choice And our present Canons since 1604 tho they null not the Parochial Pastorship do so far restrain it as I hope my Conscience shall never approve But yet for that I will not forsake what is of God nor make mans failings a pretence against my duty to God and Man to the Violation of Love Unity and Peace Yet I will try by distinct speaking to make both the Case and my meaining plainer if I can And thereby to shew that our case differeth but gradually from the old Nonconformists as to Lay-mens Parochial Communion where there are honest Ministers And that the old Nonconformists had better Evidence Scripture and Reason on their side than either those Innovators who make Parish-Pastors to be but de specie of humane Institution made by Bishops and changeable by them having just so much power as they please to give them or the Brownists that are so much of the same Principles as to think that mens Laws or Canons can change the form of the Office or that judg it nullified by tollerable Imperfections and Communion made unlawful by such faults as are found in almost all the Churches on Earth Qu. Whether according to the description of the Scripture and the exposition of Dr. Hammond himself all qualified Parish Ministers be not true Pastors and Bishops of the Flocks and with their consenting Christian Communicants true particular Churches and de facto all be not in the power given them by God which is essential hereto and in the power generally acknowledged by the legal Church Ans I have spoken to this so largely in my Treatise of Episcopacy and there added the testimonies of Writers old and new Protestants and Papists that I will give but a breviate of it here The essence of the Church Ministry consisteth in POWER and OBLIGATION FROM CHRIST to teach to guide in Worship and to oversee and guide the Conversation and Communion of the Flocks If it were not of Christ they were but officers of men de specie even of an office of mans making Dr. Hammond saith that Christ gave the Keys only to the Apostles and they only to their Successors That there is no evidence that there were any of a second order of Presbyters in Scripture time that this order was after made by Man Mr. Dodwell sheweth how and why and more fully than Dr. Hammond asserteth that such Presbyters have no more power than the ordaining Bishops intended to give them Or saith Dr. H. If they have a first power it is such as may not be exercised without a second so that it is indeed no true power to act And the Dr. plainly tells the London Ministers p. 80 81. There is no manner of incongruity in assigning of one Bishop to one Church and so one Bishop in the Church of Jerusalem because it is A. CHURCH not Churches being forced to acknowledg that where there were more Churches there were more Bishops And he denied our Presbyters that were not Diocesans to be Bishops both City and Country Presbyters And consequently that our Parishes were no Churches And on these grounds he and Bishop Gunning and such others judged Presbyters Ordination null because they were no Bishops And the said Dr. tho I thought he had been next Petavius one of the first that had expounded the new Testament Elders to be all Bishops of several Diocesses yet tells us that he thought most of his brethren were of his mind herein And when we in Worcestershire formed a Pacificatory Association of the Epicopal Presbyterians Indepâ—ndents and Peace-makers agreeing lovingly to practice so much in Doctrine Worship and Discipline as we were for according to our several principles forbearing each other in the rest and Dr. Warmstâ—â—â— and Dr. Tho. Good being for Bishops subscribed to it Dr. Peter Gunnâ—â—g wroâ—e largely against so doing to Dr. Warmstrie and took him off upon these aforesaid principles and they then called their Judgment the Judgment of the Church of England and wrote as if the Church had been of their mind and gone their way I wrote â—large Answer to Dr Gunning's Paper not printed and proved that the old Protestant Bishops and Doctors were of another mind largely citing their testimonies in my Christian Câ—ncâ—rd and plainly warned English Protestâ—nts to take heed of these Innovators and that the name of the Church and Episcopacy deceive them not against the Church and Protestant Cauâ—e many â—ose against me for this with great indignâ—tion especially Arch-Bishop Bramhall and two or three learned Writers and would make the world believe that it was the Church of England which I sought to defame and bring under suspition and which owned Grâ—tius and his way of Reconciliation with Rome when as it was for departing from the professed principles of the reformed Bishops and Doctors and from the book of Ordination and other writings of the Church that I blamed them Yet would they needs claim the name of the Church of England And it is not here seasonable for me to tell how many and how great men in 1661 and 1662 seemed by their wâ—rds and doings to be full at least as high as they nor how they expressed it nor how many strongly conceited by the Act thâ—â— requireth reordination of men ordained by Presbyters and by the number rejected who refused it That the Parliament had been of thâ—ir mind and much more the â—â—nvâ—cation called the church-reprâ—sentative especiâ—lly when they heard men call the old Bishops and Arch-Bishops such as â—sher Downame 〈◊〉 c. in Iâ—eland and G. Abbot Rob. Aâ—bâ—t Grindal and many such in England Puritans and Presbyterians And when Pâ—â— Hâ—lâ—â— maketh Arch bishop Abbot and the Bishops and Clergy in his days to â—e of one mind vilified by him and Arch-bishop Laud and his Clergy after of another In this case I gave the name of the present Diocesans to those that thus claimed it and pretended so confidently to the present possession of it but I thought not their claim just And when I sometimes used the name of English Diâ—cesans for this sort who nullifie the Parish Churches and Pastorship it was but to notifie them that so claimed it supposing I had oft sufficiently opened my sense and usually added that they nullifie them not effectively but quantum in se and by their consequences But I again now tell the Reader that I think the Judgment of the church of England considered as humanely constituted by publick professions and by Law much less as divinely constituted is not to be measured or named from any innovators or any that most confidently claim it or think they are uppermost at the present and thereby have that right but as Divine by Gods word whose sufficiency we all profess and as humane by the published Church professions that is the Liturgy the book of Ordination the 39 Articles of Religion the Apology of the Church of England the Defence of that Apology set in all Churches the book of Hâ—milies Nowels
deny the Parish Pastors theâ— deny them nothing hereby essential to theiâ— office All that can with any colour be said is that the Law now seems to be on these mens side by requiring Reordination But 1. The Law-makers profess to establish the Church and not to change it to another thing 2. The Law-makers were not all of one mind in the Reasons of their Laws nor had all studied these kind of controversies Many of them and of the Clergy to this day say that it is not a proper ordination that they require but the giving them Authority to exercise their Ministry in England and the decision of a doubtful case Part of the Church taketh them for true Ministers that were ordained by Presbyters and part do not and that the Congregations may not divide they say they require this like Baptizing after a doubtful Baptism If thou art not baptized I baptize thee I am against this But this proveth not that they take a Presbyter for no Pastor Yea tho they should take his ordaining others to be a nullity Ordaining not being essential to him XXIV The Act of Uniformity or the like Law cannot make the Church no Church or of another species than 1. As it is esteemed by God and his Law 2. Or as it is esteemed by the greater part of the Christian Clergy and Laity Tho the Law should speak as the foresaid odd innovators do For 1. All Christians profess that Christ is the only just Institutor of the essentials of his own Churches All Christians profess Communion with them as Churches of Christs making by his Law The present Church of England professeth this in many books it bindeth all Ministers to hold to Scripture sufficiency and use Discipiine as well as Doctrine and Worship as Christ commandeth It openly holdeth all Laws and Canons about Church essentials yea and integrals to be void and null that are against the Sacred Scriptures and Law of God There is no Power but of God God hath given no power to nullifie his institutions 2. All true Christians who consent to a Parish Minister and attend on his Ministry and join in the Assemblies openly profess to own him first as a Minister of Christ and to join in Worship and Communion of the church as prescibed by Christ which no man hath power to overthrow 3. The Parliament and Convocations and Bishops and Clergy all confess that they have no power to overthrow the Church essentials or offices of Christs Institution They have not revoked the Church Writings in which all this is oft professed They confess that if their Laws mistake and do contrary they bind us not They never openly professed a war against God or Jesus Christ What if one Dr. S. Parker make Christ subject to the King in his Kingdom he is not the Kingdom nor the Church of England For all his words they never made any Law to command Christ or to punish him They never cited him to appear before them nor did any penal execution on his Person which Government implieth They bow at his name and profess subjection to him Therefore if the law had by error said any thing inconsistent with the essence of Churches and Ministry it had not been obligatory to Pastors or people but they ought still to take Churches and Pastors to be what Christ hath made them and described them to be XXV Suppose a Law should say All families shall be so under Diocesans as to have no power but from them and all shall subscribe to this This doth not null family-power and society as instituted by God nor make it a sin to live in Families nor dissolve them all But all must continue in Families as instâ—tuted by God And if any subscribe to this it will not make it a sin in all Wives Children and Servants to live in those families If the Law had said All Schools in England shall be essentially subject to Diocesans must we therefore have had no more Schools Or if the School-master subscribe to them is it a sin to be his Scholar If the Law should say All Christians shall choose their own Pastors and meet and pray and preach as they please but only in essential subjection to Diocesans must all therefore give