deny the Parish Pastors theâ— deny them nothing hereby essential to theiâ— office All that can with any colour be said is that the Law now seems to be on these mens side by requiring Reordination But 1. The Law-makers profess to establish the Church and not to change it to another thing 2. The Law-makers were not all of one mind in the Reasons of their Laws nor had all studied these kind of controversies Many of them and of the Clergy to this day say that it is not a proper ordination that they require but the giving them Authority to exercise their Ministry in England and the decision of a doubtful case Part of the Church taketh them for true Ministers that were ordained by Presbyters and part do not and that the Congregations may not divide they say they require this like Baptizing after a doubtful Baptism If thou art not baptized I baptize thee I am against this But this proveth not that they take a Presbyter for no Pastor Yea tho they should take his ordaining others to be a nullity Ordaining not being essential to him XXIV The Act of Uniformity or the like Law cannot make the Church no Church or of another species than 1. As it is esteemed by God and his Law 2. Or as it is esteemed by the greater part of the Christian Clergy and Laity Tho the Law should speak as the foresaid odd innovators do For 1. All Christians profess that Christ is the only just Institutor of the essentials of his own Churches All Christians profess Communion with them as Churches of Christs making by his Law The present Church of England professeth this in many books it bindeth all Ministers to hold to Scripture sufficiency and use Discipiine as well as Doctrine and Worship as Christ commandeth It openly holdeth all Laws and Canons about Church essentials yea and integrals to be void and null that are against the Sacred Scriptures and Law of God There is no Power but of God God hath given no power to nullifie his institutions 2. All true Christians who consent to a Parish Minister and attend on his Ministry and join in the Assemblies openly profess to own him first as a Minister of Christ and to join in Worship and Communion of the church as prescibed by Christ which no man hath power to overthrow 3. The Parliament and Convocations and Bishops and Clergy all confess that they have no power to overthrow the Church essentials or offices of Christs Institution They have not revoked the Church Writings in which all this is oft professed They confess that if their Laws mistake and do contrary they bind us not They never openly professed a war against God or Jesus Christ What if one Dr. S. Parker make Christ subject to the King in his Kingdom he is not the Kingdom nor the Church of England For all his words they never made any Law to command Christ or to punish him They never cited him to appear before them nor did any penal execution on his Person which Government implieth They bow at his name and profess subjection to him Therefore if the law had by error said any thing inconsistent with the essence of Churches and Ministry it had not been obligatory to Pastors or people but they ought still to take Churches and Pastors to be what Christ hath made them and described them to be XXV Suppose a Law should say All families shall be so under Diocesans as to have no power but from them and all shall subscribe to this This doth not null family-power and society as instituted by God nor make it a sin to live in Families nor dissolve them all But all must continue in Families as instâ—tuted by God And if any subscribe to this it will not make it a sin in all Wives Children and Servants to live in those families If the Law had said All Schools in England shall be essentially subject to Diocesans must we therefore have had no more Schools Or if the School-master subscribe to them is it a sin to be his Scholar If the Law should say All Christians shall choose their own Pastors and meet and pray and preach as they please but only in essential subjection to Diocesans must all therefore give over Church Communion If the Law had said All the Parish-Assemblies in England shall henceforth be essentially subject to the Pope or a forreign Council We must not therefore have forborn all such Assembling but have kept to the state and duty appointed us by Christ XXVI Here the mistaking Opponents say 1. That indeed de jure none can change the Essence of Christs Ministry and Churches but de facto they may and have done Ans What is meant by changing it de facto Have they de facto nulled Christs Power Law or Offices and Churches What Nulled it by a Nullity of pretended Authority and overcome his Power without Power De jure and de facto to be a true Church or Pastor is all one Christ made true ones De facto they cannot unmake them but by destroying matter or form because they cannot do it de jure They have destroyed neither matter or form of such parish churches as I plead for and which Christ instituted for they had not power to do it Indeed they may de facto make other sort of Churches and Ministers to themselves tho not de jure but not to us who stick to Christs institutions XXVII But say they We confess if the Law did bid all assemblies in England meet in dependance on Diocesans private and publick this would not alter the species of our separate Churches because man hath not power and we consent not Ans Very good And I pray you what alters the case as to the Parish-Churches Is it that they have Steeples and Bells or that they have Tythes It 's the Calamity of Dissenters that they either cannot consider or can feel no strength in the plainest truth that is said against them but thoughts and sense run all one way which they think right XXVIII Obj. But say they Constitutive and Declaritive Laws must be distinguished They can but declare our Meetings to be Diocesan which is false 〈…〉 the Parish-Meetings such Ans 1. Remember that declaring the Parish-Churches to be such doth no more constitute them such than yours Why then talk you so much of the words of Bishops and Clergy and Books as if their declarations made them such 2. But how doth a Law constitute one the Parochial to be Diocesan or null more than your separate meetings if by a Law of toleration it should say the same of them The truth is They are such to consenters that judg them such But they constitute them not such to any that consent not to such a constitution but hold to Christs XXIX But it is said that our thoughts alter not constitutions they are our own immanent acts that nihil ponunt in esse and therefore the Pastors and Churches will be
