they are of the same mind and party M. Are you a Lawyer and do you accuse men in the Temple without naming them and bringing proof of their guilt Noxa caput sequitur should all the Clergy be called guilty if Sibthorp or Manwaring or Heylin were proved so what error you accuse them of prove and punish them for no other 6. But I prove that the Bishops themselves made other Ordination necessary Because they would Ordain none without sinful subscriptions and conditions which must not be yielded to If you can prove the terms lawful on which they Ordain I shall trie your skil anon II. I farther prove the Ordination in question valid thus Where there is a true notification of God's will that this person shall be a Minister of the Gospel there is no want of validity in his Ordination But those here ordained by Presbyters might have such a true notification of God's will Ergo The major is plain Because God's will and Man's consent are the fundamentum of the Relation therefore nothing can be wanting to it 's being and validity The Minor is proved Those men that have laudable ability and willingness and the consent of a people in true necessity and the approbation of a National Assembly of Learned Divines of which many Bishops were called to be members and the investing Ordination of the gravest Senior Pastors that were then to be had had a true notification of God's will that they should be his Ministers But such were these in question Ergo. III. The way of ordination which was valid in the Primitive Church is now valid But such is that in question Ergo. As to the Minor The Ordination of such Pastors as were but the Rectors of single Congregations was it that was valid in the Primitive Church But such is that in question Doctor Hammond labours to prove that in Scripture time there were no other Bishops or Presbyters but the single Pastors of single Assemblies Mr. Clerkson hath fully proved and I more fully in my Treatise of Episcopacy that for a hundred and fifty years if not much more there were no particular Churches bigger than our Parishes A Bishop then was but the chief Parish or Congregational Pastor who guided it with his Assistance And such are all our Incumbents especially in great Towns who have Chapels and Curates and Lecturers to assist them And Grotius de Imper. sum Pot. sheweth that really the chief Pastor of a Church is a Bishop whatever they call him But I have so largely proved in my Treatise of Episcopacy pag. 231 232 c. that our questioned Ordainers were scripture Bishops and that those now called Presbyters Ordained long after that I must not repeat the same things here again IV. Those that are in Orders may confer Orders Ordinis est Ordinare as Vsher was wont to say As Physicians make Physicians and Philosophers make Philosophers and Geneâ—ation propagateth the Species And our Church consenteth to this 1. In that Presbyters must concur in Ordination by Imposition of hands which is an act of authority and collation 2. In that the Convocation hath a greater power even Canon making and that Convocation consisteth half and more of Presbyters and the Canons Excommunicateth all that deny it to be the represensative Church of England But Presbyters have the power of Order as Bishop Carlton de Iurisdict proveth it commonly acknowledged equal with Bishops pag. 7. And the Church of England in King Aelfrik's time ad Wolf. in Spelman pag. 576. l. 17. Affirm that Bishops and Presbyters are but one Order V. Those may ordain validly whose Ordination is more warrantable than that of Roman Bishops for our Bishops own theirs as valid and ordain them not again when they turn Protestants But the Presbyters that Ordained here fourteen years did it more warrantably than the Roman Bishops Ergo 1. The Papists Ordain men to a false Office to be Mass-Priests But the said Pastors ordained none but to the same office that Christ instituted 2. The Papists have their power of Ordination from the Pope whose own power and office in Specie is a false Usurpation But it is not so here where the ordaining Pastors were lawfully called 3. Papists Ordination enters them into a false Church in Specie a pretended catholick Church headed by the Pope but our Pastors entered them into no Church but Christs 4. Papists make them take sinful Oaths and Conditions before they Ordain them But these Pastors at least that imposed not the Covenant did not If yet any will nullifie the Reformed Churches and Ministry and their Ordination and not the Papists we may understand what their Mind and Communion is VI. That Ordination is valid which is less culpable than many Diocesans But such is that in question Ergo To the proof of the Minor which only needs proof here 1. Some Diocesans here have been Papists as Godfrey Goodman of Gloucester and divers have pleaded for and owned a Forreign Iurisdiction which the Oath of Supremacy abjureth 2. I have fully proved in the said Treatise of Episcopacy that the Office of Pastors of single Churches is more warrantable than our Diocesans who are the sole Bishops of many score or hundred Churches 3. The said Presbyters at least who medled not with the Covenant imposed no unlawful condition on the Ordained as too many Bishops have done 4. Many Bishops plead the derivation of their power from Rome And what theirs is I shewed before But because I must not write a Treatise on this one question you may read it done copiously and unanswerably by Voetius against Comel Iansenius de desperata Causa Papatus Yet I add one difference more The Ordainers and Ordained in question had the consent of the Flocks and neighbour Ministers but the said Bishops come in by the Magistrate without the consent or knowledge of the Flocks and so do the Ministers usually whom they Ordain And what the ancient Church thought of this abundance of Canons shew I 'le now cite but one Concil Nic. 2. Can. 3. Omnem Electionem quae fit a Magistratibus Episcopi Presbyteri vel Diaconi irritam manere ex canone dicente siquis Episcopus secularibus Magistratibus usus per eos Ecclesiam obtinuerit deponatur segregetur omnes qui cum eo Communicant Oportet enim eum qui est promovendus ad Episcopatum ab Episcopis eligi quemadmodum a sanctis patribus Nicaenis decretum est in Can. qui dicit Episcopum oportet maxime quidem ab omnibus qui sunt in provincia constitui And many Councils nullifie their Episcopacy that come not in by the election or consent of Clergy and People which ad hominem is somewhat to them that urge such Councils against us L. I confess your reasons seem unanswerable at least as to the case of necessity which I am convinced was the case of those that were ordained when there were no Bishops to whom they could have access or no
be not bound to approve every Law he is bound in the main to execute them in his place And if he know that the Imposers of his Oath did mean that he should in a special manner execute e. g. the Laws against Protestants he should not take that Oath contrary to their sence Our Canons make these things forementioned their principal part as you may see by putting them first with that strange penalty of Excommunication ipso facto And indeed it is no small part of the whole Book that we dissent from II. But moreover we dare not promise or swear Obedience to our Ordinaries till we know that Lay-men governing by the Keys are not those Ordinaries I have consulted Lawyers and some say that only the Bishop is meant by our Ordinary But I think they are but few that say so And indeed we are bound to believe the contrary because terms of Art or Science are to be understood according to the use of the men of that Art or Science But men of that profession commonly call other Judges of their Courts our Ordinaries besides the Bishops So doth R. Cousins in his Tables and others 2. And other Governing Ministers whom we must obey are mentioned in the Ordination Covenant also besides our Ordinaries Our Reasons against this are these 1. It is unlawful to confederate with Sacrilegious Prophaâ—ers of a great Ordinance of God in stablishing and practising that Sacrilegious Prophanation But to Covenant or Swear Obedience to Lay-men in usurping the power of the Keys of Decretive Excommunication and Absolution we fear is such and as to the Minor the reason of our fear is if it be Sacrilegious prophanation for a Lay-man to usurp the other parts of the Pastoral Office then it is so for him to usurp the power of the Keyes But the Antecedent is confest as to the Sacraments and the charge of ordinary Teaching and Guidance of the Flocks c. 2. Ad hominem If the Bishops take it for Usurpation in Presbyters to exercise this power supposing it proper to themselves they must judge it much more so in Lay-men L. The Lay-men do it by the Bishops Authority and in his Name and so he doth it by them His Name is to the Excommunications M. 1. The Chancellors have their Commissions from the King which the Bishops cannot alter 2. If it be so it is the worse 1. That the Bishops name should be abused to a Sentence when he never heard or tryed the Cause If this be against the Bishops Will it is a forgery if he consent it seems he trusteth his Conscience in the Chancellors hands and Excommunicateth all at a venture that the Chancellor Excommunicateth though he know not whom nor why which is against the Light of Nature and the common Justice of the World. 2. And it is contrary to the nature of the Pastoral Office to execute it by men of another Calling Either it is proper to Bishops or not if not Presbyters or Lay-men may use it if yea then none may be deputed to use it that are not Bishops If the Keys and not the Sacraments may be used by Lay-men then the use of the Keys is not proper to Pastors but only Sacraments But no man can give a just reason why Lay-men may not give the Sacraments as well as use the Keys Yea indeed the Sacramental administration cannot be proper to the Pastoral Office if the Keys be not For the â—se of the Keys is to Judge who shall be admitted to Sacramental communion and if only Delivering and not Iudging to whom be proper to the Pastor then he is but a carrier or cryer and Executioner of Lay-mens Judgment perhaps lower than the Deacon Barely to say over the words and do the action is but an outward Ministration and no act of Power at all L. But it is not the Chancellor but the Surrogate that Excommunicateth M. 1. Ask those that have been much among them how oft they have heard a Lay-Civilian say at once I admonish you I admonish you I admonish you I excommunicate you 2. Hypocrisie is but an aggravation of Sin The Lay-man decreeth the Excommunication which is the judicial act when they use a Surrogate Priest it is but as a hireling Servant to pronounce the Decree to mock the Church with a Formality 3. If indeed it be the Priest that Excommunicateth and Absolveth when no Bishop is there then they confess that the power of the Keys is not proper to a Bishop but may be validly used by a Priest. L. But what have you against swearing Obedience to the Bishops themselves supposing the Canons were materially Lawful M. III. We have nothing against a peaceable submission to them if they were proved all Usurpers For my part when I think how the High Priests were made out of a wrong line by Roman power and purchase c. in Christs time and how much he was for submission to them and a use of all that was good and lawful done by those bad unlawful intruders it resolveth me to regard bare Possession so far as our own edification and the common peace requireth But as Christ was a Nonconformist to the Pharisees vain Traditions so he was so far from swearing Obedience to these Usurpers that he oft plainly and vehemently reproveth them Many for the bonum publicum which is Suprema Lex and finis regiminis did live in quiet submission to the Usurpers of civil power here who yet would never have sworne obedience to them or justified their Usurpation That the frame of Diocesans as the only Bishops is unlawful tota specie I have so largely proved in my Treatise of Episcopacy that I must not here repeat it as long as the Diocesan party by not answering it seem to grant it I have proved 1. That this Diocesan Species destroyeth the old Species of particular Churches turning the Parishes into no Churches but parts of a Diocesan Church while they make a Bishop essential to a Church 2. That they set up a false Species instead of it viz. A Church infimae speciei which hath many score Parishes if not many hundred in it without any under-under-Bishop to them 3. That it deposeth the old species of Bishops and Presbyters both which were to every Church of the lowest species a Bishop with his Presbyters ejusdem ordinis if they could be had so that many score or hundred Bishops are put down on pretense of setting up Episcopacy 4. And they set up both Bishop and Presbyters of a humane unlawful sort instead of those deposed viz. Arch-bishop infimi ordinis over a thousand or hundred Carcasses of Churches and half Presbyters that have not the power of the Keys nor are of the same Order with the Bishops 5. That they deposed Christs true Church Discipline and made it as impossible as for one School-master alone to govern all the Schools in a Diocess or one Physician many hundred Hospitals or one Mayor many Hundred Corporations without
