Church Catholick Visible Do we break Charity with our Brethren do we Revile them or Reproach their Persons or Societies Let them bear the blame who do it we plead not for them in the mean time let not all other Non-Con be called Schismaticks for their sake We know very many of the Non Con. have been uncharitably enough dealt with by those three famous Authors of the Friendly debate Ecclesiastical Polity and of Knowledge of Communion with Christ have they rendred reviling for reviling though the Masters of Morality have so treated their Brethren as if Veracity Comity and Urbanity were not in the Catalogue of their Moral Virtues When the Author opens himself a little plainer and tells us what he meaneth by a Schisme in the Church of England considered as a part of the Church Catholick Visible we shall better understand him § 23. But he saith we sinfully separate from the Organical National Church of England and indeed this he must mean or nothing by what he said before for it is not possible to separate sinfully from a National Church considered only as a large part of the Church-Catholick Visibles while they keep in the profession of Christ and his Gospel and in the practice of the same Acts of worship with them and in the same Doctrines of Faith unless they fail in love refusing all kind of occasional Communion with their Brethren condemning them as no parts of the Church of Christ The worshipping of God by different phrases and forms of Prayers in different habits of Vestment by different rites and ceremonies c. will not do it for these are things which belong not to any National Church as a part of the Church Catholick Visible Christ left no Liturgy to his Catholick Church nor any such rites and ceremonies and habits nor was ever the Catholick Visible Church uniform in them our Brethren themselves confess these mutable things wherein several parts of the Catholick Church differ each from other These things proceed from the Church considered as Organical not as a part of the Catholick Visible Church for then the major part of all particular Christians must consent to the imposition of them § 24. Now truly for this Particular Organical National Church it is possible we may have separated from it for we never knew there was any such Creature and at last our Author doth confess that Mr. Caudry hath told him that the Presbyterians do generally agree That the Disciplinary part or form of Government is not essential to a National Church he should therefore first have proved that there is such a thing under the Gospel as A Stated National Organical Church and we should then have tried whether the same Arguments would not have served the Papists to have proved a Catholick organical Church and that something better than they serve our Author because they have found out a single head for it which we find our Author p. 43. at great loss to find for his particular National Organical Church § 95. He knows not whether he should fix it upon the King for he is to be considered as a mixed person Or The Arch-Bishop of Canterbury because he is Primate of all England or all the Bishops and Pastors That the King is the Supreme Political Head and Governour of the National Church of England is our of doubt to all Protestants but such a one as will not claim Authority to any one strictly called Ecclesiastical act neither to Preach nor administer a Sacrament nor Ordain Ministers Are we discoursing of such a head think we The Arch-Bishop of Canterbury indeed may do all these but may he execute any acts of Discipline in the Province of York must the Arch-Bishop of York be taken in Then we have one National Church Organical with two heads yet that is better than 26. for so many must be if all the Bishops make the head and that yet is better than 9000 heads as must be if the Pastors of all Parishes be the Head In short none of these can by an act of Ecclesiastical jurisdiction influence the whole body and what kind of head is that The King indeed as Political Head of the Church may influence the whole with his commands relating to Ecclesiastical affairs but surely we have no Arçh-Bishop Bishop or Pastor can Excommunicate from Dan to Beershaba Our Author not being able to fix his thoughts in this point at last tells us It is not material for it is a certain Vanity to say 43. Because I cannot find the the Head I will deny the Body Is it so can there then be a living Organical Body without an Head It is not the body we are discoursing of but an Organical Body We may know our Mother as our Author saith though we do not know our Father but we must know we had a Father and that Father is or was a visible Creature or else he could not be known § 26. Well but what is this same National Organical Church of England He p. 42. gives us this Description of it It is a community consisting of professed Christians united in the same Doctrine Government and Worship according to the 39. Articles and Homilies her Liturgy and Canons and Laws and divided into Parochial Assemblies for the more convenient Worship of God And p. 45 Schisme from the Church of England is a sinful dividing from or dissolving our Union or Communion with her in her Governours Worship Members or Assemblies We can neither allow his descriptis on of the National Church of England nor yet of his description of Schisme or sinful separation from it and we would gladly hear by what Scripture or reason either of them can be made good § 27. It will be no wonder if denying the thing of a National Governing Church we deny the description of it for Non eus non potest definiri Now we do believe that under the Gospel there never was nor can be a stated National governing Church unless what is indeed somtimes though far from the sense we are now speaking to and perhaps not so properly called a Church according to the dialect of Scripture made up of all the Messengers of all the particular Churches in a Nation in an Assembly for deliberations advice and determinations in some weighty emergent cases to obviate which we put in the term stated for this is only an Occasional National Church or Synod which hath but a temporary being pro renatâ and meets and acts at the pleasure of the Prince the Supreme Political Head § 28. When we speak of a Church we understand Church as a Scriptural term in the Religious usage of it applicable to no body of people but such a one as the Scripture calleth so So that if there be any such body as may be called a National Governing Organical Church we must either find it in the New Testament or at least find some directions there for the constitution ordering of it some
endeavouring to oblige me to none but himself I fear always they have no good meaning toward me and I should fear my self that I meant not to deal well with Souls if I went about to stake them to my Ministry I should suspect my self of Pride or Self-interest or some other scurvy Lust or Passion If I think none so able as my self 't is Pride if I would have them to fill my Congregation it is Self-interest If I would save their Souls so may another and possibly be a better instrument for it at least he is more likely if sound in the Faith able and painful because they have a more fancy to him In short I have for some good time been an unworthy Minister of the Gosel I thank God I can say that as I never denyed any Christian desirous to leave me my License to do it so I never had an ill thought of any that did it but said with my self The fewer Souls I have will be under my charge the lesser my account will be And that which much confirm'd me in this was my reading Chrysostom's expressing a fear that but a few Ministers would be saved because their work and charge was so great which if well considered would abate our trouble for the diminution of our Auditory and rather make us rejoyce I have a number not inconsiderable under my charge now and I can say I dearly love them and should think I did not if I should not declare my free leave for them to leave my Ministry and joyn with any other of sound faith and holy life under whom they should think they could profit more than by me and I do think this the duty of every Minister I do not think this is any sinful separation which Schisme doth import § 59. But lastly Supposing such a departing from