if by subjection you mean but joyning in their Churches as Christian and Protestant for doctrine and worship notwithstanding the defect which they cannot help yea which they disclaim bare accusation will not prove this a sin but by this we see how much of Christs Church you are for separating from 2. For my part I have oft published That it is not the least part of my charge against Popery that they unchurch almost all the Christian World save themselves But yet they are about a 4th or 3d part of professed Christians themselves and divers of them do not unchurch the Greeks But to unchurch or forbid Communion with all that are as faulty as the Helvetians and all other Protestant Churches that have Liturgies or partial faults is that which I dare not be guilty of I think that to say That a thousand parts to one of Christs Church are none of his Churches is next to deposing him from his Kingdom Much like as it would be to say no part of London is the Kings but Amen Corner nor any part of England but Barnet or Brentford 3. And is it not one of our just accusations of the Papists That they say all the Protestant Churches are no true Churches and the Ministers no true Pastors and that Communion with them is unlawful and shall we now justifie them and say as they tho not on the same Reason but for a far smaller difference Is this our running from Popery 4. Yea is it not the great thing that we accuse the superconformists for That they make us to be no true Ministers or Churches and are we indeed of the same mind One side saith We are no true Ministers for want of Bps. Ordination c. Another side saith You are no true Ministers for having Communion with the Bishops and Churches c. VII I mentioned the Judgment and Practise of the old Nonconformists and Presbyterians not as a rule but as a comparative example To this he saith p. 11. You and they might as well own the Church of England in the form and constitution as it is established as the Parish churches to be particular Gospel churches c. P. 12. To say you join with a quatenus and own not the very constitution and standing of the church with which you join in the sense the church asserts it is the greatest equivocation in practice that is The old Nonconformists nor you are to be no presidents to us in this case So far as the old Nonconformists and the old reforming conformists went forward with Reformation to bring the church out of the wilderness we honour them but when they turn back again and entice the people so to do we are afraid to tempt God in that manner P. 14. Those â—ld Nonconformists that did so are no presidents to 〈◊〉 If they halted and were lame must we be so such communicants are not acceptable to any Church and I know what Church would never admit them were it not to punish and expose them and their profession as ridiculous and inconsistent with its self And as for FRENCH and DUTCH what are they to us c. P. 16 He calls Mr. Fenns joining in the Liturgy with exception of some part The sulâ—en practice of a half-paced doting Noncâ—nformist Ans First to the Cause and secondly to the Persons 1. To call any practice Equivocation or by any ill name is no proof that it is so nor is here a word of true proof given us I ask the Considerate Is it in the power of a Law-maker to make all Worship and Duty to God unlawful by commanding to do it for an unlawful end or upon false principles What if a Law said All people shall worship God not because the Scripture commandeth it but because the State commands it Would this make it unlawful to worship God I would disown the Principle and go on What if the Law should say The Pastoral Office is not of Divine Right but humane must the office therefore be renounced And why can such a Law any more bind me to judg of Church-constitutions by the Lawmakers words rather than by Gods Word Suppose that the Anabaptists say That rebaptizing is the true way of Church-gathering Is it a sin to communicate with them if they will receive me when I profess the contrary I am against the Covenant which you defend as making an Independent Church Is it therefore a sin to communicate with them because it is not as constituted by that Covenant What do Parties more differ in of late than Forms Orders Modes and Circumstances of Church Government and if they be of many contrary minds were it twenty there can be but one of them in the right And is it unlawful to join with all the rest Must we needs be sure which of these is in the right Almost all the Churches that I hear of in the world have their agreed professions published the Protestants are gathered in the Corpus confessionum the English Church Principles and Orders are expressed in the Book of Canons the Liturgy Ordination the 39 Articles the Homilies the Apology c. Must every one stay from their Churches till he hath read and understood all these Books and be sure that there is no fault or error in them What if it be poor men or women that cannot buy all these books and what if they cannot read whom shall they get to read them all and how shall they have time to study them or capacity to understand them when we can hardly get them to learn a Catechism and anderstand it You will say That is their crime that make all these Confessions and Books They will answer but that 's none of our fault We made them not and yet must we not communicate with any Church that maketh such The old Separatists called Brownists published their confession and therein owned many Parish Churches in England and Communion with them I recited their words in my Reasons c. But you are gone beyond them The New England churches printed their confession and all there agreed not to it The English Independents published their Principles and Confessions And the Presbyterians and they agreed in the Westminster Synods confession catechism and Directory Is every poor Man and Woman bound to stay from all their churches when for 14 years they had no other till they understand all these and know that they are faultless Or if there be any fault in any one of all these books is every one guilty of them that cometh to the churches The Anabaptists published their confession The Dutch have theirs Many churches agreed with them in the Synod of Dort The French have theirs the Saxons the Helvetians Geneva the Bohemians the Protestants in general had the Augustane and many more have theirs Reader See with whom these Writers will hold communion who make it unlawful to join with any church that have any fault in their constitutions or agreed Doctrines or Orders
Let us rise upward till we come to the Apostles days None of all these churches named dare profess all their agreements and confession to be without fault that ever I heard of except the English who bind Ministers to assent and consent to all things commanded and prescribed in three Books and excommunicate those that say their Books or Ceremonies and Government hath any thing contrary to the Word of God but no Lay-man is bound to believe them Wickliffe and John Hâ—s the Waldenses and the Bohemians Confessions are not faultless Of the Papist and the Sâ—cinians we will make no question the forenamed churches of Greeks Russians Armenians Abassines Nestorians Jacobites c. are alas past question faulty the general councils upward from that of Trent Basil Constance c. to the six first yea the four first which some equal to the four Gospels are far from being faultless in the Judgment of these Objectors and of my self the Arrian and other heretical councils are past question even that of Nice the first and best I suppose he and I think did not well in setling church-power as they did and forbidding all kneeling on the Lords days in Adoration and other the like The Donatists and the Novatians called the Puritans of those times had faulty agreements were it but for Bps. and Arch-Bps â—e will think them so this Writer can name no one church on the face of the Earth Orthodox or heretical tho Aerius called Presbyters equal with Bps. that was not for Bishops over Presbyters from the year 100 after Christ tâ—ll the Reformation that ever I could read of Yea consider whether they were not in the Apostles days when Jerome who most depresseth this degree saith That there were such at Alexandria chosen by the Presbyters from the days of Mark and Mark died long before John the Apostle But Episcopacy is not all Not only Epiphanius but all Church History that speaketh of such matters