over Church Communion If the Law had said All the Parish-Assemblies in England shall henceforth be essentially subject to the Pope or a forreign Council We must not therefore have forborn all such Assembling but have kept to the state and duty appointed us by Christ XXVI Here the mistaking Opponents say 1. That indeed de jure none can change the Essence of Christs Ministry and Churches but de facto they may and have done Ans What is meant by changing it de facto Have they de facto nulled Christs Power Law or Offices and Churches What Nulled it by a Nullity of pretended Authority and overcome his Power without Power De jure and de facto to be a true Church or Pastor is all one Christ made true ones De facto they cannot unmake them but by destroying matter or form because they cannot do it de jure They have destroyed neither matter or form of such parish churches as I plead for and which Christ instituted for they had not power to do it Indeed they may de facto make other sort of Churches and Ministers to themselves tho not de jure but not to us who stick to Christs institutions XXVII But say they We confess if the Law did bid all assemblies in England meet in dependance on Diocesans private and publick this would not alter the species of our separate Churches because man hath not power and we consent not Ans Very good And I pray you what alters the case as to the Parish-Churches Is it that they have Steeples and Bells or that they have Tythes It 's the Calamity of Dissenters that they either cannot consider or can feel no strength in the plainest truth that is said against them but thoughts and sense run all one way which they think right XXVIII Obj. But say they Constitutive and Declaritive Laws must be distinguished They can but declare our Meetings to be Diocesan which is false 〈…〉 the Parish-Meetings such Ans 1. Remember that declaring the parish-Parish-Churches to be such doth no more constitute them such than yours Why then talk you so much of the words of Bishops and Clergy and Books as if their declarations made them such 2. But how doth a Law constitute one the Parochial to be Diocesan or null more than your separate meetings if by a Law of toleration it should say the same of them The truth is They are such to consenters that judg them such But they constitute them not such to any that consent not to such a constitution but hold to Christs XXIX But it is said that our thoughts alter not constitutions they are our own immanent acts that nihil ponunt in esse and therefore the Pastors and Churches will be
ever I knew have not that I know of renounced any thing essential to a Parish-Pastor I before said Ordination and Jurisdiction over Presbyters or other Churches is no part of its essence To be obedient to a Diocesan is no such Renunciation Therefore it is no such Renunciation to promise to obey them in lawful things subordinate to obeying Christ If it prove a mistake in them and that they owe no such Obedience every such mistake doth not degrade them He that said that he that will be greatest shall be servant of all thought not that to obey an equal did null the Ministry Nor he that said Be suâ—ject one to another Christ and Peter paid tribute to avoid offence tho the Children be free But what if a man be in doubt whether such Obedience be not his Duty Is it not the safer side much more if he verily think it his Duty 2. To take Diocesans to be Jure Divino is said by some to be destructive of the Pastoral Office and Churches and a change of the English Church-Government But it 's error For 1. It is not the Destructive Diocesan Government which acknowledg no Church and Pastor under them that those in question consent to but the Governing Diocesan who ruleth subject Pastors and Churches 2. This Question of Divine right is threefold 1. Of that which by Dâ—â—ire right is necessary ad esse 2. Of that which is by Divine right best and mâ—st elegible or needful ad melius esse 3. That which is by right of Divine Concession lawful but not necessary The Church of England never determined which of these was the Diocesans Case All Conformists judged it Lawful multitudes judged it Better than other forms Many judged it necessary when it might be had But no Law determined for any of these alone Unless you will say the Preface to the Book of Ordination doth it by saying It is evident to all men diligently reading holy Scripture and Ancient Authors that from the Apostles time there have been these Orders of Ministers in Christs Church Bishops Priests and Deacons Which Offices were evermore had in such Reverend Estimation c. Here some say That the Church of England took not these for three distinct Orders before 1640 but now Therefore by the word these Orders is meant only two Ans At this rate he must have the betteâ— whom the hearer best trusteth whatever he say If these Orders of Ministers Bishops Priests and Deacons speak not three Orders I cannot understand them Here note partiality the same that refuse to subscribe them because they speak three Orders yet say they speak but two when they argue that Church-Government is changed 1662 from what it was 1640. Indeed Aelfricks Laws in Spelman make Bishops and Priests the same Order and so do a great part of Schoolmen and other Papists but the English Bishops and Clergy were some of one mind and some of another about it and determined it not Unless this Preface be a Determination the Name Order and Office being both used And to instance in no other Saravia tho no English man yet of the Church of England wrote more strongly almost than any that I ever read for Diocesan Episcopacy against Beza c. and that upon this ground of Divine right that they succeeded the Apostles and such as Timothy Titus c. in the Government of many Churches And the Kings Divines at the Isle of White went all on that Ground To say then that to plead a Divine right for them is new is to contradict large Historical Evidences And were it true that this had been never before Imposed or Subscribed surely it is not an Opinion of the Divine right of governing of many Churches that renounceth the being of those Churches it asserteth them to be by Divine right For that which is not is not governable Non entis non sunt accidentia But where and how hath the Law or Church altered the case since 1640. These words were in the Book of Ordination before and I know of none plainer that way since It s destructive Diocesan Government which renounceth the Government of any subject Churches but of one only and of any Pastors that I argue against and not Governours of such Churches XXXIV But it 's objected That they swear not to endeavour any alteration of Church-Government therefore they renounce the Pastoral Office because the present Government excludeth it Ans 1. This is to dictate and not to prove The Diocesan Government hampered and fettered it by the Canons in the time of Whitgift and Bancroft but null'd it not He that reads the Canons or knows the Church and thinks that it's Government hath no need of Amendment is far from my mind But governing is not nullifying 2. It is not true that ever I heard that they swear what this Objection saith The Ministers do not swear but subscribe it and swear Obedience in licitis honestis And I could never learn what Law commands that Oath And if it should extend to obey all the Canons it 's that which I would be full loath to swear but I know no Canon that utterly nulleth the Parish-Churches and Ministers And a Justice that sweareth to execute the Laws is not supposed thereby to justifie every Law nor to execute any if it should be against Gods Law that exception being still supposed 3. Their Subscription never to endeavour alteration engageth them never to endeavour to destroy the Parish Churches and Ministry and so is for them For that would be a great alteration indeed 4. If you should think otherwise yet if the Subscriber or Swearer think himself that it is not destructive but governing Diocesans that he subscribeth to it is not your Opinion or Exposition that bindeth him against his own No tho you were in the right as to the Imposers sense For Ignorantis non est consensus It 's unjust to face them down that they mean what they profess they do not Ask forty Conformists whether they think the Government which they promise not to alter be that Diocesan form which ruleth Parish Churches and Pastors or that which denieth their being and I think few will profess the latter sense 5. And suppose the worst that any Parish-Priest were of that mind yea and were really no true Pastor as to his own acceptance with God he may yet be a Pastor so far true as is necessary to the Essence of the Church if the People know it not For the Innocent suffer not for the guilties sin If a man be a secret Atheist or Heretick or do counterâ—eit Ordination and Election and really had none and the People be deceived by him and know it not while he possesseth the place and doth the work his Baptisms and Administrations are valid to the Church as a Church tho not to himself and his Ministry The Jews Church was not null when the high Priests had no lawful call but bought the Office of Râ—man
Communicant hath not so much more than I. XXXVI But say they then you are bound to avâ—â—d sâ—andal by professing openly that you Communicate 〈◊〉 a Dissenter and not with the Church as established by Law Ans 1. Then I should falsly say that which I either think is otherwise or am not resolved in I tell you Few can truly say this if any 2. What need this when the open Profession of all Christians is That it is a Church and Worship of Christs making which they own and intend and none that is against them And when the Articles of the Church of England and the Ordination covenant own Scripture-sufficiency and disclaim all that is against Gods word Must we be supposed to renounce Religion when we meet to profess it And surely for disowning any thing which the Nonconformists judg unlawful all the Books written by them and all the notorious sufferings in twenty two years Ejection and Prosecution are no obscure Notification of their Judgments without speaking it at the Church â—oors or before the Assemblies Must I openly protest against Independency Anabaptistry or Presbytery if I dissent before the face of their Congregations if I will Communicate with them 3. But to stop your demand befâ—re I Communicated in the Parish â—hurch where I now am I went to the Incumbent and told him that I would not draw him into danger or intrude against his will I had been â—â—iled by the Kings Commission and after by the Lord Keeper to debate about Alteration in the Liturgy and Worship and Discipline and I thought that thereby I waâ— by 〈◊〉 6 7 8. ipso facto Excommunicate but not bound to do Execution on my self and therefore if I were