Licensed as is aforesaid presume to appoint or hold any Meetings for Sermons c. nor attempt by Fasting and Prayer to cast out any Devil c. L. All this was done to prevent Abuses M. It fell out well that they did not forbid Christianity or reading Scripture in a known Tongue to prevent abusing it And next that they forbad not Law and the use of Reason which is most of all abused But do not you thâ—â—k that they make very unworthy Men Ministers or that they change or maim the Pastoral Office when no Minister no not the wisest may be trusted to fast and pray with his Neighbours Should a Master of a Family be forbidden this in his House the Iews forbad it not to Cornelius What jealousies have such a Clergy of one another And of Preaching Fasting and Praying What if some Neighbours have some great Temptations some great Guilt some great Danger by a Plague or the like or some great Affliction some Friends near Deathâ— or some important Business of great moment as Marriage Travel Navigation c. Must the Bishop know all their secrets that their Pastor at home must know Or is he a capable Judge for many Hundred Parishes when they must Fast or Pray Or did you ever know any go to him for such a License Are not those unworthy Ministers that be not fit to be trusted to Fast and Pray with their People while the Law is open to punish all abuses of it And are not those over-subject to Prelacy that will Swear Obedience in this any more than against Preaching the Gospel Dan. 6. 5. We shall not find any occasion against this Daniel except we find it concerning the Law of his God. Chap. XXXVI Point XXXIII Of the Excommunication of the three last Canons M. THe quality of the rest of the Canons resolve me that it is unlawful for me if commanded to publish an Excommunication against any upon the three last L. What â—e the three last M. The 139th is Whosoever shall hereafter affirm that the Sacred Synod of this Nation in the Name of Christ and by the King's Authority assembled is not the true Church of England by Representation let him be Excommunicate and not restored till he repent and publickly revoke this his wicked Error L. What fault can you find with this M. 1. No Man can tell what is the Church representative till they know which is the Church real And this they tell us not either as to Matter or Form. 1. Whether the Church real be only the Clergy or also the Laity Whether the King and Parliament Nobles Gentry and Commons be all Represented in the Convocation If yea by what Law or Power And may we say that King and Parliament do what these do What need they then after to confirm their Canons And they that hold the Church Laws bind in Conscience as such before King and Parliament confirm them will bring King and Parliament under their Obedience if not Excommunication But if they pretend not to represent the King and Laity they falsly exclude them from being part of the Church 2. They are utterly disagreed de Forma what the Church of England is either it hath an Ecclesiastical constitutive Soveraign Power or not If not it is not an Ecclesiastick Body Politick And of late their disputing Doctors plainly confess that it hath no such specifying Summa Potestas and so is formally no Political governed Church The King's Government of it by the Sword which none deny they say is but an Accident of it and not Essential to the Church And so in sum it is but a meer Community or a voluntary Confederacy of many Churches that make no unifying Politie And that is to be a Church only in a loose and not proper sence as the Assembly at Nimegen was a Kingdom 3. I doubt not but Thousands of Lâ—y-Men and many Dissenting Ministers are true Parts of the Church of England And therefore that the Convocation represented our part only of that Church 4. If they be but a Community they can make no Laws but only Contracts Laws are only the Acts and Instruments of Rulers Therefore we owe no Obedience to them as being no Commands of Rulers till the Civil Power make them Laws save as particular Pastors may make them Laws to their several Flocks 5. If they make them obligatory Church-Laws as the Acts of the Convocation then it seems the Representative Church governeth the Real and the Presbyters in Convocation exercise a Legislative Power which is the highest that Bishops can pretend to 6. These being left thus in uncertainty in the dark how comes that Man to deserve Excommunication or be wickedly erroneous that herein declareth his dissent I dare not publish such an Excommunication if commanded L. What is the 140th Canon M. Whosoever shall affirm that no manner of Person either of the Clergy or Laity not being then particularly assembled in the said sacred Synod are to be subject to tâ—e Decrees thereof in Causes Ecclesiastical made and ratifyed by the King's Majesty's Supream Authority as not having given their Voice to them Let him be Excommunicated and not restored c. Here craftily in a Parenthesis they put in the King's Authority and if they mean only his Obligation on us no one of us denieth it But because their disputing Doctors take that but as an Accident we may say that the Papists themselves are oft put to say that General Councils bind not the absent till they receive them And the French long received not the Council of Trent nor many Churches other Councils L. What is the last Canon M. The 141st for so many Church-Commandments we have God's Ten being but a little part of our Religion is Whoever shall affirm that the Sacred Synod assembled as aforesaid was a Company of such Persons as did conspire together against Godly and Religious Professors of the Gospel and that therefore both they and their Proceedings in making Canons and Constitutions in Causes Ecclesiastical by the King's Authority Let them be Excommunicated and not restored c. Here again we doubt not of the King 's obligatory Power But what the Persons and their Works were I think a Point that Christians may differ about and not deserve Excommunication It seems they could foresee what Men would judge of them and no wonder tho' they had not the Gift of Prophecy I am none of their Judge but leave God's Work to himself But I must say that this Book of Canons doth no whit increase my esteem of Council of Prelacy of Humane Canons or Clergies Laws nor of the particular Bishops and Clergy that made them And that I will neither publish such Excommunications nor promise or swear to do it Tho' I know that stretching pretences satisfie some Men like theirs that own the name of Sacred to that Synod because Sacrum quod sanctum simul execrabile signat A professed and relative Sanctity may be granted them Chap.
Ministry on such terms V. They never accused the use of Holy dayes as dayes of Thanksgiving to God for giving such Holy Apostles to the Church and whose memory we honourable commemorate VI. They never accused our Kneeling at the Lords Supper as unlawful but only the casting Godly persons from Communion for not using it when they take it to be sin About the Kneeling the old Nonconformists were not of one mind some thought that every objectum motivum of Adoration was forbidden that was a Creature But others said that every Creature in the World may be such an object Our Meat is objectum motivum when we pray for a Blessing on it If I see the Relicts or Picture of a Friend that I wronged while he was alive I may well be moved by it to beg pardon of God. All his works must move me to adore and praise him But we may not make any Image objectum terminativum or ad quod to which we direct our Divine Worship as a Medium of our sending it to God. The only great difficulty about this is from the argument of scandalous hardening the Papists that live among us Though indeed our Doctrine avoideth that scandal VII They never accused the Ceremony of laying the hand on the Book and kissing it in taking an Oath VIII They never spake against the Ring in Marriage IX They meddled not with the Surplice Tippet Hood Rochet Cope but only the casting men out of the Ministry that dare not use them thinking them unlawful Though we justifie them not X. They accused not all significant use of the Cross but only that in Baptism it seemed to have all or most of the nature of a Humane Sacrament of the Covenant of Grace as it is expounded in the Liturgy and Canon XI They spake not against Episcopacy as it is a presidency among and over Presbyters differing in Degree and not in Office called ORDER and that in a Church of the lowest Species XII They opposed not Arch-Bishops as over many such Churches and Bishops nor Diocesans as Arch-Bishops ruling but by Gods Word XIII They said nothing against Metropolitans Patriarchs Lay-Chancellors Commissaries Officials Surrogates Archdeacons c. as Officers of the King appointed to do nothing besides the Sacred Ministry if they be Clergy-men but what belongs to Magistracy XIV They said nothing against any promise of Obedience to them only in the capacities and in the exercise of the power forementioned XV. Much less did they ever oppose or question Swearing to the King according to the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy And I with divers others also being for some ends entered as his Chaplains in Ordinary took also that Oath of Fidelity which the Kings Houshold Servants take XVI We never were for any dishonouring of Kings by publick Excommunications much les by Subjects or Forreigners whom Kings never choose to be their Pastors but only in case of necessity for such a denyal of Sacramental Communion to them as Bishop Andrews in Fortura Torâ— and Bishop Bilson plead for which is but to forbear our selves a sinful act XVII We never pleaded for any Elders or Chancellors power of the Keys who are but Lay-men XVIII We never held that Magistrates are bound to add their force by the Sword to the censures of the Church as such and to punish men more because the Church hath by Excommunication cast them out or because they are not reconciled XIX We never thought that things indifferent do become unlawful to us because the Magistrate commandeth them XX. We never held that the Scripture is a particular Rule commanding every accident and circumstance about Gods Worship but only a general Rule requiring all to be done in Love and Peace and to edification and decently c. in those circumstances which must be some way determined and God hath left to variable Humane determination Such as are Time Place Utensils Translations Sections Metres Tunes Methods and Words in Preaching and Prayer Habit Gesture and many such XXI We never held it unlawful to do one of these actions though it were by mistake unlawfully commanded e. g. If the Rulers prescribe a Time Place Metre Tune c. unfit if it be not so bad as to overthrow the ends and use of the Worship the fault of the Commander will not disoblige us from the duty of obeying And whereas some argue that no man hath authority to sin ergo we are not bound to obey that which is no act of authority I answer Rulers have authority to command that which is good though not in a faulty manner and when we cannot do the good without the faulty manner it is their fault and not ours e. g. If an inconvenient Time Place Text Tune c. be chosen the Union and Concord which