agreeth that besides the croud of latter Ceremonies there were certain ceremonies called the customes of the Universal Church which all the known Churches agreed in even those that differ'd about Easter-day and other such that is 1. Cloathing the Baptized in white Garments 2. Giving them milk and hony to tast 3. Anointing them with Oyl 4. Not kneeling in adoration on any Lords day or any other day between Easter and Whitsunday There is no notice when these began so ancient were they nor of any one Church or Christian that refused them but they were commonly called the Traditions Apostolical or customes of the Universal Church Now I agree with this Author that these things were indeed a deviation from the Apostles practice and ought not to have been thus used But the question is whether every Christian was guilty of the fault that had communion with any of these churches and whether had he then lived he should have separated from all the Churches on earth By this you see that this opinion must needs make men seekers who say that the church was in the wilderness and lost all true Ministry and say they particular churches and Scripture after the first or at most the second century and so that for fourteen hundred years Christ had no visible Kingdom on earth And consequently that we have no wiser answer to the Papist where was your church before Luther than to say that it was Invisible that is that we cannot prove that there was any such thing on Earth and consequently that we cannot prove that Christ had any Kingdom on earth and was its King that is whether there was any Christ in actual church-administration And doth separating from the whole visible church-communion agree with the prophecies and precepts of union Was this church like a grain of Mustard seed in its growth Was all the wonderful works of redemption wrought for no visible society after one or two hundred years in which a few persecuted ones were visible Is not this the next step and a temptation to utter infidelity If Christ have now no visible church on earth but the people called Brownists or Separatists doth it answer the Scripture description of him and his church And is it not exposing christianity to the scorn of infidels so to say Would not almost all rather turn Papists than believe this And be rather of their church than of none 2. But let us next speak of the persons I may speak my thoughts without imposing on you I think that the Major vote is no rule to the Minor nor always is in the right If a hundred men that understand not Greek or Hebrew Translate a Text one way and a good Linguist another way I will more suspect their judgment than his And so in the like case But if I hear a few odd persons condemn the judgment of the generality that are far better acquainted with matters of the same nature as if School-boys that are but in their Accidence should oppose all the upper Forms in expounding Horace or Hesiod or Homer which think you should I most suspect I say again to you compare the writings of Bucer Peter Martyr Calvin Beza Melancthon Chamiâ—r Blondel Dailee and a bundance such and also Greenhams Perkins Dr. Jâ—â—n Râ—ignolds Cartwrights Dods Hildershams Hieroms Amesius's Payneâ— Râ—lâ—eâ—ks and many such yea with such conformists as Jewels Bp. Downames John Downames Davenants Bp. Halls Arch-Bp Ushers Bp. Rob. Abbots Dr Fieldâ— Dr. Challoners Dr. Airys c. I say compare these with the Theological writings of Mr. Penry Mr. Can and all other called separatâ—sts or Brownists in their times and tell me whether these later did manifest more Holy Wisdom in Heavenly things more skill in all other points of Divinity than the former If their writings giving Mr. Ainsworth his due honour in Hebrew and Piety were as far below the other as the lower forms of School-boys are beneath the highest which should we most suspect to have had the greater or the lesser light specially when the lower condemn and cut off themselves from communion with all Christs known Churches on earth for thirteen hundread years When Mr. Smith and lately a very good man here thought none fit to Baptize him again but Baptized himself was not that singularity a just cause of suspicion Yet I make not the old Nonconformists your rule VIII I argued also from the common frailties of us all that it will be unlawful to communicate with any Church on earth even with those of the objectors mind if we are guilty of the sins in Doctrine worship and discipline of all Churches that we communicate with I will aggravate none nor render that odious which God accepteth My work is to confute those that do so But I say that 1. we have all many errors And men use to put their errors into their prayers and preaching 2. Do not men use to deliberate more and study what to write than what to preach And have men reason to be confident that our preaching
what Law maketh them whatever we think Ans Are not Churches formally relative societies what maketh them such but thoughts and wills of men expressed Gods mind exprest in his Institutions is his premised consent our consequent obedient consent maketh Christians Pastors and Churches If a Law cannot make the Parish consent to null Christs Officers and Churches it doth not null them to them If a Law say All marriages shall be void unless the Bishop remarry them This maketh them not void to any that consent not but say we stand to the valid marriage we had What doth another mans consent do to constitute me a Christian or Church-member except Parents for Infants And if my thoughts and consent put nothng in esse then the thoughts and consents of the conforming Clergy alters not their Churches and what then is that constituting cause you talk of Is it only the law for shame say not so Gods own Law as commanding us to be Christians Pastors or Churches maketh us not such without consent And can mans Law both null Gods Law and make us of what species it doth but bid us be without our consent XXX But here our Disputants think they expose me to derision What Do I intimate that one and the same Congregation may be two Churches of different species Ans I think to be such by open profession is disorderly and unusual But I think he that denieth this is unfit to deride the ignorance of another 1. If the people in one Kingdom may be in specie two Kingdoms the people of one Assembly may be two Churches but Bishop Bedle in his printed Letter said that Ireland was then two Kingdoms the King being Sovereign to some and the Pope to other And I think Hungary is so now between the Emperor and Turks 2. When Paul ordinarily held his assemblies in the Jewish Synagogues where half were Infidels and half Christians before he separated his Christians from them I think they were two Churches 3. If Independents had leave to meet in the Parish churches where the Parish Minister and their own Minister should preach by turns and the Parish only heard theirs as a lay preacher or none of their Pastor and so they heard the Parish Preachers I doubt not but they would be distinct church If one Parish church have two Pastors and one of them be professedly for an essential subjection to the Pope and the other against it and half the people of one mind and half of the other I think they are two Churches in one place If those Anabaptists who take none but the re-baptized for Church-members should with their Pastors join with Independents in worship tho esteeming them no churches I suppose you think they would be distinct churches in one place But I think