a Church to which we are united be to be called Separation yet it is not sinful in the judgment of all Divines if it be necessary or if it be not causeless now possibly this may be the case of many I remember in the case of Marriage Divines distinguish between Repudiation and Divorce Divorce they say can only be for Adultery but Repudiation may be lawful and necessary in several other cases in short in all cases where it appears there ought to have been no Union had it been known as suppose 1. One had Married another through deceit of his or her own Sex 2. His very near Relation as Mother Sister c. 3. or 3dly One appearing evidently unfit for the chief ends of Marriage c. I think the same is to be said in this case Let us try a little Suppose Christians by an error had chosen a man to be their Pastor and ordinarily heard him and communicated in the Lords Supper with him whom at last they found to be no Minister And when they discover it should leave him This I hope were no sinful separation If any shall say it is he should complain and have him orderly removed We will suppose the case so that it could not be obtained Of this the late times gave us some instances 2. Secondly Suppose Christians by an errour and through ignorance had done the like to one whom after they discover to be corrupt in matter of Doctrine suppose some points of Popery Arminianisme Socinianisme which they in their Consciences judge false and makes a trade of this Is it a sin for them to go to another Minister not being able to get this removed 'T is plain they ought not to have chosen him as their Pastor 3. Suppose Christians by an error have so chosen and joyned with one whom they then judged of a very sober life but they find him a notorious Drunkard Swearer c. Such a one ought not to have been chosen but doth factum valet here must they not leave him If any say they may have him removed I desire to know by what Law of England if he be neither Jew nor Schismatick I am mistaken if I have not read or heard the Law allows no other cases or very few of Deprivation 4. Suppose Christians by the like Errour to have chosen one who they thought would have been faithful watching his Flock and to that end cohabiting with them the thing of the Law of Nature saith our Author and that is Divine for Members of the same Church but they find he rarely comes near them or rarely Preacheth to them if amongst them possibly once a moneth hardly more seldom or never administring other Ordinances In this case may Christians depart to another yea or no will any say No still then he is bound to live without God's Ordinances all his life time for ought I know § 60. But lastly Must it appear demonstratively or is it enough for it to appear to the Christian probably that is so far as his Conscience can discern or judge sinful to Communicate with a Church before he separates from it If any say Demonstratively let him prove it will any say it is enough as to his practice if it propably appears so then why are we so boldly called Schismaticks before our probable Arguments be made appear to us to have no probability to But They are the people and have said Wisdom shall dye with them We must be Schismaticks and sinful Separatists and for no other reason but because they say so § 61. Once more If it be Schismatical for the Members of a Chuch to separate from the Minister and Congregation to which they are united Then it is Schismatical for Ministers also to separate from the Congregations to which they were once so united unless at least commanded by the Governours of the Church for the publick good If any say No he will I hope give us a Reason is not the Minister United Doth not he break the Union yea destroy the Organical Church by removing which private Christians do not I am afraid the Author will rather quit us from Schisme from Parochial Societies than grant us the consequence to the prejudice of if not himself yet of so many of his Friends One of them he must do if I understand sense Will our Author think to excuse this by saying It is no Schisme in them because they but remove to Churches of the same Communion which he said before for peoples removing from one Parish to another It lyes upon him to prove that persons agreeing in the same Doctrine and in the same acts of Worship though they differ in the words and syllables and forms of mere humane constitution be of a different communion from their Brethren otherwise the Presbyterians do not separate and are but Sister-Churches of the same Communion with their Brethren not separated from them § 62. The Author of the Reflections had told the Author That themselves with us had separated from Rome which yet they or some of them acknowledg a True Church Therefore we might separate from a True Church The sum of
of their mind and leaving terms of reviling to the Women at Billings-gate we will fairly state the Case and argue it as coolely § 17. The Question is this Whether the Non-conforming Ministers and people meeting ordinarily together for the Worship of God in Assemblies and places locally distinct and separate from the meetings of the Parochial Congregations because the said Ministers may not Preach there nor the said people enjoy there all the Ordinances of God without the doing of some things which their Consciences upon Arguments which they judge highly probable do judge sinful be what the Scripture calleth Schisme or be in any right Reason A sinful Separation these persons in the mean time not condemning all Parochial Societies as no true Churches nor in other things behaving themselves uncharitably towards them We must profess our selves to believe the Negative of this Question in which are two folded together We affirm then 1. This practice is not what The Scripture calls Schisme 2. Nor what right Reason concluding from any Scriptural principles can call A sinful Separation We do grant there may be a sinful Separation of Christians from a Church which the Scripture doth not call Schisme that maketh us distinguish these two things nor shall we discourse the former 1. Because it is a plain Dispute about a Term. 2. Because the eminently Learned Dr. Owen hath made it good that a Separation from a Church though it may be sinful yet is not that which the Scripture calls Schisme and we observe that his very Learned Adversary upon the point grants him this and pleadeth for no more than an Analogical application of the term Schisme to express the sin of unnecessary separation from a Church which we will not contend about § 18. We say therefore let it be so or so it is of no great consequence all grant there may be a sinful separation from a Church and if the separation be not sinful we are sure they Nick-name it that call it Schisme If it be sinful whether it should be called Schisme or by some other name we think signifieth very little to the Consciences of any intelligent Christians § 19. Mr. Hales still keeping the dialect of the Schools calls this sinful separation Schisme and gives us this description of it Schisme is an unnecessary separation from that part of the Visible Church of which we once were Members Like a wise man he speaks Multa paucis remembring the Canon about Definitions So then according to him to make a Schisme 1. There must be a separation and that not from the whole Visible Church that is Heresy or Apostacy but from some part of it of which we were once Members 2. Secondly It must be an Unnecessary separation that is where the Union might have been kept without sinning against God we desire no further advantage than this Description will give us let our case stand or fall as it will abide or not abide this test § 20. Hence we argue Where there never was an Union or there is no separation or if there be a separation it is necessary because the Union could not be kept without sin There is no Schisme but in the cases of the Ministers and People Either there is no separation or there was no Union which indeed supposed there could be no separation or no more than a necessary separation Ergo No Schisme no sinful separation § 21. To make good which Separation being a term of motion before we can strictly speak to the parts of the Argument we must enquire for the Term from which this Motion or Separation is pretended to be The