separated it should not be my act but I left it to his will He took time and upon advice admitted me Obj. But you must tell them that the Parish Church hath no dependance on the Bishops but as the Kings Officers and that it is Independent and then you fall not under our opposition Ans 1. How many Lawyers and Civilians do openly say as Crompton before Cosins Tables that all Church Government floweth from the King And doth that satisfie you 2. And why must the Parish Church and Pastor needs be Independent Will you have no Communion with Presbyterians 3. And what if it be dependent on the Diocesan as governour tho not as destroyer Is it any more destructive of its Essence than to be governed by a Classis or Council XXXVII As for your telling us Wâ—â—m the Canons eâ—câ—mmunicate or 〈◊〉 Lay-chancellors Officials Surrogates Archdeacâ—ns c. excâ—mmunicate what Oaths they impâ—se c. tell them of it and not us who are not responsible for other mens deeds It no more concerneth our cause of Parochial Lay-communion than to tell us how bad men some Ministers are nor so much neither For I that willingly joyn in the Liturgy will not willingly if I know it so much as seem to own the Ministry of any man that is notoriously Insufficient Atheistical Heretical or so Malignant or Wicked as to do more hurt than good Avoid such and spare not XXXVIII Obj. They want the Peoples câ—nsent and so are no Pastâ—rs Ans The People shew their consent by ordinary Submission and Communion Obj. The People must be supposed to consent to the Law which maketh them no Pastors but the Bishops Curates Ans Both the Suppositions are before confuted both that the People are supposed to consent to any Law against Gods and that the Law maketh Curates to be no Pastors XXXIX To conclude the Objections about the Essence of Parish Churches 1. The question is not Whether there be not a sort of Diocesan Prelacy which nulleth them 2. Nor whâ—ther there be not some men in England that write and plead for such Diocesan Churches as have no true Episcopâ—s pregis much less Episcopus 〈◊〉 under them but are 〈◊〉 Bishops in that Diocess Nor of what number power or interest these men are of against whom I have oft written 3. But whether the Law be on their side or against them for the old Diocesan Government of subordinate Pastors and Churches is to me nâ—w uncertain I did once incline most to the fiâ—â—t sense of the Law but on secâ—nd thoughts hope better of it and am not Lawyer good enough to be certain 4. But if it should be so I verily think â—â—e main 〈◊〉 of the 〈…〉 and therefore 〈◊〉 not to renounce their Pâ—rish â—overnment â—ut only to use it in subordination to the Bishop 5. And I am pâ—st doubt that all the Communicants of England are neither â—ound to decide this Law-doubt nor to understand it nor to believe that the Law hath altered the Government 6. And if they did believe it they ought to keep on in Church Assemblies according to Christs Law taking all that 's against it as void as long as they are put â—n no sin themselves nor the Church notoriously renounceth its â—ssentials 7. And if they were stated Members of other Churches e.g. the Greâ—k the Dutch the French they might â—ccasionally Communicate in our Parishes transiently without examining the Pastors call and discipline but judging by possession and practice 8. And if they should prove no lawfully called Ministers their Office would be valid to those that blamelesly were deceived and knew it not 9. And if they were sure that they were no true Ministers they may joyn with them in all Worship belonging to Lay-Christians 10. But if they prove able godly Ministers of Christ tho faulty setled by Law to the advantage of Religion in a Christian Kingdom where all are commanded thus to maintain national Concord and the upholding those Churches is the very National possession of the Protestant Religion and it goeth for publick Disobedience and Scandal to forsake them and that at a time when many forsake them too for unjust grounds and by suffering for it stand to unwarrantable Accusations of them and sharply Censure those that do not as they and oppugne Peacemakers and all this after the old Nonconformists full Confutation of the Separatists unwarrantable way and the doleful experience of Subversion of all sorts of Government by the Prosecution of such mistakes I say If all this should be the case it is deeply to be considered XL. But the most effectual hindrance is the opinion of unlawfulness in jâ—yning in the Liturgy yet my last Objectors confess that It is lawful to some and that it is nâ—t Communion in it much less in all forms which they call unlawful tâ— all And the sober sort are loth to say tâ—at the Millions of Christians in England and Scotland who live where they can be in no other Churches should rather like Atheists live without all Church-Worship and local Communion And in gaining this I have gained the better half of what I pleaded for And they confess and so do I that publick Communion may be one mens duty and anotâ—â—rs sin as circumstances vary
if by subjection you mean but joyning in their Churches as Christian and Protestant for doctrine and worship notwithstanding the defect which they cannot help yea which they disclaim bare accusation will not prove this a sin but by this we see how much of Christs Church you are for separating from 2. For my part I have oft published That it is not the least part of my charge against Popery that they unchurch almost all the Christian World save themselves But yet they are about a 4th or 3d part of professed Christians themselves and divers of them do not unchurch the Greeks But to unchurch or forbid Communion with all that are as faulty as the Helvetians and all other Protestant Churches that have Liturgies or partial faults is that which I dare not be guilty of I think that to say That a thousand parts to one of Christs Church are none of his Churches is next to deposing him from his Kingdom Much like as it would be to say no part of London is the Kings but Amen Corner nor any part of England but Barnet or Brentford 3. And is it not one of our just accusations of the Papists That they say all the Protestant Churches are no true Churches and the Ministers no true Pastors and that Communion with them is unlawful and shall we now justifie them and say as they tho not on the same Reason but for a far smaller difference Is this our running from Popery 4. Yea is it not the great thing that we accuse the superconformists for That they make us to be no true Ministers or Churches and are we indeed of the same mind One side saith We are no true Ministers for want of Bps. Ordination c. Another side saith You are no true Ministers for having Communion with the Bishops and Churches c. VII I mentioned the Judgment and Practise of the old Nonconformists and Presbyterians not as a rule but as a comparative example To this he saith p. 11. You and they might as well own the Church of England in the form and constitution as it is established as the Parish churches to be particular Gospel churches c. P. 12. To say you join with a quatenus and own not the very constitution and standing of the church with which you join in the sense the church asserts it is the greatest equivocation in practice that is The old Nonconformists nor you are to be no presidents to us in this case So far as the old Nonconformists and the old reforming conformists went forward with Reformation to bring the church out of the wilderness we honour them but when they turn back again and entice the people so to do we are afraid to tempt God in that manner P. 14. Those â—ld Nonconformists that did so are no presidents to 〈◊〉 If they halted and were lame must we be so such communicants are not acceptable to any Church and I know what Church would never admit them were it not to punish and expose them and their profession as ridiculous and inconsistent with its self And as for FRENCH and DUTCH what are they to us c. P. 16 He calls Mr. Fenns joining in the Liturgy with exception of some part The sulâ—en practice of a half-paced doting Noncâ—nformist Ans First to the Cause and secondly to the Persons 1. To call any practice Equivocation or by any ill name is no proof that it is so nor is here a word of true proof given us I ask the Considerate Is it in the power of a Law-maker to make all Worship and Duty to God unlawful by commanding to do it for an unlawful end or upon false principles What if a Law said All people shall worship God not because the Scripture commandeth it but because the State commands it Would this make it unlawful to worship God I would disown the Principle and go on What if the Law should say The Pastoral Office is not of Divine Right but humane must the office therefore be renounced And why can such a Law any more bind me to judg of Church-constitutions by the Lawmakers words rather than by Gods Word Suppose that the Anabaptists say That rebaptizing is the true way of Church-gathering Is it a sin to communicate with them if they will receive me when I profess the contrary I am against the Covenant which you defend as making an Independent Church Is it therefore a sin to communicate with them because it is not as constituted by that Covenant What do Parties more differ in of late than Forms Orders Modes and Circumstances of Church Government and if they be of many contrary minds were it twenty there can be but one of them in the right And is it unlawful to join with all the rest Must we needs be sure which of these is in the right Almost all the Churches that I hear of in the world have their agreed professions published the Protestants are gathered in the Corpus confessionum the English Church Principles and Orders are expressed in the Book of Canons the Liturgy Ordination the 39 Articles the Homilies the Apology c. Must every one stay from their Churches till he hath read and understood all these Books and be sure that there is no fault or error in them What if it be poor men or women that cannot buy all these books and what if they cannot read whom shall they get to read them all and how shall they have time to study them or capacity to understand them when we can hardly get them to learn a Catechism and anderstand it You will say That is their crime that make all these Confessions and Books They will answer but that 's none of our fault We made them not and yet must we not communicate with any Church that maketh such The old Separatists called Brownists published their confession and therein owned many Parish Churches in England and Communion with them I recited their words in my Reasons c. But you are gone beyond them The New England churches printed their confession and all there agreed not to it The English Independents published their Principles and Confessions And the Presbyterians and they agreed in the Westminster Synods confession catechism and Directory Is every poor Man and Woman bound to stay from all their churches when for 14 years they had no other till they understand all these and know that they are faultless Or if there be any fault in any one of all these books is every one guilty of them that cometh to the churches The Anabaptists published their confession The Dutch have theirs Many churches agreed with them in the Synod of Dort The French have theirs the Saxons the Helvetians Geneva the Bohemians the Protestants in general had the Augustane and many more have theirs Reader See with whom these Writers will hold communion who make it unlawful to join with any church that have any fault in their constitutions or agreed Doctrines or Orders
