Experience Why is it not done if it be morally possible Have you not had near twenty years Trial by your Reasonings Preachings Writings Reproaches Allurements Threatnings Canons Fines Jails Informers crying out for execution of the Laws c. and is it yet done Have there not since more of the Laity turned from you than have turned to you Will not Experience convince you 9. Judge by the great diversity of mens conditions and capacities which I have elsewhere opened Will ever men of such different Capacities Educations c. agree in such and so many things 10. Judge by the requisites to such a Concord It must be by bringing all the Ministry to a higher degree of Knowledge or Conscience and Honesty than all the Nonconformists For it can be nothing that you think keeps us from Conforming but Ignorance or Badness Dr. Asheton undertaketh as going to the bar of God to prove that it is Pride and Covetousness And how can you hope to make us all so much Wiser and Better than we are Do you believe that the seven Thousand that had Conformed to the Directory and staid in by Conforming to your Law 1662. were so much Wiser and Better than the two thousand that were cast out Or that the greater part of your Countrey-Priests now if the lamenting people wrong them not do Conform because they know more or are Better men than we If it be so he is unworthy to be a Pastor that knoweth not how hard a matter it is to make all the Ministers of a Nation so much wiser and better He is blinde that seeth not that it is Fines Jails and Death that our Prosecutors trust to And will true Conscience be convinced by such Arguments Would you your selves change your minds in Religion if you were but Fined and Imprisoned If so you are men of no true Religion If not why expect you it from us § 13. But what am I doing Will it not more tire than profit the Reader if I should number abundance more of his Untruths I will step to his concluding Farewel to me and then see how he justifieth the trade by pleading for Equivocation Pag. 128. You gave several intimations that the King was Popishly affected as Bishop Bramhal affirms Mend. 15. Answ Why did not the man tell where and when I have Printed the contrary in the time of highest Usurpation that the King was no Papist Is he not a Calumniator unless he prove it But he saith Bishop Bramhal affirms it Answ A man that never saw me why did he not cite Bishop Brambal's proof But see what this sort of men are come to Do they think it enough to warrant their slanders of us because one of their Archbishops hath slandered us before them What Credit then is to be given to such mens History or Reports Is this it in which the Authority of Archbishops consisteth that they must be followed in slanders No It is not their Obedience to Archbishops but their Conformity to a calumniating Spirit For Brambal's Predecessor Arch-Bishop Usher a man honoured by all good men that knew him for Learning Piety and Honesty was of no such Authority with them but we are scorned for conforming to his Judgment But you see that a Calumniator with you is no singular person They are not ashamed to tell the world that their Archbishops lead them and are as bad as they § 14. Impl. p. 128. You applauded the grand Regicide as one that prudently piously and faithfully to his immortal Honour did exercise the Government Mend. magn 16. Answ Reader Do not wrong this man so much as to think he is the Father of this He taketh it up but in Conformity to his Fathers and Brethren that have oft printed it before him and he must keep company and be Conformable Alas It is not one or two such men as are the Guides of Souls in England But what Had he no pretence for it Yes more than for many of the rest He that undertook to be a Lying Spirit in the mouth of all Ahab's Prophets never undertook to deceive them without any pretence I have somewhat else to do than to write the History of my actions in those Times as oft as any such man will tell such a Story as this In short I thought then that both sides were faulty for beginning the War but I thought the Bonum Publicum or Salus Populi made it my Duty to be for the Parliament as Defensive against Delinquents and as they profest to be only for King Law and Kingdom When at the New Moddle they left out for the King and changed their Cause I changed from them and was sent by two Assemblies of Divines to do my best though to my utmost labour and hazard to disswade them Cromwel having notice of it would never let me once come near him or the Head-Quarters I continued on all occasions publickly and privately to declare my judgment against him as a rebellious Usurper till he died But being at London a year or two before he died the Lord Broghil since Earl of Orery would needs bring me to him where I dealt so plainly with him in demanding by what Right against the Will of almost all the Kingdom he pull'd down our lawful English Monarchy that we were sworn to and the Parliament as cast him into such Passion as broke out in reviling many of the worthiest Parliament-men that he knew me to be familiar with The last time the Earl of Orery saw me he told me he had told the King of that Conference and that he should love me the better while he lived for my Faithfulness He and Lambert and Thurloe were silently present A Twelvemonth after Sir Francis Nethersole would needs dispute me into Repentance for being for the Parliaments Cause by way of Writing I told him that the sad effects were enough to make us all suspicious but I would give him those Reasons that had moved me with a true desire to know the full truth that if I had erred I might not remain through Ignorance without Repentance He wrote to me that in the mean time seeing I was satisfied against Cromwels Usurpation I should go to London to set it upon his Conscience to perswade him to restore our present King I sent him word that as he took me for his Adversary so his Conscience was not so easily perswaded to give up such a prey and that this was not now to do I had been lately with him and I and others had tried such perswasions or the like in vain While I was preparing my Papers for Sir Francis Nethersole cometh out Mr. Harrington's Oceana contriving the Settlement of a Democracy which they called a Commonwealth and Sir H. Vane was about another Model I wrote somewhat against them and Mr. Harrington printed a Paper of Gibberish scorning at my Ignorance in Politicks Against him I wrote my Political Aphorisms called A Holy Common-wealth in the beginning pleading for the Divine
Conformists that desired a Deliverance But this proveth not that the Parliament was Presbyterians then much less that they were so before the Wars But you that meddle not with Lay-men remember that Lay-men sent those Propasitions You next tell me of Alderman Pennington and the Apprentices Answ 1. Few of those Apprentices knew what Presbytery was but were exasperated against Episcopacy for the sake of the present Bishops as the common people be now within these nine years thinking that it 's they that silence their Teachers and cause all our Divisions But alas little knew they what Church-Government to desire But most that were in judgment against Episcopacy were Independents and Separatists then And how inconsiderable a number in London were those Apprentices 2. And our Question is not what Party of Lads or Apprentices or Women did clamour against Bishops But what Party it was that raised the War Did these Lads give the Earl of Essex his Commission But you find none that said any thing against their Petition but the Lord Digby Answ And hath not he forsaken you also 1. Where did you seek to find it Not in the Parliament Journal sure else you might have found more 2. The truth is the Episcopal Parliament themselves perceiving what Party they must trust to opposed not those Petitions because the Petitioners might serve their turns and I doubt were too well contented with them But as no man must say that the King had the Spirit of Popery because he was willing that the Papists should help him So no man can prove that the Episcopal Parliament had the Spirit of Presbytery or were against Episcopacy it self because they were