is held by agreeing in those Modes is necessary He that will not joyn in them cannot joyn in the Worship So that we obey the Ruler or Guide as a determiner of the means of Concord which is necessary and not sub ratione erroris as misdetermining though in that which is misdetermined If a Master bid his Servant go at an unseasonable time about his work it 's his duty to go at that time We never pray without some fault in the manner and yet must rather do it so than not at all The mistaken Ruler bids us not sin It 's his sin to choose a mis-circumstance and it is not his own action that he bids us do but ours And it s to us a lawful circumstance because necessary to Concord and commanded though mistakingly XXII We never held it unlawful to joyn with a Church or Minister that hath some faults both Personal and in their acts of Worship as if all that joyned were guilty of all the faults there committed No not though we knew before hand that some false Doctrine would be uttered or fault committed Else we must separate from all the world and all from us XXIII We never thought it a duty to separate from every Church that culpably neglecteth Discipline and hath open wicked men therein If we be not guilty of it and cannot lawfully live in the Communion of a more obedient reformed Church XXIV We never judged needless affected singularity a duty but judge it best in lawful things for Concord sake to Conform to the custom of the Churches where we live or come XXV Though we think not that men may command us to destroy our Neighbours Souls by scandal yet when disobedience to a Rulers Law is like to do more hurt than the scandal taken at it comes to we are for avoiding the greater hurt XXVI We never separated from any tolerable Parish Ministers or Churches as if they were no true Ministers or Churches nor perswaded any so to do nor to take the Communion of such Churches for unlawful to us either occasionally or constantly when we can have no better without more hurt than benefit to our selves and others XXVII We hold
the Ordainers investing action This is it which we mean in the Controversie which may not be done twice 2. Or it may signifie the meer words of the Ordainers and Ordained which make up the said Moral action We deny not but the same words repeated may make up one Moral Ordination If the Bishop by tautology repeat them twice or thrice Or if they should to satisfie men of divers Languages that are present be first spoken in English and after in French or when some that doubted require it should go over them again all this is but one Ordination L. How prove you that our Bishops intend any more when they say it is only to satisfie the Law that you may be capable in England M. 1. That it is not a meer relation to some particular cure that they mean is undenyable 1. Because they call that by the name of Institution and Induction and not of Ordination 2. Because they never ordain any over and over upon removals 3. Because the words of Ordination in the Book tell it us 2. That they do it not as a Repetition of the same valid Ordination is past doubt 1. Because the same repeated by the same men will not serve 2. It is to be done again ten or twenty years after the first 3. He is to be fined in an hundred pound that administreth the Sacrament without it 4. He is taken for no true Minister without it which cannot be true of a bare repetition of words No reasonable men would lay so much on that 3. It is undeniable that they take men for unordained and no Ministers till they ordain them 1. Because they all disown reordaining they know that the Canons called the Apostles and the whole antient and later Church condemn it as like Anabaptistry and no one Bishop in England will not renounce it Therefore its certain that they take the first Ordination for null 2. And they have so declared their judgment in many words and writings and in the Act of Uniformity it is plainly intimated in the penalty L. And what harm is there in being twice Ordained M. 1. Ad hominem I need not dispute it All the Bishops disclaim it as unlawfull so that we have their confession 2. It is the same fault as Anabaptistry If they be blameless why make you such a noise against the Anabaptists To be twice made a Christian and twice made a Minister is of the like kind 3. It is something causelesly to cast our selves under the Censure of all the Church that hath been against it and to be condemned by them 4. It is a plain prophanation of God's holy name and of a great and holy Ordinance by Lying and taking Godâ—s name in vain For they are said to be now admitted to the Office and this day to receive it and God is told that they are now called to it And all their Examinations and Answers imply that they were no Ministers before and the Bishop saith Receive the Holy Ghost for the Office and work of a Priest now committed to thee by the Imposition of our hands which all imply it not done before And in so sacred a contract with God to lie to him and prophanely abuse his name and the holy Ghosts and the Duty of Prayer and Praise is tremendous Be not deceived God is not mocked 5. It is a confederacy with Corrupters and Usurpers that arrogate and appropriate valid Ordination to themselves and a confirming all their injury to posterity that all that shall hereafter imitate them may be encouraged by alledging our Re ordination 6. It is a hainous injury to all the other Reformed Churches as if we degraded their Ministers and separated from them all as no Churches For one part of them have no Diocesans and the rest have Bishops that at the Reformation were Ordained by Presbyters 7. It is contrary to one of the Articles of our Religion 23. These we ought to judge them lawfully called and sent which be chosen and called to this work by men who have publick authority given to them in the Congregation to call and send Ministers c. But in other Countries Presbyters have publick authority given them And Art. 36. The book of Consecration doth contain all things necessary to such consecration and Ordaining But it hath nothing for Re-ordaining those before Ordained 8. It is a plain condemnation of the Church of England which hath professed Communion with the Reformed abroad as with true Ministers and Churches of Christ. And we are now told that to communicate with Schismaticks induceth the guilt of Schism 9. It introduceth Anabaptistry or utter confusion into the Nation leaving men in doubt whether for fourteen years the people had any true Baptism while it's a controversie whether Lay-mens Baptizing be valid and Mr. Dodwell maketh all men to be out of any Covenant-title to Salvation that have not the Sacraments from a Minister that hath successive Episcopal Ordination And all Christians must question whether they have not so long here lived out of the Church of Christ without Ministery and Communion Do you think that none of these nine Reasons prove Re-ordination sinful L. But because the Bishops deny it let me hear your proof that the former Ordination here by Presbyters is not a nullity M. I. Ad hominem the Church of England hath as I said judged the like valid in the Reformed Churches by holding Communion with them I cited a great number of Bishops and Doctors in my Christian Concord L. But they say that necessity differeth their case from ours here And even Doctour Sherlock tells you that if God make necessity necessity will make Ministers But ours Schismatically pull'd down the Bishops and now disown the very Order M. There is a satisfactory concession in these words but the accusations are made up of falsehood and deceit 1. Archbishop Vsher and others that thought the Ejectors of Episcopacy were guilty of Schism yet maintained that their Ordination was valid He told me how he pleaded it to the King. 2. Do they think that Salmasius Blundel and all others that have written more against our Prelacy than the English were deprived of it against their wills by necessity 3. What necessity can they pretend to the Hollanders Helvetians Geneva Embden Bremen the Palatinate and Scotland heretofore might they not have had Prelates when they would 4. Was not the necessity far more notorious to those that I now plead for They lived in a Land where Episcopacy was cast out and kept out by a potent Army I think there were but four or five Bishops alive when it was restored 5. It is false that they cast out the Bishops Those Ministers that joyned with the Parliament to cast them out were Ordained by Bishops and therefore are none of the men that we are speaking of These that were Ordained by Presbyters were then young men at School or in the Universities And what are other mens actions to them L. But
forward to meddle with more publick Church matters without our Superiors invitation or consent but we may say that it is our judgment that these additions following would greatly strengthen the Interest of Religion Church and Concord I. That the Parish Churches be acknowledged True Churches and their Ministers such Overseers as are necessary to Essentiate True Churches that is That all Presbyters be Episcopi Gregis Overseers of the Flock and the Incumbent the President among his Curate Presbyters where there be such And that the Diocesan is not the sole Essentiating Church Pastors and the Diocesan Church the lowest particular Church and the Parish Assemblies but his Chapels or Parts of the lowest Church and the Parish Ministers his Curates and no true Pastors II. That no Lay-Elder Chancellour or Civilian have or use the Decretive Power of Excommunication or Absolution called the Keys III. That New and more Peaceable Canons be made instead of that Book which now obtaineth according to the Scripture Canons Or that there be no Canons but Scripture besides Statute Laws IV. That Bishops have no Forcing Power nor the Writ de Excommunicato Capiendo or any Force by the Sword be Annexed to Excommunication as such but that the Magistrates hear and judge before they punish and Obedience to Bishops be unconstrained and voluntary V. That Bishops judge Church-Causes in Session with their Presbyters and not alone nor with some few of their own Choice or with Lay-men but in regular Synods and Ordain there by their consent and after sufficient trial of them that seek Ordination And so of Institution VI. That Diocesses be not greater than the Diocesan is able to Oversee and that he forbid not the Parish Pastors their particular works but only use his general overcight and power on Appeals VII That Bishops oft visit the inferior Pastors and Churches and instruct the Juniors by direction and Example how to Preach and guide the Flock and rebuke the Erroneous Scandalous Unpeaceable and Negligent VIII That the Bishops be Chosen by the Diocesan Synod and Consented to freely without force by their City flocks where they reside and Invested by the King who hath the power of Temporal Privileges IX That the City and neighbour Pastors be the Cathedral Dean and Prebends at least where City Churches want maintenance or that they ambulatorily Preach abroad where there is most need X. If Arch-Bishop Usher's Form or Reduction of Government to the Primitive state or else King Charles the Second his Declaration about Ecclesiastical Affairs be but setled by Law it will be a Healing and Great Reformation inferior Synods not hurtfully fettered being allowed under the Diocesan Synods And whether the Diocesans be Called Bishops or Arch-Bishops as Successors to the Apostles and Evangelists in the ordinary parts of their Office a general care of many Churches the name is to be left to each mans free judgment As to the ignorant clamors for a real or seeming Re-ordination 1. I have said so much against it in my Treatise of Episcopacy and my Disputation of Ordination in my Dispute of Church-Government and my Christian Concord that while the objectors by contempt refuse to read and answer them it will be no cure of their pride and partiality to repeat the same again But I say that I have fully proved unanswered that they that were Ordained by Synods of Incumbent Pastors and specially those also then approved by the Westminster Assembly had a better Ordination and that by true Bishops than either Papists or meer English Diocesans that are not Arch-bishops can