Church Because the charge is more odious and injurious and tendeth more to destroy Love IX 7. To accuse a Church its Doctrine Ministry Worship or Discipline falsly as guilty of such corruption which maketh it unlawful for any Christians to have communion with it or falsly to pretend such faults for his own and others separation from it is a great sin though not so great as to unchurch it X. 8. To hold that every Error in the Doctrine Worship Discipline Pastors or People of that Church yea though settled and continued and foreknown not forced on us to consent to or practice is sufficient cause to make Communion with the Church unlawful is to hold a principle which would infer separation from all the known Churches in this world XI 9. To draw others to such separation by such false accusations or opinions is worse than to do it silently ones self and the more the worse XII 10. The more such accusations strike at the heart of Christian Love which is the life of holy Societies and of Holiness it self and the more they draw men from Piety and to hate and abuse and wrong each other the greater is the sin XIII 11. When men erroneously and causlesly gather separated Members from true Churches where they should continue into Antichurches or Societies where their business is to make others unjustly odious that differ from them this is to gather Schismatical Societies And if they pretend themselves wiser than the Generality of the true Orthodox Churches in the world and so separate from them they were for this called Hereticks at first But if it be but upon a quarrel with some particular neighbour Church or Pastor it was called a Schism XIV 12. If any proud or passionate or erroneous person do as Diotrephes cast out the brethren undeservedly by unjust suspensions silencings or excommunications it is tyrannical Schism what better name soever cloak it XV. 13. If any should make sinful terms of Communion by Laws or Mandates imposing things forbidden by God on those that will have Communion with them and expelling those that will not so sin this were heinous Schism And the further those Laws extend and the more Ministers or People are cast out by them the greater is the Schism XVI 14. If any should not only excommunicate such persons for not complying with them in sin but also prosecute them with mulcts imprisonments banishments or other prosecution to force them to transgress this were yet more heinously aggravated Schism XVII 15. All those would be deeply guilty of such Schism who by talk writing or preaching justifie it and cry it up and draw others into the guilt and reproach the Innocent as Schismaticks for not offending God XVIII 16. If any should corrupt such a Church or its Doctrine Worship or Discipline in the very Essentials by setting up forbidden Officers and Worship or casting out the Officers Worship or Discipline instituted by Christ and then prosecute others for not communicating with them this would be yet the more heinous Schism XIX 17. If either of the last named sorts would not be content with mens Communion with them but would also silence and prosecute such as will not own justifie and consent to all that they do by subscriptions declarations covenants promises or oaths this would yet be a more aggravated Schism XX. 18. If the men that do this should be mere obtruders and usurpers that have no true Pastoral power over those whom they persecute as the Pope over other Kingdoms and Churches this were yet more aggravated schisme XXI 19. If such Usurpers will claim a dominion or Monarchy over all the world and unchurch degrade and unchristen all that will not be their Subjects or will impose sinful termes of Vnion upon all the Christian World and declare all Hereticks or Schismaticks that receive them not and so cast out most of the Christians on Earth and all the sounder Churches this is one of the most heynous sorts of Schism that the mind of man can think of Which is the grand Schism of the Roman Papacy worse than all their interior Schisms when they had many Popes at once XXII 20. If such shall send agents and emissaries into the Dominions of Christians Princes or States to draw the Subjects to that Schisme and make them believe that Princes are by right the Subjects of the Pope and that men shall be damned if they will not take him for the Bishop or Vice-christ of all the World and keep up a rich and numerous Clergie in Christian Kingdomes for this use and make Decrees to exterminate or burn Christians and to depose temporal Lords that will not obey them and execute their lawes This is to maintain and prosecute a Schisme against Religious and Civill peace by open hostility to Princes and People and to mankind XXIII 21. If because the Roman Emperours and Clergie setled five Patriarchs in the Roman Empire of which the Roman Bishop was the first and by Councils called General of that Empire did make Church Laws to bind the Subjects any therefore will teach that these Patriarchs and the Pope as Principiâ—m unitatis must be Rulers in the dominions of other Princes and that such Councils must govern them by their Decrees and that the Universal Church must be united in any one mortal head whether Personal or Collective such as General Councils and so would bring Christian Princes and people under the Laws and Government of forreigners and brand those as Schismaticks that will not fall in with such an Universal Church Policie This were also a very heinous sort of Schism For the Universal Church never did nor will be united on such termes And therefore to make such terms of its unity is to make an Engine to divide it and tear it all into pieces XXIV 22. If any will confine the Power or Exercise of the Church Keyes into so few hands as shall make the Exercise of Christs Discipline impossible as by laying that work on one which multitudes are too few to do or shall make Churches so great and Pastors so few as that the most of the people must needs be without true Pastoral oversight teaching and publick worship and then will forbid those people to Commit the Care of their souls to any others that will be Pastors indeed and so would compel them to be without Christs ordinances true Church Communion and Pastoral help This would be Schismatical and much worse XXV 23. If any Pastors will deny Baptism which is their investiture in the Christian Church to the Adult that refuse to receive the transient Image of the Crucifix or any thing equal to it as a Dedicating means to consecrate them to God and to signifie their Covenant Engagement to Christ and as a badge and symbol of the Christian Religion it seemeth to us to be Schismaticall when Christ himself instituted Baptism without such a Covenanting Image to be the test and bond of his Churches unity But
I nor any other person is obliged by the vow to endeavour any such alteration of Church Government V. 12. The fifth Part of the Matter The Declaration and Oath as not understood of not resisting any Commissioned VI. 13. The sixth Part of the Matter To cease preaching and administring Sacraments till we conform at least not to preach to more than a family and four persons VII 14. The seventh Part Consequential Not to come within five miles of any City or Corporation which sendeth Burgesses to Parliament or of any place where we have preached to more than aforesaid since the Act of oblivion 15. The Adjuncts and the other Matters agreed on which affright the Nonconformists 16. The case and practice of the Ministers since they were silenced Additions occasioned by Mr. L. Fresh Suit and some others about National Churches THE Question stated § 3 c. Whether we are obliged by or to the Jewish National Polity § 5 c. or by scripture to a National limitation of them Whether a National Church-form be lawful § 30 c Whether it be a prudential desirable form § 38 c The resolution of this by a short history of Prelacie and Councils § 39 c. Obj. From the necessity of Appeals § 40 c. Obj. Shall all gather Churches that will ib. Obj. The Apostles have successours ib. Q. Whether the King or who is the National Church Head § 41. 42 c A Christian Kingdom what § 43 Q. Must real holyness in the judgment of rational Charity be required in all Church members § 1 Q. What Covenanting is necessary to particular Church relation § 5 c. The spirit maketh Ministrs how I. The Epistle of an African Council in Cyprian Ep. 68. p. 200. to Felix a Presbyter and the Laity at Legio and Asturica and to Laelius the Deacon and the Laity at Emerita concerning their Bishops Bafilides and Martial worthy to be read as to our present controversies II. The Letter of Rob. Grosthead the good Bishop of Lincoln to Pope Innocent containing the reason of his Nonconformity and shewing that hindring preaching is the greatest sin next Divelism and Antichristianism Out of Mat. Parâ— An. 1253. p. 871. 872. III. An extract from Bishop Saunderson de juramento SECT I. The Reasons of this writing and the sense of the word CHURCH IT was the saying of acute and holy Augustine though we call him not with Fromondus Omniscâ—um that no man ought to be patient under an accusation of Heresie He meaneth by Patience a silent neglect of his own Just Vindication Not that we must be like Hectoring Duellers that would kill or hurt others in revenge or in a sinful way of Vindication But by silence those that slander men may be encouraged in their sin to their own destruction and those that value the slandered persons may be tempted to think too well of Heresie for their sakes And the honour of God and his Truth and our own good names so far as they are serviceable are none of them to be disregarded We have with grieved souls beheld the Land of our Nativity distracted by Divisions and much if not most about Religion we wish it were not against Religion by some that indeed have no true Religion Teachers against Teachers in Discourses Sermons Books rendring each other despicable and unlovely and some calling out aloud to Rulers to draw the Sword against their Brethren so learnedly and industriously pleading the Cause against each other with the Laity high and low as if the destroying of their Love and kindling Wrath and Hatred were the Evangelical necessary work and without this zeal and skill and diligence hard to be accomplished No wonder then if we have people against people families divided and all confounded and this grievous Schism carryed on by crying out against each other as Schismaticks and implacably causing it while we loudly inveigh against it The case is lamentable that distraction should be thus expressed and promoted and when God hath warned us by the mischiefs of an odious Civil War and hath tryed us again with peace with all Nations about us when most of them are involved in grievous Wars that yet we will not give peace to one another but live as if Peace were the Plague which we most desire to escape Yet as it is the good providence of God that the Names of Wisdom Godliness Truth Justice Mercy Honesty and Vertue are all still honourable even among those that hate and oppose them and the names of Folly Ungodliness Lying Unjustice Unmercifulness Dishonesty and Vice are all dishonourable where the things themselves are followed and prevail so Love Peace and Concord are names that are by most commended when if most were for the things indeed we were in a hopeful way of recovery And Malice Schism and Discord are cryed down by those whom no intreaty will prevail with to forbear them or to accept any remedy against them Yet we are thus far prepared for peace that if we be not false Hypocrites if we did but know which is the true way of Love Peace and Concord we would follow it And if we knew what is Schism indeed we would avoid it And its pity that men that think themselves wise should yet not know the way of Love and Peace Especially that the Learned Preachers of the Gospel of Love and Peace should still be the incendiaries and stir up the Laity that would be more peaceable against each other And that after so many Volumes of History have these thirteen hundred years at least asperst the Clergy with the reproach of being the contentious troublers of the world And yet must we despair of a cure of so odious a disease The thing that Books Sermons and Discourses cry out against those called Non Conformists for is Humorous Obstinate Schism and Disobedience in Preaching when forbidders and keeping up Assemblies not allowed and gathering Churches out of Churches separating from the parish-Parish-Communion and Church of England If we can find out the Schismatick we hope he will be condemned by us all But that the Cause may be heard at least in some part before it is judged we that publish this here give an account of our own judgment and those that we are best acquainted with how far we hold it lawful or unlawful to gather Churches or to separate from Churches or to differ from what is established by Authority But the Application to our particular Case and our Arguments thereabout we must not here presume to publish They that accuse others as Schismaticks and Separatists for deserting Churches or gathering Churches out of Churches and will not tell us what they mean by the word Church nor give us leave to tell them what we mean but judge in confusion and despise explication and necessary distinction are men that we can neither be edified by nor edifie in this way SECT II. The Various Opinions of such us we have to do with