willing to be helped by all sorts who on a sudden were fallen out with Bishops The truth is the suspending and silencing of Ministers and the cropping the Ears and stigmatizing Prin with Burton and Bastwick had suddenly raised in the London Apprentices and others a great distate of the Bishops though they knew little of any Controversies about Church-Government at all When you say that Episcopacy or rather Bishops Lands was the Palladium c. 1. Episcopacy was not so till after the Army was raised It was so no doubt in the private designs of some particular men Apprentices and Women in the City and Kingdom that is all that were against it desired it should fall And many that were Episcopal desired that it should rather fall than the Abuses of it continue by such men as they thought would else ruine Church and State thinking that there was no other way to save them so far did different apprehensions about Propriety Liberty Popery and Arminianism carry men from one another who were all for Episcopacy But forget not 1. That it is the major Vote of the Parliament and not a few secret designers within or without doors that is the Parliament 2. That it was the Parliament that raised the Militia and Armies 3. That this Parliament was not at that time against Episcopacy Therefore your talk of the Isle of Wight so long after is liker a Jest than serious Besides that you seem ignorant of the Parliament resolved to accept of the Kings Concessions as Prins long Printed Speech will shew you and therefore immediately before they should have voted that closure were pulled out by Cromwell who had secret intelligence what they were going to do 2. And your oblivion caused you by your Parenthesis to contradict what you have hitherto said your self For if it were Bishops Lands rather than Bishops that they would have down it implyeth that they were not Presbyterians nor against Episcopacy Would you make an English-man of this age believe that none of your own Church have an appetite to Bishops Lands Try them and they will confute you more effectually than I can Do you think that of the Multitude that now drink and â—rant and roar and whore and rob there are none whose Consciences could be content that Bishops fell that they might have their Lands you will say perhaps these are not truly for Episcopacy Ridiculous Must we write Histories out of mens secret thoughts and hearts and call men only what they are conscientiously and in sincerity Who knoweth another mans sincerity but God Come into London or go among these Gallants and tell them that they are not Sons of the Church if you dare Hearken whether they talk not more for Bishops than for any other Sect Whether they do not curse and damn the Presbyterians and Fanaticks and their Conventicles and deride their Preaching and praying and say as bad of them as you can wish them Though I know that too great abundance since our silencing are fallen off from you to Infidelity or Atheism and to make a Jest of the Sacred Scriptures and the Papists say that very many thousands are turned to them yet I speak of those that still call themselves Protestants of the Church of England Really if you will take none to be of your Church that would sell the Bishops Lands or none that are not conscientiously for you I doubt your Church yet will prove invisible and as little as some of the housed Sects And if that will serve your turn I pray deal equally and let the Sectaries also have leave to say of any of their Party that killed the King or were guilty of Treason he was not truly one of us The War was first called Bellum Episcopale by the Parliament-men because they thought or said that Land and his Adherents were the Causes of it by seeking to reduce the Scots to their will and to set up Altars and other Innovations in England But not because the Parliament at that time renounced Episcopacy it self As to the particular Members of the Armies I confess I did know them better than you I speak not of Fairfax or Cromwell's Army but of Essex's And it s well that you have so much modesty as not to deny that they were Episcopal or no Presbyterians But you venture to say of those yet living That they were so whilst they assisted in the support of the late Cause I have not so far renounced my Reason and Experience as to fall in with your account And if we persevere in this new Doctrine we shall be as distant as the two Poles Answ Now you are at your Strength your Confidence and Resolution to believe or say you believe as you do is all the life of your Cause It is now taken for no dishonour to the greatest Lords to say that they are for Episcopacy There are yet living the Earl of Bedford the Earl of Denbeigh the Earl of Stamford the Lord Grey of Warke the Lord Hollis the Lord Asthey the Lord Roberts the Earl of Anglesey though he be no Souldier Major General Morgan Mr. G. Massey Sir John Gell and many more Enquire of themselves or any that know them whether they were ever Presbyterians or against a moderate Episcopacy Sir William Waller was most called a Presbyterian
may see that his Charity and his Veracity are proportionable he hence inferrs p. 57. Did ever any Bishop aspire to such Tyranny as this the Pope only excepted Is not the King and whole Nation greatly culpable not to trust themselves with the ingenuity of this people c. Answ Reader which is liker to be guilty of Tyranny 1. We that desire no power but to plead God's Law to mens Consciences 2. And that but with one Congregation And 3. with no constrained unwilling persons but only voluntary Consenters 4. And to rule over none of our Fellow-Ministers 5. And only to be but Freemen as Schoolmasters and Philosophers be in their Schools of Volunteers that we may not against our Consciences be the Pastors of the unwilling or such as we judge uncapable according to God's Laws but to use the Keys of Admission and Exclusion as to that particular Church 6. And to do all under the Government of the Magistrate who may punish us as he may do Physicians Schoolmasters or others for proved mal-administration and drive us not from but to our Duty 7. And to be ready to give an account of our Actions to any Synod or Brethren that demand it and to hear their Admonitions and Advice Yea and to live in peaceable submission where Archbishops or General-Visitors are set over us and upon any Appeals or Complaints to hear and obey them in any lawful thing belonging to their Trust and Power 9. And if we be judged to have worngfully denied our Ministerial help and Communion to any we pretend to no power to hinder any other Church or Pastor from receiving him 10. And if we be by Magistrates cast out or afficted for our Duty we shall quietly give up the Temples and publick Church-maintenance of which the Magistrate may dispose and without resisting or dishonouring him endure what he shall inflict upon us for our obedience to God This is our odious Tyranny 2. On the other side our Accusers 1. Some of them are for power in themselves to force men by the Sword that is by Mulcts and corporal Penalties to be subject to them or be of their Church and Communion 2. Others are for the Magistrate thus forcing them when the Bishop Excommunicates them 3. They thus make the Church like a prison when no man knoweth whether the people be willing Members or only seem so to escape the Jail 4. They would be such forcing Rulers over many score or hundred Parishes 5. They would have power to Rule Suspend and Silence the Pastors of all these Parishes when they think meet 6. They hinder the Pastors of the Parish-Churches from that exercise of the Keys aforesaid in their own Parish-Churches which belongs to the Pastors Office 7. They would compel the Parish-Ministers to Admit Absolve or Excommunicate at least as declaring other mens Sentences when it is against their Consciences 8. They would make Ministers swear Obedience to them and Bishops swear Obedience to Archbishops 9. Some of them are for their power to Excommunicate Princes and greatest Magistrates though contrary to the fifth Commandment it dishonour them 10. Some of them say that if the King command one Church-Order or Form or Ceremony and the Bishop another the Bishop