give And yet they Re-ordain not Papists 1. Either they take the Parish-Churches that is the Pastor and Communicants distinct from the meer Auditors and Catechumens and from the Aliens to be true proper Churches in political Sense or not If yea Then those Churches have Bishops For Ecclesia est plebs Episcopo adunata ubi Episcopus ibi Ecclesia Their own Principle is That it is no proper political Church without a Bishop There are three degrees of Bishops 1. All Presbyters are Episcopi Gregis by the consent of Papists and Protestants 2. The chief Incumbents that have Curates or may have are Episcopi Praesides The Ordination without Diocesans was by these two sorts of Bishops 3. True Diocesans are Arch-bishops Episcopi generales plurium Ecclesiarum We refuse not their Ordination but Men have true Episcopal Ordination without it But if they say that the Diocesan is the lowest Bishop of a particular Church and that the Parish-Incumbent Rectors are no true Bishops and their Assemblies no true political Churches formed of Bishops but only parts of one Diocesan Church infimi Ordinis we abhor such Tyrannical Schismatical Diocesans and their pretence of proper power to Ordain and the Primitive Church had never any such Ordaniers or Bishops And I advise all Ministers neither to be Re-ordained by such nor to yield to the appearance of such an evil by coming under their equivocating imposition of hands lest they take God's Name in vain and harden Papists and Church-Tyrants in their false condemnation of the Reformed Churches If it be want of a legal right in England that they pretend let the Magistrate give you a Licence or Legal right I write not this for my own interest for I was Ordained by a Diocesan and am past all hopes or fears of Man. CHAP. LX. The Reasons of these ten Articles L. YOV must give me leave to tell you what objections are like to be raised against your proposed Articles of Reconciliation And first your own party will be unsatisfied in them and so they will do no good because here is not a word against Arch-bishops Bishops Deans Arch-deacons and the rest that bear office in their Courts which yet is the thing that you your self seem most to dissent from and which the Covenant did renounce M. 1. We have so much swearing and unswearing and forswearing that I will meddle as little as I can in things that look like Perjury You know that as the last Generation was sworn against Prelacy this new Generation is sworn to it Yea in a manner the whole Land is sworn or covenanted never to endeavour any alteration of it And how much soever I am against that Oath yet I will meddle as little as I can in urging men to that which they take for Perjury And I have elsewhere told you that the Covenant renounced not all Episcopacy many of the Assembly of Divines declared their dissent from any such renunciation and had entred their protestation against it as Dr. Cornel. Burges told me had not the Explication been added which confineth the Renunciation to the English frame And that the present Non-Conformists would have thankfully received the Primitive Episcopacy they shewed by their motion 1660. 2. We offer this form on supposition that we may not have what we think best but what we can joyfully submit to for our Concord and the Churches safety 3. I have
A thousand will be unnamed when you have done your best at it But the Rule must not name every Errour against it The contrariety will be discernable It is enough that men profess a perfect Rule and renounce all contrary and be responsible to the Church and their Rulers when they corrupt Religion contrary to the Rule and their own Profession An Errour not manifested hurts not others and none is punishable till proved If Heresy be kept secret the Church must not make new Laws and Tests to make men confess it but punish it when it is vented L. But shall Ministers make no profession but what a Papist or a Heretick will make M. No if a Papist or Heretick will profess all that is necessary else we must make more Must we make new Creeds or new Scriptures as oft as dissemblers will falsely profess that already made This was the temptation to those multitudes of Creeds by which Councils distracted the Churches which Hilary decryeth L. But the Bishops will never take down the Oath of Canonical Obedience and all the other Oaths and Subscriptions that are formed to their Interest M. I cannot help that Over-doing is un-doing If ever Episcopacy be cast out it will be by such over-doing which will not let men live in Peace that would not molest them L. 6. Why do you seem to grant the Bishops and Patrons votes in the choice of Pastors when before you seem to have much against them M. I have nothing against the Ordainers judging of the fitness of the Ordained nor of Magistrate or Patrons disposal of Temples and Tithes And because nothing but necessity will weigh down the great inconvenience of maintaining distinct Pastors while â— setled Lecturer hath the Temple and Tithes therefore I suppose that the Bishop and Patron will have their Votes And I suppose you know that it is vain to motion to Patrons to resign this power were it worse than it is else Advowsons would not be sold at such rates as they are by many Patrons And my silence where speaking will do no good is no sign of my approbation L. But do you think that the Communicants shall have a negative Vote in choosing Pastors M. I think they will not till God raise up better men than many Patrons are But I am past doubt that God's Law of Nature and Scripture and the whole consent of ancient Churches Fathers and Councils are for it And methinks were not carnal Interest stronger with them than Religion men that are professedly for God's Law and Church-Canons and Customs should not obstinately oppose them all Yea the highest Episcopal Men are in this against them Mr. Thorndike saith that till the Clergy and People again choose their own Bishops there needs no other reason be given of the contempt of Episcopacy Yea I have proved past denial oft that no Non-consenter can be a member of any Pastoral Church nor any man be a mans Pastor that doth not consent It 's reason then to speak for the Flocks Consenting Vote L. But they may be forced to consent M. I shall give you a reason against that anon L. Do you think the ignorant vulgar are fit to choose themselves a Pastor The most are usually the worst M. If the Church-men will make the uncapable rabble Communicants and then deny them Church-privileges because they are uncapable they condemn themselves for taking yea forcing in such uncapable men Even as the Bishops that Ordain Ministers that cannot Preach and then by their Canon forbid them to Preach 2. And yet I will say That never knew any places in City or Country that have oft had better Pastors for Learning and all Worth than where the Communicants were the choosers Yea even the ignorant usually have a gust that discerneth and valueth good and able men 3. And yet I speak not so high as for their Power of first Choice but only of Consent nor yet to choose who shall be a Minister but who shall be their Pastor The Bishop asketh not their consent at Ordination L. But you know that if there must three Consents go to it The Ordainers the Patrons and the Communicants they may never agree and frustrate all M. Humane faultiness puts inconveniences into all actions But we must not cure it with a worse If you would take no Physick till three Physicians agree it 's a less mischief than to give any man that can buy that Power a right to impose what ignorant fellow or enemy he will to be your sole Physician Three Locks and Keys in three hands to so great a Trust may be better than one in an untrusty hand Shall every Papist or Atheist choose me a Physician as fitter than I 2. But if they should never agree it is but every one stopping at his own part The Ordainers have done their part and the Patron hath chosen a Teacher for Auditors and a Pastor for such as will accept him and the People that trust him not may go to one that they can trust and this is better than worse L. But the Patron will prevail against them as long as he must nominate though the Bishop and People had a Negative Vote for if they refuse one he will still name another of his own complexion M. Uncurable evils I cannot help I can but wish that no Patron had ever built Churches or given Glebes at so dear a rate as thereby to buy from the Church its Privileges L. But can you think that the Bishops will ever abate Re-ordination of thsoe ordained by Presbyters M. I think not and therefore I have no hope of concord by their Concession But I know that former Bishops would have done it and the Church of England still owned such since the Reformation and God may send England such again and for such an age I write and not for this with any great hope And if you would not have the Land confounded with doubts whether they be Baptized or whether they had any valid Sacraments and whether the Papists or Protestants be the true Church c. it concerns you all to regard the decision of this Case L. But you speak only against Re-Ordaining those that are already Ordained and nothing for the time to come M. 1. You know it is hopeless to move for that 2. And it 's meet that Ordination should be well regulated 3. And when all the unjust impositions are removed as is here desired few moderate men will scruple Ordination L. VII Your 7th hath so much reason that I can say nothing against it but that I doubt the Bishops will never abateâ— their Ceremonies or any part of their Liturgy so far to endure any to disuse it though they meddle not against it M. I know what 's necessary and just but I know not what men will grant I am of your mind of those in possession except some few But if any man will make and keep up any instruments of division and hurt on
Corn and Hay are all destroyed and the bloody War that is yet like to follow before the end I say do you think that all these are not a dear price to be paid for hindering men to Worship God only according to the Scripture Would leave to serve God only as Christ and his Apostles appointed and did themselves have cost the Emperour and People dearer than all this amounteth to 5. And the World knoweth that as Cromwel got his strength and usurpation in England by his Liberty of Conscience so the Turks won Constantinople and the Eastern Empire much by this For when their Emperours were become dissolute or cruel killing and deposing one another putting out their eyes and thrusting them into Monasteries forced Saints and when ambitious ungodly Bishops were still striving for superiority and persecuting Dissenters as not Orthodox and mutinous Souldiers pulling down Emperours and setting up others the poor Christians thought that to defend such a Government against the Turks that gave all men the Liberty of their own Religion would cost them dearer than it was worth and so were the more remiss in their resistance and the easilier yielded to the Conquerours Whereas had the Turks done as the Papists who make our extermination by our own Rulers a very part of their Religion the Greeks would have more resolutely resisted them in necessary self-defence And did not the Turks still give Liberty to Christians only restraining them from speaking against Mahometism do you think that the Greeks in all their Dominions would no more strive for their deliverance And that Transilvania Hungary Walachia Maldavia Croates and Cossacks Armenians Georgians Circassians Mengrelians Nestorians and Iacobites in so vast numbers would live so long quietly and patiently under them as they do All the great Conquerours of the World that are famous in History ever observed that sober policy to let Conquered Provinces enjoy their own Religion and mostly their own ancient Laws and inferiour Magistrates And then the People find the change so tolerable in the Supremacy as they the more easily yield with less resistance and continue their subjection with the greater quietness and peace The Iews in Christ's time and till they rebelled afterwards under Vespasian Titus and Adrian had so much of their own Religion and Law allowed them as was no small cause of their Crucifying Christ lest the name of a King sent from God such as they