none of this is the case of the churches that I join with for I suppose they null not Christs species of Ministers to themselves or me But if they did it to themselves that would not do it to me XXXI Obj. But one and the same Minister cannot be of two species and therefore relation to him cannot constitute distinct Churches Ans 1. One and the same man cannot be a Minister of Christ and no Minister of Christ so much is true nor of any two inconsistent species But if you will call any circumstantial difference a distinct species that will noâ— hinder the consistence The same man may be Christs Minister and the Kings Chaplain or a Dean or Preâ—endary or a Diocesan Bishop or Subject to a Diocesan such Bishops as Chrysostom Augustine Ambrose 〈◊〉 Parkeâ— Grindal Ushâ—r Davenant c and their Chaplains did not cease to be Christs Ministers 2 Relation to one of these men may make two sorts of consistent churcheâ— if the same man have a Parish and a Diocess as the German superintendents have and many other Bishops the warrantableness we are not now disputing 3. Yea one and the same Parish Minister may be Pastor of two Churches in one Assembly If he openly profess himself Orthodox the people that so own him are a church and if he secretly to a party of them profess himself an Anabaptist or a Papist and they unite with him as such they are another church such as it is Vespae habent favos marcionitae ecclesias Tertul. XXXII Obj. But the grand Objection is No man can be a Pastor of Christ against his will The Parish Ministers have all by conforming renounced the essence of the Christian Ministry and subscribed and sworn this renunciatâ—â— by subjecting themselves to Diocesans and swearing never to endeavour any alteration of the Diocesan Government and the Vestries who represent the churches have sworn the same and you have ofâ—en said that the Diocesan form of Government 1. Deposeth the Parish Bishops and maimeth the Ministry 2. Depâ—seth the Parish Churches 3. And maketh Parish Discipline impossible Ans It is impossible to write that which no man can misunderstand and make an ill use of I have oft told you 1. That I am in doubt whether Arch-Bishops as Successors of the Apostles only in the ordinary continued part of their Office be jure divino or not 2. That Congrational Bishops over Presbyters being ejusdem ordinis are an old venerable and lawful humane Institution 3. That Congregational Bishops only over the Laity are all Presbyters as such and of Christs Institution 4. Hereupon I have oft distinguished Diocesans into two sorts 1. Those that are but the Governors of true particular Churches that depose them not but Rule them by the word perswasively These are called Bishops being really Arch-Bishops These I never charged of the Consequents forenamed And if the King make them Cogent Magistrates also I will obey them I take the judgment of the Church of England manifest in Ordination Liturgy Articles c. to be for such Diocesans only tho I vastly dissent from many things in the Canons by which and the Mode in which some exercise their Government 2. The other sort is the Innovators form of Diocesan Government which hold that there is no Church without a Bishop and no Bishop but Diocesans either Bishop of Laity or Presbyters and so that the Parish Churches are no Churches but part of the lowest sort of true Political Churches These I take to be Super-conformists yea Nonconformists and Dissenters from the Church of England tho they may strive to get the name of the Church to themselves Now what I say of these Innovating Nonconformists and their designs and attempts our mistaking Separatists say I speak of the Laegal Church frame and so of all the Bishops and Parish-Churches And I see no hope of delivering the Church of God from the trouble of incogitant confident erroneous Dissenters that are not able to distinguish XXXIII I further answer this great Objection being concerned in Conscâ—ence to do it when men father their mistakes and Separation on me 1. The Parish-Ministers that I joyn with and I think the most that
Communicant hath not so much more than I. XXXVI But say they then you are bound to avâ—â—d sâ—andal by professing openly that you Communicate 〈◊〉 a Dissenter and not with the Church as established by Law Ans 1. Then I should falsly say that which I either think is otherwise or am not resolved in I tell you Few can truly say this if any 2. What need this when the open Profession of all Christians is That it is a Church and Worship of Christs making which they own and intend and none that is against them And when the Articles of the Church of England and the Ordination covenant own Scripture-sufficiency and disclaim all that is against Gods word Must we be supposed to renounce Religion when we meet to profess it And surely for disowning any thing which the Nonconformists judg unlawful all the Books written by them and all the notorious sufferings in twenty two years Ejection and Prosecution are no obscure Notification of their Judgments without speaking it at the Church â—oors or before the Assemblies Must I openly protest against Independency Anabaptistry or Presbytery if I dissent before the face of their Congregations if I will Communicate with them 3. But to stop your demand befâ—re I Communicated in the Parish â—hurch where I now am I went to the Incumbent and told him that I would not draw him into danger or intrude against his will I had been â—â—iled by the Kings Commission and after by the Lord Keeper to debate about Alteration in the Liturgy and Worship and Discipline and I thought that thereby I waâ— by 〈◊〉 6 7 8. ipso facto Excommunicate but not bound to do Execution on my self and therefore if I were separated it should not be my act but I left it to his will He took time and upon advice admitted me Obj. But you must tell them that the Parish Church hath no dependance on the Bishops but as the Kings Officers and that it is Independent and then you fall not under our opposition Ans 1. How many Lawyers and Civilians do openly say as Crompton before Cosins Tables that all Church Government floweth from the King And doth that satisfie you 2. And why must the Parish Church and Pastor needs be Independent Will you have no Communion with Presbyterians 3. And what if it be dependent on the Diocesan as governour tho not as destroyer Is it any more destructive of its Essence than to be governed by a Classis or Council XXXVII As for your telling us Wâ—â—m the Canons eâ—câ—mmunicate or 〈◊〉 Lay-chancellors Officials Surrogates Archdeacâ—ns c. excâ—mmunicate what Oaths they impâ—se c. tell them of it and not us who are not responsible for other mens deeds It no more concerneth our cause of Parochial Lay-communion than to tell us how bad men some Ministers are nor so much neither For I that willingly joyn in the Liturgy will not willingly if I know it so much as seem to own the Ministry of any man that is notoriously Insufficient Atheistical Heretical or so Malignant or Wicked as to do more hurt than good Avoid such and spare not XXXVIII Obj. They want the Peoples câ—nsent and so are no Pastâ—rs Ans The People shew their consent by ordinary Submission and Communion Obj. The People must be supposed to consent to the Law which maketh them no Pastors but the Bishops Curates Ans Both the Suppositions are before confuted both that the People are supposed to consent to any Law against Gods and that the Law maketh Curates to be no Pastors XXXIX To conclude the Objections about the Essence