World and perhaps too scrupelous of playing the Bishop without Ordination if he must travel over Land and Sea for Ordination his Life may be gone or most of it spent while he is seeking Authority to use it for his Master If a few only of the Ordainers were left in a Country or in many Nations and those imprisoned or forced to hide themselves they might by an Instrument under their Hands Ordain when they could not at all or to one of a hundred by Imposition of Hands But yet all this is but the least necessary part of my Answer to your Argument To your Consequence therefore I answer by denying it If the Succession be interrupted what necessity is there that the next must come in without Imposition of Hands what shew of such a Consequence May not the illegitimate Ordainer imponere manus Or may he not himself enter by Imposition of Hands and yet be illegitimate and his Calling null If you think not only Imposition to be essential but also that nothing else is essential or that all are true Ministers that are ordained by a lawful Bishop per manum impositionem then do you egriously tibi ipsi imponere Suppose a lawful Bishop should ordain a Man into an unlawful Office as to be the universal Bishop or should ordain a known Heathen to be a Bishop by Imposition of Hands were not this null Yea and many a lower case as in case of Symony c. if Councils be of any Authority Here then the Succession is interrupted and yet this Man may Ordain others by Imposition of Hands Suppose in the case of Pope Ione the Succession interrupted for want of a capable Sex and yet she might Ordain by Imposition of Hands Lastly I answer This Argument can pretend to prove no more than the former That Ordination is essential to the Call of the Ministry Ergo So far as that is disproved so far is this And indeed it had been stronger arguing a Necessitate Ordinationis ad necessitatem impositionis manuum than e contra because all Arguing should be a Notiore But sure the Necessity of Imposition of Hands is minus notum then the necessity of Ordination Many a Thousand will yield that Ordination is essential I believe that will not yield it of that Imposition Having done with all that I find in this Paper I add this cross Argument for the enervating of all or if you will of your Second which is all If your Arguments do tend as well to prove the absolute Necessity of an uninterrupted Succession quoad modum as to every Mode and Circumstance in Ordination which the Apostles have required as due without express Dispensation for Omission as of legitimate Ecclesiastical Ordination it self then they are unsound At verum prius Ergo The Antecedent is proved thus The full Strength of all your Arguments is here Christ or his Apostles or the Church since have mentioned no other way of Conveying Ministerial Power but by Ordination and Imposition of Hands Ergo There is no other way and this is necessary
later is but for the former and subservient to it and a more dispensable thing and that when the Ordainers fail of their Duty which is his own Precept included herein the Person to be ordained remaineth nevertheless obliged by the other part So that while Ordination may be had this ties such to submit to it and makes it necessary as God's Order and then the whole Precept comprehensive obligeth But when it cannot be had or the Ordainer will not obey his part of the Precept the other stands in force nevertheless to the other Party The Words Men thus qualified shall be ordained hath these two Precepts in it The First in Order and Weight is Men thus qualified shall preach the Word The Second subservient is They shall ordinis gratia be ordained hereto He that is wilfully the first Divider of these Conjunct Precepts sinneth Either the Man that will Preach without submitting to Ordination when it may be had or the Ordainers that will not Ordain the Orthodox or otherwise well qualified But seeing the Word shall in the foresaid Precept doth create a double Necessity but far unequal there shall be Preaching and Ergo there shall be Ordaining it followeth from the inequality that when one ceaseth the other doth not ergo cease and so when Ordination cannot be had the Proposition which you expected remaineth alone which before was conjunct with another Men thus qualified shall Preach This was the Summ of my Answer which I do repeat verbosé nimium because you overlooked it the last time But you add I cannot yield that which you conceive we are both agreed in viz. That when the Word hath described the Qualifications of the Minister that there is no more to do but to discern and judge who is the Man that hath these Qualifications For though the Bishop should judge such a Man fit for the Ministry as discerning the Qualifications which the Word requires in him yet till he hath by Imposition of Hands Fasting and Prayer set him apart for that Work he is yet no Minister to my Understanding whatever he may be to yours To this I reply 1. I take the Form of Ordination to lye in the Authoritative Appointment and God having described the Person by his Qualifications I take the formal nature of this Appointment to lye only in the determining Judgment who shall be the Man For whether there shall be a Man appointed or not God hath not left to Man's Judgment nor yet what manner of Man for Qualifications he shall be If Ergo the lawful Ordainers say We do by the Authority given us of God judge i. e. sentence or determine that consideratis considerandis this is the Man that is qualified and so called of God to be the Pastor of this Church and Ergo require you in the Name of Christ to accept him and submit to him this Man is ordained my Judgment yea though this Determination be but in Writing So if it be directed to the Minister himself which goes first we do by the Authority