or be ready and desirous to be confirmed that is In the manner prescribed by the Liturgy This as it concerneth the Conformity of the Lay-receiver is spoken of before But now as it concerneth the Ministers Assent and Consent 2. Some that take this for a very useful passage as it enableth them to hold back some uncapable persons dare not approve it and consent to it as it denieth the Church Communion which Christ giveth commandeth to persons of unblemished uprightness and piety if they will not profess themselves willing to be confirmed by our Bishops in the manner before described though they are willing to own their Baptismal Covenant and few in most places are confirmed XIII The Liturgy saith that No man should come to the holy Communion but with a full trust in God's mercy and a quiet Conscience To which we must declare Assent Approbation and Consent 2. The sense of these words remaineth dubious whether it speak de necessitate praecepti vâ—l medii Some think that the meaning is that it is the Duty of all that come to the Communion to have a full trust and a quiet Conscience Others think that the meaning is only that all should seek these Others think that tht meaning is that they should not come without them Their reasons are 1. From the plain signification of the words No man should come but with c. which must differ from They that come ought to be such 2. Because the necessit as praecepti may be affirmed of perfect obedience since our use of reason It is every mans duty not to sin at all And it is every mans duty to believe and love God not only sincerely but with a stronger Faith and Love and it s every mans duty to seek after perfection And yet no man will say that we should not come to the Communion but with high degrees of grace or with perfection 3. And the words are not that they should seek it but that they should not come without it 3. The Nonconformists confess that all men ought to have a full Trust and a quiet Conscience But they think that many 1000 good Christians have but a weak Faith or Trust and an unquiet Conscience And that the Eucharist is a Confirming and Comforting Sacrament and that those that have a weak Trust and unquiet Conscience should come for strengthening and comfort and be encouraged to come 4. Therefore seeing no entreaty will prevail with the Imposers after so many years time to explain these and many other such words they think that the usual sense of such words must be the measure of their exposition and therefore they dare not profess Assent and Approbation and Consent till they are better explained to them XIV The Liturgy requireth that the Priest deliver the Communion to the people into their hands All meekly kneeling 2. The 27th Canon saith No Minister shall wittingly administer the same to any but to such as kneel under pain of suspension 3. The Conformists differ among themselves about the sense of the Liturgy herein viz. whether All kneeling include a prohibition to deliver it to any that kneel not some say No that it only bids them give it to such as kneel but not to deny it others though the Canon do Others say yea that it requireth us to give it to no others Their reasons are 1. Because else the precept signified nothing if men were after it left at liberty 2. Because All plainly excludeth others 3. Because the Canon being the decrees of the same Church expoundeth the Liturgy and it is absurd to say that their Rubrick leaveth the Minister at Liberty to do that same thing for which the Canon suspendeth him 4. Because we must also subscribe that we will use no other form of administration but that of the Liturgy which Reasons we judge to be cogent 4. The Nonconformists differ among themselves about kneeling some taking it to be sinfully scandalous on the reasons before given and some taking it for lawful But they commonly hold that it is sinfull cruelty and Schism for them as Ministers to cast any true Christians out of Christ's Church and Communion of Saints and to deny them the body and blood of Christ which he hath commanded his Church to deliver and receive on so small a reason as this not kneeling 1. Considering the three reasons which are before mentioned as the cause of their doubt 2. And that the Holy Ghost Rom. 14. commandeth both Pastors and People to bear with and receive each other notwithstanding such kind of differences 3. And that good mens judgments in such cases are not in their own power 4. And that to tie Communion to such doubtful Circumstances will certainly cause Schism and such doings have long distracted Christ's Churches through the world 5. And Christ hath commanded all his true Disciples to live in loving concord and communion But kneelers and not kneelers are his true Disciples 6. And men must not be cast out of the Churches Communion even for gross and heinous sins unless they add obstinate impenitency Therefore they dare not Assent Approve Consent to or Practice this rejecting of godly Christians for not kneeling in the act of receiving from those priviledges which Christ by his testament hath given them XV. By the Liturgy every Parishioner is to communicate twice a year and by the Canon and statute to be compelled so to do and the Churchwarden to present them that do not And those that do not in a certain time are to be EXCOMMUNICATED and after laid in Gaol during life unless they conform To the Liturgies Imposition we must profess Assent c. 2. Not every Parishioner yea in our experience not one of many hath a full trust in God's Mercy and a quiet Conscience without both which they are not to come 3. Many good Christians have so great a sense of their sins and unworthiness that they dare not communicate till they are fitter And some are so timerous and melancholy that hearing the Liturgy threaten men to be given up to the Devil and eat and drink their own damnation if they eat and drink unworthily it would drive them by fear into distraction should they take it till they have better thoughts of their title and preparations so that their dilemma is sad when they are either to go to Bedlam or to the common Gaol 4. To say that all these doubting and timerous people should be otherwise minded and that this is their errour is true but as impertinent as it is to tell all men that they should never sin or all ignorant carnall ungodly men that they should be wise and godly But to conclude that men should receive the sacrament because they ought to be prepared though they are not prepared is somewhat like telling the sick that they should work and eat as they ought to have done if by intemperance they had not disabled themselves 5. There are many among us who are
London are not the seventh part of the whole including all the outer Parishes And of the 97 there were very few Churches left unburned and there are but few that are yet built up and instead of many there are small Tabernacles and instead of others nothing And the outer Parishes are mostly so great as that the Temples will hold but a small part of the people It is conjectured by the Inhabitants that in Martins Parish are about threescore thousand souls and in Stepney and Giles's Cripplegate each about fifty thousand and in Giles's in the Fields between 20000 and 30000 and in Clements Danes Margarets Westminster Andrews Holborn Sepulchres and the Churches in Southwark at Aldgate White-Chappel Shoreditch and divers others there are in some six times the number that can hear in the Temples in some more and in others not much less And in most Churches the Preachers voice will not extend to above two thousand if more can come in So that take one with another and it is conjectured that it is not above the seventh or eight part of the Inhabitants that can come to hear in the outer Parishes And if the other six or seven parts should seek for room in the emptier Churches of other Parished within the walls it cannot be supposed that above one part of these six or seven would find room So that all set together there is supposed to be place but for about the fifth or fourth part at most of all the people within and without the walls And London is to be denominated rather from three four or five parts than from One of these And we all agree that the famousest and happiest City for Religion in the world should not be left to turn Infidels Pagans Atheists or to be kept from all publick Worship of God And it must be considered that the great Parishes where one of twenty cannot hear are far off from the Churches that have room and that such persons cannot easily know before-hand what Churches have room and where to seek it And that those that have most need have least desire and when they cannot be taught near home will rather stay at home or in the streets or Ale houses than go far to seek room in the Alleys of other Churches And it 's known that by this means Papists have got opportunity of seducing multitudes and many get them to baptize their children And whereas it is said that some may go one day and some another it is answered 1. That if they did go half the families by turns still the greater part would be shut out 2. It is all that are bound by God constantly to hear and worship him 3. And those that most value it will still croud in and keep out the rest and will not bargain away their own duties and benefits for other mens sakes Nor can Parishes come to agree upon such a bargain VI. Experience assureth us that men are not usually brought to knowledge repentance faith and holiness by the Gospel ex opere operato or as by a charm but as an apt morall cause And that the Preaching of judicious convincing serious affectionate Ministers hath incomparably more success than the affected language or dull reading speeches of injudicious novices or wordly formalists or hypocrites God usually worketh according to the morall aptitude of the means though not alwaies VII It cannot be denyed but that the number of raw cold dry yea and scandâ—lous Ministers in many Counties of this Kingdom is too great And the more ignorant and bad the people are the abler Ministers and more diligent do they need And those people who feel what profiteth their Souls will not take up with cold uneffectual teaching if they can have better VIII He that hath no Preacher but a Reader in his parish is by the Church Laws forbidden to refuse his Ministry and all such are forbidden frequent going to other parishes communicating in them what want soever they have at home IX The Nonconformists that do but affirm any thing in the Liturgy Ceremonies Articles Government c. to be unlawful and such as they may not subscribe to are by the Church Laws excommunicate ipso facto And all that dare not take the Sacrament kneeling are to be denyed the Communion of the Church And all that dare not submit their Children to be baptized by the foredescribed undertaking of Godfathers and to receive the Cross as a dedicating badg of Christianity must not have their Children Christened And all that dare not commit their souls to the Pastoral Guidance of ignorant readers or other men whom they think by their unskilfulness unsoundness aversness to a holy life strangers to intimate cases of conscience or notorious negligence and sloth or non-residence to be unmeet for them to trust themselves to in so great a matter in which their salvation is so much concerned and so dare not take the Sacrament from such as their Pastors all these are forbidden Communion with any other Parish Churches by the Canon and all Ministers forbidden to receive them And if they dare not say that they are willing to be coâ—firmed in the English mode they must no where be admitted to communion And being excommunicate must not be buryed according to the Church-Office when they are dead so that they are cast out of the Church before they Congregate in other Assemblies X. In this case the Nonconformists are not agreed what to do One part and the far greatest say 1. We will forbear affirming the unlawfulness of any of the foresaid impositions till we are called to speak out And because the case of these times calls us often to it we will do it as privately and modestly as we can 2. And though we are excommunicated ipso facto yet we are not bound our selves to execute their sentence but may stay in Communion till they prove the fact and do the execution on us themselves by refusing us And this we take to be the most peaceable way But others say That though in some cases for peace this way may be taken yet ordinarily we are not bound to seek and expect Communion with that Church which hath already thus excommunicated us especially when all the Ministry subscribe and declare their Conformity to the Church orders and swear Canonical obedience to the Ordinaries and are themselves to be suspended if they give us the Communion We must not say they strive against their Laws nor seek that Ministers should be perjured false to their promises and professions to admit us to Communion against their Laws Nor can any Church that first excommunicateth us call us Schismaticks for not communicating with them unless they prove that we give them just cause to excommunicate us Here it is supposed that the Reader understandeth that to be excommunicated ipso facto is sine sententia without any need of a Judges sentence to be actually excommunicate upon our fact done so that the bare proof and notice of
the fact is enough to warrant the execution Though a Judge may also pass a sentence if he see cause vid. Calv. Lexic Jurid And others commonly There are some others that go further and think it unlawful to have Communion with the Parish Churches because they thus excommunicate us first without more cause and because they take the Pastors to be scandalous by the foresaid Oaths Declarations and subscriptions and those that have not the peoples consent to be no true Pastors But these are herein disowned by the most and very few Ministers are of their mind that we know of though many of the people much incline to it especially they that live where the Priests are ignorant scandalous slothful or malignant because Paâ—l saith Wâ—â—h sâ—câ— no not to eat But others tell them that 1. It is not the Parish-Ministers that made the excommunicating Laws 2. And if they sin themselves it is ignorantly 3. And we have not a call and opportunity to hear and judge them XI Even those called Independents hold if Mr. Ph. Nyes Manuscript to that end may tell us their minds that it is lawful to hear the publick Parish Ministers because the Magistrate may set Teachers over the People and require them to hear them Though they hold that the People should choose their Pastors and that the Sacraments should be administred and received freely and not by force Yea such Anabaptists as Mr. Tombes as is visible in his Book hold that Communion with the Parish-Church is lawful in the Word Prayer and Lords Supper XII We commonly hold that men unjastly excommunicated are not thereby disobliged from publick worshiping of God and living under Pastoral oversight and Church discipline nor are bound to endanger their own salvation by neglecting such duties and losing such helps and priviledges and therefore must be of such Churches as they can if they cannot be of such as they would or as are allowed by the Magistrate XIII It is not in the power of our selves to escape such excommunications For we are not able to change our own understandings so far as to hold every thing before named to be lawful Some of us are able to say that we have with a willingness to see the truth studied the case of the old Conformity above forty years and the case of the New-conformity now above seventeen years and read almost all that hath been written for them which we thought might add to our information and prayed earnestly that God would not suffer us to erre and the longer we study it the more we are confirmed In this case we suffer publick and private obloquy and reproach and not only these seventeen years the loss of all Ministerial Maintenance but the danger of 40 l. a Sermon and imprisonment in common Gaols and the ruine of our estates and health And in reason it s as easie to think that they that hold their opinion on such terms are like to be as impartial in their studies as they whose way leadeth to preferment wealth and honour of which we were capable of a part We say therefore again that to Consâ—â—m or prevent the Canons Excommunication ipso facto is not in our power And they that say God will not condemn men for that which they were not able to avoid or help should not do otherwise themselves XIV When the 1800 or 2000 Ministers were silenced the far greatest part of them forbore all publick Preaching and only taught some few in private at such hours as hindered not the publick Assemblies and many of them lived as private men XV. To this day it is so with many of the Nonconformists Those that live where they find small need of their Preaching or else have no call or opportunity and cannot remove their dwellings do hold no Assemblies but as other men content themselves to be Auditors Those that live where are godly and peaceable Ministers in Publick who yet need help do lead the people constantly to the Parish-Churches and teach them themselves at other hours and help them from house to house This is ordinary in the Countries and even in London with many Ministers that hold no Assemblies yea many that were ejected out of City Parish-Churches XVI Those called Independents do keep up such Churches as they had gathered before when none of our present oaths declarations subscriptions or practices were imposed on them which is not therefore to be taken as new XVII As to the rest it was the great and terrible Plague in 1665. which made this change in their Assembling and Ministration When the publick Ministers forsook the City and the rich left the poor to misery and death and people lookt every day for their last when they that heard a Sermon one day were buried the next when death had awakened the people to Repentance and a regard of their everlasting state divers Nonconformable Ministers resolved to stay with them They begg'd money out of the Countries for the poor and relieved them They got into the empty Pulpits and preached to them And when Preachers and Hearers lookt every day for their last it is easie to conceive that there was serious Preaching and serious Hearing By this many that died were helpt in their preparations and through God's great mercies multitudes that survived repented and became the serious seekers of a better world The men that did this were mostly unmarried and could easilier venture their own lives than such as had families and some of them that had families yet trusted God and most did scape We know but of one pious Germane Minister that died of the Plague in the City and one of another Disease if not through want and two that fled from it in the Country And when God had blest these mens faithful labours with the conversion of many souls especially Apprentices and young people the experience so engaged their mutual affections that the Ministers resolved that they would live and die in such service as God had so blessed and preserved them in and their hearers resolved that they would not forsake their Teachers And thus the dreadful Plague began that which so much now offendeth men as a dangerous Schism XVIII And when some men out of excessive caution were ready to think that when that Plague was ceased having killed about an hundred thousand the Ministers should lay by that publick work and retire again into secret corners God confuted them by his next dreadful judgement burning down the City the next year 1666 So that there were neither Churches to go to nor Ministers in the Parishes to Preach nor rich men to maintain them And could any soul that hated not Christ and mens salvation have wished the Nonconformists then to desert the miserable people When they newly came from under the terrour of such a dreadful Plague and when success and Gods protection had so greatly encouraged them and when presently they were deprived of their worldly treasure and had not houses or