is to be obeyed before the King As also if the King bid us Preach and the Bishop forbid us 11. And they say that their Censures even Clave errante must be obeyed 12. And that he whom a Bishop cuts off from one Church is thereby cut off from all and none may receive him 13. And that it is lawful to set up Patriarchs Metropolitans c. to rule the Church according to the state and distribution of Civil Government Look over these two Cases and judge which party is liker to Church-Tyrants and then judge what Credit is due to such Accusers of the Non-Conformists in this Age. § 43. II. As to Reordination I have answer'd to Mr. Cheny what he saith He deceitfully avoideth determining the first Question whether they intend a Reordination or not Whereas I have proved 1. That the Church of England is against twice Ordaining 2. That they call it and take it for a true Ordination which is to be received from them by such as Presbyters had Ordained 3. And therefore that they suppose the former Null 4. And this is much of the reason of mens doubting whether they should receive the second which is given on such a Supposition But this man is little concerned in the true stating of the case § 44. III. What he saith of the Ministers power for Discipline is answered already to Mr. Cheney that hath the same § 45. About the Covenant 1. he falsly makes me say that the King took it Whereas whether he did or not I only say that he was injuriously and unlawfully drawn to seem to owne it and declare for it 2. Next he aggravates this Injury And who contradicteth him 3. He pleadeth That the King is not obliged by it to make any alteration in the Government of the Church Answ I will not examine your Reasons The King never made me his Confessor nor put the question to me Why then should I make my self a Judge of it And why must my Ministry lie on a thing beyond my knowledge But am I sure that no Parliament-man that took that Vow is bound there in his place to endeavour a Reforming Alteration when I am past doubt that much is needful He would 1. make it doubtful Whether it was a Vow to God I think it not worth the labour to prove it to him that doubteth of it after deliberate reading it 2. He saith Any lawful endeavours are not denied Answ But the Obligation to lawful endeavours are denied Are not the words universal 3. He saith The Covenant condemned as unlawful cannot lay an Obligation Answ A Vow to God unlawfully imposed and taken may binde to a Lawful Act. 4. He calls it unnecessary alterations against the Law of the Land Answ I suppose I shall prove some reforming alteration necessary And it is not against Law for a Subject to petition for it or a Parliament-man to speak for it Yet when the man seems to me to be pleading Conscience out of the Land he saith Would not this cause the Christian Religion in a short time to be exploded out of all Kingdoms Alas poor people what uncertain Guides have you 5. He concludes that the power of Reforming being in the King the Vow was null Answ The Regal Power of Reforming is only in the King To change Laws without him is Usurpation But Parliament-men may speak for it and Subjects petition and on just causes write and speak for needful Reformation And I speak for no other § 45. IV. About not taking Arms against those Commissioned by the King He plainly professeth that we must not distinguish where the Law doth not And if it be an unlimited Universal Negative it will quite go beyond Mainwaring or Sibthorpe And for all
proprietor and that they were determinately devoted to him for this use to maintain a lawful Minister there to officiate and they thought that when the then Ruling Parliament had cast out some under the Notion of Insufficient and Scandalous it was lawfull nevertheless for others to keep up a Church and teaching and Worship of God and therefore to Eat the Dedicated Bread And as for the turning out of any for the Kings Cause that were not utterly Insufficient or Drunkards or such like we Printed our judgment against it and many would not succeed such men which gave advantage to some that were Sectarians to succeed them And what got the People by that scruple As for the fifth part you know it was ordinarily paid and now nothing and Mr. Lea's Book made no alteration Your talk of medling with Temporals in ordine ad spiritualia is a meer impertinency But if you ask Bishops and Chancellors whether it be lawfull to meddle with spiritual things in ordine ad temporalia yea and Priests too it will be a seasonable question if set home I am glad to read that they did but threaten to silence you By which I perceived you were not then so scrupulous as to lose all to escape Conformity to those times And I also was threatned to be silenced as well as you and virtually sequestred by an Ordor against such as would not keep their Fasts and Thanksgivings and that spake against their Authority which I openly did and that would not take the Engagement and yet I was never silenced by them but only as to one Assize Sermon that work being fitter for Men whose proper Office it is and that jure divino And my life was frequently threatned by the Souldiers as well as yours But I must tell you truly should I reassume my Chair would I continue in this Courteous Mood Ans You have proved already that a Question may be false may you not as easily prove that it may be Malignant 1. What is my Chair Had I any but the Pulpit or Reading place at Kederminster 2. Why do you question my Courtesie when I both Printed my desires and reasons against hindring any worthy Men from Preaching the Gospel upon pretence of the Cause of the King or Prelacy heretofore and when I have in Three or Four Books this very Year maintained the same Impartiality and Principles Yea most of all my Writings and Preaching for 25 Years have been much against Faction and for the Union Concord and Concurrence of all Ministers and Christians who are agreed but in Christianity it self and the Essentials of Church Communion in carrying on Gods Work with mutual forbearance And when I never had a hand in putting any such men out and have kept many of your Party in What room after this for such a Question Next you carp at me for telling you in reputation of your Calumnies by a Comparison what Ministers were in my time and in the Places where I lived You marvel at my Praecox ingenium that could judge before I was ten years old Who were ignorant Who learned Preachers You fear it is still the greatest part of some mens Devotion to censure the Parts and Gifts of the Preacher Answer O what relief are poor Souls like to have from such uncompassionate Shepherds I conjecture you believe me not I will do what I can to cure you But remember I open not my Fathers Nakedness while I speak nothing but what Congregations saw and heard and that to you alone now in secret and that upon your urgency I was not bred in Wales nor Ireland but first in Shropshire At six and seven years old my first Master was a Reader never at University and Preached once a Month I name him not because he was asâ—ied to me and mended My next Master Mr. Heyward was a Lay-man publickly read the Common Prayer but never Preached but proved after an honest Lay-man though no Scholar My next Master Mr. Cope Read and never Preached My next Master Mr. Yale B. D. Preached once a Month and drank himself Wife and Children to be stark Beggars These at Rowton And still note that we had no other I then came to live at Eaton Constantine the Vicar of the Parish Mr. Richard Wolley never Preached The Parson of the Town Sir William Rogers above fourscore had two Livings and never Preached in his life as was said When his Eye-sight failed him he said Common Prayer by Memory and John Colly a Day-labourer one year and Thomas Gaynam a Taylor another year read the Scriptures but none Preached Having two Places when he was absent his Curate was first his Son Francis Rogers rarely if ever Preached a famous Stage-player One of his Sports was on the open Stage to let his Pudenda nudata per restem laceratam quasi neglecta se ostentare ad risum populi movendum His next Curate my Master John Rogers his Grand-child was unlearned and never Preached His next