given us of God Judge thee called to the Office of the Ministry and Ergo require thee to undertake it By called I mean ex parte Dei by Qualification Consent Opportunity c. which go before Ordaining Now what do you yet want ad esse Ministri â—â—ou mention but two things 1. Imposition of Hands 2. Fasting and Prayer For setting a part is done by the former Authoritative Determination But 1. Imposition you anon deny to be so necessary in disclaiming your last Argument which you seem here to forget 2. Fasting and Prayer is no doubt a mean Accident or Duty fitly conjoined but not of the Essence of Ordination I think few Men living will say that if the Lawful Ordainer do all the rest of the Work besides Prayer that it is no Ordination Prayer is one thing requisite ad bene esse and Ordination another And for Fasting I could not learn that those Bishops that I knew did always observe it but when the Ordination was before dinner time as it usually was and the Bishop went presently from Ordination to his Feast that was not the Fasting I think which you mean But how are you satisfied that we may derive our Authority immediately from the Law if there were no Succession and yet think him no Minister that hath the determinating Sentence of the Ordainer's Appointing him to the Work for want of Imposition of Hands Prayer and Fasting Ad 3 um I marvel that on so very slight Grounds you think that nothing is more evident than that the case of extream Necessity is their case who invade the Ministry among us now I told you that Nemini debitur Commodum ex propriâ culpa as the Civil Law saith I distinguished between moral Impossibility vicious and culpable and inculpable and between necessitating to Sin and necessitating to or constituting of Duty and I told you that the impossibility that lay on them of right entering was vicious or through their own Sin and God doth not cause Men to Sin I told you also that this erring Conscience might necessitate them to sin that is ensuare them that hey shall sin whether they do or not do but it can never warrant them in obeying it This was the Sense of my Speech though not the Words To explain which I desire you to observe that bonum est ex causis integris at least quoad Species if not quoad Gradus So that God requireth to a virtuous Action which shall be properly and plenarily Moral i. e. voluntary 1. That it be made due by his own Precept or Law 2. That it be apprehended such by the Intellect and so by the will elected and elicite as such So that where Conscience takes that to be Duty which is none it hath but Officium apparâ—us non verum it catcheth a Shadow apprehending a Duty which is no Duty so there may be interpretative a kind of formal Reason of Obedience in the Will the Guided Faculty in that it did will that which was presented to it as due but there wants the Matter and the Form of Obedience quoad hominem who is intelligent also yea here you must distinguish between Ignorance culpable and superable and inculpable For when the Ignorance is culpable it cannot be said that the guilty Will doth properly obedire because it was a cause of its own mis-leading by the intellect And in our Case that Ignorance is always culpable I do wonder Ergo that you should say and lay all on that Mistake that an erroneous Conscience binds as strongly as a found for the Obligation of Conscience is subordinate to God's Preceptive Obligation God makes Duty and Conscience doth but apprehend Duty So that an erring Conscience cannot make Duty entirely and materially We must not make a God of an erring Conscience much less can it make that no Sin which God hath made Sin yea make that Duty which God made Sin God's Precepts
Ireland and England had made those Muâ—ders and Devastations which no true Christian dare own III. At this day the Light of clear found Doctrine is obscured and such Preaching silenced or ceased in most of the Christian Churches on Earth Besides the bloody Persecutions which met those honest Jesuits and Fryars that preached in Congo Iapan China and other Heathen Lands In Abassia Egypt Syria Assyria Armenia there is very little Preaching at all yea want of Printing keepeth them without the holy Scripture which is rare and in few hands Turkish Oppression hath so debased the Greek Church that sound Preaching is rare among them In all the Empire of Muscovy Preaching is long ago put down lest Men should preach Sedition Among most Papists and Protestants beyond Sea it is turned too much into Invectives against one another This is the Success of Satan's War IV. Being vowed doâ—bly to Christ in my Baptism and Ordination I had been a 〈◊〉 Traytor against him 〈◊〉 I had not hated this Sin and done my part in my place against it There is no Age or Land so good where Christ and 〈◊〉 Light and Darkness have not this War and Secular Interests or Quarrels are made Satan's Advantages who pretendeth to great Power in Disposing of the Riches and Honours of the World This War ended not in England with Queen Mary's Regin The unhappy Differences of Frankford came over with the Exiles One Paâ—â—ty running into Extreams against Episcopacy and the Liturgy and the other forbidding not only them but all Ordained Ministers to preach or expound any Doctrine or Matter in the Church or elsewhere without further Licence I lived to see so much of the Effects of these Differences as grieved my Soul Excellent Preachers and of Holy Lives mistakingly censorious against some lawful Things and Silenced for it some flying to America and some absconding here I saw the diseased Passions and Divisions thus caused and how much it extinguished Christian Love At last we all saw it break out into the Flames of an odious War And even the Usurpers that by Silencers pretended their Provocation fell into the Crime which they