such as the Counterminer will say that to fear such sin as I have here named by one that is not willing to be damned is Treason Rebellion Schism Faction Pride Obstinacy this will not pass with me for convincing Argument on which I may venture my salvation Jul Scaliger exercit tells us that in France our Bicott the Learned Schoolman was envied by another for his Auditors in Philosophy and his crafty adversary told the King that Bicott was a Peripatetick and Aristotle was against Monarchy There needed no more and Bicott was cast down As for them that think that to name the late Wars is a Confutation of Nonconformists as if they knew not that they were raised on both sides by Conformists Heylin in Lauds Life will tell them who I now only repeat Silence all that had a hand in those Wars except the Conformists and no more and I and thousands will give you thanks I plead not for my self The years are past in which I might have better served the Church had I been thought tolerable I am almost uncapable now of your kindness or of any great hurt that you can do me A torrent of reproaching scornful words may ease some mens minds and serve some mens ends but will not satisfie my conscience nor heal the Land I write not this as accusing Conformists or the Law-makers but as answering their loud and long accusations and demands If telling what I fear seem a telling what others are guilty of it is a consequent which I cannot avoid but to avoid it and such like have seventeen years been herein silent So far am I from desiring the weakening of the Church that I had not written this but to prevent it Though I with Saint Martin renounce communion with Ithacius and Idacius I go not so far as he in separating from the Synods of Bishops nor will I separate from any Christians further than they separate from Christ or expel me Church-Order I love Church Tyranny and Schism I love not I am for more Bishops and not for fewer If Parish-Oratories or Chapels were made Parish-Churches at least in each Corporation antiently called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Yea if the Parish-Ministers might be Pastors Episcopigregis and not forced by strangers to excommunicate absolve and receive to communion against their knowledge and consciences nor to profess promise or practice sin against God nor omit their known Ministerial duty far be it from me to be against Conformity I doubt not but he that will preserve Religion here in its due advantages must endeavour to preserve the Soundness Concord and Honour of the Parish-Churches And as the truly wise and honest Judge Hale hath said to me It must be a new Act of Uniformity that must heal us if ever we be healed I am of the mind of old Mr. Dod who for the peoples sake thanked God that there were so many worthy Conformists and for Truth and Conscience sake thanked God that there were so many Nonconformists I love and honour the Reverend solid worthy Preachers which I hear in most Churches in London where I come and I endeavour to have all others honour them And though I am by the Canon ipso facto excommunicate they shall put me out from them before I will depart But for the Church and Kingdom and their Consciences sake I beg of the Clergy that before they any more render odious those whom they never heard and urge Rulers to execute the Laws against them that is to confine imprison excommunicate silence and undo them they would be sure what manner of spirit they are of and that this is acceptable to God and profitable to the Land or to themselves and that which the Churches Experience commendeth My honest friend whom I once perswaded from Anabaptistry writing against Separation saith that when he saw hereâ—a leg and there an arm in the way it was time for him to stop But in Church-history I have had a sadder sight even the carkasses of thousands streams of blood and turnults in the chief Cities and Churches of the world the Crowns of Emperours Kings the loss of the Eastern Empire the generation of the Papacie the reproach of Christianity and that by Clergie-Domination and Contention striving who should be Greatest and seem wisest Some say If we take in a few moderate men like you what the better are we Ans More than you dream of are far better than I I hope few are worse Bishop Morley bid Ab uno disce omnes Shall London have no clocks unless they will all strike at once shall none be tolerated but the perfect Are you such your selves Do you differ in nothing how then shall we have Communion with you when we differ in all the things here described Pardon me for saying I think that Mr. Tombs hath said more like truth for Anabaptistry the late Hungarian for Polygamy many for drunkenness stealing and lying in cases of necessity than ever I yet read for the lawfulness of all that I have here described And what is it that some men cannot copiously and confidently talk for And what wretched Reasons be they that have hindred Englands unity and peace And how fully hath Rom. 14. and 15. and our Common interest and notorious experience confuted them I have long wondered what powerful cause it is that with such men and so many could so long prevail against such evidence and light If you will not hear those will whom God will use to the healing of his Churches and blessed are the Peacemakers for though you call them otherwise they shall be called the Children of God I have prefixed the words of some as our admonition and I have written with this a fuller Treatise of the only true terms of the Concord of all Christian Churches and of the false terms which they never will unite in but are the causes of Schism I commitall with my self living and dying to him that is the Lord of the dead and living and will shortly judge us all in righteousness Come Lord Jesus and prepare us for thy Coming Amen THE CONTENTS 1. THE Reasons of this writing and the sense of the word CHURCH 2. The various opinions of such as we have to do with 3. What Churches we hold to be instituted of God and what not 4. What Princes and Pastors may do in such matters 5. What separation and what assembling or gathering Churches is unlawful and what lawful 6. Matters of fact to be known preparatory to our case 7. Matters required of us for Conformity first of â—ay-men 8. Secondly Matters imposed on Ministers And I. Of Assent Consent Approbation and Canonical subscription that nothing is contrary to the Word of God II. 9. The second Part of the Matter of Conformity Reordination III. 10. The third Part of the Matter of Conformity of swearing or Covenanting never to endeavour any alteration of Church Government VI. 11. The fourth part of the Matter to declare that neither
Christians but not a Political Church which we now define If they are not joyned with a Pastor that hath all the foresaid Powers of Teaching Ruling by the Word and Keys and going before them in Worship and if they consent not to his relation as such they may make a School or an Oratory but not a proper particular Church simpliciter so called but only a Church secundum quid or as to some part for an Essential part is wanting But it is not the defect of Exercise that unchurcheth them while there is the Power and that consented to for Men cannot be Pastors or Churches against their wills Sect. V. 3. As all Christians grant that the Apostles had a general Commission to call Infidels to Christ and to plant Churches with their particular Pastors as aforesaid and to take care that their Pastor and they do the duties not compelling them by their Sword but by the Word so we are far from denying that yet some Ministers of Christ may and should seek the conversion of Infidels and plant Churches of the converted ordaining Pastors over them by their consent and taking due care by their grave advise that such Churches walk in the obedience of Christ as far as they can procure it And such Seniors which have so planted these Churches and Pastors by Gods blessing on their labours should be much reverenced by the Churches which they have planted and their just advise exhortations and admonitions should be heard by the People and the Pastors whom they ordained and all their juniors And though the Apostles have no successours in their extraordinaries yet that some should in this ordinary work succeed them we deny not because 1. We find that it is a work still necessary to be done 2. And others as well as Apostles did it in those times as Silas Luke Apollo Timothy Titus c. and since all such as have planted the Gospel among Infidels 3. Because Christ promised to be with them that did this work to the end of the world Mat. 28. 21. But whether such men be of a different office or order from the junior Pastors whether any true Presbyter that hath ability opportunity and invitation may not do the same work with Infidels and by his success and seniority may not so ordain Pastors over the Churches which he gathered and have an answerable right to reverence and regard from those that he so planteth and ordaineth are controversies which we presume not now to decide And we cannot prove that this maketh a distinct form of a Church no not in the Apostles time and case For we cannot prove that they distributed the Countrys into Provinces or Dioceses peculiar to each Apostle and had any Churches which they supposed to be peculiarly under this or that Apostles Government so as that any of the rest might not with Apostolical power have come resided preacht and governed in the same No Scripture tells us of such limits Provinces Nay the Scripture tells us that many of them were as Apostles at once in the same places As at Jerusalem oft Paul and John had Apostolical power at Ephesus Peter and Paul as is commonly held at Rome And its probable that as Christ sent forth his disciples by two and two so the Apostles went in company as Paul and Barnabas did so that such appropriate settlement of Provincial or Diocesan Churches we cannot see proved though such a Generall Ministry is easily proved and we doubt not but by consent they might have distributed their Provinces had they seen cause and that actually they did so distribute their labours as their work and ends required But if they had become proper Provincial Bishops over several Districts or Provinces it seemeth strange to us that no history telleth us which were the twelve or thirteen Provinces and how limited and that they continued not longer and that instead of three Patriarchs first and four after and five next we had not twelve or thirteen Apostles or Patriarchs seated over all the world with their known divisions And that men seek not now to reduce the Churches to this Primitive State rather than to the said Imperial Constitution and rather to subject us all to the Apostolical Seats than to five Patriarchs in the dominions of another Prince and now mostly subject to an Infidel Yea it is strange to us that the first Seat Rome should derive its pretended power from two Apostles as if our Church might have two Bishops and the second Alexandria from Saint Mark who was no Apostle and the third Antioch from the same Apostle that Rome did as if one Bishop might have two such Dioceses and the fourth Ierusalem from St. James commonly said to be no Apostle and the last which became the second or the first from no Apostle nor make any such pretence if thirteen Apostolick Provinces were then known But we easily acknowledge that as Apostles having planted many Churches staid a while in each when they had setled it and some time visited it again so they are by some historians called the first Bishops of those Churches being indeed the transient Governours of them In which sense one Church might at once have two or many Bishops and one Bishop many Churches and he be Bishop of one Church this week who was Bishop of another where he came the next Sect. VI. Christian Community prepared to be a Polity and a Christian family and a Christian Kingdom we doubt not may all prove their Divine Right And if any will call these Churches let us agree of the definition and we will not strive about the name Sect. VII We know not of any proof that ever was produced that many Churches of the first Rank must of duty make one fixed greater compound Church by Association whether Classical Diocesan Provincial Patriarchal or National and that God hath instituted any such Form And we find the greatest defenders of Prelacy affirming that Classes Provincial Patriarchal and National Churches are but humane institutions of which more anon Sect. VIII We find no proof that ever God determined the Churches should necessarily be individuated by Parish-bounds or limits of ground and that men in the same limits might not have divers Bishops and be of divers particular Churches Sect. IX We never saw any satisfactory proof that ever Christ or his Apostles did institute any particular Church taken in a Political sense as organized and not meerly for a Community without a Bishop or Pastor who had the power of Teaching them Ruling them by the Word and Power of the Church-Keys and leading them in publick Worship Sect. X. Nor did we ever see it proved that any one Church of this first Rank which was not an Association of Churches consisted in Scripture-times of many much less many score or hundred such fixed Churches or Congregations Or that any one Bishop of the first Rank that was not an Apostle or a Bishop of Bishops of whom we now speak