Author of The Doctrine of Schisme p. 40. tells us this roundly 'T is a great and dangerous Schisme both against the Church of England and particular Churches We will not quarrel with the Zealous Author for the propriety of that English a Schisme against the Church because in the close of the same page though he doth not at all mend the matter as to the poor Non-conformist whom he was wont to own as Brethren yet he amendeth his English telling us If you consider the Church of England as a particular Organized Church 't is a Schism from but as part of the Universal Visible Church only as the N. Con. use to term it is a Schisme in it and not only so but p. 57. It is a Schisme from particular Parochial Congregations For Mr. Candry he saith hath observed There was and is another Church-state in our particular Congregations § 22. Here now is a double term from which this motion is pretended to be 1. The Church of England 2. The Parochial Churches in England To let our Author know what we hold we do believe a Catholick Visible Church which we take to be well described in the 19th of the 39 Articles of our Church The Congregation or whole Body of faithful men in the which the pure Word of God is Preached and the Sacraments are duly administred according to Christs Ordinance in all those things that are of necessity requisite to the same Of this the Church of England is a part doubtless and from the Church of England in this sense we do not know that any have separated but such as have renounced Christ and the Gospel or the Word and Ordinances necessary to Salvation which would be plain and desperate Apostacy with which we hope our Brethren will be more modest than to charge us From this our Plea is we make no Separation and therefore cannot be charged with a sinful Separation But saith our Author You make a sinful separation in it We are not troubled at words that signifie nothing what is the meaning of this Do we not Own Christ his Gospel the same points of Faith the same acts of Worship where is the Separation then Can all meet in the same place It may be we do not pray by the same forms nor ware the same habits nor use some of those rites some others of our Brethren use Do our Brethren then always when they pray use the same forms of words Do not they take a liberty in the Pulpit why may not we Do other parts of the Catholick Church use the same forms why else are not they Schismaticks for as yet we are only considering the National Church of England as a part of the Church Catholick Visible Is there any form any habit any rite or ceremony commanded by Christ and omitted by us if there be not where is the Schisme It seems the term Schismatick is their priviledge to use that can first get it out of their mouths if we divide in no command of Christ why may not the Non-Con call their Brethren Schismaticks as well as they call their Brethren Doth an humane Law create a difference Let it be queried whether that can give a rule to Schisme or no. What is the business then how do we then make a Schisme in the Church of England considered as a part of the
to worship God at Westminster in the same acts of worship is a Schisme from that part of this Church which meet for that end in London § 42. Nor is he helped at all by saying Our Churches are not of the same constitution Doctrine of Schisme 55. which he says was Mr. Cawdrys answer to Dr. Owen let Mr. Cawdry or who will say so Dolus versatur in Generatibus What is the difference did Christ constitute theirs We trust he hath constituted ours that is by the Rules given in his Word Were theirs constituted by Parliament that will be hard to prove as to the first constitution Parishes in England were first made by a Popish Arch-Bishop the Parliament afterwards or Custom rather might confirm them Doth it then make a Schismatick to depart to a Church not established by humane Law or Custom How else are we of another constitution Is not the same Doctrine Preached the same Sacraments administred the same acts of Worship performed Where 's the difference In the Modes Rites and Ceremonies only And these all of humane institution This is that which the Church of God never before called Schisme which the Apostles never thought of Do not we agree in the same Government That concerns us not yet while we are clearing our selves only from a Church which the Author must shew us capable of any such Government as Christ hath appointed intrinsecal to his Church In the mean time as to the National Church of England we deny that we are guilty of any Schisme either in it or from it so that the whole charge must rest upon particular Churches and our pretended separation from them § 43. This is that other Church-state mentioned by Mr. Caudry and quoted by our Author ch 9. p. 57. these he calls Parochial Congregations We are he saith guilty of Schisme from them we all agree that these are capable of the name of Churches 1. As they are lesser parts of the Catholick Church and so capable of the name of the whole thus we were indeed united to them as we were united to the Catholick Church and united still to them as unto that owning the Lord Jesus Christ his Word and Ordinances and professing a subjection to them But this is not the other state he speaks of by which he can mean nothing but a governing state 2. Secondly therefore These Parochial Societies may be considered as perfectly or more imperfectly Organized furnished with all Church-Officers requisite and walking in Gospel order or not so furnished or so walking The Author tells his Reader in a latter Book called Advice to the Conformists and Nonconformists That the sum of what the Author of the short Reflections offered lay in two things the latter of which he delivered thus Our Parochial Churches are no true Churches Advice to Conformists c. p. 72. or at lest they are so faulty as they may be lawfully separated from We have read over the Book and good Reader at thy leisure do but read over that Pamplet the second chapt particularly the 13 14 15. pages and see whether this Author hath or no dealt ingeniously with him p. 14. He speaks of these Societies as parts of the Catholick Churches and saith Short Reflections p. 14. In this Notion we cannot deny that every Parish yea Family of Christians is a true Church But he indeed concludes that out of such particular Churches it must be lawful to gather a Church for all particular Churches in the world are gathered out of the Catholick Visible Church even Heathens when converted must be of the Catholick Visible Church before they can form a particular Church In this state and no other must all Parochial Societies be that have no Minister unless we will have Organical Governing Churches without any Governours which we think is a contradiction P. 15. He takes notice of another Notion of them as Ministerial by which he saith he underst ands a competent number of Christians who have either first chosen or after submitted to A. B. as their Pastor he might indeed have spared this Notion I do not remember I have met with it in any Author but Mr. Rutherford and the truth is if it be a single Minister I do not understand how he Preacheth otherwise to them than as he is so far an Officer of the Catholick Church and they a part of that vast body He considers these people Either as living in the use of all Gospel-Ordinances or as at present living without some Ordinances or having them so unduly administred as may offer just cause of doubt to some Christians whether they may lawfully communicate with them or no He adds we do believe that from such a Church as is furnished with a duely sent able painful Minister regularly administring the Ordinances of Christ so as people may communicate with them without sin and pressing forward to that perfection in order which in all things they have not attained Christians as before united to them may not separate without sin He did not indeed say but I dare say for him he believed there were many such Parochial Societies in England and he hints it when he saith This was that indeed which some Presbyterians reflected upon our Brethren of the Congregational persuasion and these were those Parochial Churches which they contended for as true Churches Was this to say Parochial Societies were no true Churches Reader