WHETâ—ER Parish Câ—â—gregations BE TRUE Christian Churches â—â—d the Capable Consenting Incumbents be truly their Pastors or Bishops over their Flocks 〈◊〉 Whether the old Protestants Conformists and Nonconâ—â—rmists or the Brownists were in the right herein And how 〈…〉 our present Case is the same 〈◊〉 by Richard Baxter as an Explication of some Passages in his Forâ—â—â— Writings especially his Treatise of Episcopacy misunderstood and misapplied by some and answering the strongest Objections of some of them especially a Book called R. Baxters Judgment and Reasons against Communicating with the Parish Assemblies as by Law required And another called A Theological Dialogue CATHOLICK COMMUNION once more Defended upon â—â—ns necessitating importunity By RICHARD BAXTER LONDON 〈◊〉 in Parkhurst at the Bible and Three 〈◊〉 near Mercers Chappel 1684. Communion with Parish Churches vindicated In Answer to a Book entituled The Judgment of Mr. Baxter against Communicating c. Mistaking my writings A Church is not formally quid Physiâ—um but quid morale politicum Relativum a political Relative being II. The same name signifieth both the Genus and Species that are divers by use III. The same is true of the name Pastor IV. Diocesan Churches are of three sorts 1. Such as have at present but one fixed Assembly but design to gather more hereafter Such Dr. Hammond thought they were in Scripture times 2. Such as have one Diocesan Governour or Superintendent over many inferior Churches and their Pastors 3. Such as have one only Bishop or Pastor having no other true Pastor Elder Church-Ruler or Presbyter of Christs Institution under him but Chappels which have no such Ruler or Pastor V. The first sort of Diocesans we have now nothing to do with The second sort is controverible some holding it sinful some lawful and some and very many to be of Divine Institution as Successors of the Apostles not in the extraordinaries but in the ordinary parts of their Office Christ having made an imparity or a superiority of some over others they think that to say without proof that he changed that order in one Age is 1. to charge him with mutability and levity 2. And to diminish from his Law which hath a Curse The third sort of Diocesans is either 1. of a Diocess like a great Parish with Chappels so small that one Pastor may possibly oversee it This is tollerable when more cannot be had and when they can it hurts only â—he well-being of the Church Or 2. it is of a Diocess so great as that one man cannot do what is essential to a Pastor and so it is undone This nullifieth that Species of Churches which is of Christs Institution VI. A particular Church of Christs Institution of the lowest political order is A competent number of Neighbour-Christians who by Christs appointment and their own exprest consent are associated with one or more Pastâ—â— for the right worshipping of God in publick and the Edification of the Members by the exercise of the said Pastoral Office and their mutual Duties to God to their Pastors and each others for the welfare of the Society and the pleasing and glorifying of God VII The Pastoral Office as over this first or lowest Church and as it is in unfixed Ministers related yet to no one Church more than another differeth but as the subject matter or object of their charge doth differ and not in the fundamental Power or Order VIII This Pastoral Office is essentially Ministerial to Christ as the Prophet Priest and King of his Church 1. A Power to Teach 2. To Lead in Worship 3. To Guide by the Keys of Reception Admonition Exclusion and Restoration IX It is not Inconsistent with this Pastoral Office to be Governed by Superiors whether Magistrates or Ecclesiasticks as others were by Apostles and by Timothy Titus c. Therefore every limitation restraint rebuke or punishment for Mal-administration nullifieth not the Office nor yet allowing an appeal to Superiors X. To hinder a Pastor from forcible excluding men from Church or Sacrament and allow him only to do it by Application of Gods word is agreeable to his Office XI It is Power and Obligation to exercise and not the present actual Exercise that is essential to the Office in the fundamental Relation But should the Non-exercise be total and stated it would not make up a Church in act No more than a mere Power to Teach will make a School in act XII He that hath the entire Power and statedly exerciseth but one part of it statedly omitting an essential part may be in Order an empowred Minister but his Society is but a half Church But if it be only an Integral part that he omits it may be a true Church tho faulty or if it be an essential part and not statedly but only by some present impedition XIII The name of Church Pastor and Diocesan being formally Relative in signification are really divers things as the Fundamentum Relate Correlate and Terminus are divers They are therefore considerable I. As instituted and described by Christ II. As understood described and consented to by sound Orthodox Pastors and People III. As described by laws and Canons IV. As esteemed and described by many mistaking Bishops Clergy and People some Super-Conformists and some Misjudging that the Law saith as they The word as to these senses is equivocal XIV Christs Institution went before mens Corruption and is to be held to by all Christians who own him to be the Maker and Ruler of his own Church And no man hath Power to null his Institution nor to warrant 〈◊〉 to make his Church another thing XV. By Christs Institution every Ministerial Elder and Pastor hath Power 1. To Teach the People 2. To Lead them in Worship 3. To Receive by Baptism and to Communion or to refuse on just cause tho under Government as aforesaid The whole Office I have copiously described in my Universal Concord 24. years ago XVI The Parishes that have capable Christians and Ministers consented to by their sumbmission are such true Churches their Neighbourhood and Christianity making them capable matter Not that a man is of the Church because he is in the Parish Atheists Infidels Sadduces Hereticks and Refusers may dwell there Its thought that of 60000. that dwell in one London Parish 10000 Communicate not and so 40000 or 50000 are not of that Church but those that are capable Consenters and Communicants XVII This sort of Churches we were in Possession of 166â— and till August 24. 1662. And of 9000 Ministers then 2000 only were put out the other 7000 continuing in And of those that were put out some few gathered part of their old Flock into private Churches renouncing and disswading them from the publick Most gathered no such Churches but help their old People as they could not drawing them from the Parish Churches till the time of the Kings Licences for more open Ministry Many led them to the Parish Churches and took themselves for fellow
Nation into his Church as a Hen gathereth her Chickens under her Wings And Rom. 11. Only their own unbelief broke them off from being a National Church including Infants And it is part of the Saints triumph that the Kingdoms of the World are become the Kingdoms of the Lord and of his Christ If you will read Mr. Beverlys Book called The whole duty of Nations it will give you full proof of this Where hath the Gospel extensively much prospered where Princes and Rulers were not Christians The Turks give liberty of Religion And yet the sometime famous Greek Churches Corinth Philippi Coloss Ephesus Laodicea Philadelphia and more than all the West are Apostatized or withered to a few ignorant vicious scandalous Christians Obj. IV. 8. If such a confederation in lawful Circumstantials as well as Integrals will make a Church I know not why we may not have a Catholick Visible Church organized if this be a due acception of a Church Ans This is as much as to say If the name Church may be used equivocally as all words must of several sorts then all those sorts may be the same I deny it If you dislike the use of the name you have your liberty as a Grammarian to forbear it But sure the Name and the Thing are not all one nor the Controversies about them 2. But we have a Catholick Visible Church Organized as I have oft proved against the Papists viz. under one Christ the Head and his Ministers as his subordinate Officers Obj. V. Page 3. If you touch a mans finger you touch the man we have communion with an integrum perpartes and with a Genus by the Species and with both by individuals Nay as every part of the Scripture one verse or sentence of it makes up sence so every part of the Liturgy as in form and manner therein contrived is Liturgy and worship thereafter is according to the Liturgy tho it be but part of the wâ—rship Page 20. As for the falseness in Integrals it gives the denomination to the whole for an Integral part is an essential part of the whole Much more there is to the same purpose making him guilty of all that useth a part Ans 1. You have the freedom of using words at your pleasure but not imposing them on mankind when necessity hath taught the World to distinguish essential and integral parts you have no authority to confound their Language by the quibble of calling Integrals essential causes of the whole A totum per aggregationem as a heap of Sand or a field of Grass is not constituted of a proper essentiating form and so homogeneous matter aggregate is all the being it hath And if you make contiguity an essential cause or how else you will you have liberty of speech But we will not be cheated by it to believe that it causeth any more than Totality or Integrality and the absence of it is a privation of no more And all mens Graces Obedience and Worship are defective in point of Integrality and degree and I hope you will not say that they need no favour or pardon or amendment 2. All human actions have their faults must we therefore do nothing or converse with no men England is one Kingdom If there be one or many faults in its Laws or officers may we therefore obey none that are faultless The Laws are the Rule