not had more than one of such fixed Societies or Churches under him Or might have more stated members of his Church than were capable of Personal Communion and mutual assistance at due seasons in holy Doctrine Discipline and Worship Though we doubt not but as now there are many Chapels in some Parishes where the aged weak children and all in soul weather or by other hinderances may hear and pray and occasionally communicate whose proximity and relation to the Parish-Churches do make them capable of Personal Communion in due seasons with the whole Parish at least per vices in those Churches and in their conversation And as a single Congregation may prudently in persecution or foul weather meet oft-times in several houses so the great Church of Jerusalem though it cannot be proved a quarter so big as some of our Parishes might in those times when they had no Temples hold their publick Meetings oft at the same time in divers houses and yet be capable of Personal Communion as it is before described Sect. II. It is not inconsiderable to our confirmation that so worthy a man as Dr. Hamond doth over and over in his Dissertations against Blondell and in his Learned Annotations on the new Testament assert all the matter of fact which we are pleading for viz. That the word Presbyter and Pastor in the New Testament is ever taken for a Bishop That it belonged to the Bishops office to be the Preacher to his Church to visit all the Sick to take care of all the Poor and to take Charge of the Churches stock to administer the Sacrament c. And as he saith on Acts 11. 6. That although this Title of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elders have been also extended to a second order in the Church and is now only in use for them under the name of Presbyters yet in the Scripture-time it belonged principally if not alone to Bishops there being NO EVIDENCE that any of that second Order were then instituted though soon after before the writing of Ignatius's Epistles there were such instituted in all Churches Sect. XII By this it followeth that 1. the office of a subject Presbyter that was no Bishop was not in being that can be proved in Scripture-times 2. That no Bishop had more than one worshiping assembly at once For all Christians assembled for worship on the Lords dayes and their worship still included somewhat which none but a Minister of Christ might do and when there was no other Minister in being but Bishops and a Bishop can be but in one place at once a Bishop could have but one assembly Though for our parts we think that we have just reason to believe that Churches then had more Ministers than one when we read how Paul was put to restrain and regulate their publick officiating at Corinth 1 Cor. 14. Sect. XIII And it further confirmeth us that the said Doctor tells us that for ought he knoweth the most of the Church then were of his mind And Franciscus a sancta clara de Episcop tells us that this opinion came from Scotâ—â— And Petavius that Learned Jesuit was the man that brought it in in our times viz. That the Apostles placed only Bishops with Deacons in the Churches and that it is only these Bishops that are called Presbyters in Scripture So that the Matter of fact for the whole Scripture-times is granted us by all these learned men Sect. XIV It being the Divine Institution of the Office of this second Order of Presbyters which we are unsatisfied about and these Reverend men confessing that de facto they were not in being as can be proved by any evidence in Scripture-times and those times extending to about the hundredth or ninety ninth year after Christs Nativity when St. John wrote the Revelation we must confess that we know not how that Order or Office can be proved then to be of God's institution 1. As to the Efficient who should do it as the certain authorized Instruments of God 2. Or how it shall be certainly proved to us to be of God when Scripture telleth it not to us and what Records of it are infallible And whether such pretended proofs of Tradition as a supplement to Scripture be not that which the Papacy is built on and will not serve their turn as well as this Sect. XV. And whereas it is said that the Bishops made in Scripture-times had authority given them to make afterward that second Office or Order of Presbyters 1. We cannot but marvel then that in such great Churches as that at Jerusalem Ephesus Corinth c. they should never use their Power in all the Scripture-times And when they had so many Elders at Jerusalem so many Prophets and Teachers at Antioch and Corinth that Paul was fain to restrain their exercises and bid them prophesie but One by One and one said I am of Paul and another I am of Apollo c. there should yet in that age be none found meet for Bishops to ordain to this second sort of Presbyters as well asmen to make Deacons of 2. But we never yet saw the proof produced that indeed the Bishops had power given them to institute this other Species of Elders Sure it belonged to the Founders of the Churches Christ and his Apostles to institute the Species of Ecclesiastical Officers though the Bishops might make the Individuals afterwards And where is the proof that the Apostles did institute it If Ecclesiastical generation imitate natural the Bishops would beget but their like men beget men so Physicians make Physicians and so Bishops may beget Bishops But he that saith they could morally first beget this other Species must prove it Sect XVI When Presbyters were first distinct from Bishops we see no proof that it was as a distinct Office or Order in specie and not only as a distinct degree and priviledge of men in the same Office Nor hath the Church of Rome it self thought meet to determine this as de fide but suffereth its Doctors to hold the contrary Sect. XVII It much confirmeth us in our judgment that no mere Bishop then had more Churches than one as afore described when we find that Ignatius whose authority Dr. Hamond Dissert cont Blondel Laieth so much of the cause upon and whom Bishop Pierson hath lately so industriously vindicated doth expresly make ONE ALTAR and ONE BISHOP with the Presbyters and Deacons to be the note of a Church Unity and Individuation And that by one Altar is meant one Table of Communion or place where that Table stood is past doubt with the judicious and impartial Whence learned Mr. Joseph Mede doth argue as certain that then a Bishops Church was no other than such as usually communicated in one place Yea saith Ignatius the Bishop must take notice and account of each person even of Man-servants and Maids that they come to the Church And this was the Bishop of a Seat that after was Patriarchal Such Bishops we do
must with very great concern profess that if the Churches of the lowest sort Parochial be but indeed made true Churches such as Christ by his Apostles instituted and not only Parts of a Diocesan Church as if that were the lowest raâ—k And if these particular Churches have but Pastors that have the power of the Keys in those Churches and all that the scripture maketh essential to the Officâ—r which was then set over eveâ—y such particular Church And if the Discipline instituted by Christ himself be but made possible and seasible in such Parochiall Churches yea if we that were trusted by our calling with the mysteries of God may not be forced our selves to administer the Sacraments against our own knowledge consciences and against our consciences and knowledge of mens cases to pronounce men absolved or excommunicate upon other mens decrees or to pronounce the notoriously wicked to be saved and to deny worthy Christians the seal of Christs Covenant nor their infants their visible Christianity by baptism we say might we but have this much we should be so far from using the Controversie about the Divine Kight of Episcâ—pacy as a distinct Order from Presbyters to any schism or injury to the Church that we should thankfâ—lly contribute our best endeavours to the concord safety peace and prosperity thereof And might we but also be freed from Swearing Subscribing Declaring and Covenanting unnecessary things which we take not to be true against our consciences and from some few unnecessary Practices which we cannot justifie we should joyfully serve the Church in our publick Ministry though it were in poverty and rags But of so great a mercy experience hath made our hopes from men to be very small And the reason of the thing maketh our hopes as small of the happiness of the Church of England till God shall unite us on these necessary terms SECT VI. 3. What Separation and what Gathering of Assemblies or Churches is unlawful and what lawful I. THough some mens abuse of the word Schism and calling mens duty to God by that name hath proved a great temptation to many to take it but for a word of Passion or of no certain or odious signification even as the Papists abuse of the word Heresie and Heretick hath been to others yet the evill of true Shism and the odium that God layeth on it in the Scripture should move all Christians to fear the thing and use the name with the disgrace that it truely importeth without misapplication and to avoid all guilt of so great a sin II. There are several sorts and degrees of Schism which greatly differ from each other Its one thing to divide from a Church and another to cause divisions or factions in it It s one thing to divide our selves from it and another to cause others to divide It s one thing to draw men away by words and another to drive them away by laws or execution by unjust excommunication or by violent persecution It s one thing to tempt away or drive away a single person or a few and another thing to draw or drive away multitudes It s one thing to separate from the Universal-Church and another from a particular Church or a few only It s one thing to separate from the species of particular Churches and another from some individuals only It s one thing to separate from the Churches of Christs institution and another to separate only from those of mens institution It s one thing to separate from such as men make lawfully and another from such only as they make without authority and sinfully And here separating from one whose sinful constitution is traiterous against Christs prerogative as the Papal Universal Usurpation much differeth from separating from one whose constitution though sinful is of no such perniciousness It is one thing to deny total Communion and another to separate but secundum quid for some act or part And that is either a great and necessary part or some small or indifferent thing or ceremony It is one thing to separate Locally by bodily absence and another mentally by Schismaticall principles It is one thing to separate from a Church as accusing it to be no Church of Christ and another to separate from it only as a true Church but so Corrupted as not to be Communicated with It s one thing to judge its Communion absolutely unlawful and another only to forsake it for a better which is preferred It s one thing to depart willfully and another to be unwillingly cast out It s one thing to depart rashly and in hast and another to depart after due patience when reformation appeareth hopeless It is one thing to remove upon religious reasons and another upon Civil or Domestical or Corporal It is easy for a confounded head to pass over all such distinctions and with unjust and confounding censures to reproach others as Schismaticks in the dark before he knoweth what schism is being guilty of Schism in his very accusations But sober Christians must be discerners and know that confusion is an Enemy to truth and love and justice III. I The Union of the Church Universal is in the seven things mentioned by Paul Eph. 4. 3. 4 5. 6. viz. One Body One Spirit of faith and Love One Hope of Glory One Lord One faith or Creed One Baptismal Covenant One God and Father of all He that separateth from this Church directly is an Apostate Uisibly if from its Essential profession and invisibly if only from the inward sincerity of faith consent and Love This is damning separation And if he separate but from some one Essentiall article of faith or duty it is that which is most usually and strictly called Heresie of which we are now to speak no further IV. 2. To make Factions Parties Contentions and Mutinies in a true Church of Christ or in any Community of Christians yea or but in families in the Universal Church is a great sin in all that are the true culpable Causes of it and are not only the involuntary occasions by unavoidable accidents V. 3. To separate from all the particular Churches in the world as if they were no true Political Churches of Christ as those called Seekers do who say that the Ministry Scripture and Churches are lost in the wilderness is a very heinous sin though such as do so renounce not their Baptism or the Church Universal VI. 4. To separate from most or many Churches by so unchurching them is far worse than to separate from few or one it being a greater wrong to Christ and men VII 5. To separate from one upon a reason that is known to be common to all or most or many is virtually to separate from all or most or many VIII 6 To separate from a true Church accusing it to be no true Church is a greater injury and sin caeteris paribuâ— than to separate from it only on an unjust accusation or culpability consistent with a true