judge in his 15. page He tells us There is yet a more perfect Notion of a particular Church as perfectly Organical and furnished with all its affairs and walking in all points of Gospel Order He adds such particular Churches were in many Parochial Societies in England and there is no doubt but such Parochial Churches were True Churches from which causeless and unnecessary separation is sinful Indeed he says How far other Parochial Churches were true Churches avowed so by Presbyterians he was yet to learn And his Answer is for any thing I see in his Remarques yet to teach him and I believe will so continue For his guesses at what the Author meant by Perfection of Order He I am sure will tell him he means no more Than a capacity to administer all the Ordinances of Christ proper to a particular Church The Word Sacraments and Censures of Jundical Admonition Suspension and Excommunication which they cannot do till they have Officers I believe it must be a case of Extraordinary necessity must justifie a single Minister in Suspending or Excommunicating but that those that help him must needs be persons not ordained to the Ministry I do not think he believes but that there may be more Ministers if the Parochial Society hath more than one or others chosen by that Church And if any will contend that the body of the people must joyn with him in those acts though he reserves his private judgment in the case yet he will not contend especially as to Excommunication because he understands not to what purpose
Or more Implicit when though they have not first called him nor so explicitly declared their consent to him yet they have ordinarily and statedly walked with him in the fellowship of all Ordinances But here must be considered 1. That there is a great deal of difference betwixt desiring consenting to and accepting of one as a Minister of the Gospel to Preach to the Parochial Society where a Christan lives as it is a part of the Catholick Church and consenting to such a one to be his or their Pastor in order to a Church Organical It must be a consent of the latter Nature I may consent and desire one to Preach to the people in the precinct where I live and yet have no thoughts of consenting to him as my Pastor 2. That there is a great deal of difference betwixt an occasional hearing and it may be receiving the Sacrament with a Minister and a slated ordinary fixed doing of it If a Christian that is of a particular Church at London goeth down to York and be to stay there 6 or 9 moneths and ordinarily hears and receives the Sacrament there while he is there this will indeed prove his owning the Church of York as a true Church having communion with it but not that he is a Member of it Suppose many Christians who were formerly stated Members of Churches but for 10 or 12 years last past have not been able to walk with their Pastors and Brethren in all Ordinances meeting in the same place to worship God have in the time ordinarily or often heard a Parochial Minister nay sometimes received the Lords Supper This indeed proves their Charity that they lookt upon that Society as a true Church but it doth not prove them Members of it nor their consent to such a Membership no not to such a Minister as their Pastor though it may be they consented to him for the good of the place where they lived as a Preacher of the Gospel to them If indeed they were of no other stated particular Church before and did ordinarily joyn in Sacramental Communion with such a Minister it goes far to prove an Union by implicit consent and we think such cannot plead They were not United § 48. It is true these Notions about particular Churches Worship and Government especially the first and last were very dark and little understood by many good men Anno 1641. and no wonder if it be considered 1. How very few Books were then wrote of them on the Presbyterian side 2. And how poenal it was made to have or read them and how little hope before that time appeared of reducing any thing had been said to practice Some of our Congregational Brethren having had more rest and freedom and opportunity of exercise in N. England and Holland were better studied in them As also our Brethren of Scotland This for a few years occasioned great animosities Yet I could never read nor hear quoted that even then any judicious Presbyterians ever granted 1. That all Parochial Societies were true Organized Churches 2. Nor that living in a Parish did more than give the Christian a liberty to claim admission into that Society But some few years passing and mens heats abating and peaceable converse each with other better advantaging them to understand one another than at first they did they began to be far more clear and unanimous in their Notions and more charitable in their practices § 40. I cannot speak for all but I can speak for a very competent number so many as in one County would be perswaded to meet in 1657. 58. They agreed in the following Character of a person fit for Church-fellowship in all Ordinances and Priviledges I have by me also the Scriptures affixed to prove this 1. One that is indued with some competent knowledge in the principles of Religion 2. Whose life conversation is free from all gross and scandalous evils both of Omission and Commission 3. Who maketh such a profession of Faith and Holiness as may give unto the Church a probable hope in the judgment of true Christian Charity that there are some seeds of some spiritual work of God in his soul 4. Who professeth a willing subjection to the Gospel and all the Ordinances of Jesus Christ and so giveth up himself to the Lord and his Church to walk in all duties of Obedience and Love according to the Will of God To which they added and then subscribed We acknowledge such Churches to be true Churches as consist of such persons coming together as are here described and such to be true Ministers as are called by and unto such a people And we further acknowledge such to be Churches and their Ministers to be true Ministers though some bad with the good agreed to the call of those Ministers or to own and embrace them and although there were some disorder and failing in the Ordination and coming in of such Ministers By this these Presbyterians judgments easily appeared what Parochial Societies they judged True Churches and also what they judged necessary to make up the Union of a Member with a particular Organical Church § 50. I think I can from a Friend also assure the Author that the person whom this Author doth somewhere declare not only a Presbyterian but one of great judgment and Worth as indeed he was I mean Mr. Brinsley of Yarmouth was the man drew up this Writing recommended it to his Brethen himself agreed in it and they also and made it a great foundation for an Agreement betwixt them and their Congregational Brethren For my own part I am much of his mind We say many of the Ministers and people he reflects upon as Schismaticks neither were actually thus united to Parochial Societies nor we in capacity so to be because formally Pasters and Members else-where § 51. But the Author thinks the Law forbidding Ministers to Preach in the Parochial Temples hath dissolved this Relation In this we differ from him and desire a better proof of it both de facto then he hath given us and de jure Then Solomons putting Abiathur from the Priests Office who had deserved to dye as Solomon tells him first but more of that by and by I do not profess strictly to Answer the Authors Book about Schisme It is directed against an Author able enough to speak for himself but something I must say to this and some other passages only as they come athwart me in maintaining the Negative part of my Question and justifying my self and others from the clamour of Schisme Therefore in Doctrine of Schisme p. 75. I find these words What if a man hath a mind to be Friends with him that we desire for we are for peace c. and should grant that those Ministers were not degraded discommissioned he should have said or unordained as to their Ministry within the Church of England and that those Churches were not dissolved by having new Pastors he forgets the