Accused and cast out many Learned Bishops Doctors and Preachers for refusing their Covenant and their Engagement and their Way of Worship and for being against their War Thus Satan's Silencing work went on When Experience and Smart brought most Men to their Wits and they had found that a divided Kingdom cannot stand and that returning to Love and Unity must be our Recovery I laboured with Ministers of each side with all my power for Agreement on such Terms as we were then capable of and that was to joyn in the amicable practice of all that they were agreed in and to bear with one another in the rest which were no necessary things On these Terms Worcâ—stershâ—re and seven or eight other Counâ—iâ—s quickly agreed Ireland profest consent More were closing But the Divisions of the Usurpers and the begun Reconciliation of the Peace-makers or Pretenders presently restored the King Men were then variously affected between hope of Unity and fear of Discord and of the old Silencing dividing Work That we had one lawful King to Unite in who promised his help hereunto and declared his Judgment for necessary Indulgence and that Lords and Knights printed their professed Renunciation of Revenge and Doctors professed Moderation did greatly raise Mens hopes that there would be no more such Divisions as should Silence faithful Ministers But they that knew how hardly Love and Moderation are restored after the Exasperations oâ— so odious a War and how few conquer Worldly Interest and old Opinions and do as they would be done by feared that still the Silencing Work would be carried on I was certain that good Men would not be united by coming all over to the Opinions of each other which Party soever was in the right in all the Points called Indifferent by some and Sinful by others I knew the Difference would continue And it doth so I knew that those that were most obedient to God would not do that which they judged he forbad them I knew that if for this they were forbidden to Worship God in Church-Worship they would not forbear till Suffering disabled them I knew that there were so many such and the Suffering that disabled them must be so great that the Land thereby must needs be divided into the Afflicting and Afflicted Parties And the more conscionable the more constant would they be It were well if most understood all things necessary But that all should understand all indifferent things that might be commanded to be indifferent I knew would never be if all the Land were Doctors It was easie to know what Exasperations of Mind all this would cause and what a Conqueâ—â— Satan would make here against Light Love and Mercy that is against Christ. In the deep Sense of this Danger I set my self to try whether Terms of Possiblâ— Câ—â—cord might be obtained The London Ministers joyned The King greatly encouraged us First by his Declaration at Breda and that against Debauchery Next by Personal Engaging us in a Treaty with the Bishops and his Promise that he would draw them to meet us if we would come as near them as we could Then by his gracious Declaration and the Testimony there given of our Loyalty and Moderation Then by his Commission to treat for Alterations of the Liturgy 〈◊〉 the Bishops denied the Need of any Alterations and dasht all our Hopes And 〈…〉 and Parliament cast by the King's Indulgence and issued all in 〈…〉 Uniformity I was the more earnest to have prevented this because I knew not but that most of the whole Ministry of the Kingdom might have been Silenced in one day I knew what was said against much that is imposed And I knew that near Ten thousand Ministers had Conformed to what the Parliament had imposed and most taken the Covenant and used the Directory and not the Common Prayer And how knew I that only Two thousand would stick at the New Impositions and Seven thousand obey them and Assent and Consent to the New Book which they mostly never saw it coming not out of the Press till too late V. While I was engaged in this Treaty by the King the Bishops denied all further Debates with us till we had given them in Writing all the Faults that we found in the Liturgy and all that we desired in stead or as Additions So that we did by Authority and Demand write and deliver as our Proposal before so our Desires and Reasons of the mentioned Alterations and a long and humble Petition to prevent the foreseen Breach and our Reformed Liturgy and Reply to their contrary Reasons which some Scribes for gain after printed I knew not who with abundance of Errata VI. After this 1663. the King revived our hope in part by a Declaration of his Judgment and Purpose for our Leave to Preach and Worship God VII In this
see the Examples of Tyranny and rash Excommunication let him read Iohn's Epistle to Diotrephes and the pious Admonitions of Irenaeus to Victor The Examples of Schisms we have in others not a few To which Optatus Melev prudently ascribeth three Causes Wrath Ambition and Covetousness But how many score Canons Interdicts and Bloody Wars do prove all this XXVIII And had not these Vices conquered Common Reason with Christianity in such men it were a Wonder that so unprofitable and causeless a thing as forcing all Christians to Unite on the profest Approbation and Practice of all the needless Things which such impose and denying them Communion and Peace on the Terms that Christ prescribed for all his Servants to own and love each other on should be thought a sufficient Justification of all that Dividing Cruelty of which it hath been guilty And that Church-Grandees should make such Schisms as are yet in East and West and then hate and persecute the Sufferers as Schismaticks Saith Grotius on Luke 6. 