expected the Messiah to be should draw the People to such Insurrections as should provoke the Romans to deprive them of their Temples Religion and Laws and to destroy their place and nation And I hear by travellers that where the Turks yet allow their Provinces as in Transilvania their own Magistrates and Laws Religion prospereth almost as well as under Christian Sovereigns and far better than under the extirpating zeal or rather fury of persecuting Papist Princes I desire you therefore before you plead experience for your desolating way of Concord to study History better and be better informed of the case of the World. When I think but what men Bishop Wilkins and Judge Hale were that on my knowledge drew up an Act for the total cure of our English Church differences to which those called to it by the Lord Keeper Bridgman did on both sides consent I have thought it some defect of humility in some Clergy-men that took themselves to be so much wiser than these rare and excellent men as to judge that all our distractions sufferings and dangers by divisions are not so bad as the effect of these mens counsil would have been But I do with greater confidence ask you Whether those men seem to be serious and understanding Christians who think all the bloody Wars and tormenting Inquisition and the destruction of Love and Justice and good Works which are caused by Church-divisions in the World to be a less Mischief than it would be to ENDVRE CHRISTIANS TO SERVE GOD IVST AS CHRIST PRESCRIBED BY HIMSELF AND HIS APOSTLES AND TO VNITE ON THE TERMS ONLY WHICH HE AND THEY DID ORDAIN AND PRACTISE Shall we tell Turks and Heathens that it is no Wiser a Saviour that we trust in and no Wiser a Heavenly King that we obey And no Wiser Law and Gospel that He hath left us And is it any wonder then if they scorn both Him and us L. You are too hard for me I will talk with you no more M. It is Truth and Light that is too hard for you and woe to the foolish Enemies that are too hard for it and overcome themselves and their own happiness and hopes in overcoming it And woe to the World to Churches and Nations where such prevail L. But I advise you that you never think that all your Truth and Reason will do any great good on those that are against you For you cannot have while to say all this to many that you have said to me and if you should Print all this the contrary minded will scarcely Read the Title page or Contents but scorn it before they know what you have said and if they read it it will be all the way with a militant spirit of prejudice and hatred and only study what to say against it and Ignorance Passion Interest and Prejudice will answer all with Rage and confidence and only conclude that the Author is a Fool or Rogue or Rebel and it 's like enough answer you with an Excommunication or Iail where among Malefactors you shall lie and die If you speak for and not against their prâ—conceived Opinion and Interest they will hâ—ar you but if you speak agaiâ—st any of their worldly Wealth or Honour or Grandeâ—r you may almost as hopefully dispute an hungry Dog from his Carrion and you must not wonder if they snarl or fly upon you and tear you And though I confess that all your Proposals seem very consistent with your Aâ—tagonists wealth and greatness yet remember the truth of Seneca's words That Men that have a sore do not only start and complain when they are toucht but even when they think that they are toucht though it be not so There is no expectation of justice from suspicious Jealousie much less if it be animated by Interest and Malice M. My expectations are not much higher than your description But when my own life is so constantly a painful burden and I am so near the Grave I am utterly unexcusable if I think so short and painful a life too good to sacrifice by way of Obedience to the will of God who hath long and wonderfully preserved it and if I do not live and die with St. Paul's resolution Acts 20. 23 24. Bonds and Afflictions abide me but none of these things move me neither count I my life dear unto my self so that I might finish my Course with Ioy aâ—d the Ministry which I have received of the Lord Iesus to testifie the Gospel of the Grace of God. And indeed if all our bad Laws and Ceremonies
and Parish-Churches differ Some Parishes have orgâ—ns Altars Rails c. and some none Some Worship in Tabernacles and some in unconsecrated Places as some Chappels the Spittle the Prison Sturbridge-Fair c. And almost all the Christian Sects on Earth before-named differ in far greater matters than our difference from the Liturgy is And even in the time when the Christian Emperours and Prelates were of greatest Power and Zeal for Concord they never appointed one Liturgy for all the Churches in the Empire Nor did any Bishops in Councilor out so magnify themselves as to write down for all other Bishops and Priests the words which they must speak to God in all their Prayers as if none that are fit for the Sacred Office knew what to say to God but they or they only had the Spirit of prayer Q. 23. Are there not some sorts of Government antecedent in order of nature to publick Government and such as no Prince or Prelate can abrogate viz. 1. Self-Government 2. The Husbands-Government of the VVife 3. And the Parents-Government of his Children in order to personal and family wellfare If Princes or Patrons on what pretence soever would take on them to choose for all men what Food they shall eat what Physick they shall take and when what Trade they shall choose what VVives or Husbands they shall have as to individuals and what Food Raiment Physick or Calling they shall give their Children c. No Prince can deprive men of Self-governing maternal or paternal Power And is this power more concerned in any thing than in the saving of our Souls Hath God laid our Salvation on Princes and Patrons choice or on our own If we miscarry by their choice will they be damned for us and not we Is it not our own Salvation that lieth on our actions And if another say you are unfit to judge what Food to eat what Physick to take what Wife to choose and so what Pastor to choose for the conduct of your Souls will any man not distracted therefore make a Prince or Patron the absolute chooser and trustee for his Soul Or doth it follow that I need not or may not choose a skillfuller Pastor than many thousand Parishes in England have because the Patron is by Law enabled to choose the Parish-Priest Let him choose who shall have his Tithes and Temple but he shall not make me trust an unfit man with the pastoral care of my Soul. Q. 24. If a Wife or Son say My Husband or my Father commandeth me to take this man and not that for my Pastor And you say The Prince or Patron chooseth you another and will imprison you if you submit not to his choice which do you think the Law of Nature and the fifth Commandment will justify Hath God made the King of France Spain Portugal c. the chooser of a Pastor for all their Subjects And consequently the chooser whether they shall be saved or damned according to God's ordinary course of VVorking by the aptitude of means If this power extend not to Infidels Heathens Papists Hereticks c. how shall the Subjects know to whom it extendeth Must all Subjects be made Judges whether Princes and Patrons are Orthodox and fit to choose Is not this more arrogancy than to judge who is fit to be my Pastor or Physician Is it not sufficient that the Prince and Patrons so provide for Teachers and Physicians that none may want nor neglect instruction in the essentials of Religion but as many as need and are able may use better than the unskilful at their own charges Q. 25. VVhereas some pretend that we ought to be silenced for preaching without the Bishops Licence is that the true cause when such are silenced and excommunicated that have Licences Mr. Tho. Gouge was excommunicated for preaching even in Wales where he laboured in such eminent works of charity notwithstanding his University Licence not-forfeited For though he conformed not he never refused Conformity and so fell not under the Canon which maketh void the Licences of Refusers And I that have the Bishop of London's Sheldon's Licence am hindered with the first The same I say of Episcopal Ordination which was no protection to him or me or many others Q. 26. As to the common cry that we are justly silenced for our being for the Parliament in the late VVars 1. Is that the meaning of the Act of Obâ—ivion Are they friends to King or Kingdom that will not suffer our sores to heal but when all are returned to the Love of Peace still fill mens ears with the noise and fears of VVar 2. Did the King so judge of General Monk and his Army who restored him who yet were hotly fighting in Scotland against the King while we were preaching against the Usurpers 3. Do not our long requests yet silence these incendiaries while we offer and crave but that those may have leave to Preach Christ's Gospel and VVorship God who never had to do with any VVar against the King and that they silence only all the rest which we suppose are a number not very considerable Q. 27. As to any other charge is it not that which we crave our selves that if any Non-conformists be proved guilty of drunkenness fornication lying perjury oppression or other immorality or Rebellion or Sedition they may be punished as the crime deserveth Q. 27. Do you believe that the great Parish Ministers need no help Can any man think so who believeth the worth of a Soul and understandeth but one half a Pastors work and why it was that the Primitive Church had so many Presbyters and Deacons with a Bishop to Churches of smaller number by far than our great Parishes And do not all Ministers of sense and forbriety confess their need of many to help them and say that it is the want of Maintenance that hindereth it and if that be it why may not we be endured to help them for nothing while we Preach the same Gospel and submit to beg our Bread Doth helping them freely deserve our destruction Q. 28. Whom did Christ or any of his Apostles ever Silence who Preached only sound Doctrine for any difference about Circumstantials of mans invention Or where did they ever command or authorize any others so to do When some would have Christ restrain some from useing his name who followed him not he rebuked the motion saying he that is not against us is for us When some preached not sincerely but enviously and contentiously to add affliction to his bonds St. Paul was glad yet that Christ was Preached and professed that he did and would rejoice therein Phil. 1. 18. Q. 29. Do you think that any would Silence Imprison or Prosecute Religious Christians for things which they themselves call Indifferent and others think to be great sin if they loved their neighbours as themselves and did by others as they would have others do by them Q. 30. Is not the Office of the