recession from it Disputes betwixt Kings and Parliaments we think are not to be determined by private Persons without the doors of the Pallace and Parliament-House nor medled with by the Subject till the matters in difference if any be be agreed by themselves and by some publick action notified to the People We know for the King of England in civil things to suspend the execution of an Act which he hath found inconveniently practicable till the Parliaments meeting and further agreeing in it is no more than hath been done even during this Parliament and possibly to all may not appear unreasonable § 11. Upon this foundation we stand and practice Preaching to our People in places distinct from the Parochial Churches What can we do less May we having this liberty sit still and live without the publick worship of God Thus indeed a very great number of the People of England possibly not inferiour to the N. Con. yet we have rarely heard of one of them Endited Presented or Prosecuted when our Brethren were in their fullest career against the new Recusants at least not comparably to those of their Brethren who they knew were every Sabbath day if not with them yet somewhere strictly worshipping God and either Preaching Christ or hearing him Preach'd Surely our eager Men should rather have bent their Bows and made their Arrows ready against these Atheistical livers than against the Servants of the Living God though of a little different Livery different too not in the Cloath but in the insignificant Fringes and Laces of formes and ceremonies What though they could say which we know in truth they cannot that Christ amongst the Nonconformists was Preached of envy and strife yet had they been of St. Paul's Spirit from whom they pretend to derive though indeed Christ amongst the Noncon had been Preached of Contention and not of Sincerity Yet a little charity would have commanded them to judge as Paul Some out of good will Preached him But however they being as St. Paul saith Phil. 1.16 17 18. Set for the defence of the Gospel should have said after him What then Notwithstanding every way whether in pretence or in truth Christ is Preached and I therein do rejoyce and will rejoyce We shall only say had they been of St. Pauls Spirit they would have said so § 12. We take it to be a confessed Principle That every individual Member of the Church-Catholick Visible is bound in duty both to God and his own Soul to joyn himself to some particular Society of Christians with which he may enjoy all the Ordinances of God so as may be for his Souls advantage What shall therefore these indulged Ministers and People do How shall they live up to this peice of the Divine Will Shall they joyn with the Parochial Societies in their Temples They have professed to the World that the business is so stated by the Act of Uniformity that they cannot do this without doing what they judge sinful If they could neither would the Ministers 1662. have parted together with that publick exercise of their Ministry with the livelihoods also of themselves their Wives Children or exposed themselves to Excommunications Imprisonments Fines Banishments and all manner of Reproach and Obloquy or their Families to the Charitable Baskets of Christians Neither would more private Christians have suffered so much in most of these kinds as they have suffered in vain § 13. It must therefore be in Congregations locally separate from the parochial meetings Accordingly having first obtained his Majestie 's Licenses they practice Presently they hear a great Out-cry of Schisme and sinful separation from true Churches Gathering Churches out of Churches and we know not what nor do we believe they do that clamour at this rate § 14. But the truth of this clamour must be a little examined for the Non-conformists have got very little by his Majesties favour by escaping the hands of men to fall into the hands of the living God We remember when David was in his great strait 2 Sam. 24.14 he acquiessed in this Let me fall into the hands of the living God for his mercies are great and let me not fall into the hands of men We think we may in this case say the same thing and that with some advantage which David had not for his heart smote him for a known sin our hearts as yet do not condemn us for any such black thing as a sinful separation and we do believe those that thus clamour do not well understand what they say Let men rather call us Schismaticks sinful Separatists so we may worship God as his Word and our own Consciences tells us he should be Worshipped purely and in Spirit and Truth rather than we not Worship God at all or so as our Consciences shall continually flie in our faces § 15. But certainly God's Word hath laid us under no necessity of sining let us therefore challenge our confident Accusers to the Law and to the Testimony 'T is worth the while to examine whether this great cry be not Vox et praeterea nihil A clamorous scandal nothing else which we are the more advantaged to hope that it will prove by a noted passage in a great Church-man Mr. Hales his discourse of Schisme It is this Schisme is one of those Theological Scare-Crowes with which they who use to uphold a party in Religion use to fright away such as make any inquiry into it and are ready to relinquish or oppose it if it appeareth to them either erronious or suspicious Not that Schisme truly so called is of no graver importance but that which generally by School-men and Casuists and very many and some of those Learned Divines though like Elias men subject to like passions with other men is no more is as evident as the shining of the Sun at Noon-day to any one who knoweth any thing of Books or of the World § 16. The Greeks say those of the Latine Church are Schismaticks and they because they are the most ancient Church seem to have best right but the whole Latine Church requites them with the same-name of Obloquy The Papist so call the Protestants but they requite them with the like term saying They that gave the cause of the separation are the true Schismaticks Amongst the Protestants the Lutherans so revile the Calvinists nor are the Calvinists behind them Amongst the Calvinists The Episcopal men so call the Presbyterians the Presbyterians so call the Independents and Antipaedebaptists Thus we have called one another Schismaticks round Let us therefore leave these pittiful uncharitable Boyish Revenges especially seeing in vulgar use lately the term hath had no further significancy than to speak persons not of our mind and for a name to brand such of our Brethren with who are a little more inquisitive than others into the things of God and is of the same import amongst Protestants that the word Heretick is amongst Papists that is not one
Commissions given for a succession of National Officers but we find none of this we find indeed a general commission to Ministers to go and Preach and Baptize but this referred as well to the Heathens as to professed Christians If any will say that the Apostles were General Officers and from thence will argue for a succession of them it will better serve the Papists to prove an Universal Organical Church than it will serve any to prove a National Organical Church and we think that is what our Brethren will not be very free of granting If any urge the Example of the Jewish National Church which was Organical they will be also obliged to find our Saviours directions for the Hereditary discent of an High-Priest or the Election of one into his place We always thought the Jewish H. Priest was a type and Christ the Antitype whose coming abolished the type besides that that also will prove an Universal Organical Church for the Jewish High Priest govern'd the whole Visible Church which God in his days had upon the Earth besides we must have found some rules and laws left us by Christ for this High Priest Finally who so will erect a stated National governing or Organical Church in England must find us an Officer cloathed with Authority to Excommunicate from Michaels Mount in Cornwall to Carlile and Berwick Such a one we suppose there neither is nor ever was in England since the reformation § 29. But if we could allow such a Creature of God as a National governing Church in England we should have put Governours being certainly one of the Essential parts of such a Church into the description of it as well as into the Notion of Schisme from it Nor should we have so