if those Pastors hold Baptism necessary also to salvation and yet will so deny it to such this seemeth a great aggravation The same we say of such Pastors as reject from Baptism and the Church the Infants of true Christians on the aforesaid account As also of those that reject them from Baptism because the Parents will not offer them to it unless they may themselves be the Covenanters in their own Childrens names and the Express dedicaters of them to God and because they either cannot get credible Godfathers or will not put others to promise the Christian Education of their children who they have no reason to believe do at all intend it or will ever do it we can excuse no such rejection of Christian Infants from Christs Church from Schism XXVI 24. If some Christians be of opinion that Christs example bindeth them to receive the Lords Supper in a Table gesture or that the tradition of the Universal Church and the Canon 20th of the Nicene Councill is obligatory to them which forbad men to adore Kneeling on any Lords day in the year or on any week day between Easter and Whitsuntide which no other General Council revoked but continued till meer usage by degrees wore it out saith Dr. Heylin of the Sabbath above 1000 years after Christ Or if the said persons should think that to receive Kneeling were such a scandalous appearance of the Papists Bread-worship as the bowing before an Image forbidden by the 2d Commandement was a scandalous appearance of Idol-worship though these persons did in this mistake we could not excuse our selves from Schism if we should therefore refuse them Sacramental-Communion Nor if we should Assent and Consent to the rejection of men for so small an errour seeing Christs Spirit Rom. 14. 1 c. commanded both Pastors and People to receive him that is weak in the saith but not to doubtful disputations and to live in Love and Union with those that have greater weaknesses than this XXVII 25. It may be Schismatical to cast men out of the Church for that which yet may be Schismatical in the person so ejected If he depart from the Church though Schismatically only in some accident circumstance or some one act or thing of no necessity to communion or salvation we think he may not be excommunicated e. g. for not paying Fees at the Chancellours Court or such like For as God departeth not from sinners first or further than they depart from him so we humbly conceive the Church should imitate him remembring how Christ that came not to destroy mens lives but to save them rebuked the Sons of Thunder that would have had him destroy those that refused to receive him telling them That they knew not what manner of spirit they were of On the other side it may be Schism to separate from a Church that hath some Schismatical Principles Practices and Persons if those be not such or so great as to necessitate our departure from them For alas it is too few Churches that are so happy as to have nothing and do nothing which is Schismatical XXVIII 26. Gathering New Churches by way of Separation from others or gathering Assemblies without the consent of the lawful Pastors who had the charge of the People of those Assemblies is a sin and Schism in all these Cases following 1. In general when the Laws Practices or Persons of the Church which they separate from give them no sufficient cause of a departure 2. In general when in the judgment of true reason according to the notable evidence of the case the said Assemblies are like to do more hurt than good 3. When such Assemblies are gathered in opposition to some Truth which the Separaters would thereby disown e. g. Infant-Baptism the lawfulness of Set-forms of Praise or Prayer or any sound Doctrine or for the profession and propagation of some Heresie or Error as Antinomianism Popery c. 4. When such Churches are gathered by men that have no true Fitness and Calling for the Sacred Ministry or the work which they undertake 5. When they are gathered by the pride of the Ministers that would thereby unduly set up themselves and draw away Disciples after them or by their covetousness seeking not the good of the Flock but the Fleece not them but theirs not serving the Lord Jesus but their own Bellies Or when gathered by the Pride of the People that unjustly think those that they separate from men unworthy of their Communion and say to them Come not near to us we are holier than you Isa 65. 5. 6. When they are gathered by a quarrelsom Passion falling out with the Pastors and People whom they separate from The parting of Paul and Barnabas had some evil in it 7. When they are gathered to encourage and strengthen a sinful Faction or Party or when men separate from others for fear of being censured by such a party as Peter did withdraw from the Gentile Christians lest he should displease the erroneous lewes Gal. 2. 8. When it is done out of a proud overvaluing of mens own opinions or some odd singularity whereby men cannot bear those that are not of their mind or whereby they would fain be be more conspicuous as more Orthodox and wise than others 9. When it is done mistakingly to set up some wrong course of Church Government or worship As that the People may have the Power of the Keyes or of examining and judging all admitted members or that Papal Government or the mass may be introduced enthusiastical disorderly talking by pretended inspiration by ignorant uncalled men or to introduce such traditions and superstitions as the Papists use c. 10. When it is done upon a false conceit that a mans presence with any Church that hath known errour or saults in doctrines or worship is a guilty approving of them and therefore that they must separate from all such 11. When they separate out of an unruliness of spirit because they will not be governed by their lawful Pastors in lawful things as time place order c. or because a Minor part in elections is overvoted by the major part and cannot have their wills 12. When they separate out of a prophaneness of mind not enduring the power of the Preachers doctrine or the holiness and discipline of the Church but would be licentious while they would be called Religious All these are unlawful separations and assemblings â— Yet that which is unlawful as to the Principle End and Manner secundum quid is not alwaies unlawful simply and in the thing it self for a proud covetous turbulent person may sinfully do a Lawful thing XXIX 27. When Pastors by concord or Magistrates by Laws have setled Lawful Circumstances or Accidents of Church Order or Worship or Discipline though they be in particular but humane Institutions it is Sinful disobedience to violate them without necessary reason e. g. Parochial Order Associations Times Places Ministers Maintenance Scripture-Translations c. XXX
28. When able faithful Pastors are lawfully set over the Assemblies by just Election and Ordination if any will causelesly and without right silence them and command the people to desert them and to take others for their Pastors in their stead of whom they have no such knowledge as may encourage them to such a change we cannot defend this from the charge of Schism which puts a Congregation on so hard a means of Concord as to judge whether they are bound to that Pastor that was set over them as Christ appointed or must renounce him and take the other when they are Commanded So Cyprian in the case of Novatian sayes that he could be no Bishop because another was rightfull Bishop before XXXI 29. In England it belongeth 1. to the Patron to present 2. to the Bishop to ordain and institute and therefore to approve and invest 3. to the people jure divino to be free Consenters 4. and to the Magistrate to protect and to judge who shall be protected or tolerated under him If now these four parties be for four Ministers or for three or two several men and cannot agree in one the culpable dissenters will be the causes of the Schism XXXII 30. If a Church have more Presbyters than one and will be for one way of worship discipline or doctrine and another for another as at Frankford Dr. Cox Mr. Horn and others were for the Liturgie and others against it so that the people cannot possibly accord it is the culpable party which ever it be that must answer for the Schism So much of enumerated Schisms XXXIII On the Negative we suppose that none of these following are Schisms in a culpable sense 1. All are agreed that it is no Schism for the Christian Church to separate from the ancient Jewish or from the Infidel Heathen World XXXIV 2. All Protestants are agreed that it is no Schism to deny obedience to the Roman Pope nor to deny that communion with them which they will not have without obedience To separate from other Churches is to deny them meer Communion But to separate from the Roman as Papal is but to deny them subjection To deny any other Christian Church to be a true Church is Schismatical if they have the Essentials of a Church But to deny the Papal Church or Monarchy to be a true Church of Christ's institution is true just and necessary though they be Christians because we mean only the Papal Church form as it is an Universal Ecclesiastical Monarchy of the whole Christian world which no other Church but that doth claim XXXV 3. It is no Schism to deny Subjection to Pope Councils or Patriarchs of other Kingdomâ— or to any forein Power by what names or titles soever called XXXVI 4. It is no Schism to deny that Christ hath any such Visible Church on Earth as is one by Union with any Universal Head Personal or Collective besides himself XXXVII 5. It is no Schism to Preach and gather Churches and elect and ordain Pastors and Assemble for God's Worship against the Laws and will of Heathen Nahometan or Infidel Princes that forbid it For thus did the Christians for 300 years And if there be the same cause and need it is no more Schism to do it against the Laws and will of a Christian Prince Because 1. Christ's Laws are equally obligatory 2. Souls equally precious 3. The Gospel and Gods worship equally necessary 4. And his Christianity enableth him not to do more hurt than a Pagan may do but more good If therefore either out of Ungodly enmity to his own profession or for fear of displeasing his wicked or Insidel Subjects he should forbid Christian Churches he is not to be therein obeyed XXXVIII 6. If a Prince Heathen Infidel or Christian forbid Gods Commanded worship and any Commanded part of the Pastors office as in Papists Kingdoms Prayer in a known tongue and the Cup in the Lords Supper is forbidden and as they say all preaching save the reading of Liturgies and Homilies is forbidden in Moscovie and as the use of the Keyes is elsewhere forbidden It is no Schism to disobey such Laws what Prudence may pro hic nunc require of any single person we now determine not XXXIX 7. If any Prince would turn his Kingdom or a whole Province Diocess or County into One only Church and thereby overthrow all the first order of Churches of Christs institution which are associated for Personal present Communion allowing them no Pastors that have the power of the Keyes and all essential to their office though he should allow Parochial Oratories or Chappels which should be no true Churches but Parts of a Church It were no Schism to gather Churches within such a Church against the Laws of such a Prince Many write that there is but One Bishop in Abassia though some say that others have Episcopal power under him some that read the old Canons which confine Bishops to Cities and take not the word as then it was taken for any great Town or Corporation but for such priviledged Towns only as are called Cities in England hence gather that as the King may disfranchise Cities and reduce them to ten two or one in a Kingdom he may by consequence do so by Churches that have Bishops which if it be spoken but of Episcopi Episcoporum we resist not But if of Episcopi Gregis of the first Order of Churches called Particular we suppose that out of such a Kingdom-Church Provincial or Diocesan-Church it is no Schism to gather particular Parochial Churches though forbidden And the same reason will prove that if in a lesser circuit the same things be done though in a lower degree viz were it but three four or ten particular Churches of the largest size capable of Personal Communions turned into one which is capable only of distant Communion per alios it is lawful to gather particular Churches out of that larger sort of Church If the Bishop of Rome Alexandria Antioch Cesarea Heraclea Carthage c. should have put down the Bishops of ten twenty an hundred or many hundred Churches about them and set up only Oratories and Catechists in their stead making them all but part of their own Churches it would have been lawful to have gathered Churches in their Churches For God never made them proper Judges whether Christ should have Churches according to his laws nor whether God should be worshipped and souls be saved or his own nstitutions of Churches be observed XL. 8. If Bishops would ordain Presbyters by limiting words restraining them from any Essential or Integral Part of the Office or Power as instituted by Christ and yet profess that they ordain them to the Office which Christ hath instituted it is no Schism for those Presbyters afterward to claim and execute in season all the power which by Christ's institution belongeth to their Office though against the Bishops Wills Because the Bishops are not the Authors or Donors of
they promised it was not thâ—y but the Parents that were bound to perform 3. Or Nonconformists in this point who purposed before hand to be but the Parents Râ—pâ—esentatives and that the promise and obligation should all be devolved from them on the Parents though they knew the Church meant otherwise and that they were not bound to the Churches sense and therefore their standing to hear this is your part was no consent to take it for their part And none of all these do answer the Churches sense in their undertaking And if we are commonly baptized and made Christians in a way of false Vowing or Covenanting of such persons or of â—â—lusâ—â—y Equâ—vocation it is not well 11. We know not where Parents can procure any to undertake this Office as the Church imposeth it that credâ—â—ly signifie themselves able and willing to performâ—â— we could not do it our selves were we never so desirous Perhaps some Rich men might hire others to take their Children into their Care and Education as must be promised but who would do so for the poor yea for all the poor of England And the Nonconformists are not satisfied that it is lawful to engage any in a perfidious covenanting before God when before-hand they have no credible signification of any purpose to perform it Nay when the Parent resolveth to educate his own Child and not to trust him to the Provision or care of others 12. The Minister Covenanting to use the form in the Book of Common Prayer prescribed in administration of the Sacraments and no other Can. 36. No Parent may speak a word in the name of his own Child nor to enter him there into the Covenant of God nor profess that he offereth him to Baptism by virtue of and in confidence in the promise I will be thy God and the God of thy seed in their Generations Nor to promise himself what the Godfathers are to promise The words also of the Can. 29. are these No Parent shall be urged to be PRESENT nor be admitted to answer as Godfather for his own Child Nor any Godfather or Godmother shall be suffered to make any other answer or speech than by the Book of Common Prayer is prescribed in that behalf 13. It is the Godfathers work also by the Liturgy to take care that the Child be brought to the Bishop to be confirmed by him in the manner of the Church of England as soon as he can say the Creed Lords Prayer and ten Commandments and be further instructed in the Church Catechism which Godfathers use not at all to perform nor do the Parents use to expect it Nor doth one Child of a multitude understand what the Baptismal Covenant is of many a year after they have learned to say the said Catechism 14. That the Godfathers stand not there as the Representers of the Parents is evident according to the sense of the Church because the Parent himself is not suffered to do it or speak one covenanting word nor must be urged to be present nor are they to speak in the Parents name in any of their undertakings Nor is there the least intimation that the Church taketh the Sponsor for the Parents Representative 15. The Parents are to be admonished not to defer the Baptism of their Children longer than the first or second Sunday unless upon a great and reasonable cause to be approved by the Curate whether they can get understanding credible Godfathers or not These are the Matters of Fact Here note 1. That there is no Controversie between the Conformists and Nonconformists whether Christians Infants should be baptized 2. Nor whether a Conformists baptizing be valid 3. Nor whether the Parents presence be absolutely necessary and another may not speak in his name 4. Nor whether Adopters or any Proprieters may not covenant for the Child 5. Nor whether the old Sponsors be lawful who 1. Witnessed the credibility of the Parent 2. And undertook the Christian Education of the Child if the Parents should either die or apostatize The Nonconformists are against no such Sponsors though they think that their Children have right to Baptism without such 6. Nor do they deny that Baptism in the Parish Churches is valid and lawful as to the Parents and Godfathers if they do but agree on the Nonconformists way that the Sponsors shall but represent the Parents and that they be not bound by the contrary judgment of the Authors of the Liturgy to the contrary But the questions are 1. Whether a Christians Child whose Parents have no way forfeited their credit have not right to Baptism without other Godfathers 2. Whether the Parent should not solemnly enter his own Child into the Covenant of God as well as in times of Circumcision And whether any Parent should be forbidden it viz. to appear and speak as the Representer of the Child or Undertaker for him and Promiser of his Education 3. Whether that Child must profess by another that He Himself Believeth Renounceth Repenteth and Desireth Baptism And it be not rather to be prosessed that he is the seed of a Believing Penitent Parent whose Will is as his Will and is under God's Promise I will he thy God and the God of thy seed 4. Whether a Christian Parent may consent to the persidious undertaking of any Godfathers who give him not the least reason to believe that they intend that provision for the Children which they undertake Or else may let his Child be unbaptized till he can get such a credible Undertaker which is never like to be with most or many 5. Whether the Children of Heathens or Infidels or Atheists have right to Baptism upon the presentation of any Godfather who never adopteth them or taketh them for his own nor giveth any credible notice that he really intendeth to educate those Children as pro forma he seemeth to undertake Or whether such Children are truly said to believe because the Godfather or Minister or Congregation or Diocess or Nation or Catholick Church believe III. The Nonconformists are not of one mind about receiving the Lords Supper Kneeling Many judge it Lawful though neither necessary nor most eligible were they free some judge it also most eligible And some judge it as things stand unlawful Their reasons are 1. In doubtful cases duty lieth on the surest side But this to them is a doubtful case on one side and to imitate Christs institution by such sitting as men use to do at meat is certainly Lawful 2. Because they think this Kneeling violateth the reasons of the second Commandment being used where by whole Countries of Papists round about us and many among us it signifieth Bread-Worship or Idolatry by the same Action at the same season used For they suppose that the second Commandment forbiddeth Images as being External Corporal Idolatry and Symbolizing scandalously with Idolators though the mind intend the worshiping of the true God alone And such they think this kneeling is and that it encourageth the