any School-master but an Usher or Monitor or any Physitian or any Mayor or Justice under him 6. That they have set up a false humane Discipline before described instead of Christ's which they have taken down And all this we dare not justifie by a confederacy by Oath IV. And we think that the fourth thing which we stick at needs no other reason suppose the species of Diocesans were of God's appointment and only the numerical Bishops usurpers we can submit and live peaceably but we cannot swear obedience to them They plead more than we for the power of ancient Councils and Canons I have elsewhere fully proved as Paul of Venice hath done and Mr. Clarkson and Dr. Burnet and many others that many great Councils nullified the Episcopacy of all that came in without the election or consent of the Clergy and Flocks And we our selves cannot conceive how any man can be the Pastor of those that consent not though we can easily conceive that Dissenters may oft be obliged to consent when they do not so may a Son or Daughter be obliged to obey their Parents in consenting to Marry such as Parents choose for them when yet it is no marriage till that consent How few in a Diocese ever know of the Bishops Election till it's past and how few consent I need not tell We can submit to these but not swear Allegiance to them V. And in all the foresaid cases we have another disswasive 1. It is so much of the King's Prerogative that all Subjects must swear Allegiance and Fidelity to him that in almost all Nations it hath been thought dangerous to make the Subjects also swear obedience to every Justice or inferior Officer lest it should make them too like Kings 2. Lest the Subjects should be entangled between their Oath to the King and their Oaths to all these Officers in case of the Officers contradiction to the King 's 3. Lest so many Oaths should make that Government a snare to the conscientious which should be for their ease and safety 4. Lest so much swearing make Oaths contemptible and bring in perjury and endanger the King who should by our Oaths be secured 2. And I have elsewhere named many Councils and Canons which prohibit Bishops this practice of making the Clergy swear fidelity to them and have condemned it as of dangerous consequence And they that are for Councils should not engage us causelesly against them 3. The present Impositions greatly stop us till we better know what it is that we must do We have cause to make a stand when we are all sworn never to endeavour any alteration of the Government of the State which we readily obey and yet seem to be called to do that which we are told by some is an alteration of it That is the making of our present species of Archbishops Bishops Deans Archdeacons yea Chancellors Officials Commissaries c. as unchangeable a part of the Government as Monarchy it self is and so disabling the King to make any alteration in them For set all this together and consider 1. All the Clergy is bound or sworn to obey both Bishops and every Ordinary 2. The Canon ipso facto Excommunicates every man that affirmeth that the Church Government under his Majesty by Archbishops Bishops Deans Archdeacons and THE REST THAT BEAR OFFICE in the same is repugnant to the word of God so that all the Lords and Gentlemen in England that have affirmed that the Government by the Keys as used by Diocesans over hundreds of Churches or by Archdeacons Lay Chancellors c. is repugnant to God's word being already ipso facto Excommunicate how far they are capable of being Parliament-men I know not but I suppose if in Parliament they shall affirm any such repugnancy they are Excommunicate and without the Act of King and Parliament no alteration can be made 3. And now to fix them all the Kingdom is sworn never to endeavour any alteration in the Church Government viz. In the Corporation Act the Militia Act the Vestry Act the Oxford swearing Act after the Act of Vniformity And is not every Chancellor or Archdeacon or Bishop now made as immutable necessary a part of the Kingdom as the King L. You speak ignorantly for want of acquaintance with the Law Do you think King and Parliament oblige themselves It is only particular subjects out of Parliament that they oblige M. I. But when the Parliament is dissolved are they not all particular subjects save the King. And are they not all then hereby bound And do you think that it was the meaning of the Act that they who swear never to endeavour alteration may yet endeavour it if they be chosen Parliament men I will manifestly disprove it All these Oaths do joyn the Government of Church and State together Yea and put the Church-Government first as if it had the preeminence But it was never the meaning of the Oath that the Parliament may endeavour to alter Monarchy which is the State-Government Ergo it meant not that they may endeavour to alter Prelacy or Church-Government II. But suppose it be as you say They that know the present thing called the Church of England know that their Writers openly maintain that the Obligation of the Canons depends not on the Parliament save only as to the forceable execution of them but on the authority of the Church as a Society empowred by Christ And therefore that King or Parliaments at least may be Excommunicated by them as well as others All are Excommunicate men that do but call their Government sinful CHAP. VII II. Of the restraint of Ordained Ministers from Preaching and expounding any Scripture or Matter or Doctrine Can. 49. L. WHat is it that you have against Conformity in this M. I. That men are at once made Christ's Ministers and forbid to exercise that which they are Ordained to II. That we are laid under the hainous guilt of breaking our Vow when they have engaged us to make it and of betraying mens Souls by omitting a vowed duty 3. That we are forbidden that which is the duty of every Lay Christian that is able as if they would suppress Religion and Charity it self L. But you do not swear or subscribe to this Canon M. 1. But we are bound by them to obey this Canon for it is the Law of the whole Church of England 2. I have shewed you that swearing obedience to them must mean obeying their Laws which are far more of weight than particular mandates L. But as long as you may have Licenses how doth this put you on any sin of omission or commission M. Both their words and their deeds tell us that they Ordain more than they Licence to Preach or Expound any Doctrine And is it no sinful omission think you for all the rest to forbear all this 2. And many were Ordained heretofore who by the new Act of Uniformity are denyed Licenses without new Professions and Covenants
that subscribe that nothing is necessary to Salvation but what is contained in the Scripture or may be proved by it would impose this belief on us and never tell us so much as by a Marginal citation of any one text of Scripture where it may be found All that ever by talk I could hear of them is Gal. 3. 26 27. Ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Iesus for as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. As if they would have us believe 1. That all Atheists and Infidels children have faith in Christ Iesus if they be but baptized 2. Or that all the Galathians that Paul wrote to were in a state of certain Salvation when it is apparent that he spake to the adult whom elsewhere he saith he feareth lest he have bestowed on them labour in vain and as bewitched men they had disobeyed the truth c. 3. Or that all that put on Christ Sacramentally by Profession and Baptism were in a state of certain salvation even Simon Magus How commonly when they confute the Separatists that alledge the titles of Saints holy children of God c. given to all the Churches by the Apostles do they themselves expound it of a sanctity of Profession and Relation as distinct from a saving state of Grace as to many of the visible members of the Church And must we now believe that the visible and the invisible membership are of equal extent If this prove that all the baptized adult have put on Christ savingly and have right to Heaven it will confute the universal Church that hath ever believed the contrary and it will be good news to all worldly hypocrites But St. Peter saith It is not the putting away the filth of the flesh but the answer of a good Conscience to God. And he told Simon Magus that he had no part in that matter not for apostacy but because his heart was not right in the sight of God. And sure it is no streight gate by which men enter into a state of Salvation if all the hypocrite flagitious sinners are in it that will but be baptized But if this Text say not that all adult hypocrites baptized so dying are saved much less doth it say it of all the children of them and of all Infidels that are baptized Is this to give us proof of undoubted certainty They alledge also Mar. 16. 16. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved what then Ergo all Infants that are baptized that neither believe nor are the seed of believers shall be saved This is a new Gospel and no proof that the authors of it say true Another is Ioh. 3. 3 5. Except a man be born again of water and of the spirit he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God. Doth this prove that all are born again of the Spirit that are baptized Is this proving by God's word L. What is your other proof that it 's a false profession of them that declare Assent to this Doctrine M. 2. It is this He that saith a thing is undoubtedly certain by God's word which God's word contradicteth doth certainly speak falsely But so doth he that maketh this profession That God's word contradicteth it I have proved so fully in my two Disputations of original sin and my Treatise of Infant Baptism and Methodus Theologia that I must not here repeat it viz. by abundance of plain Texts that appropriate the Covenant-blessings to the Faithful and their Seed and exclude or curse the seed of the wicked at least as out of the Covenant of God I will now repeat but one 1 Cor. 7. 14. Else were your children unclean but now are they holy If the children of Infidels are not holy but unclean they have no right to the promise of Life or to the Seal and Investiture by Baptism But c. Ergo. I know Dr. Hammond will have Holiness here to be nothing but the Church useth to baptize such on presumption that they will be educated to Christianity and uncleanness to be but the Churches use to refuse such supposing they will not be so educated And so that the Seed of the Faithful have no special promise of pardon and life But 1. I have as aforecited and to Mr. Tombes proved many such promises to the Seed of the Faithful which Divines should not unthankfully like Anabaptists deny 2. And I ask such Doctors what baptism doth for the Infants at present and on what account Doth it put them in a present right to Salvation If not why are they at present baptized when God instituted no baptism but one which is for signification and investiture in the present remission of sinâ— And so saith the Liturgie And if so then on what account is an Infant saved Is it meerly because another undertaketh to teach him hereafter No man can undertake that he shall believe or live If he could that would but prove that he shall be pardoned when be believeth and not before And if all Infants whom any Christian will undertake hereafter to teach though they never live to be taught or will never believe be by this put into a present right to Salvation a stranger's undertaking of meer teaching upon utter uncertainty of life and success is supposed to have such a promise which yet these Doctors deny to be made on the accounts of their own parents interest in Christ and them and his dedicating them to Christ. And if these promising Godfathers be meer Lyers the Child is supposed to be baptizable and savable by it But if they say that the right to Salvation comes ex opero operato by meer baptizing whether the Child have undertakers or not I answer that a prophanation of God's ordinance is not a saving act God hath said no such thing but that the Children of Infidels are unclean and unholy and doth not say except some body will baptize them And why should not the Church baptize as many Infidels Children as they can catch up though none undertake for them if baptizing them do certainly save them if they so die I conclude therefore that seeing no man can be certain that all the baptized Children of Heathens Infidels Jews Atheists or Diabolists are in a state of Salvation God never promising it but saying the contrary whoever professeth this undoubted certainty speaketh falsely that which he hath not L. But they say not I am undoubtedly certain of it but only that it is undoubtedly certain in it self M. This is to jest with holy things To be certain is to be a Truth that hath ascertaining evidence if you mean objective certainty and how can any man profess or affirm that who knoweth it not He that affirmeth that it is objectively certain doth therefore affirm that he knoweth it to be so and is subjectively certain if he mean that it is evident and certain to others and not to him it 's a contradiction for if he know it not