straitned the Notion of it as to necessitate all the members of it to be united in Doctrine Worship and Government without saying how far they must in these things be united Whether in every point of Doctrine delivered in the 39. Articles and Homilies so far as to approve and embrace all And in every point of Government according to the Canons or in every mode rite or ceremony according to the Liturgy or if not in what and how far they must be thus united And for the Laws as distinguished from the Canons we should have left them quite out being but civil constitutions about the affairs of the Church not properly Laws of the Church or in the more intrinsick matters of it but Impetus cuncta male ministrat this is the unlucky effect of long Definitions and too great eagerness to prove all Nonconformists Schismaticks The Author should have done well to have considered what he as well as we long since learned at the University 1. Definitiones debent esse breves It is the length of this description that spoils it and makes it by no art defensible 2. Debet constare ex attributis preoribus notioribus simpliciter had this been thought of the 39 Articles Homilies Liturgy Canons Laws had been quite left out nor certainly did our Author consider what would follow upon this description § 30. Let us but a little shew what inferences follow his Description of the National Governing Church of England 1. All Arminians without bail or mainprise must be Hereticks They are none of the Community of professed Christians in England united in the Doctrine of the 39 Articles will they tell us they are Let us ask King James once the very learned Head of this Church He tell us That Arminians was an Enemy to God Reg. Jacobi Dec. contra Vorstium p. 12. 14. that his Disciples are Pests Hereticks Arrogant persons Sectaries Atheists That the very Title of Bertius his Book concerning the Apostacy of the Saints required the fire Shall we be judged by the Parliament they make the Laws put into the description of this Church they confirmed the Articles We find them Anno 1628. crying aloud We Claim Protest and avow for Truth the sense of the Articles of Religion which were established by Parliament Mr. Rushworths Collections p. 650. 130. Eliz. which say they by the Publick Act of the Church of England and by the general and currant exposition of the Writers of our Church have been delivered to us and we reject the sense of the Jesuits and Arminians and all others wherein they differ from us Shall we ask the Professors of Divinity forty years since and upward in either University They joyntly agreed these points contrary to the 39 Articles one Dr. Baro only excepted and we know who was the first Doctor of that Divinity knowingly created at Oxford and the Professors course complement to him at his Creation after he had defended one of them Hujus te Theologiae creo Doctorem meaning the Arminian Divinity whence ever after to his Death possibly he took the liberty to Profess it as the Doctrine of our Church yea and they must be Schismaticks too though not from yet in the National Church and that 's the worst sort of Schisme because that which the Scripture chiefly if not only taketh notice of 2. Those who will sing no Psalms must be Schismaticks too for surely that 's an act of Worship in the Church of England and owned by her yea and those that do not ordinarily conform to all Rites and Ceremonies and Formes in the Liturgy do they approve of them The worse they still according to this description make a Shisme in the Church Quaery Whether none of the Conformists do this I could tell him of some nay One and he no mean One neither that openly told the People singing of Psalms was one of the Idols of the Church of England there were three Preaching and keeping the Sabbath were the two other § 40. Now if the Author could have been content to have described the National Church of England the number of professed Christians in it united in the same Doctrines necessary to Salvation and in the same Acts of Worship the Definition had been shorter many of these had been included and we had all been agreed But to be sure to make all the Nonconformists Shismatick he first Describes a thing not in being and which never was since Christ came and then describes it in such a manner as if he could create it would do very many of his own friends far more hurt than us § 41. In the mean time we must freely yeild him such a National Church as we before described and the King the Supreme Head of it not in a capacity to Preach or administer the Sacrament or exercise any act in it strictly an Ecclesiastical by Divine institutions but to Protect it to enjoyn the fulfilling in it what God hath commanded to do as much in it in short as any King of Israel and Judah as a King might do and to make rules and constitutions about it But we deny that our Meetings are any more Schismes in or from this Church then the Meeting of Christians
Officers should cast any out of the fellowship of their Church who are yet resolved to have fellowship with him He thinks he hath read some rule of the ancient Church that none ought to be Excommunicated sine plebis consensu without the consent of the body of the Church But was this to say Our Parochial Churches are no true Churches 1. The Author said they were all true parts of the Catholick Churches and so true Churches 2. The Author believes There are many Parochial Societies that are true Churches in the second sense 3. He plainly says there were many so in the third and most perfect sense What pittiful disingenuity was this in this Writer of the Doctrine of Schisme thus to represent his Adversary Indeed from the Authors discourse it plainly appears That he did not believe 1. That Parishes that had no proper Minister or faithful Minister were true Organical Churches but only true parts of the Catholick Church he grants them 2. That no Parochial Societies as such were true Organical Churches 3. Though some Parishes had able and painful Ministers yet if they never chose them as their Pastors nor submitted to them as such They were not true Organical Churches or those who had not so submitted were not true Members ever united to them § 44. 4. That if persons living in those Societies had chosen and submitted to a Minister as their Pastor believing him able and faithful and professing to press after a perfection in order they afterwards found the contrary that he proved negligent in his work leud in his Life corrupt in his Doctrine unfaithful in his Administrations and there were no visible hope of a Reformation that in this case they might peaceably and charitably with-draw from that communion and joyn with a better These seem to be that Authors principles which amount to this that all Parochial Societies either are no true Governing Churches or the parties concerned were never united to them or if they were once united to them yet their secession from them was just and necessary and therefore could not be a sinful separation § 45. Now what says the Author to this Will he say that Parochial Societies are all True Governing Churches Surely he will not say so if he own Episcopacy for men of that persuasion must maintain That the Bishop is the sole Pastor of the Diocess that Government belongs only to him that Parish-Ministers are but his Curates according to this Model surely every Parochial Society is not a Governing Church do they say so we say so too So we are agreed and not chargeable with gathering Churches out of true Churches Will he say that Parochial Societies having no peculiar Pastor or none that resides with his Flock are true Ministerial Churches Surely this in the first part is a contradiction to talk of a Ministerial Church without a Minister And the second part contrary to our Authors judgment if consistent to it self for if the cohabitation of Members be necessary Doctrine of Schism p. 85. and that as he tells us by the Law of Nature and so Divine the cohabitation of the head with those Members must be necessary too by the same Law § 46. No but he will say They were united to them those of them that were true Ministerial Churches And 2. Being united they have no just and necessary cause of separation These are the two things to be tried for the tryal of this issue