of Parish Churches 1. The question is not Whether there be not a sort of Diocesan Prelacy which nulleth them 2. Nor whâ—ther there be not some men in England that write and plead for such Diocesan Churches as have no true Episcopâ—s pregis much less Episcopus 〈◊〉 under them but are 〈◊〉 Bishops in that Diocess Nor of what number power or interest these men are of against whom I have oft written 3. But whether the Law be on their side or against them for the old Diocesan Government of subordinate Pastors and Churches is to me nâ—w uncertain I did once incline most to the fiâ—â—t sense of the Law but on secâ—nd thoughts hope better of it and am not Lawyer good enough to be certain 4. But if it should be so I verily think â—â—e main 〈◊〉 of the 〈…〉 and therefore 〈◊〉 not to renounce their Pâ—rish â—overnment â—ut only to use it in subordination to the Bishop 5. And I am pâ—st doubt that all the Communicants of England are neither â—ound to decide this Law-doubt nor to understand it nor to believe that the Law hath altered the Government 6. And if they did believe it they ought to keep on in Church Assemblies according to Christs Law taking all that 's against it as void as long as they are put â—n no sin themselves nor the Church notoriously renounceth its â—ssentials 7. And if they were stated Members of other Churches e.g. the Greâ—k the Dutch the French they might â—ccasionally Communicate in our Parishes transiently without examining the Pastors call and discipline but judging by possession and practice 8. And if they should prove no lawfully called Ministers their Office would be valid to those that blamelesly were deceived and knew it not 9. And if they were sure that they were no true Ministers they may joyn with them in all Worship belonging to Lay-Christians 10. But if they prove able godly Ministers of Christ tho faulty setled by Law to the advantage of Religion in a Christian Kingdom where all are commanded thus to maintain national Concord and the upholding those Churches is the very National possession of the Protestant Religion and it goeth for publick Disobedience and Scandal to forsake them and that at a time when many forsake them too for unjust grounds and by suffering for it stand to unwarrantable Accusations of them and sharply Censure those that do not as they and oppugne Peacemakers and all this after the old Nonconformists full Confutation of the Separatists unwarrantable way and the doleful experience of Subversion of all sorts of Government by the Prosecution of such mistakes I say If all this should be the case it is deeply to be considered XL. But the most effectual hindrance is the opinion of unlawfulness in jâ—yning in the Liturgy yet my last Objectors confess that It is lawful to some and that it is nâ—t Communion in it much less in all forms which they call unlawful tâ— all And the sober sort are loth to say tâ—at the Millions of Christians in England and Scotland who live where they can be in no other Churches should rather like Atheists live without all Church-Worship and local Communion And in gaining this I have gained the better half of what I pleaded for And they confess and so do I that publick Communion may be one mens duty and anotâ—â—rs sin as circumstances vary
Schism and Covenant-breaking in me whatever it is in others XLVI Obj. But you swore against Prelacy and Liturgy and now you strengthen them Ans 1. As the Covenant was made the terms or test of national Church Union excluding all the Episcopal who were half the Kingdom and more I think it was a rash sinful Engine of unavoidable division But when I took it it was not so imposed but offered to them that were of that mind and I saw not then that snare 2. I never swore against the Common-Prayer nor against the Englsh frame of Prelacy much less all Episcopacy any further than in my place and calling to endeavour Reformation according to the word of God and the example of the best reformed churches And this I have endeavoured to the utmost of my power perhaps more than my accusers And 3. There is much good in the Liturgy Parish Order and Government I never did covenant against that and therefore the Ministers who laboured for Reformation and Concord 1660 and 1661 thought they kept their covenant by craving some amendments and not an abolition and if we did think any thing to be bad that was good we must not be obstinate in that error forsaking the good which is our duty is not the way to amend any sin or error avoiding Gods publick Worship and living like Atheists save in private is not the way to amend the faults of publick Worship or Government Praying to God for what we want and owning the Scriptures and Christian Religion and communicating with Christians on lawful terms is not encouraging any sin in church Priests or Prelates unless men by our duty will be encouraged to sin and we must not forsake duty to avoid such mens encouragement the sons of the Coal are most angry with those that come nearest to them in all things save their sin and error and say those that stand afar off cannot hurt them I do not justâ—fie all that is in every Assembly that I join with must I needs renounce Local communion with every Independent Presbyterian or Anabaptist church that I dissent from for fear of strengthning them I covenanted as much against Schism as faulty Prelacy and yet if I must join with no church that is guilty of Schism alas whither shall I go 4. I humbly desire you to examine whether your way be not a breach of the covenant you plead not only as it advantageth Prophaneness Popery and Schism but as it strengtheneth that which you say I strengthen he knoweth not England who knoweth not that perceiving the error of unwarrantable separation and the unjust accusations of the Liturgy and churches used by very many besides some failings in some private churches hath been and is a grand cause of encouraging too great a number even to superconformity and to the fierce opposition of us and to the utmost confidence in their own way and as you charge me more than others as drawing more to the communion of Godly Protestant Parish Ministers that is to christian catholick love peace and communion So do the Sons of the Coal the superconformists more fiercely revile me as stopping more than you have done from their extremities Gods Word is a sufficient rule keep to that and fear not breaking any self-made laws XLVII Obj. But by this latitude you may join with Papists and say you judg of them according to Christs description Ans I answered this in the former book When I joyn with any church as a church I join with them as meeting to profess and practice christian faith and worship their by faults I own not But if they openly profess Idolatry or Heresie instead of Worship and Faith or if they meet to practice any sin which renders the whole church or worship rejected by God I must not assemble with them but avoid them which I must not do for tolerable failings lest I avoid all the world I say again I will cast away my Wine or Broth for Poyson in it which I will not do for a fly If the church renounce Christs description in the essentials notoriously I will not call it a church against their own consent But if they do it only in some Accident or Integrals I will only disown those faults XLVIII Obj. But say they p. 13.14 It is impossible there should be two national churches at least in one nation therefore by joining with a Parish you can be no part of the national church tho we confess that if you