nor to refuse or delay to baptize in private in case of danger who ever desireth him to do it 2. The Twenty nine Canon saith No Parent shall be urged to be present nor be admitted to answer as Godfather for his own Child Nor any Godfather or Godmother shall be suffered to make any other answer or speech than by the Book of Common-Prayer is prescribed in that behalf The Parent may say what he will to God in secret But at the Christening of his Child if he should but say I believe God's promise to the faithful and their seed I do devote my Child to Christ and engage him in his Covenant or I promise to educate him to Christianity he breaketh the Canon and goeth against the Churches Law. I did before the Bishops at the Savoy 1661. put the case to them thus without fiction An Infidel of my Parish that useth openly to talk against the Scripture and Life to come to avoid inconveniencies resolveth to send his Child to be baptized and I must not refuse it by the Law Hath the Child right to Baptism and is it undoubtedly saved Dr. Sanderson in the Chair answered nemime contradicente that if he brought him with Godfathers according to the Church of England I need not doubt it But there were but two in the Parish that openly declared themselves to be of his opinion and those two being his familliers are likest to be the Godfathers If the Child have not Right for Infidel Parents sake how can Infidel neighbours called Godfathers give him right L. But the Canon saith that the Godfathers shall be only such as have received the Sacrament M. Alas none are forwarder than these to receive the Sacrament and laugh at it and say they will obey the Church Yet I doubt not but a faithful Parent may be present if he will and may tell the Godfathers in private that his presence shall signifie his devoting act and when the Priest speaketh to the Godfathers he may bow his head whether the Priest will or not to signifie that act of his But this is nothing to the sense of the Church nor to our Assent and Consent to their exclusion of the Parent L. I confess it sounds to me as unnatural But what is your other reason against our sort of Godfathers M. Iâ— My second Reason is that it is a prophanation of this great and sacred Ordinance to invest those in the visible state Christianity and Salvation pretendedly that have no right to such investiture so they have but Godfathers they are to baptize the children of any Jews or Heathens or open enemies to Christ as well as of Christians which is a manifest prophanation L. What is the fault of it M. 1. It supposeth a false Doctrine that Infidel Children are within the Covenant and may be baptized as well as Christians which in the Books aforecited I have fully disproved 2. It is a dangerous adding to God's word and worship 3. It is a deceiving of mens Souls as to childrens state to make them believe that their children dying when baptized are all saved how bad soever the Parents be 4. It is a dreadful belying of God and prophanation of his name if men shall in the name of God pronounce pardon and salvation to those whom he never gave them to L. But God will not punish the Children for their Parents sin M. Not those that see their fathers sins and forsake them and live not as their Parents did and that 's all that the Scripture saith for such But if you will read my two foresaid Disputations for Original sin you will see it fully proved that God punisheth Infants because they are the guilty and corrupt seed of guilty and corrupt Parents Do you believe our Church Articles and yet deny original sin If Infants have no guilt and sin what need have they of Baptism or of a Saviour If they have need of both sure it is for no actual sin done by them was not the World lost for Adam's sin Was not Cain's posterity cursed for his sake Were not all the Infants of the old World and all the Infants of the Sodamites burnt with fire from Heaven and the Infants of the Canaanites and Amalakites c. killed for their Parents sin Did not Christ tell the Jews Mat. 23. that all their Forefathers persecutions should be punished on that Generation The Jews knew this that said His blood be on us and on our Children Our Liturgy saith Remember not Lord our offences nor the offences of our Forefathers c. 2. And yet I tell you that it is for their own sin that the seed of the wicked perish sin is made their own when soul and body were for guilty corrupt Parents made such by themselves I do not say that God imputeth their Parents infidelity to them But this infidelity is the reason of their not being delivered from their own original guilt If Rebels forfeit Life and Estate and so their Children live in beggery and the King offer to restore Father and Children if the Father will thankfully accept his grace If the Parent refuse this his Children will be beggars Not because the King punisheth them for their Fathers fault but because he first deprived himself of the Estate which he should have left them and next because he refused to deliver them If a Father will set the Pox on his children and after refuse a Physician that would cure him and them the Physician doth not punish the children All Scripture and Nature tell the world that it is so deep an interest that Parents have in children as being causes of their very essence by Communication from their own essence and it is so natural a power that Parents have over their children that it should seem no strange thing to Christians or Infidels that God maketh a very great difference between the seed of the faithful and of the Infidels and wicked And its strange that any men should rather lay their title to pardon and salvation upon a meer neighbour or stranger that perhaps is a wicked wretch himself than on the Parents of the child L. But will God save children for their Parents Faith M. If he destroy Infants for Adam's sin do you think that Justice is so much more extensive then Mercy that he will shew no mercy for Parents sake But the case is this Christ the Second Adam hath merited pardon and salvation to be given conditionally to all Not absolutely for then all would be saved What the condition is to the adult we are agreed viz. Faith and Repentance and Dedication to Christ by covenant consent And do you think that Infants pardon and salvation hath no condition If none than all Infants are saved if any condition what is it 1. Is it barely that they be baptized without any right but what all have This is an injurious fiction God never said it And it s an unreasonable imputation on God as if he would
save thousands meerly for water and words and comdemn thousands that had not the opportunity of these And it is certain that Christians never dream'd of this absurd opinion or else godly Emperours would have forced Baptism on the children of all their Heathen Subjects and would where their conquering Armies came in Charity have catcht up their children and baptized them And Bishops and Doctors would have taught and intreated them so to do To make meer baptising alone the condition of Infant salvation is to lay Heaven on such a ceremony quite out of the Infants power as would but tempt the rational Infidels to deride Christianity No sober men lay a childs Estate or Life on such a thing 2. If there must be some condition of Right to Baptism antecedent to it what is it 1. It is not actual faith in that Infant that understands not 2. It must then be some others act or nothing If anothers whose should it be so likely as the parents from whom the Children have their essence Whom nature hath taught to take them as almost parts of themselves and so hath the custom of all Nations and who are obliged above all other to provide for them and whose will in their Infancy disposeth of them till they come to have a rational will of their own in act And Scripture from end to end confirmeth this But besides this you know not whither to look for a title-conditione unless to some Pro-parent whose the child is upon the Parents Death or Resignation For 1. If you say it is the Faith of the Church as some that giveth the Child Title what Church mean you The Universal or National or Diocesan or Parochial And how doth the Church give right to Pardon and Life to Infidels Children If it be meerly volendo as if Heaven were at their Will why do they not sit at home and make a deed of Gift of Heaven to the Infants at the Antipodes and of all the World If it be by baptizing them I shewed before that Baptism meerly as such doth it not And if it be the Will of the Baptizer they must mean the Priest Deacon or another And to say that these are the Terms of Infant Title to Baptism and Salvation that if the Priests will they shall be baptized and saved or else not seemeth a New Gospel 2. But it seems with us it is the God-fathers that give them Title else the Church could save them when they will without Godfathers And if so where is the proof of it in Scripture or Reason that God will accept and save Infants because a meer Neighbour will bring them to be baptized and promiseth to bring them up well if they live It is supposed that these Sponsors own not the Children and how come they then to have the power to be their Representatives and to dispose of their Souls L. But any Beggars Child hath right to be taken into your house if you are so Charitable as to do it And so much right to Baptism and Salvation by it Christ hath given to all M. Where is that deed of Gift to be found It is not a Forgery He hath made a Covenant to the Faithful and their Seed But where hath he said I will save all Infidels Children if any Priest or Christian will but Baptize them He that said Go to the high-wayes and hedges and compel them to come in excepted the Refusers and required none but perswading compulsion And its Parents that have power of their Children He that can believe to day that God hath made a Gift of Salvation to all Infants that any body will baptize may easily believe to morrow that he will not cast away the rest meerly because no Carrier will bring them in or because no body will wash them and say over them the words of Baptisme God hath made even in the Second Commandment and in Exodus 34. when he proclaimed his name and nature so great a difference between the Seed of the Godly and the Wicked that we dare not consent to the confounding of them nor with the Anabaptists unthankfully to deny this Mercy nor to deny or corrupt Pauls plain assertion Else were your Children unclean but now are they holy L. III. What mean you by your third Exception M. I have told you while I opened the former They personate the Child without Authority And it is a great doubt whether the Covenant and Baptisme were not a meer Nullity did not Parents besides the Laws of Conformity some way signifie their own Agency therein If any Neighbour should make a Covenant in the name of your Child binding him at Age to Marry an Heiress who hath a Lordship to her Portion would this either oblige your Son or give him any present right to her or her Estate L. If the Donor or person empowered Consent it giveth a conditional right which becometh Actual when he marrieth her and so here if God consent its so far valid M. God hath given Christ and Life conditionally to all before they believe or are baptized But all must not therefore be baptized This is not Actual Right and so such Infants have no right by this Rule till they believe in Christ. But Baptisme is an actual Marriage with Christ and its a Mockery where neither Party doth consent Christ doth not consent for he hath made no Promise but to the faithful and their Seed Let them that affirm more show it The Infant doth not consent having no Will of his own in Act and the thing being done by one that had no power to personate or oblige him And he may say It was no act of mine personally or Legally L. Any one may accept a gift for another and bind him to gratitude which if he refuse he forfeits it M. If the Donor give it on those Terms it 's true And if you can prove that God hath made his Covenant Gift of Pardon and Salvation to all the Seed of Infidels Atheists and Wicked Men on Condition that any body will but Accept it in their names at present and bind them to accept it at Age it will then I confess prove a valid act of Charity And I see not but why some good man should say Lord I accept of Christ and Salvation for all the Infants on Earth and I bind them to accept it when they come to Age and I hope the meer want of washing shall not deprive them of that which I have power to accept for them I never heard of valid contracts made for Infants by any one that will but pretend to personate them L. Thus you would make rebaptizing necessary if such Baptism be a nullity M. 1. Not to any whose Parents though besides the Laws of Conformity own their agency and dedicating their own child to Christ which I hope is the case of most custom through God's mercy teacheth them better than the Canons and Common-Prayer-Book 2. And I think not to any other whose Parents