of National Justice may a Judg Justice Officer or subject use none of them because some are faulty Doth that make him guilty of all Bonum est ex causis integris The fault of a part may indeed denominate the whole faulty so far But the whole Law or Liturgy may be called faulty for a part and yet he that useth either not be guilty of any of the bad part for using the good The Law and Liturgy are one thing and the use is another Its faults are no further his than he owneth them your Bread or Meat may be called bad if part only be bad and yet if you eat none but the good part it will not hurt you 2. But if it must be otherwise no man may hear you or joyn with your Churches And do you think as aforesaid that Mr. Faldo and all his Church at Barnet lived not in a sinful communion very many years that omitted at least an integral part of publick worship the singing of Gods praise Christ with his Disciples sung a Hymn after the Sacrament The Jews Church made it the chief part of their Worship James prescribeth it us in all our Holy Mirth such as the Lords Day is appointed for 1 Cor. 14.26 Every one had a Psalm and with them no one had a Psalm tho his Judgment was for it the question was Whether he should forsake them for refusing it I thought not because it was better that they had something that was good than nothing But your argument would not only unchurch them but make all sinners that communicated with them for omissions of great duties are faults and greater faults than tolerable failings in performance He that prayeth not at all doth worse than he that prayeth by a Book and he that preacheth or teacheth not at all doth worse than he that readeth a Sermon so that their total stated omission and opposition to singing by your false rule denominated them no worshippers of God if the whole must be denominated from a part How many private Meetings in London never sing a Psalm for fear of being discovered Yea how many seldom read a Chapter but only preach and pray and sometime administer the Sacrament Must we needs say therefore that they omit all Worship VI. On such occasions I argued That if we must not communicate with any Parish Church because of the faults of the Liturgy it will follow that we must not communicate with any Church on Earth that hath as great faults and that by this we must renounce Communion with all Christs Body on Earth All the Armenians Nestorians Eutychians Copties Abassines Georgians Greeks Russians Papists yea Lutherans have a more faulty Liturgie or manner of worship than the English Yea the Churches called Calvinists have their Liturgies and faults And I instanced in Switzerland because as God hath of late most preserved their peace so they are taken to be the honestest sort of Protestants that in poverty serve God with soundest doctrine and least scandal of Life but yet have no proper discipline but the Magistrates Is it a sin to have confederacy or Communion with their Churches To this he plainly saith Page 11. It is That is all that confederate with them as Churches are guilty of their error called Erastian For subjection tâ— such discipline is the condition of their Communion Ans Subjection is an equivocal word If it were by profession or subscription of consent it were indeed to be guilty of that error tho not by a fauâ—t of the Part denominating the whole to make their worship unlawful or their Churches none but
Let us rise upward till we come to the Apostles days None of all these churches named dare profess all their agreements and confession to be without fault that ever I heard of except the English who bind Ministers to assent and consent to all things commanded and prescribed in three Books and excommunicate those that say their Books or Ceremonies and Government hath any thing contrary to the Word of God but no Lay-man is bound to believe them Wickliffe and John Hâ—s the Waldenses and the Bohemians Confessions are not faultless Of the Papist and the Sâ—cinians we will make no question the forenamed churches of Greeks Russians Armenians Abassines Nestorians Jacobites c. are alas past question faulty the general councils upward from that of Trent Basil Constance c. to the six first yea the four first which some equal to the four Gospels are far from being faultless in the Judgment of these Objectors and of my self the Arrian and other heretical councils are past question even that of Nice the first and best I suppose he and I think did not well in setling church-power as they did and forbidding all kneeling on the Lords days in Adoration and other the like The Donatists and the Novatians called the Puritans of those times had faulty agreements were it but for Bps. and Arch-Bps â—e will think them so this Writer can name no one church on the face of the Earth Orthodox or heretical tho Aerius called Presbyters equal with Bps. that was not for Bishops over Presbyters from the year 100 after Christ tâ—ll the Reformation that ever I could read of Yea consider whether they were not in the Apostles days when Jerome who most depresseth this degree saith That there were such at Alexandria chosen by the Presbyters from the days of Mark and Mark died long before John the Apostle But Episcopacy is not all Not only Epiphanius but all Church History that speaketh of such matters agreeth that besides the croud of latter Ceremonies there were certain ceremonies called the customes of the Universal Church which all the known Churches agreed in even those that differ'd about Easter-day and other such that is 1. Cloathing the Baptized in white Garments 2. Giving them milk and hony to tast 3. Anointing them with Oyl 4. Not kneeling in adoration on any Lords day or any other day between Easter and Whitsunday There is no notice when these began so ancient were they nor of any one Church or Christian that refused them but they were commonly called the Traditions Apostolical or customes of the Universal Church Now I agree with this Author that these things were indeed a deviation from the Apostles practice and ought not to have been thus used But the question is whether every Christian was guilty of the fault that had communion with any of these churches and whether had he then lived he should have separated from all the Churches on earth By this you see that this opinion must needs make men seekers who say that the church was in the wilderness and lost all true Ministry and say they particular churches and Scripture after the first or at most the second century and so that for fourteen hundred years Christ had no visible Kingdom on earth And consequently that we have no wiser answer to the Papist where was your church before Luther than to say that it was Invisible that is that we cannot prove that there was any such thing on Earth and consequently that we cannot prove that Christ had any Kingdom on earth and was its King that is whether there was any Christ in actual church-administration And doth separating from the whole visible church-communion agree with the prophecies and precepts of union Was this church like a grain of Mustard seed in its growth Was all the wonderful works of redemption wrought for no visible society after one or two hundred years in which a few persecuted ones were visible Is not this the next step and a temptation to utter infidelity If Christ have now no visible church on earth but the people called Brownists or Separatists doth it answer the Scripture description of him and his church And is it not exposing christianity to the scorn of infidels so to say Would not almost all rather turn Papists than believe this And be rather of their church than of none 2. But let us next speak of the persons I may speak my thoughts without imposing on you I think that the Major vote is no rule to the Minor nor always is in the right If a hundred men that understand not Greek or Hebrew Translate a Text one way and a good Linguist another way I will more suspect their judgment than his And so in the like case But if I hear a few odd persons condemn the judgment of the generality that are far better acquainted with matters of the same nature as if School-boys that are but in their Accidence should oppose all the upper Forms in expounding Horace or Hesiod or Homer which think you should I most suspect I say again to you compare the writings of Bucer Peter Martyr Calvin Beza Melancthon Chamiâ—r Blondel Dailee and a bundance such and also Greenhams Perkins Dr. Jâ—â—n Râ—ignolds Cartwrights Dods Hildershams Hieroms Amesius's Payneâ— Râ—lâ—eâ—ks and many such yea with such conformists as Jewels Bp. Downames John Downames Davenants Bp. Halls Arch-Bp Ushers Bp. Rob. Abbots Dr Fieldâ— Dr. Challoners Dr. Airys c. I say compare these with the Theological writings of Mr. Penry Mr. Can and all other called separatâ—sts or Brownists in their times and tell me whether these later did manifest more Holy Wisdom in Heavenly things more skill in all other points of Divinity than the former If their writings giving Mr. Ainsworth his due honour in Hebrew and Piety were as far below the other as the lower forms of School-boys are beneath the highest which should we most suspect to have had the greater or the lesser light specially when the lower condemn and cut off themselves from communion with all Christs known Churches on earth for thirteen hundread years When Mr. Smith and lately a very good man here thought none fit to Baptize him again but Baptized himself was not that singularity a just cause of suspicion Yet I make not the old Nonconformists your rule VIII I argued also from the common frailties of us all that it will be unlawful to communicate with any Church on earth even with those of the objectors mind if we are guilty of the sins in Doctrine worship and discipline of all Churches that we communicate with I will aggravate none nor render that odious which God accepteth My work is to confute those that do so But I say that 1. we have all many errors And men use to put their errors into their prayers and preaching 2. Do not men use to deliberate more and study what to write than what to preach And have men reason to be confident that our preaching