Curate Richard Bathoe was a Lawyers Clerk broken by drinking who was wont to our smart to let us know when he was drunk and never Preached there but once which was in my hearing when he was drunk as I told you If he be not lately dead he is yet a Minister very near you at Patshill In the same Village another Neighbours Son turned Priest Mr. Thomas Rock who being detected to be vicious and have forged Orders fled So much for our Parish Leighton The next Eastward Bildwas had a Minister that never Preached nor could I learn that ever they had before a Preacher since the Reformation The next to that was Madeley whose Minister preached not and was as famous for Debauchery as the Madmen of Madeley for Folly On the other side us the next Church Cressage had no Preaching The next Kenley had Mr. Bennet a Reading Curate that Preached not Mr. Bent at Harley my Kinsman Mr. Wood B. D. at Cund seldom And the same I may say of too many other Places round about us At Kederminster Mr. Dance Preached as some call'd it once a Quarter or Half-year Mr. Turner at Mitton sometime when sober once a day of whom I told you that I knew by Examination his intollerable Ignorance of the Creed At Dowles our foresaid Sir William Rogers was Parson In the two Chappels in the Rock Parish which I confess had small Maintenance one Reading Curate made Ropes for his living and another cut Faggots I will add no more and this is only private to your self to excuse my self and the poor people who you think place our Devotion in judging of the Ministers Parts Alas poor Souls Into such hands are you fallen The Lord be more merciful to you than such Pastors who if for Bread they give you a Stone will reproach you as Censurers of your Teachers if you find fault And when the first Work needful to save Sinners is to awaken them to a care of their own Souls and a love to
Teaching some men are angry with them if they will care whether they are taught or untaught Of all Merchandize I love not making Merchandize of Souls But I pray you dream not that I take all the old Ministry for such as these I know there are many excellent men But I think the present Non-conformists as fit for the Sacred Office as these Is that presumption § 10. p. 10. I thank you for your transitions and purposed brevity To requite you 1. Your first Paragraph doth but say in effect 1. That you untruly suppose me to meddle with the Controversie which I do but wish for leave to meddle with 2. And that you think many things good which I think to be stark naught But because you call me so oft to Dispute the main Controversie I tell you once that it is disingeniously done still in Print and Writing to call for more as if we had never done any thing in it while our Printed Books lie by you unanswered Answer my Fifth Dispute of Church Government 1. In the Point of Prelacy 2. Of Reordination 3. Of Impositions and then call out for more when you have done Or if you have more time Answer Baine's Diocesanes Tryal Robert Parker de Polit. Eccles Blondel de Episcopis where Dr. Hammond left at the entrance One quarter of the Reasons of our Non-conformity is contained in these Books and some are in Ames his fresh Suit and Nicols and Bradshaw but the most are upon a new account which our Fathers were not put upon 2. I am ashamed to Read a Preacher a Writer an Accuser of the afflicted to talk of the dreadfull subject of Oaths so poorly as you do Though I tell you I will not dispute this Point with you without a License from Authority I will say 1. That when you say Take an unlawfull Oath in what sense you please and will there be much need of absolution You should not so confusedly have Named an Unlawfull Oath Remember that you have proved against me that a Question may be false And that an Indefinite in renecessariâ or thus unlimitedly delivered goeth for an Universal an Oath is unlawfull 1. Quoad actum imponendi 2. Quoad actum jurandi 3. Quoad materiam juratam If the Materia Jurata be Lawfull do you think that the unlawfulness of the other two do leave no need of an Absolution 1. What if a Thief force me to swear Allegiance to the King or to swear to do some Duty doth it not add a Second bond Or what if I vowed without the Command of any power 2. What if I sinned in making a Vow or Oath by taking it from a Usurper or without just Cause or unreasonably or to an ill end c. If the Matter be good doth it not then bind me And de materiâ what if one Article or many be bad and another good doth the Neighbourhood of the bad disoblige me from the good If so it is but inserting some bad Clauses and men may be bound by no Oaths or Vows as in the former Case It is but swearing sinfully to an ill end c. and never be obliged But if this be your Divinity about Oaths and Perjury you have no cause to censure them so deeply that swear not as quick and deep as you Your next Question is Must the sense of an Oath be measured by him that receiveth it or â—rom the Authority and Intention of those that imâ—ose it Answer Still worse and worse what Confusion is here Who knoweth whether by â—easuring the sense you mean as to the taking of the â—ath or as to the Obligation of it when taken Your Must seemeth to speak of both But 1. He â—hat taketh an Oath from one in lawful Authority â—r from an Equal is bound to take it in the sense â—f the Imposer or Requirer whom we would saâ—isfie 2. He that taketh an Oath from a Thief â—r Murtherer some Casuists say Is bound not â—o lie to hide his sense but may take it in a sense â—ifferent from the Imposers when the plain words â—ill bear it without a Lie As if a Thief or Trayâ—r should force the King to swear that he will do â—his or that which hath an equivocal Name If â—he Traytor 's sense be not according to the Comâ—oner use or defaniosiore analegaâ—o but the King 's they think that the King is not bound to wear in his sense though yet he may be bound â—o swear to save his life 3. But our Case is only â—e obligatione juramenti praestandi If a man that â—as bound to take the Oath in a Usurpers sense â—hall either mistake the Usurpers sense or shall â—ke it in another sense as supposing that he is not â—ound to the Usurpers I say that this man if â—e make this A VOW to God and not only an â—ath to Man is bound to keep it in the sense he â—ok it in if it were materially lawful If I Vow to â—ive so much to a Minister of Christ and he that â—rced me to it meant a Mass Priest and I mistook â—im and meant a true Minister I am bound by â—y Vow to give it him If your confused Question suppose the contrary then a man's Vows to God are all null if he that forced him to it were of another sense A meer Oath to confirm a Contract to a man is to be interpreted by the Contract being but an Obligation to perform it yea and may be remitted by the man that will remit his Right But in a Vow God and Man are the Parties and God's sense imposing and Man's sense intending in the Vow are each obliging So that if ten men use the same words in Vowing in ten several senses they are ten several Vows and all oblige if materially lawful And therefore when you say that the Vow was commanded by Usurpers and when I know not the sense of one that vowed let him that will say of Millions that they are not bound no not when they vow against Schism and Prophaneness But you cite here a Non conformist against me Amesius Case Consc to you p. 216. to me p. 203. But 1. He speaketh not at all of our Questions In what sense an Oath bindeth when taken but only in what sense it ought to be taken 2. He speaketh not of a Vow but of a meer Oath 3. He speaketh only of the Case of Equivocation but he that sweareth in sensu famosiore to a Thief whose mind he is not bound to follow doth not equivocate 4. He himself saith in the next Case that the words of an Oath must be taken Eo sensu quem audientes concepturos judicamus id est regulariter eo sensu quem habent in Communi hominum usu But the Audientes and the Imposers may be different and a man may think sometimes that the Imposers sense may be contrary to the usum communem and his own agreeable to it But this impertinent Question is nothing to