we must enquire Quest What is a sufficient Union of a person to a true Ministerial Church The Author seems not to think meer cohabitation doth it though he thinks it of the Law of Nature and Divine which I do not understand that the Members of a Church should cohabitate I think it very expedient and necessary that they should live so near together that ordinarily they may meet for worship together in one place and be able mutually to perform the dutys of exhortation and admonition one to another yet the Author will not say this makes their Union in a Church Organical besides many questions would arise as How near they must live Whither none may live betwixt them What if a Jew Turk or Pagan hires an House betwixt them c What the Author doth say I will candidly transscribe as I find it in his Doctrine of Schisme ch 13. p. 89. They were Baptized unto these particular Churches Doctrine of Schism chap. 13.89 as well as into the Universal and the known Laws both of Church and State oblige their Consciences to communion with them Their ordinary attending upon the publick Worship as they generally do or have done concludes them by their own consent c. Here now are three things brought to prove the Union 1. Baptisme 2. The Laws of men 3. Their own consent implicitely by their ordinary attendance upon the Worship in Parochial Temples Let us candidly examine whether any of these will do it § 47. That men are Baptized into a particular Church and by it made compleat Members of it is what I cannot yeeld Baptisme indeed admitts into the Universal Church If any Presbyterian Brethren have judged more I must understand their Reasons before I subscribe their Opinions besides that hardly one of twenty Christians were Baptized in that Parochial Society wherein they live when at years of discretion Baptisme indeed gives a Christian a claim to a Membership in some particular Church but makes no Union with it 2. As to the second it can have no truth in it till he hath proved That it is the will of Christ that Christians should be Members of that particular Organized Church where their Superiours in Church or State will command As this is no civil thing but Spiritual and such wherein the Souls of Christians as to their Eternal concerns are highly concerned So neither is it a thing indifferent but let the Author prove what I say he must prove in this case and we will say more We think though God hath expresly no where told Christians in his Word which had been almost impossible what particular Church they should be of yet he hath obliged them to attend what in their Consciences they judg and upon experience they find the most propable and effectual means for their Instruction Holiness and Eternal Salvation not expecting he should work miracles for them God hath no where told every Man what Woman he should Marry yet surely he hath not left Magistrates a power to determine all their Subjects to Wives Yet we think this concern of Souls is much higher and that there is as much difference in Ministers as in Wives 3. The last therefore is all for which there can be any pretence consent indeed will do it And we will grant that this consent may be either Explicit or Implicit Explicit when Christians have either first chosen or upon recommendation accepted a truly sent able faithful Minister to be their Pastor to administer the Ordinances of God to them
his Answer is 1. That the Presbyterians do not acknowledg it so to whom he spake 2. This was a current Argument of the Presbyterians against the Independents 3. He meant such true Churches as our Parochial Congregations 4. They prove the Communion of Rome is corrupt we only say theirs is 5. Many do hold the Church of Rome truely a Church not a true Church true as to the Essence but not Morally true as to her Doctrine and Worship 6. We did not separate from Rome for we really were never of them we reformed our selves without separating from Rome Notwithstanding all these Answers except the last which I shall shew weak enough Thus much we have gained That it is Lawful in some cases to separate from a body that is Metaphysically a true Church that is truly a Church which is all was intended to be gained That the general Notion of the Truth of a Church should be no more a Medium to prove us Schismaticks now let us examine his particular Answers § 62. The Presbyterians do not acknowledg Rome a true Church and therefore he argued ad homines Indeed I find Mr. Caudry to his Adversary granting something of the Truth of a Church to Rome crying Viderit ipse but he is not the mouth of all Presbyterians did ever any know a Presbyterian Ordaining a Minister the second time because he was the first time Ordained by the Church of Rome yet he was there ordained to offer Sacrifice but also to Preach the Gospel which makes them afraid of it or Baptizing any that turn'd Protestants from Papists Till he had known this he should have forborne this Answer it may be that many of them will grant she hath something of the Metaphysical Verity of a Church A rotten House and falling but yet an House still and we think Christians from such a Church may with-draw § 63. But this was an Argument against the Independents Produce a place where they ever said It was unlawful for Christians to depart from a Church that had the least of truth in it But he says he meant such as our Parochial Congregations this is a general what doth he mean by such 4. They prove the Communion of the Church of Rome corrupt we only say it of theirs And he only says that we only say it We think that many have proved that we cannot Communicate or Minister in it under some present circumstances without what we judge sin Who shall determine betwixt us as to our practice Hath this Author made or can he shew us a strict Answer to Calderwood Gillespy and Dr. Ames and yet much more is to be said in our case then they could speak § 64. Many do say that the Church of Rome is Vere but not Vera Ecclesia that will not do we can shew him vera that is true as well as Vere Truly but his meaning is True in Essence not Morally True what is the meaning of that Not true in her Doctrine and Worship This kind of truth admitts many degrees We would fain know of our Author to what degree of moral truth that Church must be arrived from which he judgeth it sinful to separate for we shall find that divers of his Brethren and Fathers have acknowledged a great degree of moral truth in the Church of Rome from which yet they separated and we believe died in their separation from it Died they as Fools dyed Let me shew this a little Was not the Church of Rome morally true because an Antichristian-Church and the Seat of the Antichrist So indeed Bishop Downame Bishop Abbot and many Bishops were wont to say but since that time Bishop Mountagne hath called their Arguments Apocaliptycal phrenzies Dow saith it is doubtful Dr. Heylin saith it cannot be for Antichrist must be a single man a Jew that must kill Enoch and Elias Star Chamber Speech p. 32. Bishop Laud confesseth therefore he hath raced out of the Liturgy the scandalous term Antichristian Sect. § 65. Is the fault in the Doctrine of the Church of Rome it may be some of us think there is fault enough there I trust our Author himself thinks so but neither all former Conformists nor present Conformists believe that she differs from us in any Fundamentals I my self have been told so within few years the Author could not but know that Bishop Laud Dr. Heylin Bishop Potter and many others have thus far asserted her Moral truth again and again as to Doctrine Now may not that be put for a Problem amongst those who are so Zealous in this point Whither it be not Schismatical to separate from a Church upon the account of Doctrine which errs in no fundamentals Yet those great men confessed the latter and did the former If we loose this stand I know not where we shall find a boundary to stop us from separation from a true Church for any one false Proposition of Doctrine maintained in it But what Doctrine is there as to which we cannot shew them that some or other our conforming Fathers or Brethren have not either acknowledged true in their terms or so far true as would make separation for it dangerous yet all these separated from it and died many of them in that black Schisme