join with a Parish Assembly that forms it self into a compleat single church and the people â—onsent to take the Parish Minister for their Pastor and the Minister should exercise the whole power of a Pastor in this Parish church Mr. B. may hold communion with this Parish church and not own the Diocesan constitution Ans Of two churches in one assembly I spake before 1. Doth this Author think that exercise of power is as essential to a Minister as Power Yea that it must be the whole power that is exercised and so that no one is a true Pastor among the Presbyterians when the Classis exerciseth the highest part of the Power nor in Helvetia where Discipline is unexercised nor in England from the first Reformation Were all the Conformists that submitted to Diocesans no Church-Pastors nor no Independents whose Churches having many Pastors and Elders no one exerciseth no nor hath more than part of the power Integrity and essentiality office and exercise are not all one 2. All good Ministers that I know in the Parish Assemblies do consent to the Pastoral Office and the people love them and shew their consent by ordinary Communion and they exercise all essential to the office tho under the restraints of Government not owning in consent destructive but governing Diocesans some as de jure divino lawful some as best some as necessary many as merely impowered to a cogent Government by the King and doth not your concession imply that these are true Churches of intolerable men I speak not 3. What you confidently deny is certainly true There may be two national churches in one nation if not three that is the word is equivocal and hath divers sences and it is not called national because all persons in the nation are of it but because that the diffused parts of the Nation own it formally in a publick national relation 1. A Christian Kingdom as such is by many called a national Church thus England is such 2. A coalition of the most or all the publick Ministers in a Nation in Synodical Agreements for Communion as such is called a National Church such also is England 3. The subjection of the most of the Clergy in a nation by consent to some Ecclesiastical Primate Patriarch or other constitutive governing Head as a Bishop is in his Diocess may make a national Church in another sence The same men may be of divers of these equivocal Churches or if part be for one form and part
Towns by that nameâ— But at last the Bishops being loath to diminish their Jurisdiction decreed that very small Cities should have no Bishops ne viâ—câ—eat nomen Episcâ—pi And in process of time in some Countries the name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or City was appropriated at the Princes pleasure to some very few Corporations peculiarly priviledged above the rest So that a King that would have had but one Bishop in his Kingdom as it 's said that all the Abaâ—â—ian Empire hath had but one might have done it by calling but one Town a City VII Yet the People and Bishops being sensible that there was more work For a Bishop in a City-Diocess than one could do in many Countries they had Rural Bishops set over Pâ—pulâ—ns country Churches And tho these were subject to the Diocesans yet hereby the Churches were multiplied But the Bishops soon grew jealous and weary of these Rural-Bishops and most places put them down and set up instead of them a kind of Itinerant visiting Presbyters empowring all Arch-Bishops and Ach Deacons till at last to save themselves the labour and yet not diminish their Dominion they set up the Courts of Lay-Chancellors Officials and many such Offices besides the Arch-Deacons Surrogates c. VIII In England as is agreed by most Historians at first one Bishop had but one Church or Temple And at Luindisfarne saith Bede It was so poâ—â— a thing that it was a house thatcht with reeds The Pastor of this one Church was to convert as many as he could in all the Countrey about him The Heathen Country might be his Diocess but not his Church The converted Christians got into several Monasteries and not into Parish-Churches These Monasteries were partly for Society in Religious Exercise and partly for Studies like Schools to Educate Youth for the Ministry So that long a Diocess was only the Bishops Church with divers Monasteries At last Gentlemen for their convenience built and endowed Parish-Churches the Bishops old single Churches being called the Cathedrals And finally by the help of Princes all the Land was divided into Parishes subject to the Cathedral-Bishops to whom Deans and Chapters were added in imitation of the old Bishops Colledg of Presbyters in every single Church IX When the Rural-Bishops were put down the Presbyters power in their several Parishes was somewhat enlarged And the Diocesses at last became so great that the Bishops were sain to commit more of the oversight to the Presbyters Tho they kept them under by severe Canons Lay-Deputies and the Cogent Sword X. It grew then a controversie among the Papists themselves whether the Parish Incumbents were proper Pastors and had any Power of Government and how much And my Objectors confess that they were reputed Pastors among the Papists and that Linwood calleth them Pastors and the Laity Oves I have cited in Treat of Epis â—ilesaâ—us and many more that prove it Ant. de Dom. Spalatensis is large and full in it Spâ—lman in R. Aâ—lâ—ricks Law shews that the Bishop and Presbyter made but one of their seven Orders A great sort of the Schoolmen say the same Most Drs. say That the Presbyters essentially as Sacredetes have the power of the Keys infâ—ro interiâ—re by which they mean not a power that must be kept secret but that which consisteth in the perswasâ—vâ— use of Gods word on Câ—nferâ—nâ—e privately or publickly as distinct from Magisterial and Câ—gent Power And if they â—e of one Order then if one be a Pastâ—r the other is so also That they are taken but in partem curae is nothing against it but for it For equal Presbyters in one Church have each but partem curae The Reformation finding thâ—ngs in this case determined none of the disputes de nomine Whether Parish Rectors shall be called â—pisâ—opâ—s Gregis or Pastors or Rectors or Iâ—cumbâ—nts but use these names promiscuously Nor did they dispute whether the Parishes are Political Churches But the Definition and not the Name is the thing now before us in debate God hath given every such Minister the essence of a Pastoral oversight of his Flock Men may hinder the Exercise but can no more alter the Christian Office Power than they can deprive a Husband of the power over his Wife And the Diocesans at last have been necessitated to permit the essential Pastoral power by the word to the Incumbents having none else to use it by But Lawyers have taught many to call nothing Government that is not Cogent on the unwilling and so to say that Government is not in the Presbyters but the Bishops and that all is derived from the King which is all true of Cogent Government by the Sword in fâ—ro exteriore but not as to Pastoral Government of the Flock by Gods wâ—rd As Bishop Bilson of Obedience hath distinguished and applied well at large XI Now to come nearer our Case Diocesan Bishops have put down the ranks of Bishops which of old was setled as Presidents over the Presbyters in every Church in Cities and of the lowest Order described by Ignatius and Cyprian and others Every lowest Church hath not now a Bishop over the Presbyters as it had for divers hundred years And by this they have unchurched