for my Cure the reading of Bilson and Hooker and named no others I now recited the words of Bilson and Hooker the first as asserting the Principles of the Parliament the second as going quite beyond them on the Principles of them that pull'd down the Parliament I cited page and words at large To all this I have nothing but that you will cover your Fathers nakedness and not own all that they say But doth not this yield that this was their doctrine What need you disown or cover it if it were not so Yet nothing will make some men confess But still Mr. Hooker you admire and so did Camden Usher Morton Hales Gawden King James King Charles I dare not joyn my self to so great Names as one of his Admirers lest I seem too much to value my self I will come far behind them supposing that a long tedious Discourse in him hath as much substance as one might put into a Syllogism of six Lines I said but that it was theirs and such Prelatist's Principles that led me into what I did and wrote His Principles might do it and not he as they were managed by other men But these are Niceties to men that heed not what they read or say What is written Line 1. p. 24. § 10. you seem to defend and 1. you say What is this more than some that writ for the Kings Cause in the late Wars professed Answ And will you defend or own all that then was confessed by them Have you read the Kings Answer to the 19 Propositions Do you know that the Parliaments Adherents drew up a Catechism out of that Answer as pretending to justifie all their Cause by it Know you not that in Fountains Letter answered by Dr. Steward and in Sir Nethersole's Writings for the King and many others those things are supposed or asserted which I would not counsel you now to assert Your Instance is That as to making of Laws our Kings have not challenged a Power without Parliaments Answer God be thanked but that 's none of our Question But what you will not know you cannot understand Seeing you seem to justifie Hooker here who saith That Laws they are not which publick Approbation hath not made so Which I believe of those Countries where such publick Senates have part in the Legislation By this you must say that in the Turks Dominions or any the like there are no Laws But if you say that the Original Grant of the Legislative Power to one is equivalent to an Approbation of his Laws I maintain that Hooker's Principle is false That by the natural Law whereto God hath made all subject the natural power of making Laws to command whole publick Societies of men belongeth so properly to the same entire Societies that for any Prince or Potentate of what kindsoever upon earth to exercise the same himself and not either by express Commission immediately and personally received from God or else by Authority derived at first from their Consent upon whose persons they impose Laws it is no better than meer Tyranny How hard a task then do you put Kings upon to excuse themselves from Tyranny when ever such Prelatists will accuse them of it For 1. I hope you will not put them to prove That they have their Power by an express Commission immediately and personally from God as Saul and David had Shall we obey none but those that fanatically can pretend to a Revelation or immediate personal Commission from Heaven And 2. prove if you can that the People have Regal power to use or to give I grant that originally their Consent may be necessary to the designation of the Person or Family that shall receive it from God But it is God that giveth the power though the people choose the Person or Family no man giveth that which he hath not The People have not legal or governing Power Ergo they cannot give it The Wife chooseth her Husband but Gods Institution giveth him his power If that it be certain as Doctor Hammond hath proved against John Goodwin that the Peoples consent doth give no power but onely let in the person that shall receive it from God and not from them how dare you thus conclude all Kings on earth to be but Tyrants as Hooker plainly doth For no King on Earth hath an immediate personal Commission from Heaven And no King that I know of can receive power from the People that never had it to give Ergo you make all Kings to be no Kings but Tyrants but falsly Will you defend this because Hooker wrote it Were not these the Levellers and Democratists Principles higher than the old Parliament owned Must a Clergy of such Principles put men upon banishing the Non-conformists five Miles from a Corporation as men of seditious Principles Terras astraea reliquit You tell me I take what is for my purpose and leave out the rest Ans Semper idem Do I mai many Sentence Do I pervert any Is the rest contradictory to this What in the great Hooker No not at all I suppose the rest Unrighteous man If you require me to write out all his Book when ever I transcribe a part I own that which you transcribe What would you have more But next you say that I have found other Doctrine in Hookers other Books Answ A silly pretence of which anon You ask Was you led aside by Hooker c. yet you quote passages out of the 8th Book that came out since Ans A man that would turn us to Conformity must be able himself to heed what he readeth 1. I said not that Hooker but such Principles led me 2. I never said that I was led by every word that I now cite but that these words contain the Principles which missed me that is so far and so long as I followed those Principles Do you not see that your heedlesness tempted you to this Error and yet your Ex post liminio and first building the Roof seemed sence to you or you would have them seem such at least to me But it 's well that you disown these three Book of Hookers also But 1. is not this forecited in the first the very sum of all that you are afraid of 2. Will you so give away the sixth and seventh which say far more for Episcopacy than all the rest 3. Will you thus reproach all Bishop Gauden's triumphant Vindication and Dedication to the King 4. Did he not tell you that the Copy was interlined with Hookers own hand as approving it What would you have more 5. I again tell you I can bring you proof of a Concordant Copy the Scribes Errates excepted 6. Mr. Walton could not deny it 7. Dr. Bernard cited by you confirmeth it For to say that a Sentence or two were left doth intimate that the Book was his and leaving out is not putting in And I cited nothing that was left out nor any thing in it that is maimed for want of
I am sure to play with Oaths is a mark of the contrary God will not hold him guiltless that taketh his Name in vain All things by temptation may go for lawful to him to whom Perjury deliberate studied Perjury seems lawful yea and a duty And avoiding the name is no avoiding of the thing He that will commit Murder Adultery Theft c. and then prove it to be no Murder c. doth not thereby escape the guilt And he that is not willing to know Sin to be sin that he may leave it is wilful and wicked as well as he that will not leave it when he knoweth it We do search the Scripture to know what is Perjury as well as we can And we are the less likely to be partial when our judgment loseth us the favour of so many and our Maintenance and Liberty and in Prisons hazardeth our Lives besides our Ministry the most of all Few men will take this way for the flesh yet this is no proof that our Cause is good But let the Evidence shew whether in fearing Perjury we fear a Serpent under every Leaf or a Gorgons head in every Bush and bring this Woe upon our selves or not If we do it is not for worldy ends nor is it by a superstitious fear of things indifferent If so many in Queen Maries days were burnt for denying the Real Presence c. Shall I not fear Perjury § 44. Next p. 20. you come to the Liturgies Confession that our Discipline is imperfect and think that should satisfie me Ans So it doth satisfie me not to assent and consent to all things contained in and prescribed by the Book of Ordination and the Liturgie and not to forswear all lawful endeavours of a Reformation it seeming unmeet for me whatever others do to give so plenary assent and consent thus to swear to that which in the same Book is confest imperfect I can live in Communion with a Church that hath imperfections and keep its peace but not