many that dare not profess this undoubted certainty are not like to be more certain then they in this particular Article of faith 11. We take it for Arrogance and Fanaticism in the Pope and his Council to pretend Infallible certainty by a peculiar priviledge in those points in which they are unstudyed and unlearned as if they knew them by prophetical inspiration And when young unstudyed men have in this point attained to an undoubted certainty which their wiser seniors cannot attain it behoveth them to convince us of the truth of their Inspiration or special endowments either by a proportionable excellency above us in other things or by some Miracles or Testimonies from Heaven 12. There is no one Word of God cited in the Rubrick which tells us that It is certain by the Word of God 13. Among Christian Divines there are all these various opinions about the salvation of Infants 1. Some hold that the Covenant being to the faithful and their seed and their children being holy all the children of sincere Christians are certainly in a state of salvation being by the parents intentionally dedicated to God before or without Baptism And that Baptism is but their so lemn investiture in that state which was theirs by right before 2. Others think that this right to salvation belongeth to the Children of all professed Christians godly and ungodly 3 Others think that it belongeth to all Infants in the world 4. Others think that it belongeth only to sincere believers Children that are Baptized 5. Others that it belongeth to sound and unsound Christians baptized Infants 6. Others that it belongeth to all Baptized Infants whose soever 7. Others hold that it belongeth also to the Children of sincere Adopters or Proprieters 8. Others that it belongeth to such as even bad Christians adopt or own 9. Others that they that have sincere Godfathers though not Proprieters are saved 10. Others that even unfound or hypocritical Christian Godfathers may suffice to their salvation 11. Others that the Ministers or the Churches sincere or professed Faith is hereto sufficient 12. And others think that only the Elect are saved of whom some are baptized and some unbaptized but no man knoweth who they are Out of all these Opinions the Convocation hath chosen one as an Article of Faith of undoubted Certainty by the Word of God 13. The Nonconformists know of no Word of God which ascertaineth Salvation to any known determinate Infants but the great Covenant of Grace I will be thy God and the God of thy seed which seed God useth as if they were parts of the Parents Exod. 34. 6 7. and second Commandment And saith to Believers Else were your children unclean but now c. 14. Many Divines say that Faith it self hath not evidence though we think that it hath evidence of the Truth of the Revelation though the thing revealed be not visible or evident in it self And more confess that undoubted certainty is not Essential to the saving belief of Christ and of a life to come And that true Faith may be saving though weak And that Christ silenced not his Disciples when he reproved the weakness of their Faith And that to doubt of this Article about Infants is not so dangerous as to doubt of Christ or Heaven IX All Ministers must deny Baptism to those Infants that have no such Godfathers and Godmothers as aforesaid though their Parents be true Christians and offer them to Baptism For this is the only order or form of Baptizing there described all other is forbidden and we subscribe to use no other form in administration of the Sacraments 2. Yet some Conformists say that the Book bindeth them to do thus but not to omit it and baptize no otherwise But others of them say 1. That the Rubrick determineth that for every child to be baptized there shall be three as Godfathers and Godmothers and that the whole Office respecteth them as Parties and speaketh to them and admitteth no Parent to speak and that if Assenting to Approving and Consenting to this form and Rubrick and subscribing a Covenant to use no other form signifie not that we will use no other no words can bind such equivocators 3. In the sense of the Liturgy to put Infants from Baptism is to deny them Christendom membership of Christ to be children of God and to be heirs of Heaven For the Catechism saith that we are made such in Baptism which with the Rubrick which denyeth them Christian burial and that last mentioned which affirmeth the undoubted salvation of the baptized import a denying salvation to all that have not such Godfathers without Parents sponsion or at least a denying them certainty of undoubted salvation when it was in the power of the Convocation or Priest to have given them such certainty 4. The Conformists do not affirm that we know of that any word of God doth institute or command the use of such Godfathers or the foredescribed exclusion of the Parents much less both And least of all that it maketh these necessary to Christendom and Salvation yea or Church-reception But it is used as a Tradition or Law of men 5. The Nonconformists therefore dare neither Assent to Approve Consent to Covenant or Practice the resusal of the Children of true Christians from Baptism the Church and Salvation on such a cause as this 6. The Anabaptists hence are hardened and say that if Infants may be denied Baptism till they have such Godfathers as God never instituted they have no right to it at all and they may deny it them till we prove God's institution of Godfathers especially where their title is laid upon such Godfathers 7 Some say that It is not the Minister that refuseth them but the Church which maketh the Law But others say that it is both the Lawmakers and the Minister unless we could prove that Baptizing and judging whom to Baptize is none of the Ministers office no nor the Bishops but that the Priest is to baptize all and only such as the Law or Convocation bids him baptize as a meer executioner and the Bishop also such as he is appointed by the same Law That else the same Rule would hold for his Preaching Praying c. X. The like proofs which we need not repeat will shew that no Minister must baptize any person Infant or Adult without the transient Image of a Cross and that to this we must assent and consent and subscribe to baptize in no other form 2. And the same reasons aforegiven shew how great a penalty this is as excluding them from Christendom and Salvation in the Churches judgment or from certainty at least 3. Some Conformists say here also that they assent only to baptize with the Cross but not to baptize no otherwise But others of them reprove this exposition from the Rubrick and the aforecited Canonical Subscription as that which would leave the Priest at liberty to do almost what he list when the Church thinks that
the Kingdom of Heaven 12. Therefore either we consent to pronounce almost all such to be saved at a time when our words take the deepest impression or else more exceptions must be made 13. Some say that the Excommunicable are included in the Excommunicated But the Canon and the express words of the Liturgy and the Churches abhorrence that the Priest shall be Judge do so notoriously confute this bold assertion that by such stretches almost any thing may be said or sworn and it shall not be known by authority when or how far any Subject is obliged by Covenants or Oaths XVIII The Liturgy requireth that such ornaments of the Church and of the Ministers thereof at all times of their Ministration shall be retained and in use as were in this Church of England by the authority of Parliament in the 2d Tear of Ed. 6. 2. The Canon of the same Church expoundeth their meaning cap. 58. Thus every Minister saying the publick prayers or Ministring the Sacraments or other rites of the Church shall wear a decent and comely Surplice c. 3. We suppose in the 2d of King Ed. 6. The Cope Alb and other vestments were in use which seem forbidden by the Common-Prayer Book in the 5th and 6th of Ed. 6. 4. The Conformists agree not of the sense of this Rubrick 1. Whether all these are hereby reduced or not 2. Whether it forbid all Ministers to officiate without a Surplice or only Command the use of it without an implyed penalty But the words and the forecited Canons shew that the Church intended an exclusion of all that will not use it And we must subscribe to administer in no other form 5. The Nonconformists differ about the Surplice some taking it to be Lawful and others to be unlawful But they Commonly hold that Preaching Christs Gospel is commanded by God and that Ministers by their ordination are obliged to do the work of that Office and that Surplices are not commanded by God and therefore if a man mistakingly should take the use of the Surplice to be sinful he should not therefore be ejected and silenced And therefore they dare not declare Approbation and Consent to the Rubrick or subscribed form in the Canon which implyeth this restraint XIX The Damnatory sentences in the Creed called Athanasius's are to be Assented Approved and Consented to 2. If they referred but to the Doctrine of the Trinity and not to the particulars of that explication it would not be excepted against But some R. Reverend Conformists do profess that those sentences are untrue and not to be approved 3. But such think that the Churches meaning is not to require us to Assent or Approve them as true but only to Consent to use them And they prove it because the same Church requireth us to Read the Books of Tobit c. which have palpable untruths and not to believe them to be true 4. But that reason seemeth null and vain 1. Because the Apocrypha is no part of the Book to which we must Profess Assent Approbation and Consent nor to which by the Canon we must ex animo subscribe that there is nothing in it contrary to the Word of God But Athanasius's Creed with those damnatory sentences are part of that Book Indeed the Liturgy requireth us to read those Apocryphal untruths but they are no part of the Book 2. And it being not the sense of the Liturgy but of a Statute of Parliament which we here doubt of it seemeth insufficient if not impertinent to tell us what is taken for the sense of the Church for the doubt is What is the sense of the Parliament which we can no otherwise know but by the plain words till they will otherwise declare their meaning 5. And indeed if the passages in Tobit which some Reverend Bishops call Lies about the Angel's saying that he was the Son of Ananias of the Tribe of Napthali and the fishes driving away all Devils that they shall never return were but to be read we know not how to approve of that Law Calendar or Rubrick that commandeth such reading of them But yet that is much less than the Assent required to Athanasius's Creed which yet we take save those damnatory sentences to be the best explication of the Mystery of the sacred Trinity which in so short a summe is extant in the Church XX. The Liturgy saith All Priests and Deacons are to say daily the Morning and Evening Prayer either privately or openly not being let by sickness or some other urgent cause And the Curate that ministreth in every Parish-Church or Chapel being at home and not being otherwise reasonably hindred shall say the same in the parish-Parish-Church or Chapel where he ministreth c. 2. The Conformists agree not of the sense of this some think that the ordinary incommodities of such a commanded use may pass as those hinderances or urgent causes mentioned in the exceptions But the more plain and ingenuous dealers hold that the urgent causes and hinderances here mentioned must be somewhat extraordinary and not any thing which is the usual case of most Ministers 3. Cathedrals and some other Churches have many Priests and Deacons of whom one only can daily ossiciate in publick And many are Chaplains in such mens houses as will have other free prayers used And most Ministers have great and necessary work to do which must all be left undone while the Common Prayer is said over by them twice a day They have Sermons to study many Books to read that they may be furnished with necessary knowledge for their work They have abundance of ignorant parishioners to instruct exhort or comfort They have the sick to visit the dead to bury the Sacraments to administer families to govern instruct and provide for And many find free prayer from the immediate sense of their case and wants to be so profitable to them that they cannot spare it All which and more require the the strictest improvement of every minute of their time And if the Liturgy be read over by every Priest and Deacon twice a day it is certain that much of these aforesaid must be omitted And it is a great part of our Christian duty when two good things come together to choose that which hic et nunc is the greater to choose the lesser then being a sin 4. Therefore the Nonconformists dare not Assent Approve and Consent to the tying of every Priest and Deacon ordinarily to read over the Liturgy twice every day And they are the more averse to such Approbation by seeing so very few Conformists Comparatively to practice this themselves which sheweth that they take it to be unlawful seeing it is their judgement that our Rulers must be obeyed in all things which are lawful to be so done And if they that make such declarations of Approbation think it unlawful ordinarily to keep them we may doubt whether it be lawful so to make them as is required of us 5.