all the old sort of Churches in the sense of them that say There is no Church where there is no Bishop over Preâ—byters And they have set up a Diocesan Church and Bishop only wâ—â—re should be many Churches and Bishops and thus 〈◊〉 homâ—â—â—m I argued with them c. But indeed this Parochial Episcopacy or Prâ—sidâ—ncy being wrongfully said to be Essential to the Church being at most bâ—t useful to peace ad melius esse and the Epicopacy or Pastoral care of the Laity without any power over the Clergy being it that is essential to single Church Pastors In truth no man can alter this In Consent and â—â—putatiâ—n it is altered by those that think Parish Curates no Pastors and deny any Essential power over their Flocks But it is not in Consent and Reputation destroyed by them that acknowledg their Essential power and subject only themselves as Pastors to the oversight of Diocesans and Magistrates They do but destroy the 〈…〉 of Episcopacy of humane Institution which was over Presbyters in 〈◊〉 Châ—rchâ—â— but not the Episcopacy over the Flock which is of Christs Insâ—iâ—utioâ— XII 〈◊〉 whether most in England are of this Opinion or of that for 〈◊〉 or for meer gâ—verning Episcopacy and which way the Laws go and 〈◊〉 may be called the sense of the Church when Convocations and Bishops seem to differ and men change their Opinions with the Age and Interest it is impossible for me to be sure But I know how they govern by what Canons and by what Courts and as all their Cogent power is from the King it is no wonder if they be chosen by him But the old sort of Bishops that had no forcing power was so constantly otherwise chosen that their Canons nulled the Magistrates
choice And our present Canons since 1604 tho they null not the Parochial Pastorship do so far restrain it as I hope my Conscience shall never approve But yet for that I will not forsake what is of God nor make mans failings a pretence against my duty to God and Man to the Violation of Love Unity and Peace Yet I will try by distinct speaking to make both the Case and my meaining plainer if I can And thereby to shew that our case differeth but gradually from the old Nonconformists as to Lay-mens Parochial Communion where there are honest Ministers And that the old Nonconformists had better Evidence Scripture and Reason on their side than either those Innovators who make Parish-Pastors to be but de specie of humane Institution made by Bishops and changeable by them having just so much power as they please to give them or the Brownists that are so much of the same Principles as to think that mens Laws or Canons can change the form of the Office or that judg it nullified by tollerable Imperfections and Communion made unlawful by such faults as are found in almost all the Churches on Earth Qu. Whether according to the description of the Scripture and the exposition of Dr. Hammond himself all qualified Parish Ministers be not true Pastors and Bishops of the Flocks and with their consenting Christian Communicants true particular Churches and de facto all be not in the power given them by God which is essential hereto and in the power generally acknowledged by the legal Church Ans I have spoken to this so largely in my Treatise of Episcopacy and there added the testimonies of Writers old and new Protestants and Papists that I will give but a breviate of it here The essence of the Church Ministry consisteth in POWER and OBLIGATION FROM CHRIST to teach to guide in Worship and to oversee and guide the Conversation and Communion of the Flocks If it were not of Christ they were but officers of men de specie even of an office of mans making Dr. Hammond saith that Christ gave the Keys only to the Apostles and they only to their Successors That there is no evidence that there were any of a second order of Presbyters in Scripture time that this order was after made by Man Mr. Dodwell sheweth how and why and more fully than Dr. Hammond asserteth that such Presbyters have no more power than the ordaining Bishops intended to give them Or saith Dr. H. If they have a first power it is such as may not be exercised without a second so that it is indeed no true power to act And the Dr. plainly tells the London Ministers p. 80 81. There is no manner of incongruity in assigning of one Bishop to one Church and so one Bishop in the Church of Jerusalem because it is A. CHURCH not Churches being forced to acknowledg that where there were more Churches there were more Bishops And he denied our Presbyters that were not Diocesans to be Bishops both City and Country Presbyters And consequently that our Parishes were no Churches And on these grounds he and Bishop Gunning and such others judged Presbyters Ordination null because they were no Bishops And the said Dr. tho I thought he had been next Petavius one of the first that had expounded the new Testament Elders to be all Bishops of several Diocesses yet tells us that he thought most of his brethren were of his mind herein And when we in Worcestershire formed a Pacificatory Association of the Epicopal Presbyterians Indepâ—ndents and Peace-makers agreeing lovingly to practice so much in Doctrine Worship and Discipline as we were for according to our several principles forbearing each other in the rest and Dr. Warmstâ—â—â— and Dr. Tho. Good being for Bishops subscribed to it Dr. Peter Gunnâ—â—g wroâ—e largely against so doing to Dr. Warmstrie and took him off upon these aforesaid principles and they then called their Judgment the Judgment of the Church of England and wrote as if the Church had been of their mind and gone their way I wrote â—large Answer to Dr Gunning's Paper not printed and proved that the old Protestant Bishops and Doctors were of another mind largely citing their testimonies in my Christian Câ—ncâ—rd and plainly warned English Protestâ—nts to take heed of these Innovators and that the name of the Church and Episcopacy deceive them not against the Church and Protestant Cauâ—e many â—ose against me for this with great indignâ—tion especially Arch-Bishop Bramhall and two or three learned Writers and would make the world believe that it was the Church of England which I sought to defame and bring under suspition and which owned Grâ—tius and his way of Reconciliation with Rome when as it was for departing from the professed principles of the reformed Bishops and Doctors and from the book of Ordination and other writings of the Church that I blamed them Yet would they needs claim the name of the Church of England And it is not here seasonable for me to tell how many and how great men in 1661 and 1662 seemed by their wâ—rds and doings to be full at least as high as they nor how they expressed it nor how many strongly conceited by the Act thâ—â— requireth reordination of men ordained by Presbyters and by the number rejected who refused it That the Parliament had been of thâ—ir mind and much more the â—â—nvâ—cation called the church-reprâ—sentative especiâ—lly when they heard men call the old Bishops and Arch-Bishops such as â—sher Downame 〈◊〉 c. in Iâ—eland and G. Abbot Rob. Aâ—bâ—t Grindal and many such in England Puritans and Presbyterians And when Pâ—â— Hâ—lâ—â— maketh Arch bishop Abbot and the Bishops and Clergy in his days to â—e of one mind vilified by him and Arch-bishop Laud and his Clergy after of another In this case I gave the name of the present Diocesans to those that thus claimed it and pretended so confidently to the present possession of it but I thought not their claim just And when I sometimes used the name of English Diâ—cesans for this sort who nullifie the Parish Churches and Pastorship it was but to notifie them that so claimed it supposing I had oft sufficiently opened my sense and usually added that they nullifie them not effectively but quantum in se and by their consequences But I again now tell the Reader that I think the Judgment of the church of England considered as humanely constituted by publick professions and by Law much less as divinely constituted is not to be measured or named from any innovators or any that most confidently claim it or think they are uppermost at the present and thereby have that right but as Divine by Gods word whose sufficiency we all profess and as humane by the published Church professions that is the Liturgy the book of Ordination the 39 Articles of Religion the Apology of the Church of England the Defence of that Apology set in all Churches the book of Hâ—milies Nowels