22. Scitum est Veterum Iudaeorum cujus Maimonidememinit siquis Innocentem à Communione arcuerit ipsum excidere jure Communionis And Dr. Stillingfleet on Archbishop Laud and before him Chillingworth conclude That if a Church deny Communion to her Members on those Terms that give them Right to Communion with the Church Universal that Church is guilty of the Schism Were it not more Christian-like easie and sweet to joyn all in the practice of the Laws of Christ by which we shall be judged with the needful use of edifying Order and Circumstances that all Sizes and Ages of Christians might live in Unity and Love than to cast out all that cannot Unite on Terms so far beyond meer Christianity as most Churches on Earth require When the Volume of Councils and Canons were unknown and plain Familiar Discipline was used in the open Church-Meetings Christians were less divided saith Grotius in Luc. 6. 22. Apud Christianos Veteres praesidente quidem Episcopo Senioribus sed Conscia Consentiente Fratrum multitudine morum judicia exercebantur If Christians be partial hear an impartial Heathen Ammianus Marcellinus who scandalized with the murder of Men kill'd in the Church for the Election of Pope Damasus concludeth how well it would have gone with Christianity if those great Roman Prelates had lived like the poor humble inferiour Bishops See his words But if Paul's full Decision on Romans 14. will not bring us to necessary forbearance no Plainness not Authority will serve Numb IX An Act for Concord by Reforming Parish Churches and Regulating Toleration of DISSENTERS I. THE Qualification requisite to Baptism in the Adult for themselves and in one Parent at least or Pro-Parents for Infants is Their understanding Consent to the Baptismal Covenant in which they are solemnly devoted to God the Father Son and Holy Ghost as their God and Father Saviour and Sanctifier Renouncing the World the Flesh and the Devil so far as they are adverse And the requisite Qualification of the Adult for proper Church Priviledges and Communion in the Lord's Supper is That they forsake not the said Covenant or Christianity but publickly own it not rendering their Profession invalid by any Doctrine or Practice inconsistent therewith And that they understandingly desire the said Communion II. The Christian Churches have universally taken the Creed the Lord's Prayer and the Ten Commandments as delivered by Christ for the Summary of the Christian Belief Desire and Practice expounding the Matter of the Baptismal Covenant Therefore all Pastors shall Exhort all Housholders to learn themselves and teach their Families the words and meaning of the Baptismal Covenant and of the Creed Lord's Prayer and Ten Commandments And shall also thus Catechize such themselves as need their help as far as they or their Assisstants can do it III. No Minister shall Baptize any Person Adult or Infant till the Adult for themselves and the Parent or Pro-Parent who undertaketh the Education of the Child as his own have there professed their Belief of the Christian Faith and their fore-described Consent to the Christian Covenant in which they are to be solemnly devoted to God And such they shall not refuse Nor shall the Pastors admit any to the proper Priviledges of Church Communion and partaking of the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ but those who have made Profession that they resovedly stand to their Baptismal Covenant in the foresaid Belief of the Christian Faith and Desire and Obedience to Christ. Which Profession shall be made in the Church or to the Pastor before sufficient Witness or to the Diocesan or some other Pastor who shall give Testimonial of it And if any shall go from the Parish-Church Pastor to be Confirmed by the Bishop or received by any other Minister without the Certificate or Consent of his own Parish Pastor the said Pastor shall not be obliged to admit him to Communion till to him also before Witness he have made the said Profession IV. Because in great Parishes and Cities where Persons live unknown and as Lodgers are transient and too great a Number desire not Communion and many Communicate only with other Churches and it is needful for Order that all Pastors know their Communicating Flock from the rest the Pastor may for his memory keep a Register of the stated Communicants of his Parish and put out the Names of those that deny or remove or are lawfully Excommunicate or that wilfully forbear Communion above fix Months not rendering to the Pastor a Satisfactory Excuse But occasionally he ought not to refuse any Stranger who hath Testimony of his Communion with any other approved Christian Church V. If by the Pastor's knowledge or by just accusation or same any Communicant be strongly suspected of Atheism Infidelity or denying any Essential part of Christian Faith Hope or Practice or to live in any heinous Sin the Pastor shall send for him and enquire of the Truth and if he be proved Guilty gently instruct him and admonish him and skilfully labour to bring him to Repentance And if he prevail not shall again send for him and do the same before some Witnesses And if he yet prevail not or if he wilfully refuse to come or to answer him shall open his Case before the Church Vestry or Neighbour Pastors and if he be present there admonish him and pray for his Repentance And if yet he prevail not to bring him to the profession of serious Repentance he shall declare that he judgeth him a Person unmeet for Church Communion till he Repent and shall till then forbear to give him the Sacrament But when he professeth serious Repentance shall receive him But if after such oft Professions he continue in such heinous Sin he shall not again receive him till actual Amendment for a sufficient time to make valid his Profession VI. Ordination to the Priesthood shall be a valid License to Preach And every just Incumbent being the Pastor Overseer or