prophesied to be Christian Nations never were distinct Christian Kingdoms but parts of the Empire nor had a National Church or Head being but parts of such a Church Nay when Rome got the National Primacy it had not such a Priestly Governing Soveraignty as the Jews High-Priest had § 25. Though there was no Christian King for three hundred years unless he of Edessa or Lucius of England of whom we have little certainty but it 's like that both were subjects to others yet if a Supream Church-Power had been necessary the Apostles would have before erected it which they never did For even Rome pretendeth to be by them made the Ruler of the whole world and not a meer National Head which Constantinople claimed but not as of Apostolical institution § 27. The question whether the Jews had they believed should have continued their High-Priest and Church Policy is vain as to our purpose 1. It being certain to Christ that they would be dissolved by unbelief And 2. he having setled another way and changed theirs 3. And if their Priesthood and Law except as it typified spiritual things had stood yet it would not have bound the Gentile Christians in other Nations § 28. When Emperours became Christians they did not set up the Jewish Policy nor thought themselves bound to it no nor any setled Priestly Supremacy for National Government For Councils were called but on rare accidents by the Emperours themselves and to decide particular cases about Heresies And the Pope had but the first voice in such Councils § 29. But if every Nation must have the Jewish Policy then the whole Empire must then have one High Priest and then the Pope hath a fair pretence to his claim of a Divine Institution as the Church Soveraign of the whole Empire which it 's like was then seven parts in eight of the whole Christian world at least unless Abassia were then generally Christians as now But then his power would change with the Empire and fall when it falleth § 30. III. But if the question be only whether a National Priestly Soveraignty be lawful or whether God's general Rules for Concord Order Edification do bind the Churches prudentially to erect such a form To this they sayas followeth 1. We will first lay hold on certainties and not prefer uncertainties before them We are sure that such a power of Apostles and Pastors as is before mentioned was established and that the junior Pastors were as Sons to the seniors ordained by them Whether the power of Ordaining and Governing Ministers was by Apostolical Establishment appropriated to men of a superiour degree in the sacred Ministry seemeth to us very dark 2. We are past doubt that all particular Churches by Apostolical order had Bishops and that a Church was as Hierom saith Plebs Episcopo adunata and as Ignatius the Unity of every Church was notified by this that to every Church there was one Altar and one Bishop at that time and as Cyprian Ubi Episcopus ibi Ecclesia 3. And we are satisfied that every Presbyter is Episcopus Gregis whoever claim to be Episcopi Episcoporum which the Carthage Council in Cyprian renounced 4. And we are satisfied that no Church-superiours have authority to destroy the particular Church form Ministry Doctrine Worship or Discipline which were setled by the Holy Ghost in the Apostles And that the priviledges and duties of these single particular Churches being plainest and surest in Scripture they must be continued whatever Canons or Commands of any superiour Priests should be against them 5. Nor can they force any man to sin 6. Nor have any Priests a forcing power by the sword or violence but only the power of the Word and Keys that is of taking in or putting out of the Church where they have power and binding men over on just cause to the judgment of God The power that they have is from Christ and for him and not against him and for the Churches edisication and not destruction and what is pretended contrary to this is none They cannot dispense with the Laws of God but preach and execute them 7. And these things being thus secured though in our doubts we dare not swear or subscribe that National Patriarchal Provincial or Metropolitical Powers are of God's institution yet we resolve to live in all Christian peaceableness and submission when such are over us § 31. And we must profess that when we find how anciently and commonly one Presbyter in each Church was peculiarly called the Bishop without whom there was no ordinary ordinations and against whom in matters of his power none was to resist and also how generally the Churches in the Roman Empire conformed themselves to an imitation of the civil power as to their limits in all the official part being all subject to the Emperour who set up no Ecclesiastical Peer we are not so singular or void of reverence to those Churches as not by such notices to be much the more inclined to the aforesaid submission and peaceableness under such a power nor are we so bold or rash as to reproach it or condemn the Churches and excellent persons that have practised it §32 Nay we have already said that securing the state worship doctrine and true discipline of the inferiour particular Parish Churches there are some of us that much incline to think that Archbishops that is Bishops that have some oversight of many Churches with their Pastors are Lawful successours of the Apostles in the ordinary part of their work And such of us have long ago said that the Episcopal Government of the Bohemian Waldenses described by Commenius and Lascitius is most agreable to our judgment of any that we know excercised Therefore that which we humbly offered for our concord in England at His Majesties Restauration was Archbishop Ushers form of the Primitive Church Government not attempting any diminution of the Power wealth or honour of the Diocesanes or Archbishops but only a restauration of the Presbyters to their proper Office-work and some tolerable discipline to the particular Parish Churches §33 But we must ever much difference so much of Church order and Government as God himself hath instituted and is purely divine and unchangeable from those accidentals which men ordain though according to Gods general Rules For these are often various and mutable and are means to the former and never to be used against them And of these accidentals of Government we say as they that say no such form is fixed by God Concord order decency and edification are alwaies necessary But oft times it may be indifferent whether concord order and decency be expressed by this accidental way or that And that which is most congruous for order decency edification and concord in one Countrey Church or time may be incongruous in another Therefore if the question be but how far the giving one Bishop or Pastor power over others or making disparity of Cities in conformity to
before he dyed he joyned with Peter of Alexandria by synodal Letters to Anathematize the Council of Calcedon and yet wrote to the Bishop of Rome that he renounced Communion with Peter and he wrote to Peter that he renounced Communion with the Bishop of Rome Euphemius succeeded him and he rased Peters name out of the Book and joyned with the Roman Bishop Peter and Euphemius as Generals were gathering synodical Armies against each other and Peter dyeth Athanasius that succeeded him would fain have reconciled his Church but could not Palladius succeeded Peter Cnapheus at Antioch Both these Patriarchs joyn together to curse the Council of Calcedon They die John succeeded at Alexandria and Flavianus at Antioch These also joyn to curse the Council while the Patriarchs of Rome and Constantinople are for it and curse them Zeno dieth and Anastasius Dicorus is chosen Emperour He saith Niceph. l. 16. c. 25 being a man of Peace and desiring the ceasing of all contention left all to their liberty to thank of the Council of Calceaon as they pleased Hereupon the Bishops fell into three Parties some fervent for every word of the Council some cursed it and some were for Zeno's Henoticon or silence or suspension These renounced communion accordingly with one another the East was one way the West another and Libya another Nay the Eastern Bishops among themselves the Western among themselves and the Lybian among themselves renounced communion with each other Niceph. c. 25 Tanta confusio ment iumque Caligo saith the Historiaâ— orbem universum incessit The Emperour having resolved to keep peace and make no change was forced to fall upon those of both sides that were most turbulent At Constantinople he put out Euphemius or for dislike of him This Emperour before his inthroning had given under his hand to Euphemius a promise to stand for the Council He demanded his writing again Euphemius denied him and was cast out Macedonius succeeded him He had the same writing The Emperour demanded it of him He also denied him The Emperour would have put him out The people rise up in sedition and cryed It is a time of Martyrdom Let us aâ—l stâ—â—k to the Bishop And they reviled the Emperour calling him a Manichee unworthy the Empire The Emperour was fain to submit to Macedonius who sharply rebuked him as the Churches enemy but in time he remembred this and cast out Macedonius and burnt the Councils Acts and put Timothy in his place who presently pull'd down the Image of Macedonius The Patriarchs also of Alex. Antioch Bishop of Jerusalem were all cast out even those that were against the Council Pet. Cnapheus had made one Xenaâ—as a Persian servant unbaptized Bishop of Hierapolis He was against Images and brought a troop of Monks to Antioch to force Flavianus the Bishop to curse the Council Flavianus denied it The people stuck to the Bishop and so unanswerably disputed down the Monks that so great a multitude of them were slain as that they threw their bodies into the River Orontes to save them labour of burying of them Nicep c. 27. But this was not all another troop of Monks of Caelosrria that were of Flavianus side hearing of the tumult flockt to Antioch and made another slaughter as great as the former saith the Historian For this the Emperour banished Flavianus whose followers thought his punishment too great after all these murders Peter being dead the Bishops of Alexandria Egypt and Lybia fell in pieces among themselves each having their separate Conventions The rest of the East also separated from the West because the West would not communicate with them unless they would curse Nestorius Eutyches Dioscorus Moggus and Acacius And yet saith Niceph. l. 16. c. â—8 Qui Germani Dioscori Eutychetis sectatores suere ad maximam paucitatem redacti sunt Xenaias bringeth to Flavian the names of Theodore Theodorite Ibas and others as Nestorians and tells him if he anothemarize not all these he is a Nestorian whatever he say to the contrary Flavian was unwilling but his timerous fellow-Bishops perswading him he wrote his curse against them and sent it to the Emperour Xenaias then went further and required him to curse the Council They prevailed with the Isaurian Bishops to consent and all renounced the refusers as Nestorians And thus the Council having in name condemned the Nestorians and Eutychians the Eutychians called all Nestorians that cursed not the Council and got many cast out After Flavian Severâ—s got in at Antioch The first day he cursed the Council though it 's said that he swore to the Emperour before that he would not Nicep c. 29. In Palestine there were renewed the like confusions about the condemnation of Flavian and Macedonius About Antioch Severus Letters frightened many Bishops to curse the Council and those that held two Natures Some Bishops revoked their sentence and said they did it for fear Some stood out And the Isaurian Bishops when they repented condemned Severus himself that drove them to subscribe And some Bishops fled from their Churches for fear Cosmas and Severianus sent a condemnation to Severus The Emperour hearing of it sent his Procurator to cast them out of their Bishopricks for presuming to condemn their Patriarchs The Procurator found the people so resolute that he sent word to the Emperour that these two Bishops could not be cast out without blood-shed The Emperour answered that he would not have a drop of blood shed for the business Helias Bishop of Jerusalem found all the other Churches in such confusion condemning one another that he would communicate with none of them but Euphemius at Const Nicâ—p c. 32. And that you may see how people then were moved a Monk or Abbot Theodosius gathering an Assembly loudly cryed out in the Pulpit If any man equal not the four Councils with the four Evangelests let him be Anathema This voice of their Captain resolved them all and they took it as a Law that the four Councils should be sacris libris accensenda and wrote to the Emperour certamen se de eis ad sanguinem usque subituros This was then the submission to Princes by the adherents to the Councils of the Bishops And they went about to the Cities to bring them to joyn with them The Emperour wrote to Helias to reform this He rejecting his Letters Souldiers were sent to compel them The Orthodox Monks gathered by the Bishops tumultuously cast the Emperours Souldiers out of the Church c. 34 After another conflux they anathematized those that adhered to Severus The Emperour provoked sent Olympius with a band of Souldiers to conquer them He came and cast out Helias and put in John The Monks gather again and the Souldiers being gone they cause John to engage himself to be against Severus and stand for the Council though unto blood which contrary to his word to Olympius he did The Emperour deposed Olympius and sent another Captain Anastasius who put the Bishop in prison and