Nation into his Church as a Hen gathereth her Chickens under her Wings And Rom. 11. Only their own unbelief broke them off from being a National Church including Infants And it is part of the Saints triumph that the Kingdoms of the World are become the Kingdoms of the Lord and of his Christ If you will read Mr. Beverlys Book called The whole duty of Nations it will give you full proof of this Where hath the Gospel extensively much prospered where Princes and Rulers were not Christians The Turks give liberty of Religion And yet the sometime famous Greek Churches Corinth Philippi Coloss Ephesus Laodicea Philadelphia and more than all the West are Apostatized or withered to a few ignorant vicious scandalous Christians Obj. IV. 8. If such a confederation in lawful Circumstantials as well as Integrals will make a Church I know not why we may not have a Catholick Visible Church organized if this be a due acception of a Church Ans This is as much as to say If the name Church may be used equivocally as all words must of several sorts then all those sorts may be the same I deny it If you dislike the use of the name you have your liberty as a Grammarian to forbear it But sure the Name and the Thing are not all one nor the Controversies about them 2. But we have a Catholick Visible Church Organized as I have oft proved against the Papists viz. under one Christ the Head and his Ministers as his subordinate Officers Obj. V. Page 3. If you touch a mans finger you touch the man we have communion with an integrum perpartes and with a Genus by the Species and with both by individuals Nay as every part of the Scripture one verse or sentence of it makes up sence so every part of the Liturgy as in form and manner therein contrived is Liturgy and worship thereafter is according to the Liturgy tho it be but part of the wâ—rship Page 20. As for the falseness in Integrals it gives the denomination to the whole for an Integral part is an essential part of the whole Much more there is to the same purpose making him guilty of all that useth a part Ans 1. You have the freedom of using words at your pleasure but not imposing them on mankind when necessity hath taught the World to distinguish essential and integral parts you have no authority to confound their Language by the quibble of calling Integrals essential causes of the whole A totum per aggregationem as a heap of Sand or a field of Grass is not constituted of a proper essentiating form and so homogeneous matter aggregate is all the being it hath And if you make contiguity an essential cause or how else you will you have liberty of speech But we will not be cheated by it to believe that it causeth any more than Totality or Integrality and the absence of it is a privation of no more And all mens Graces Obedience and Worship are defective in point of Integrality and degree and I hope you will not say that they need no favour or pardon or amendment 2. All human actions have their faults must we therefore do nothing or converse with no men England is one Kingdom If there be one or many faults in its Laws or officers may we therefore obey none that are faultless The Laws are the Rule of National Justice may a Judg Justice Officer or subject use none of them because some are faulty Doth that make him guilty of all Bonum est ex causis integris The fault of a part may indeed denominate the whole faulty so far But the whole Law or Liturgy may be called faulty for a part and yet he that useth either not be guilty of any of the bad part for using the good The Law and Liturgy are one thing and the use is another Its faults are no further his than he owneth them your Bread or Meat may be called bad if part only be bad and yet if you eat none but the good part it will not hurt you 2. But if it must be otherwise no man may hear you or joyn with your Churches And do you think as aforesaid that Mr. Faldo and all his Church at Barnet lived not in a sinful communion very many years that omitted at least an integral part of publick worship the singing of Gods praise Christ with his Disciples sung a Hymn after the Sacrament The Jews Church made it the chief part of their Worship James prescribeth it us in all our Holy Mirth such as the Lords Day is appointed for 1 Cor. 14.26 Every one had a Psalm and with them no one had a Psalm tho his Judgment was for it the question was Whether he should forsake them for refusing it I thought not because it was better that they had something that was good than nothing But your argument would not only unchurch them but make all sinners that communicated with them for omissions of great duties are faults and greater faults than tolerable failings in performance He that prayeth not at all doth worse than he that prayeth by a Book and he that preacheth or teacheth not at all doth worse than he that readeth a Sermon so that their total stated omission and opposition to singing by your false rule denominated them no worshippers of God if the whole must be denominated from a part How many private Meetings in London never sing a Psalm for fear of being discovered Yea how many seldom read a Chapter but only preach and pray and sometime administer the Sacrament Must we needs say therefore that they omit all Worship VI. On such occasions I argued That if we must not communicate with any Parish Church because of the faults of the Liturgy it will follow that we must not communicate with any Church on Earth that hath as great faults and that by this we must renounce Communion with all Christs Body on Earth All the Armenians Nestorians Eutychians Copties Abassines Georgians Greeks Russians Papists yea Lutherans have a more faulty Liturgie or manner of worship than the English Yea the Churches called Calvinists have their Liturgies and faults And I instanced in Switzerland because as God hath of late most preserved their peace so they are taken to be the honestest sort of Protestants that in poverty serve God with soundest doctrine and least scandal of Life but yet have no proper discipline but the Magistrates Is it a sin to have confederacy or Communion with their Churches To this he plainly saith Page 11. It is That is all that confederate with them as Churches are guilty of their error called Erastian For subjection tâ— such discipline is the condition of their Communion Ans Subjection is an equivocal word If it were by profession or subscription of consent it were indeed to be guilty of that error tho not by a fauâ—t of the Part denominating the whole to make their worship unlawful or their Churches none but