if it were so Let the Author instance and he shall hear what we can say to it he will I hope spare the Arminian points The Doctrine of Faith as an assent only to the Proposition Justification by Works c. but let him instance § 66. But it may be the business is they have acknowledged and proved her Communion unlawful as to Worship we indeed do so think it sufficiently sinful But have all those Conformists separated from her thought so we think so because we judge her idolatrous in her Adoration of the Eucharist The Saints departed Reliques Images Altars c. and we know that many of our conforming Brethren are of the same mind with us Dr. Brewynt Dr. Stillingfleet and many others have sufficiently told us so but the question is whether all our conforming Brethren who have separated thus judged her thus morally not a true Church What meant Dr. Heylins four bowings at his taking up and setting down the Bread and Wine in the Eucharist Heylins moderate Answer p. 137. What saith the Author of Weights and Measures as to the point of Veneration of Images What saith Bishop Mountague Antig. p. 318. and in his Antid p. 30. and in his Orig. p. 40. he says the Ancient Church did Venerate Reliques Antid p. 44. but I will enlarge no further till I have particular instances given § 67. We see it was the judgment of these men and they were learned men that we may separate from a Church that hath a great degree of moral truth But it may be they thought they did not separate because they and their Fore-fathers were really never of them but reformed themselves But were not our Fore-fathers Baptized into that Church Did
not the Laws of England once tye us to them Were we not United to the Governours Worship Members and Assemblies of that Church Did not our Fore-fathers shew their consent by ordinary attendance upon their Devotions c. This is all our Author saith for our Vnion to the National and Parochial Church or Churches of England § 68. Again they have proved it he saith that Communion in that Church is corrupt How Because we cannot communicate with it without sin How have they proved it Demonstratively so as the Adversaries cannot deny it Nothing less they do deny it and yet dispute it but so as we probably judg it sinful We grant this is proved and so we think we have proved it too though it may be more sinful to communicate with the Romish Church But we know Magis minus non variant speciem But we think we ought not to do the least sin § 69. But we do not say it is sinful to communicate with them in all Ordinances Why do we not communicate with them so far as we can without sin Presbyterians indeed do generally acknowledg so much But Communion is either stated and fixed or Occasional They conceive themselves obliged statedly and fixedly if they can to communicate to their proper Congregations where they can enjoy all the Ordinances of God For occasional Communion they neither have denied it nor shall deny it to their Brethren in such actions wherein their Consciences will allow them so to communicate without sin as occasion offers it self they acknowledg many of their Ministers and of their Churches true Churches true Ministerial Churches they many of them hear them Preach and Pray and bring their Children to them to be Baptized especially if any of them will abate what in that administration none judgeth by Divine precept Originally necessary and they judg sinful what would the Author have more unless a perfect communion § 70. As to which though I do not much value Arguments from Authority of men because they never touch the Conscience nor ad homines because they are single Bullets and hit but one person yet once let me use one Because our Author in his Doctrine of Schisme p. 28. assures us he is much of Mr. Fulwoods mind I know not that Reverend Person but I take him to be the same Mr. Fulwood that was sometimes Minister at Staple Fitzpane in Somerset-shire and anno 1652. published a Book called The Churches and Ministry of England true Churches and a true Ministry if he be not the man intended I beg his pardon if it be he he saith thus of the Church of England For matters of Government indeed of late we were under Episcopacy all whose appurtenances savoured of Antichrist and in the same page a little after our Episcopal Courts Service Tyranny c. were very gross This was Mr. Fulwoods judgment I think we may easily argue according to his principles It is Mr. Fulwoods assertion not ours From a Church all whose appurtenances as to Government savour of Antichrist Fulwoods Churches Ministry of England true c. p. 12. and whose service is very gross Christians may and ought to separate so far as to that Government all whose appurtenances so savour and whose service is gross But saith Mr. Fulwood Ergo. When the Reverend Author hath found out an answer for his Friend Mr. Fulwood we will further examin it But there is no end of these things § 71. In the mean time I must mind the Author of too little candor as to his Adversary who wrote the Reflexions in saying the sum of what he offered was reducible to these two propositions 1. That the Conformists held the Church of Rome to be a true Church yet did separate 2. That our Parochial Churches are no true Churches when as he never said the latter at all but the clean contrary and had acknowledged 1. All of them true Churches that is true parts of the Catholick Church 2. Many of them true Ministerial Churches 3. Some of them true Organical Churches Besides this He that reads the Authors chap. 1. will see these two things were not the sum of what he said and that how little soever Reason was in those Reflections there was yet more then this Author in his Remarques was pleased to take notice of for that Author had then insisted on their not being united to Parochial Churches § 72. To shut up this discourse I from my Soul wish all the Lords Ministers and People of England were of one heart and mind I am not of Gravity or Learning sufficient to Advise either Conformists or Non-conformists but shall only propose my own thoughts and not mine alone The Reverend and Learned Dr. Hornbeck 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in his Dissertations de Episcopatu hath these passages which I shall translate The learned may read them in the Printed Copies If men were every where as sollicitous for forming and reforming men and fitting them for the sacred Ministry to which they profess to give up themselves the disputation about the form of Sacred Order and Government would be more easie and less evil need be feared from that which we judge not so good Here saith he We must begin that men may be made worthy for the work and Parag. 4. Here we must lay on our help We see the Apostles in their Writings were more sollicitous about the Vertues than the degrees of Ministers Parag. 9. Before saith he we divide into parties about other things we should joyntly agree about these things A confession of common Doctrine according to truth and piety should be either set forth or confirmed then exact Canons should be made about the whole life and manners of Ministers and then a disputation about the form of Church Government should follow Thus far he § 73. I shall conclude with delivering my Opinion That if 1. All the ancient Canons of Councils were executed which concern Ministers Lives and Office And the Doctrine of the 39 Articles as expounded by King James and the Parliament of England were avowed and those men might have nothing to do in the debate Who are dead in Law according to those Canons that is such as ought to be Excommunicated or deprived and who had declared or should declare themselves contrary to the Doctrine so expoundâ—d and declared The remaining part would quickly so well agree with other things as we should be no more troubled with clamours of Schisme and Separation and tell somthing of that Nature be I see no medium but either Dissenters must be indulged and Schisme clamour'd and never proved or suffering for Conscience-sake must be imposed and patiently endured Fiat Voluntas Dei ERRATA PAge 2. l. 23. f. curare r. curaes p. 32. l. 14. f. Arminians r. Arminius p. 33. l. 4. f. 130. r. 13th p. 36. l. 12. f. generatibus r. Generalibus p. 42. l. 12. f. Jundical r. Juridical p. 70. l. 2. r. one Ministers parts p. 74.