By Laws bind only by vertue of the Soveraigns higher Law And tho this Author would be the Ruler of Language so far as to say that all sinful Worship is not false Worship they that use words as greater Masters have long stated the sence do know that the falseness is the disconformity to Gods supream Rule and that may be in all the degrees forementioned And Rules or Worship are both false so far as they are disconform to the Law of God And now wherein is our Rule false and theirs true 1. We own no Rule of direct immediate obedience to God nor of any universal or unchangeable duty to God but what his Law of Nature or supernatural doth make us We hold that no man hath power to alter Gods word to command any thing against it nor any thing which God hath appropriated to himself as to make new conditions of salvation new Sacraments new Laws as Gods or new duties for themselves necessary to Salvation no nor any thing but what Gods own General Law doth command or allow them to determine being left by him undetermined to their Power and Rule We hold that if any Ruler go contrary to and beyond those Rules of God it is their sin and not ours and we openly disown it And so do our Rulers in general themselves most expresly in the Books of Articles Ordination Homilies Apology c. Binding all Ministers to the Scripture for the Rule of their Preaching and Living only infallible sufficient in all things necessary to Salvation and that if Councils or any men err or disagree with Scripture they are not to be followed We openly renounce all false Rules and Canons but if for such sin against their own profession of Scripture-sufficiency we must renounce Communion with all that are guilty we scarce know the Church on Earth which we must not renounce And the opponents in Particular 2. For let us try now whether you have no Rule which you call False as well as false or sinful practice But I will first take in his fuller explication left I mistake him IX Page 37. I roundly assert against you That tho every Church of Christ hath the liberty aad priviledge to act prudentially or make prudential determinations concerning the present use of indifferent things pro hic nunc yet to make any standing or binding determination and Laws for themselves or other is altogether unlawful as highly derogatory to the Kingly office of Christ and robbing themselves or others of their granted priviledge and so a forfeiture of their Charter And so all your by-standing laws and subordinate Laws for worship which you talk of are unwarrantable additions to the word of God Ans 1. This indeed is round assreting but your word is no proof and here is no better Contraily 1. Those whom Christ maketh Rulers of his Church and commandeth to do all things not particularly determined by him as shall conduce to peace concord order decency and edification may Rule accordingly by such determinations But some such there are whom Christ maketh Rulers of his Church c. ergo c. Maj. Prob. Matth. 24. Who then is a faithful and wise Servant whom the Lord hath made ruler over his houshold to give them meat in due season c. 1 Thes 5.12 Know them who are among you and are over you in the Lord c. 1 Cor. 4.12 Let a man so account of us as of the Ministers of Christ and Stewards of the mysteries of God c. Heb. 13.7 17.24 Remember them who have the Rule over you c. Obey them that have the rule over you and submit your selves for they watch for your souls as they that must give account c. Salute all that have the rule over you c. 1 Tim. 5.17 The Elders that rule well are worthy of double honour 1 Cor. 14.26 Let all things be done to edifying 4. Let all things be done decently and in order 33. God is not the author of confusion but of peace as in all the churches of the Saints By all this it is evident that Church Rulers there must be and such successors of the Apostles in the ordinary parts of their office as Christ will be with to the end of the World Matth. 28.20 And also in what their Rule consisteth Now to the question of Imposing I premise that tho this usurper of a Magistry in Language will have Imposing taken still in an ill sense I leave that to him it is enough for me to tell him that I take it according to the prime signification to put a thing on others without respect to well or ill doing it 1. I know not whether by every Church he intend a meer voting body of People and Pastors by consent or the Pastors alone as the Rulers of a voluntary People 2. I know not whether he take prudential determinations as distinct from Governing Obligations or not 3. I know not whether by present use he mean it only for one present meeting or for more and for how many and how long And by standing how long he meaneth I grant to him that no man may make universal or unchangeable Laws but temporal and mutable and only for his own subjects But I maintain 1. That Pastors may by word or writing make binding commands or determinations to their Flocks of the foresaid modes and circumstances of Religion and Worship For 1. They are such as are necessary in genere and the determination to this or that sort disjunctively necessary Somebody must determine them and that for more than the present meeting even statedly And it belongs to the Rulers office to do it None else is fit or hath any other power than by contract I have oft enough instanced in particulars It is not meet that every meeting the People be put to Vote where to meet next And there is no certainty that they will agree but some be for one place and some for another An ordinary capacious place is necessary It is the Rulers office to appoint it It 's no sin against Christ for him to require them to come to the same place from year to year while it is fit 2. The same I say for a commanding determination of the Lecture-days or times of meeting which the Pastor may prescribe statedly by his office without the Peoples votes Or if all such things were imposed by a Major Vote on the Minor their Vote would be a Governing Rule to the Minor part 3. While Praying with the Hatt on is by the custom of the country a sign of unreverence the Pastors or Elders that Rule well may command the Flocks by their authority ordinarily and not at the present only to be uncovered at Prayer and Sacrament in the assembly without wronging Christs Power unless obeying it be wronging it The same I say of usual kneeling at Prayer 5. If the Congregation be called to confess their Faith or renew their Covenant with God the Rulers
may command all that consent to signifie it by such a sign as standing or lifting up the hand or subscribing c. And they are bound to obey them 6. I have oft enough instanced in Translations Metres Tunes Utensils Ornaments and many such like Obj. The Pastors make no Laws Ans Dally not with names Any thing is a Law which ruling authority maketh duty If Writing it maketh a Law they may write it But a verbal-Mandate is one species of a Law And imposeth and determineth and obligeth to obedience and it is sin to disobey because God commandeth them to obey Heb. 13.17 And even by the 5th Commandment It doth as truly limit and oblige when Pastors command as when Magistrates do it tho they force not by the Sword Obj. But these are but natural circumstances and belong no more to worship than to any other things Ans It 's a sad thought to me to think how many seem satisfied with such an answer as this All substances have their accidents quality time place c. But yet the accident of one substance is not the accident of another The quantity and quality of a man is not the quantity and quality of a Toad c. When these accidents are adjoyned to worship they be not accidents of other things Is Speaking no part nor accident of worship because speaking is used in common things Kneeling is used in other cases But kneeling in prayer to express reverence is not common to other things Putting off the hat sheweth Reverence to a Prince But to be uncovered at Prayer or Sacrament is the Accident at least of that Worship and not of other things Metre and Tunes belong to Ballads But the Metre and Tune of Psalms doth not but is appropriate to those Psalms Time and Place belong to all natural actions But the Time and Place separated to Gods Worship is an accident only of that It is not the natural specification of an act or circumstance or the generical nature that we speak of but the individual accident or circumstance as appropriate to a religious work Is love to God no worship because love is a natural act Is praying no act of Religion because we may pray to men Is eating and drinking no part of the Sacrament because we use them as natural acts for our daily sustenance Is washing no part of Baptism because we wash at other times Thinking is a natural act but holy thinking is more Were Davids sorts of Musick no part or accident of Worship because Musick is natural or artificial It magnifieth these acts to be applied to worship and it is a commendation of Worship-Ordinances that they are suited to nature and advance and sanctifie it Now at last I come closer to my question Have you no Church Rulers among you No Elders that rule well Is it unlawful to communicate with you if those Elders by Mandates which are obligatory to the flock do prescribe Days and Hours Temples or publick places for ordinary Worship and if they command you to use the new Translation rather than the Geneva publickly or prescribe the same Metre and Tunes rather than your Congregation shall sing some one Psalm and some another Or if they command them to be uncovered at Sacrament and Prayer or to kneel at prayer c. If you take this power from the Pastors and will separate from them for such obliging Laws or Mandates you do that very thing which you fiercely talk against you destroy or resist Christs Kingly Government by his Officers Oh what is Man What are the best of Men What doth the Church and World suffer by them The same men that cry up Christs Kingdom call it rebellion against him to obey his Officers As if we must depose or disobey the King unless we disobey all his Judges Justices and Officers All the obligatory decisions that the Apostles made about their Love Feasts anointing the sick the Kiss of Love long Hair covering or uncovering order of prophecying and of collections c. were not standing Laws to us nor done by uncommunicable power but were temporary Laws and local and such as their Successors when fit may make If you have no such Rulers in your Churches you should queston whether your Churches have the true order of Pastors as well as you question the Parish Ministers Do they not want ruling power as well as theirs specially if you deny the very power and they be but hindred in the exercise Obj. But some may be forced to say Our Pastors do nothing but by the peoples consent Ans They are their Pastors by consent and rule them as voluntary and not by force But their rule and precepts are never less obligatory on Conscience by vertue of Gods command to obey them Must they prescribe none of the things forementioned till all have voted it or consented They must command them to consent and they sin if they disobey tho they can force none to obey Object But some may be driven to say We allow such prescribing power to Pastors but not to Magistrates Ans 1. What Power the Kings of Judah used in Worship David Solomon Asa Jehosaphet Hezekiah Josiah I need not tell 2. Christ came not to put down Kings but to sanctifie their office All power is given