assent consent or swear to its Imperfections 2. An you give me no reason yet why a Confession the imperfection of Discipline should satisfie uâ— that all things in the Church Government or all Church-Government is both lawful and necessary and unalterable For if it be alterable by King and Parliament I wil â—â—â—â— swear never to endeavour an alteration though they command me Nor will I believe you if you say that this Case of their command is excepted while the terms are universal without exception Remembring that the long Parliament long before the Wars when the Lord Falkland Lord Digby and the rest joyned with them did exagitate the Et caetera Oath for the word Not consent as establishing Prelacy as an unalterable thing whereas they knew not but the King and Parliament might be brought to see cause for some alteration And this Parliament hath not restored that Oath and Canons Ib. § 44. My Consutation of your horned Reasoning and of the common peralium I perceive offendeth you as triumphant It is natural for men that see plain truth to be guilty of calling it truth In this if we cannot be pardoned we must be patient Truth it self is our reward and satisfaction The force of my Reply you indeed leave intire and untoucht For when you say that you break my Chain at the first Link you do but repeat what I replyed to and put me but to say over again what I said You say that Lay-Chancellors excommunicate neither as Lay-men or as Clergy-men formally or by any proper Causality but from the Surrogates Answ And were you willing here to be understood Either they do Excommunicate by proper Causality without causality no Act is done or they do not If you mean that indeed they do not why would you not say so and deal plainly If you mean they Excommunicate but â—â—â—â— by Causality why would you not say so which â—â—most absurd If they do it they do it formally as some persons and in some capacity and by some power or right whatever it is That they do Excommunicate and Absolve decretively as the stated publick Judges is notorious to the Land That the Person in which they do it is formally Lay or Clergy I thought had been past doubt and the enumeration had been sufficient But you do dare tertium find out a third Mumber He is formally neither Lay nor Clergy but doth it from the Surrogates See you not how you change the Question In what person he doth it into from whom he doth it or make that from to signifie a third Species which you could not or would not name And when I say that if he do it from the Surrogate yet he doth it either as a Lay-man or a Clergy-man you answer me as neither but from the Surrogate You might have said as well As neither but from the King But who ever it is from tell us of what Species that man is in acting who is neither formally a Lay-man nor a Clergy-man whereas in our present sence as a Clergy-man signifieth One in the Priesthood or Deaconship dedicated to the Sacred Church-Offices I easily prove that in the World there is no third sort because the terms signifie Opposita contradicentia contradictio est omnium oppositionum maxima prima reliquarum mensura For to be a Lay-man is to be one that is not devoted and separated as aforesaid And Devotus non devotus separatus ad sacra non separatus vel persona sacrata non sacrata are contradicentia And if you allow me not to swear or conform till you prove that some men are neither Lay nor Clergy you will be no succesful Pithanalogist with me But I desired to know who this Surrogate is that you mean and you will not tell me If you mean any one that is absent and no Member of the Court. 1. The Chancellor hath his power from no such man as is notorious 2. You might better say that he had it from the Bishop But still I should ask in what person he acted and whether as a Lay or a Clergy-man But if you mean the Priest present who pronounceth the sentence I never heard that he was called the Surrogate till now But call him how you will 1. It is notorious that he giveth not the Chancellor his power at all 2. And as notorious that he hath not nor exerciseth the power himself But to judge any man to Excommunication or Absolution is the Chancellors part and the present Priest is but like the Parish Priest who readeth or speaketh as a Cryer what the Chancellor judgeth and ordereth And whether such Priest be any Member of the Court or constantly used I leave to your Enquiry but certainly he is no Judge at all nor doth any thing but pronounce as he is bid And still my Arguing is unanswered For had this Presbyter the power it would be either as a Presbyter or as a Bishop Not as a Presbyter
the King hath not the said Power of the Spiritual Keys and Sacraments 5. And specially the most learned and zealous Defenders of Monarchy and Prelacy Bilson of Chest Obed. and Perp. Gov. and Andrews in Tortura Torti have most plainly and vehemently renounced it and shewed their malice or ignorance that impute such an Arrogation to our Kings So also Carlton of Jurisdic Jewel Whitaker and who not 6. What a King may do virtually by another I think unless Inconveniencies hinder the exercise he hath power to do himself But I think the King may not Administer Sacraments or Spiritual Discipline himself Which of our Kings did it Or who since Uzziah offered Sacrifice among the Jews 7. Our Kings never yet pretended so much as to Ordain that is to Invest another in that Power Ministerially in the Name of Christ But as to the Supremacy it 's true that the King is the Supream over Physicians Philosophers c. but not the Supream Physician or Philosopher He exerciseth Coercive Government by the Sword over Bishops who use Spiritual Government by the Keys and Word but hath not Authority to use this same sort of oversight himself unless a Clergy-man were King as some are Magistrates As to the Proxies of the Lords Spiritual in Parliament when you have as well proved that Christ hath allowed them to Preach Administer Sacraments and exercise the Keys by Proxies I will yield all that Cause But they will be loath to go to Heaven by Proxy Page 21. As to Jebosaphats Mission and his Nobles Teaching I answer 1. Teaching is not so proper to a Pastor or Clergy-man as the Keys and Sacraments Parents have their Office or Power of teaching and School-masters and Lay Catechists have theirs and Magistrates have theirs Judges on the Bench do usually teach the People even religious Duties so did Constantine and so may any King But there is a different teaching whith is proper to the Clergy which is by teaching to gather Churches and guide them and edifie them as Pastors devoted or separated to this as their proper Office As there is a difference between the Office of a Physician and a Womans healing a cut finger or giving a Cordial to one that fainteth But this proper Teaching which God did not leave in common to others no Prince can use no Bishop can do by Proxy Nor can he delegate to a Lay-man the power of the Keys and Sacraments 2. And the King may no doubt command Pastors to do their Duty as well as Physicians to do theirs I take none of this to be quarrelling but plain truth Your telling us that Chancellors may direct and advise the Surrogates may signifie something in another Land but not with us If we had never seen their Courts nor read Travers Of the difference between Christs Discipline and theirs yet Cousin's Tables are in our Libraries You add We are all but the Bishops Curates in the exercise of it Answ 1. I ventured to deny that to Bag shaw who made it the Reason of Separation And I will yet deny it of some others though not of you If we are all but the Bishops Curates the Italian Bishops of Trent were not so absurd as they were made in making the Bishops the Popes Curates How easie should I be were I a Curate could I believe that I have no more to answer for than the Bishop imposed on me and that he must answer for all the rest I suppose that the Office of the Presbyters or Ministers of Christ is immediately Instituted and described in the Scriptures and that the Bishop doth but Invest them in it and that their work is their own as properly as the Bishop's is his own and that his Precminence maketh not him the Communicator of