French Wars And yet we have instanced but in the best times of dominion in comparison of which Councils Prelates and later times have been a meer hurricane In a word they that think that the mischiefs of superiour seats are greater than the benefits do appeal to all Church history whether they have not been the true and principal causes of the distractions of the Christian world and of the long division of the East and West and of many civil and grievous wars § 40. And to the objections they say I. As to Appeals and Government of Inferiors 1. That the last appeals have ever been made to General Councils And how they went when ever the Prince did but countenance errour as in the daies of Constantius and Valens many great Councils that were for the Arrians and in Theodosius Juniors time for the Eutychians c. is too sad to think on And is it not far more dangerous for many hundred in a Council to bear down a whole Empire or Kingdom and raise persecution and there be no appeal from them than for a poor Priest to put a man from the Sacrament in his own Parish Church How many Councils have been against Images in Churches and how many for them condemning one anothers acts What good will appeals do to such 2. In doctrinal cases the consent of many tends to concord But in cases of personal practice are they fit judges to appeal to that dwell many hundred miles off and know none of the persons suppose a poor man in England is put from the Communion by a Parish-Priest yea perhaps an hundred or many hundred in some parishes because he findeth some to be utterly ignorant some to be drunkards fornicators heretical c. If these appeal but to a Diocesan which dwelleth 20. miles from some 40 or 60 or 100 miles from others the remedy is worse than the disease For if the Priest must travel so far and bring his witnesses and plead the cause with men that never saw the party before where neighbourhood giveth a surer knowledge than any such examination of strangers can do and a strange Chancelor or Diocesan knoweth not which witnesses are most credible and all this while his Pastoral Charge perhaps many thousand souls must be neglected while the Minister is prosecuting these appealing sinners will not the evil of this be greater than the benefit But how much more if every sinner must appeal to a Patriarch many hundred miles off A sober mind will be ashamed to think of the process of such a suit If you say that it is not in the case of such sinners as these whereof every Parish abounds that you would have appeals at least not to Patriarchs so far off I answer 1. Then answer your own objection What remedy shall they have if the Bishop wrong them 2. What is the case than that you suppose such supraordinations of power necessary for If you say If Ministers themselves should be excommunicate It is answered That none but Bishops or other superior powers pretend authoritatively as Rectors to excommunicate Pastors Therefore this is nothing to them that are against all such superiority of Pastors Where none such are none such can excommunicate or be injurious And if there must be a higher Bishop to deliver men from the injuries of a lower who should deliver us from him who may injure Kingdoms Obj. But it is supposed that Patriarchs are wiser and better men than Metropolitans and those than Bishops and those than Priests And that a meer Priest is not to be trusted with the power of the Keys Ans 1. The power of the Keys of his particular Church is essential to his Office 2. They that will make Priests of raw lads and naughty fellows and then plead that such must not be trusted with the Office which they themselves ordained them to do condemn themselves by such allegations 3. The old Church Government was for every particular Church no more numerous than our Parishes to have a Bishop and Presbyters And these were thought sufficient to judge who was fit for their own Communion 4. Hierom was but a Priest c. And Macedonius Nestorius Dioseorus Timothy Elurus Peter Moggus Gregory Alex. Lucius Al. Joh. Al. Theodosius Al. Eulalius Antioch Euphronius Ant. Placitus Ant. Stephanus Ant. Leontius Ant. Eudoxius Ant. Euzoius Ant. all Hereticks were all Patriarchs and to reckon the enormities of the Roman High Priests is a needless work Is it to be supposed then that these were better than Priests Doth Christ say that it is as hard for a rich man to enter into Heaven as for a Camel to go through a needles eye and shall we that are Christians say that it is to be supposed that the rich clergie are better men than the poor When Greg. Nazianz. Saith that such great places use to make Bishops worse than they were before All history tells us what striving there was for such places When Euschius refused Antioch two Priests were presently at Constantines elbow to beg that place and he was fain to mention them though they were not chosen What a stir did Maximus make at Constantinople Egypt and with the Emperour to have got Gregories place at Constantinople And so with others And is it not a fleshly proud and wordly mind which is the work of the Devil which is the importunate seeker And must we needs appeal to such 3. But to come neerer what need is there of any such appeal or such a Government if 1. A Bishop with-his Presbyters be over every particular Church associated for personal Communion in holy doctrine worship and Conversation 2. And if these Churches associate for meer concord and mutual help and not for Governing Bishops 3. And if the Magistrate govern them all as he doth Philosophers Physicians c. For 1. If a Bishop of a particular Church deny one the Sacrament or excommunicate him he doth it justly or unjustly If justly the person must submit If unjustly he may be received by a neighbour Bishop who is not bound to reject those whom upon trial he findeth to have been wrongfully excommunicated All neighbour Churches must refuse those that are by any one excommunicated justly but not all that are wrongfully cast out Some say that he that doth excommunicate doth cast a man out of the whole Church and therefore no one else may receive him But unexplained words must not serve to confound truth Souls and Congregations Every Minister is a Minister in the Universal Church as every Physician and Schoolmaster is in and to the Kingdom indefinitely not universally but his work and power are commensurate his power being only to and for his work Therefore the Bishop or Pastor of one particular Church or Parish is bound to confine his ordinary labour to them though occasionally he may help others And accordingly his power is to use the Keys ordinarily for his own Church only as to the direct effect though extraordinarily he
State though not alwaies materially And that the King as King is but an Accidental Civil Head as he is over Physicians and Schoolmasters being neither himself and that the National Church must have a formal Clergy-head Personal or Collective which shall in suo genere be the highest though under the Magisttates Civil Government as Physicians are 4. The Papists say that all National Churches are under the Pope as Universal Pastor who may alter them as he seeth cause 5. Some moderate men say that only Diocesan and Metropolitical Churches are jure Divino and that they are called National only improperly from one King or concording association as ab accidente and not properly from any formal Clergy-head § 43. VI. Lastly which is the formal Head of the Church of England and so what that Church is we are left as much uncertain 1. If it be only a Civil Head that denominateth it One then it is but a Christian Kingdom which we never questioned And Dr. Rich. Cosins in his Tables of the English Church-Policy saith That the King hath Administrationem supremam magisque absolutam quae dicitur Primatus Regius And Tho. Crompton in his dedication of it to K. James saith Ecclesiastica Jurisdictio plane Regia est Coronae dignitatis vestrae Regiae prima praecipua indivisibilis pars Ecclesiasticae leges Regiae sunt neque alibi oriuntur aut aliunde sustentantur aut fulciuntur penes Ecclesiasticos judices per Archiepiscopos Episcopos derivata a Rege potestate jurisdictio Ecclesiastica consist it And yet our Kings and Church explaining the Oath of Allegiance declare that the King pretendeth not to the Priesthood or power to administer the Word and Sacraments but as Crompton adds from Constantine is extra Ecclesiam constitutus a Deo Episcopus alii intra Ecclesiam Episcopi This is plain If they hold to this and claim no power in the English-Policy but as the Kings Officers in that part which belongeth to Christian Magistrates who will oppose them But this reacheth not to the Keys Preaching or Sacraments 2. Some say that the King is partly a Clergy man as Melchizedek and so that he is the formal Head and might perform the Priestly Office if he would But this our Kings have themselves renounced 3. Some say that the Archbishop of Canterbury is the formal Head but that cannot be because he is no Governour over the Arch-Bishop of York or his Province 4. Most say that the Convocation is the formal Church-Head which makes it One Political Church But 1. If so then why saith the Canon that the Convocation is the true Church of England by Representation and those excommunicate that deny it We enquire after the Church-Head or Governour And that which is but the Church it self by representation is not its Head unless the Head and Body be the same and the Church govern it self and so it be Democratical The governed and Governours sure are not the same 2. And the Supream Power is supposed by those that take Episcopacy for a distinct Order to be in the Supream Order only But the far greater part of the Convocation are not of the Supream Order Nay thus the Presbyters should be partly the chief Governours of the Bishops while they make Canons for them 3. When we did but motion that according to Arch-Bishop Ushers form of the Primitive Episcopacy Presbyters might joyn with the Bishops in proper executive Church-government instead of Lay-Chancellors and such like they decryed it as Presbytery and call us Presbyterians ever since And if they say that the Presbyters have so great a part in the Supream Government it self which obligeth all the Nation how much more would they be themselves Presbyterians which they so abhor § 44. Having oft said that we desire Christian Kingdoms as the great blessing of the world we mean not either that 1. All in a Kingdom should be forced to be baptized or profess themselves Christians whether they are so or not For lying will not save men nor please God and even the Papists are against this 2. Nor that all should be supposed to be Christians that are in the Kingdom But that the Kings be Christians and the Laws countenance Christianity and the most or ruling part of the Kingdom be Christians and all just endeavours used to make all the rest so The Ancient Churches continued them Catechumens till they were fit for Baptism and though they were for Infant-Baptism they compelled none to be baptized in Infancy or at Age but left it to free choice They baptized but twice a year ordinarily They kept many offenders many years from communion And if Crabs Roman Council sub silvest be true they at Rome admitted not penitents till fourty years understand it as you see cause The true Elibertine Canons kept many out so many years and many till death and many absolutely as shewed that they were far from taking all the Nation into the Church And the Christian Emperours compelled none It was long before the greatest part of the Empire were Christians In the daies of Valens the Bishops were some of them banished into places that had few Christians if any In France it self even in St. Martin's daies the Christians of his flock were not the most but he wrought miracles to convince the Heathens that raged against Christianity where he dwelt c. § 1. There are two appendent Controversies handled by some that write for National Churches which need but a brief solution The first is whether it be not an Independent Errour to expect real holiness in Church-members as necessary in the judgment of charity The second Whether it be not such an Errour to require the bond of a Covenant beside the Baptismal Covenant § 2. To the first we say that so much is written on this point by one of us in a Treatise called Disputations of Right to Sacraments c. that we think meet to say no more The Opponents now confess that it must be saving Faith and Consent to the Baptismal Covenant that must be professed And Papists and Protestants agree with all the Ancient Church that Baptism putteth the true Consenter into a state of certain pardon and title to life And God maketh not known lying a condition of Church-communion He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved It is true that God hath not made Ministers Arbitrary Judges of mens secret thoughts but hath limited them in judging to take their tongues that profess Faith and Consent to be the Indices of their minds But sure the power of the Keys containeth a power of judging according to Christ's Law who is to be taken into the Church by Baptism and who not If only the seeker be made Judge it will be a new way of Church-Government and a bad And then the question is 1. Whether he that accepts ones profession seemingly serious of Faith and Consent and that de praesente is not bound to hope in charity that such