him By him Kings reign The Kingdoms of the world are his by right Rulers are his Ministers for our good They must punish evil doers and promote well doing He commands us to honour and obey them They are keepers of both Tables They may drive Ministers to their duty and punish them for mal-administration Tho they may usurp nothing proper to the pastoral office nor forbid them any such thing yet such circumstances as belong to the nation or to many Churches and not to this or that in peculiar the Magistrates may determine It is of great use that all the approved Churches in a Nation signifie their consent in the same Confession of Faith the same anniversary days of Humiliation and Thanksgiving as is done about the Powder Plot and the same Translation of the Scripture if not also the same Psalm Books God strictly commandeth Concord and to serve him with one mind and mouth and to avoid confusion and division and discord What reason can any man give why Christs Officers appointed to rule by the sword may not thus discharge their trust Shall we sin if the Law impose a Translation Psalm Book or reverent gesture unless we separate Is commanded obedience become a sin And yet not if a Pastor or a ruling Majority of people injoin it or unless we leave all to confusion X. Here therefore I utterly renounce the opinion that shall hold that such things being lawful when uncommanded become unlawful when commanded by such as in Ministry Magistracy or Families or Schools are Rulers Yea if the Ruler misdo his work the sin is his I must not separate from every Kingdom Church or Family that is ill governed Nor am I
discharged from obedience in lawful things by the addition of some unlawful commands that destroy not acceptable Worship and turn not our food to Poyson I tell those Ministers that publickly charge this on Nonconformists that they must not charge any Doctrine of Seekers or Anabaptists or such separatists to be the Nonconformists Doctrine I know not one meer Nonconformist of that mind What we of this Age thought of Epâ—scopacy Liturgy and Magistracy all that would come in and own that cause openly with us have told the world in our published Proposals of 1660 and 1661 To which we refer them that would know their minds XI But when I oft alledged the example of Christ and the Apostles this Objector and Answerer saith p. 19. We make not Christ and his Apostles Hypocrites for we have proved that Christ never joined with false worship so much as with his presence at the place of it unless with this intent to bear witnâ—ss against it nor did he ever advise his disciples so to dâ— As for Moses Chair it was then Christs own Institution and he had thâ—n no other Church or Institution on earth Ans It was cautelously done to pass by the instances of the Apostles that neither separated nor commanded one man to separate from all the faulty Churches Rev. 2.3 Notwithstanding the Woman Jezabâ—â—s Doctrine and that of the Nicolaitans which God hated and the evil practices nor from the Church of Corinth where were carnal Schisms Defraudings Lawsuits before Heathens incest unlamented Sacrament disorders even to excess of drink disorder in Church Worship c. Nor from any other faulty Churches Methâ—nâ—s thâ—y that are so strict against any additions in Modes of Worship should not so much add or alter Scripture or accuse it of deâ—â—ctiveness as to suppose the Apostles to have culpably communicated with such Churches as Coâ—inth Coloss Ephesus Sardis Laodicea Smyâ—na c. yea and with the Jews who by falsifying the Rules called it unlawful to eat with the Gentiles or to eat what Moses Law foâ—bad and not to keep their days Pauls accomplishing of his Vow in the Tâ—mple and becoming a Jew to the Jews was fully contrary to the opponents Dâ—ctrine And as to Christs practice we said before you that he conformed not to any evil nor should you But did he not send the Lepers to a false ill-called corrupt sort of Priests to do by and with them what the Law required Did he not ordâ—narily joyn in the Synagogues in their worshâ—p Could he have leave constantly to teach there if he had there used to cry down their ordinary worship Had the Ceremonious Pharisees no ill forms nor ceremonies in their Worship Again I say Their long Prayers which were the Cloak of their oppression were either â—xtâ—mporate or forms of Liturgy If extemporate then the worst of Hypocrites may constantly use long extemporate Prayers and it had been no injury to the Spirit in them to have perswaded them to use Christs form instead of them If they were Liturgies then Christ did not separate from such no nor reprove them at all when he reproveth the hypocritical abuse of them Yea seemeth to commend them while he nameth them as a Cloak to cover evil which nothing is fit for that is not good Obj. He had no othâ—r Church Ans 1. Then most in England mâ—y go to the Parish Churches where they have no other Church to go to 2. But Christ had twelve Apostles and 70 or 72 other Teachers and many more Disciples Were these no Church nor matter for a Church XII Obj. Page 4. God hath not left it in our power to communicate with any society when they make that the condition of my Communion which I am convinced of to be sin to me that I question whether it be lawful or no c. Ans How oft have I answered this without any reply 1. If they make your consent to any sin the condition of your Communion you must avoid it But if they put no sin on you to be present when they sin is a condition to all Church Communion and to your own praying who sin in all your self you before excepted sins of ordinary infirmity as not warranting separation And when did you ever prove that the composing and imposing of the Liturgy much more the Obedient use of the Lords-day part is not a sin of infirmity as much as slandering it and the Churches and writing such Books as yours Accusing is not proving 2. If your taking it for sin be true you must forbear it If you mistake it for sin which is duty per se or per accidens you sin against God and truth by your mistake and by your Omission God bindeth you to alter your Judgment and so he doth if you take an indifferent thing for sin tho here it is safest to forbear An erring Conscience is no Lawmaker less then a Magistrate but a misconceiver and doth ligare non obligare XIII Obj. But none of the things are indeed Worship which you say men may command Ans That man shall be none of my guide that makes questions of bare names to seem to the people as if they were about the matter named They are such accidents of the Worship which God himself commandeth as are done in the outward expression of reverence and honour to God and the more decent and edifying performance of his own Institutions This is the description of them Kneeling being uncovered swearing with outward signs singing in Tunes Metre c. Agree to the thing and call these Worship or no Worship as you please You say False Worship is no Worship If so it is no bad Worship but all faulty Worship is not null XIV As for his general talk of me how much I have promoted Popery and being for Justification by works and merit c. I give him leave to ease his Stomach without an Answer and all those to be deceived by him that will take his word and not read mine especially my Treatise of imputed Righteousness Page 9. He saith When the Scripture speaks of justification by faith Doth any sound Divine or Christians understand it of the act of believing but that its the objâ—ct of faith that justifieth Ans See how strictly these men stick to Scripture that will have it the sole Law of Circumstances and yet can deny it as Expositors at their pleasure when Paul over and over so often saith That we are justified by faith and faith is imputed for righteousness and Christ saith Thy faith hath saved thee It is not faith that they mean but Christ It is faith in Christ There is no faith but the act or habit of believing Rom. 3.21 The righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ on all that believe 25. Through faith in his blood 26. The justifier of him which believeth in Jesus Many ways such will be odiously perverted if you put Christ instead of Faith we are justified by no
not by good words and fair speeches but by bad words and deeds to deceive the hearts of the simple in causing divisions and offences 3. I believe I have had with me in my time many scores that have had such melancholly terrors without any such cause and must the matter of their trouble therefore be proved faulty I have known those that for many years could have no peace of mind while they continued Orthodox and Religious and at last hearing Irreligious Sadduces turned â—ilthy and ranters and were never under trouble more that could be perceived but boasted of their peace Who knoweth not that Melancholly maketh many of the most sound and blameless persons like Spira a weary of their lives thorough desparation 4. I can tell these Objectors of eminent ancient godly men that long forbore publick Communion and at last used it and have had more comfort and edification than ever they had before and the more for breaking through all the sharp Censures of their former company in obedience to their Consciences herein And when they have seen a scandalous person with them at the Sacrament have gone with Humility Love and Tears and told him of his sin and danger and had such success as hath comforted them more than avoiding that Communion ever did yea I know those that being threatned by violent Pastors that use Dissenters with rigor have humbly and submissively so pleaded with them from Scripture and experience against that Spirit and Way as hath overcome them and melted them into a more tender and peaceable mind and course A Postscript on a Book of Mr. J. F's SINCE the Writing of all foregoing I have received another Book sent me by J.F. Whether he will be angry if I expound this J. Faldo I cannot tell I read it over to see if there were any thing in it that should change my Judgment But I will not promise to do so by any more such Nor will I so much as tell the Reader what my Judgment said of it in the reading much less write down the Answers which readily offered themselves to my understanding as I went on for it would but more provoke him I see and do the Reader little good unless by helping him to lament the churches case through the infirmities of such as I and he are And the more patiently to bear all our present sufferings by considering how unable we are to agree what to chuse for our selves if we had our wills and how far we should be from desired concord I will not write a Book to contend on the question Whether Mr. Faldo or I be the wiser or better man I am conscious of so much ignorance and badness that if it may edifie the Reader let him think of me as ill