the Power to them as from himself nor them to be his Curates 2. And while I think that I can prove this very easily censure us not too deeply for not swearing to the Bishops if the sence of it be to make us his Curates Not that I think my self too good to be a Servant to the Bishop's Coach man but that I dare not subvert Christ's established Church Orders As for your Engine and Wonders and Babel and Lucifer and trembling I have not learning enough to answer them As to your talk of Absolute Autocratical c. they are but Oratorical Flowers that speak against none of our particular Doctrines but are the rant of your Magisterial style And your talk of Excommunicating Kings may pass as part of your equal ways to one that hath written so oft against Excommunicating Kings when yet Bishop Andrews and other Prelates maintain the Refusing them the Communion and you know in what Case Chrysostom rather offered to lose Hand and Life even then to give the Sacrament to the Greatest that was unworthy Prove that ever any of the present Non-conformists who were called to present the judgment or desires of the rest did ever say more than Andrews and Bilson or so much But the Lord Digby is your Author Answ 1. Were we and our present Controversie for the most of us in being and at age when the Lord Digby spake that Is not Conformity now another thing Do all or half the Non-conformists profess themselves Presbyterians Are Presbyterians all for Excommunicating Kings And do not some that are for it confine it only to such Pastors as Kings themselves shall commit their Souls to and give leave to exercise that Power Are we I say we now living and silenced answerable for all that any Presbyterian holdeth any more than you are for what Hooker holdeth Some Scots-men refuse the Oath of Supremacy Are we guilty of that Mistake who Take it and Write for it Or did we spring out of their Loins and must be silenced for such Original sin derived from them that were no kin to us 2. But where did the Lord Digby say it You cite no Book or Speech of his but cite Rushworth p. 218. Where is no syllable of any such matter nor any where else that I can yet find 3. Suppose he had Did he not say in his Letter to Sir Ken. Digby Printed That the Primitive Church Government will be found pecking towards Presbytery He was then Episcopal he is now a Papist Is not his Authority then ad hominem while he was one of your own more valued against you than against them that were not of his Party or way and is this good arguing Whatever the Lord Digby Bancroft Heylin and if you will Bellarmine charge the Presbyterians with 1640 or I know not when or where all that are the Non-conformists Episcopal Presbyterians Independents and Catholick Moderators are guilty of in 1671. But the Lord Digby sometimes said that the Presbyterians would Excommunicate Kings Ergo the present Nonconformists even Episcopal and all are guilty of that Opinion even they that write against it But all your ways are just and equal But I pray you why was no Article about
poor Bishop that renounced all their Communions for it is Canonized a Saint while Hooker himself justly reproacheth Ignatius And it made me marvail to read in Bellarmine de Scriptor Ecles pag. 100. this great Lie that Ithacius whom he falsly makes the same with Idacius who was one of the same Synod and Author of the Chron. in Jos Scaliger de emend temp In eo reprehensus punitus ab Episcopis fuit quod Priscillianum apud seculares judices accusaverit occidi cur averit Whenas 1. The Bishops never punished him for it 2. The Synod of Bishops joyned with him 3. Martin was despised as an unlearned Hypocrite and Favourer of the Hereticks that did renounce their way and Communion 4. Ithacius and Idacius because of the common Odium would have pretended that they put not on the Magistrate hereunto And that Bellarmine one of the Tribe that is for burning Hereticks should yet leave this blot on Idacius and seek by untruths to excuse the rest of the Bishops of it whence is it but that the Memory of the just shall be blessed and the Name of the wicked the cruel especially shall rot I digress only to tell you that the honour of violence will end in shame and he be odious to Posterity who may be set up as high as Gardiner or Bonner to serve the turn in some present Execution And I had rather be luke-warm than have a destroying or slandering heat To what you say of Beza and Selden I answer 1. Did I or the present Nonconformists ever subscribe to Beza or Geneva 2. Is it not palpably against your self that cry down Lay Elders though many with Ministers have power but in one Presbytery or Synod when our Lay Chancellor hath the power over hundreds of Ministers and Churches You that cry up or keep up Lay-mens Church Discipline may worse speak against Lay-mens Church Discipline than we that are against it in all whomsoever 3. But Beza and Geneva do not take them for Lay Elders nor the Scots neither but for Church Elders and part of the Clergy of Divine Institution none of which is pretended for Lay Chancellors And is that no difference For Selden as I know what he saith against the Diocesan Church Bishops in Eutychius Alexandr So I know what he saith against all of us for Erastianism de Synedriis better than by any Citations out of Heylin And I know he was one of the Long Parliament that raised the War whom even now you had possessed with the Spirit of Presbytery And you may judge of many of the rest by Selden And must you or I be Erastians because Selden and other Lawyers in the Parliament were so § 46. The Quibble in this Section is Content without an Answer § 47. I judged but of your Words and judge you of my Motives for refusing a Bishoprick no worse than I give you cause I answer you it intimated no Ingratitude to His Majesty nor did I ever repent And that I did it not to keep up a Party or Interest in them the Lord Chancellor had Evidence and my voluntary endeavours against all Faction and casting away my Reputation with all such declareth when I could as easily have kept it as you with yours and had no outward interest to move me to renounce it I say this because you seem suspectingly to talk of my Motives § 48. Our Question is Whether a Church of One Altar as they spake of old Associated for personal Communion and a Church of never so many Altars or Congregations Associated for other ends and not for personal Communion be ejusdem speciei And so whether the word Church here signifies but one Species You hold the Affirmative of both and I the Negative My reason is 1. Because it being a Relative which is in question The ends of the Society specifically differing make the Societies specifically to differ the Terminus being essential to the Relation But here are different sorts of ends Ergo here are different sorts of Relations I use the word ends to signifie the nearest end which specifieth and not the remote And to avoid the ambiguity of the word Terminus which as Finis cujus finis cui are distinguished so they use variously sometimes for the Correlate and sometimes for the nearest end and so I now use it As a Master to teach a Grammar-school and a Master to rule a Family or to guide a Ship are Relations specifically distinct à fine And so is a Magistrate and a Pastor and a Physician c. This is clear And for the Minor That these Churches in question have different nearest ends is evident For the end of a particular Church is personal â—ummunion in God's publick Worship and holy living to their mutual assistance But the ends of Churches that never know each other but live an 100 or 1000 Miles asunder They say some of our Islands and Plantations are parts of some English Diocesan Church can be no such thing but only a distant communion in the same Faith Love and Obedience The end of a single Church is the personal Communion of Christians in that one Society The end of an Association of many Churches is the Communion of those many Churches in distant mental Concord or by Delegates or Synods sometimes in â—ase of need And who ever thought that a particular Church a Patriarchal Church and a Pabal or the Universal Church were ejusdem speâ—iâ—i when they agree only in remote ends and differ in the Terminus vel finis proximus As a Kingdom and a Corporation differ Ex differentia â—inium because though both are Societies for Ciâ—il Communion and Government and so agree â—n genere yet the end of one is Kingdom government and Communion and the end of the other is â—ut Corporation-government and Communion 2. Where there are different sorts of Relates corâ—elates there are different sorts of Relations But â—â— a particular Church and a Patriarchal Dioceâ—n or other Combination of many Churches â—here are different sorts of Relates correlates Ergo there are different sorts of Relations The â—hing supposed in the major is undeniable that â—â—e Relate correlate enter the definition â—â—erefore the major is undeniable The minorâ—pposeth â—pposeth a Church to be Constituted of the â—ars dirigens vel regens and the pars subdita as relate correlate which is undeniable And â—en it is proved per partes 1. The Pastor of a â—â—gle Church and a Patriarch Pope or Dioceâ—n of a multitude of combined Churches are not the same Relate for they have not the same Relation I suppose the Relation of a Church to be thus Constitute of the two Complicate Relations as well the Church subjectively of the two Relates For 1. The different Work 2. And the different Correlate prove these Pastors to be two sorts of Relation however agreeing inâ—genere 1. It is not the same sort of Works personally to guide a present people in Doctrine Worship and Discipline
a Church and I take not Heathens for the Church XIII I believe that in this Universal Church are thousands of particular Churches and this by Christs Institution XIV I believe that there is no particular Church or Christian on earth who is not respectively as Visible or Mystical a part of the Universal Church XV. As every worshipping Assembly is a Church in a larger sense so a Church in a political sense is essentially constituted of the Pastor and People or the Sacerdotal guiding and the guided parts and of such a Church it is that I am speaking XVI As such meeting in transitu are an Extemporate transient Church so fixed Cohabitants ought to be a Church accordingly fixed related to each others as such for longer than the present meeting XVII Every such Political fixed Church should consist of a Pastor at least accordingly fixed to a cohabiting people and as their Pastor more specially related by obligation and authority to them than to strangers or neighbour Churches He is not bound to do that for all as he is for them nor may go into other Pastors Churches with equal power nor officiate where he please XVIII If there be no Church but the Universal than there is neither Parochial Diocesan or National nor are Assemblies Churches Nor is our King the Royal Governour of any Church for of the Universal he is not XIX Christian Princes must do their best to settle faithful Pastors in all Churches that is according to the Laws of Christ but not against them But as they must do their best that all their Subjects may have good Phycisians Schoolmasters Wives or Husbands Servants Dyet Cloathing c. but yet are not trusted by office to choose all these for every one and impose them on Dissenters because the same God that made Kingly power did first make personal and paternal power which Kings cannot dissolve so every man is so nearly concerned for his own Salvation more than for Wife Servant Dyet Phycisian c. that though he must thankfully accept of all the Rulers lawful help he is still the most obliged chooser Nor is it any part of the office of a King to choose and impose on every Subject a Guide or Pastor to whom only he shall trust the Pastoral conduct of his Soul any more than a Physician or a Tutor for him XX. Parish-bounds are not of Primitive or Divine Institution but cohabitation or propinquity is a needful qualification of setled Members gratia finis And Parish-bounds are a useful humane determination according to the general Rules Do all to edification and in order XXI No one is a Church-member merely because he dwelleth in the Parish for unbaptized Infidels Heathens Atheists may dwell there XXII Nor is a stranger a Church-member for coming into the Assembly for such as aforesaid or Jews Mahometans may come in XXIII A Pastor oweth more care and duty to his flock than to the rest of the world as a Physician to his Hospital Therefore he must know who they are better than by knowing that they dwell in the Parish nor may he Baptize them or give them the Lords Supper only because he seeth them in the Assembly or in the Parish else Jews and Heathens must have it XXIV Nor is he to give it to every one that demandeth it for so may Jews and Heathens that take it in scorn or for by-ends XXV Yet a Christian having a valid Certificate that he is such hath right to transient Communion with any Church of Christ where he cometh but for order the antient Churches used not to receive them without some Certificates from the Churches that they came from lest Hereticks and Excommunicates unknown persons should be every where received XXVI No man can be an adult Christian without signified consent nor a stated member of any particular Church without such consent no nor a lawful transient Communicant without consent For so great benefits none but consenters have right to nor can such relations be otherwise contracted XXVII Consent not signified nor known is none to the Church XXVIII A man may be obliged to consent that doth not but that makes no man a Christian or member of the Universal Church else Millions of Infidels and Heathens are Christians And so it maketh no one a member of a particular Church that he is obliged to be one nor am I a Pastor over any men as a Church because they are obliged to take me for their Pastor no more than that is a Husband Wife Servant who is obliged to be so and will not To say that I am a Pastor to Heathens as a Church is a contradiction or that I am their Pastor as my special Christian flock and particular Church-members that consent not XXIX But the same man that liveth among such may be to consenting Christians a Pastor and to Refusers Infidels or Heathens a Teacher The Church ever distinguished the Audientes and Catechumene Candidates from the Fideles who were the Members of the Church XXX No Pastor or people should impose any Covenant on any adult to be Christened but consent to be Christians signified by Baptism nor on any in order to transient Communion among strangers but just notice of their Christianity and understanding consent to that Communion nor on any in order to their being the stated Members of this or that flock and particular Church but due notice of their Christianity and of their understanding consent to what is essential to such members that is to the relation as essentiated by the correlate and ends XXXI No one should be obliged by covenant to continue one year or Month in the station of that particular relation because they know not when Gods providence may oblige them to remove or change it XXXII Though the Peoples consent be necessary to their relation their Election of the Pastor which signifieth the first determination who shall be the man is not absolutely necessary though of old so thought An after-Consent may serve ad esse relationis XXXIII Much less is it necessary that the people choose who shall be ordained a Minister unfixed and only of the Universal Church XXXIV 1. Mutual consent of the duely qualified Ordained and Ordainer determineth who shall be a Minister in the Church Universal as consent of the Colledge and the Candidate do who shall be the Licensed Physician 2. The Peoples consent and the Ministers instituted determine who shall be the Pastor of this particular Flock or Church 3. The King determineth whom he will tolerate countenance and maintain XXXV Though a man may be Ordained but once to the Ministry unfixed in the Universal Church to which I said the Peoples consent is not necessary yet may he be oft removed from one particular Church to another on just cause to which the peoples consent if not Election is still necessary Though to avoid Ambition the old Canons forbad Bishops to remove XXXVI It 's lawful to be ordained sine titulo