as Mr. Faldo and all such men would have him If he have a good cause I wish the Reader may be of his mind If not I find not my self obliged to talk on against such Writers any further for his rescue nor do I think I can say any thing herein which at his rate Mr. Faldo cannot answer I only say that he and such other have satisfied me That the Liturgy-VVorship in the common Lords Day office is comparatively purer than the VVorship of many is like to be who oppose it His Counsel is good to know what the VVorship is before I consent to it I have tried what is in the Liturgy I concurred with many better men 1661 in telling the VVorld how far we could approve or use it I find in it much good and in the ordinary Lords Day common service no fault that should alienate me from conjunction with the Church therein To talk of faults in Baptizing Burial Marrying c is to say nothing to this point I never saw any of these used since I joined with the Church in the Lords-Day VVorship But how to try Mr. F. his VVorship before-hand I know not He saith that if we will be at the cost of it we may have better worship And tho he seem displeased for being called a consenter to my catholick communion either he consented that the Parish-Church-Worship should rather be used than none or else which I suspect when I have read his Book I cannot understand so much as what he is for or against what he meaneth by a Meeting of four whether he take it for a Church I know not I take it not for a Church that hath no Minister or Sacrament And if he know of so many score or hundred thousand Nonconformable Ministers as may guide all the People in England as such Churches of four I do not And if Communion in the Liturgy be simply unlawful it is so to all the Land I think there are millions in the Kings Dominions that can have no other Church-Worship than with the Liturgy at what rate soever they would purchase it If his conceits of my self contradictions were as true as they are false I will tell him other reasons of what he counteth unaccountable than that I wrote one Book in 1659 and another in 1684. I am now 25 years elder than I was then and it s a shame to learn nothing in so many years I am more above all worldly hopes than he is I am past all capacity of them I have less cause of fear than he They will hardly confine me to a Prison narrower than my Bed and Couch My glass is almost run If I be not more apprehensive of my speedy account and it awe me not to own nothing but the truth without dawbing with one extream or other I am much to blame And I have seen some more of the experience of both extremes tho alas I saw too much before And after all comparing all together I leave posterity my thoughts 1. That I had rather the Church had a Liturgy to make all foreknow what Worship they meet for with free prayer also in its place than to have either alone 2. If they must be separated when the Minister is of tryed soundness and ability I had rather have his free prayer alone But for many others I had rather have the Liturgy alone And for instance Mr. Faldo hath oft told me that his Church at Barnet as I twice said before not only omitted but renounced or opposed all singing of Psalms for many years that many of them were of such ill opinions that he was put to much work to save them from being Quakers and at what cost they can now have Church-Meetings when he hath left them I know not For Mr. Faldo to hold up such a Church even to suffering and to write against Communion with the Liturgy where there are able godly Ministers is either erroneous partiality in him or I am blind in my unwilling ignorance To which I further add again that I cannot expect that men Preach sounder Doctrine than they studiously Write nor that they pray more soundly than they preach and if Mr. Faldo and all such Writers so pray and so preach and so live much more if also their Churches have such Maimed Worship as aforesaid and some of them unordained Ministers and many Churches men of many contrary doctrines I take the Common-prayer Book Worship and Communion to be much purer than theirs The Lord make our successors wiser better and more peaceable than we are FINIS § 1.
Catechism the Râ—fâ—rmatio Legum Ecâ—les the Canons and the licenced books of the Protestant Bishops and Doctors such as Arch-bp Cranmers Bp. Hâ—â—pers Arch-bp â—arkers Arch-bp Grinâ—als Arch-bp Abbots Arch-bp Edward Sandys Arch-bp Whitgift Bp. Pilkâ—nton Bp. Jewel Bp. Ally Bp. Babingtâ—n Bp. Mâ—rtâ—n â—p Hall Bp. Davenant Bp. â—rideaux Bp. Brâ—wnâ—ig B. â—otter Bp. Miles Smith Bp. Carlâ—on Bp Bayly Bp. Parry Bp. Câ—wper and many more such besides those in Irâ—land aforesaid And such â—rs as Dr. Whâ—taker Dr Field Dr. Crakenthâ—â—pe Dr. Sutlive Dr. Masâ—n Dr. VVhite Dr. â—iâ—y Dr. Chaloner Dr. VVard Dr. VVillet Dr. Holland and abundance more besides all other old licenced Writers I think that all these do fitlier notify and denominate the Church of Englands Judgment than the Writings of one Irish Arch-Bp and Dr. Hammond and Dr. Gunning since Bp. and a few more such in the points wherein they differ from the rest tho Grotius and their Chaplains be added to the number And now I will add this further evidence in the conclusion besides that as I said before the present Laws put us to abjure alterations and therefore sure they never thought that they so altered the Government themselves that even while they say that the Parishes are no Churches but parcels of Churches and the Priests are no Bps. of the Flock most really acknowledg them the thing that deny the Name And the argument from the definition is stronger than from the Name And here I will but name first the Scripture descriptions of a Bp. and 2. Dr. Hammonds exposition of those Texts 3. And the matter of fact among us The first part of the Bps. office is teaching the flock Under this teaching part 1. the Bishops office is to preach to them 1 Pet. 5.2 3. Feed the flock of God which is among you taking the oversight Or Episcopacy thereof c. Dr. Hammond The Bps. of your several Churches I exhort Take care of your several Churches and Govern them c. Qust Whom doth the Law require to do more in feeding and guiding the flock The Incubment that preacheth daily or the Bp. that never seeth the most nor ever preacheth to one Flock of many Who are they that are among the Flock the Incumbent that dwells with them or the Bp. that is a stranger to them 1 Thes 5.12 We beseech you brethren to know them that labour among you and are over you in the Lord and admonish you and to esteem them very highly in love for their work sake and be at peace among your selves Dr. Hammond Pay your Bps. as great a respect as is possible for the pains they have taken among you Qust Who Laboureth among them most in the several parishes publickly and privately The Bp. that never saw them or the Incumbent that layeth out all his Study and Time on them Who are most among them Who most admonisheth them What is meant by among themselves Is it that Lincoln shire Leicester-shire Northamton-shire Buckingham-shire be at peace among themselves from Gainsborough to Oxford-shire or is it not rather that neighbour Christians that see each other so live in peace 1 Tim. 5.17 The elders that rule well are worthy of double honour especially they thaâ— labour in the word and doctrine Dr. Hammond Let the Bps. that have discharged that function well receive for their reward twice as much as others have especially those that preach the Gospel to whom it was news and continue to instruct congregatons of Christians in setled Churches Quest On whom doth the law impose most preaching On Bps. or on parish Priests And who doth most of that work Heb. 13. Remember them who have the rule over you who have spoken to you the word of God Dr. Hammond Set before your eyes the Bps. and governours who have been in your Church and preached the Gospel to you Quest Ask the parishes who those be 2 Tim. 4.2 I charge thee before God and the Lord Jesus Christ who shall judg the quiâ—k and the dead at his appearing and his Kingdom preach the word be instant in season out of season reprove rebuke exhort with all long suffering and dâ—â—â—rine Not only Dr. Hammond but all that are for Prelacy expound this of a Bps office Quest Ask the people who most performs it 2. The Bps Office is also to watch over all the Flock personally by conference instruction counsel admonition exhortation reproof comfort as every one shall need Saith Bp. Jer. Taylâ—r Pref. to Treat of Rep. No man can give account of thâ—se that he knoweth not Acts 20.10 28 31. I taught you publickly and from house to house Take heed tâ— your selves and to all the flock over which the Holy Ghost hath made you Bps to â—eed the Church of God which he hath purchased with his own Blood Therefore watch and remember that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears Dr. Hammond Instructing both in the Synagogues and the private Schools and in your several houses whither I also came Wherefore ye that are Bps. or governors of the several Churches Look to your selves and the Churches committed to your trust to Rule and order all the faithful under you Quest Is this done more by the Diocesans or by the Incumbents Do Diocesans teach from house to house from Southwark to Christ-Church from Nâ—wark to Alesbury or Tame Who doth the law appoint to warn every one in the Church from house to house and night and day c. Col. 1.28 Whom we preach warning every man and teaching every man in all wisdom that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus Heb. 13.17 Obey them that have the rule over you and submit your selves for they watch for your souls as those that must give account Dr. Hammâ—nd Obey those that are set to rule over your several Churches the Bps. whose whole care is spent among you as being to give account of your proficiency in the Gospel Qâ—st Is it the Diocesan or the Incumbent that the law requireth to preach to and warn every man c. And that watch for their Souls as those that must give account Is not the incumbent of this or that parish fitter to watch and give account of each Soul than the Diocesan for a whole Country or many Counties who never saw them Can he do as Ignatius's Bishops that must take notice of all the Church even Servants and Maids 3. The bishops office is to be a visible example to all the flock of Humility Meekness Patience Holiness Charity and good Works Heb. 13.7 Remember them who have the rule over you who have spoken to you the word of God whose faith follow considering the end of their conversations Dr. Hammond Set before your eyes the Bishops observe their manner of living Quest VVho can observe his example whom he never saw nor know Or who can make an unknown man his pattern Do the flâ—cks see more the Incumbents example or the