Nor did I ever to this day know one man or woman that performed this which all three undertake A very few I have known that will ask How doth my Godson and say you must be a good Boy and learn your Book and perhaps give him a piece of Silver But usually they never look after them I confess with shame that I have been Godfather to four to one when I was a Child and knew not what I did but thought it was only to be a Witness of Baptism And to three more when I was twenty three years of age of all which I agreed beforehand with the Parents to be but a Witness and that they should stand there themselves as the undertakers and signifie it Two of these I never saw since a third now dead I never saw since his Infancy till a little before he dyed and the fourth never since till that lately he came a begging to me I confess one Bishop told me once that he knew one or more that had performed this Vow so did never I who have lived in many parts of the Land. Those that perform it not sure are guilty of heinous perfidiousness as breaking so solemn a Vow to God. And if this be so common in England that to this Age I could never know of one performer is not the case doleful and dreadful that the Nation should by such perfidiousness be made Christians L. But this is the Parents or Godfathers fault what 's this to the Minister or to your Assent and Consent M. If it be not nothing to the Canons and to the Liturgy it is not nothing to him that must Assent and Consent to all things in that Liturgy and must swear Canonial obedience And 1. Do you think that the Nation can so commonly live in this sin and the Church Governours and Orders be innocent in it Can those Canons and Orders be blameless that without any more opposition let such perfidiousness go to our Christening Can the medicine be laudable that so many miscarry in the use of it 2. By the Canon all men are constrained to get some Godfathers and they can force none that is unwilling 3. No Conscionable persons will Promise and undertake that which they never purpose to perform I never in all my life met with one godly man that if you opened all the undertaking plainly to him would say seriously I am resolved to do all this but would refuse the office when he knows it is expected 3. If there be hundreds or thousands in a Parish that are grosly ignorant of the nature of Baptism and what they do or that ere Atheists Infidels wicked men not Excommunicate the Minister can not deny to take them for Godfathers if they did but ever once receive the Sacrament And to this 68th year of my age I never knew one Godfather or Godmother questioned or refused by any Minister 4. If the Parent can get no man to stand he shall be ruined for it as not bringing his Child to be Baptized according to the order of the Church 5. Rich men will not give up their Children to the God-father's propriety or education Poor mens Children none will take And is it lawful to Assent and Consent to such orders of Baptism as cherish this If Parents were the undertakers we might urge them to performance But from such others who can expect it CHAP. XI Point VIII Of refusing to Baptize without such Godfathers L. YOV have been long on this Point I pray you be shorter on the next M. It needs not many words it is so gross We dare not Assent and Consent to deny Baptism to all Children of godly Parents that have not such Godfathers and Godmothers while the Parent offereth to do his own part professing his faith and dedicating his Child to God and promising a faithful education L. How prove you that you must put away all such M. 1. Did you ever know any baptized otherwise in the Church 2. The words of the Rubrick are There shall be for every Male Child to be baptized two Godfathers and one Godmother and for every Female one Godfather and two Godmothers 3. The Godfathers and Godmothers only are to speak and covenant without which it is no Baptism Meer washing without Covenanting is no Christian Baptism so that the Church of England doth make Godfathers essential to it And what it is to add to the Essentials of so great an Ordinance of God as was instituted by Christ's own mouth for so high an use as our Espousal to himself judge you 4. The Canon to which all must subscribe saith that he himself will use the form in the said Book prescribed in publick prayer and administration of the Sacrament and no other 5. The Act of Conventicles maketh it 20 l. the first time and 40 l. every time after for above four to meet to worship God otherwise than according to the Liturgy and practice of the Church of England And to baptize without Godfathers is otherwise 6. And then the Oxford Act banisheth them five miles from Corporations Is not here sufficient proof L. And why should any scruple so small a matter M. 1. Did I not before tell you why 2. Suppose they scrupled it through mistake shall every mistake or errour of Parents deprive the child of Baptism I 'll tell you why I dare no more Assent and Consent to this than I dare consent to cut off a hand or foot of every such child 1. Baptising is Christening and dare I causelessly deprive a Soul of visible Christianity 2. They themselves make it an Ascertaining means of Salvation as the forementioned Rubrick sheweth And would they have us shut Infants from Salvation for nothing yea they seem to confine Salvation only to the baptized while they conclude that they are saved as baptized ones and except the unbaptized from Christian Burial The best can be but to leave them as without any promise of life from Christ And how can we believe that God will give them that which he never promised them And shall I damn souls for want of a humane unnecessary if not corrupt invention 3. It is against the interest of Christ and the Church shall I make a Covenant to rob Christ and the Church of visible Members for nothing Murthering Infants is death by God's Laws and mans And Innocents day is one of the Christmas Holy days And is it a thing indifferent for me and all the Ministers of the National Church to make a solemn bargain that we Assent and Consent to keep out all from the Church and from the Covenant and in their sense the hope of Salvation on such an account as this L. The thing were dismal and unexcusable if it were as you make it But how can you say that they shut them out when they force all Parents to bring them in and to submit to their way when did you ever know any child refused on this account M. Many a hundred in my
Offices as a Body of many Members or a Chain of many Links as we say Bonum est ex Causis integris And he that wounds any one Member wounds the Man and he that breaketh one Link breaketh the Chain And he that accuseth any one part of the Government accuseth the Government thereby And there is no doubt in the World but they so intended that made this Canon L. And what have you against your Obedience to this M. You may easily know what by what is already said 1. I have fully proved as aforesaid in my Treatise of Episcopacy that if Episcopacy were never so certainly of Divine Institution this Form of Diocesan Prelacy deposeth quantum in se the old Church Form the old Episcopacy the old Presbytery and almost all true Discipline and in stead of each sets up that which is repugnant to the Word of God. And must we all confederate to maintain this Church Corruption and all agree to renounce Reformation or any Conviction tending to Repentance 2. I have told you what it is for Lay-men and Courts to arrogate the Decretive Power of the Church Keys and for single Priests and Officials to rule all the Clergy and People as under them And for our Prelate to undertake to be the sole Bishop over many Hundred Clergy And then to Govern per alios in a secular manner even by Lay-men that do that in his Name which he knows not of and this in order to Gaols and Ruine If all this be agreeable to God's Word what is contrary to it 3. I have told you what it is to make every Church Officer so necessary as that it should be Excommunication to say Any one of them is sinful when as Learned good Men as most the World hath have written to prove almost all of them sinful corrupt Inventions of Arrogance and that it 's far worse for Men to presume to make new Forms and Offices of Church Government than new Ceremonies 4. The Parliament of England condemned the Oath called the caetera Oath in the Canon of 1640. And the late long Parliament of 1662. never restored it nor any since And was it not formed according to this Canon What 's c. but And the rest that bear Office therein reliquos ad ejusdem gubernaculum constitutos For my part tho' I have oft read over Cousins Tables and the Canons I do not yet know and remember all the Church Governing Courts and Offices How many there be besides the Bishop the Chancellors Court the Arches the Prerogative Court the Arch-deacons Commissaries Officials Surrogates I know not And are every one of these become as necessary to be taken for lawful as the twelve Apostles or the Articles of our Creed For my part I am far from thinking that those Bishops and Doctors should be Excommunicated or Damned who by Faction are drawn to deny the Ministry and Churches that have not Prelatical Ordination and Government and shall all be condemned that think as ill of Civilians Excommunicatings 5. I have told you what it is for every Lord Knight and Gentleman that doth but say that any of these Church Governing Offices are against the Word of God to be ipso facto an Excommunicate man. And for the people to be put to question whether they may chuse them for Parliament men and whether they may sit in Parliament while Excommunicate L. This Canon with the three or four adjoining make me begin to think hardlier of the Canoneers than I thought I should ever have done as to their honesty M. I would not have you think too hardly of them but only to think truly of Nonconformity Chap. XXVII Point XXIV Of Publishing the 8th Canons Excommunications L. VVHat is the Eighth Canon and its Excommunication M. Whoever shall hereafter affirm or teach that the Form and Manner of Making and Consecrating Bishops Priests or Deacons containeth ANY THING in it that is repugnant to the Word of God Let them be Excommunicated ipso facto and not to be restored until he repent and publickly revoke such his wicked Errors L. What have you against the Execution of this M. A great deal In sum it is unrighteous oppressing and dividing to cast out all Persons from the Church of Christ who think that nothing is faulty in the Book of Ordination or in their Principles or Practice there expressed And we dare not curse those that Christ doth bless should we do this for a Benefice in what should we differ from the sin of Balaam who loved the wages of unrighteousness whose iniquity and madness his Ass rebuked saith St. Peter 2 Pet. 2. 15. Yea shall we not be far worse than he that for an House full of Silver and Gold could not go beyond the Word of the Lord and did not curse but bless Gods people And it is not proud malignant Tongues reviling Gods Servants and calling their Opinions wicked Errors that will make Christ disown his Members or will warrant Balaam or us to curse them O how unlike is this to the Spirit and Ministry of Christ for Prelates and Priests to curse and cast out the Children of God for saying that they go against his Law. L. But what is amiss in the Book of Ordination M. I am anon to tell you that But if there were nothing amiss in it yet the belief of its innocency is not necessary to Salvation L. But if every man have leave to accuse the Orders of the Church what Order can be maintained M. 1. Leave modestly to express dissent in a doubtful case may stand with Order 2. If men do it disorderly there be other Penalties besides ipso facto Excommunication Every breach of the peace is not Rebellion nor punisht with Death But I 'll tell you briefly what may occasion good men to say that their Ordinations are sinful 1. In that they thereby obtrude Pastors on the Churches upon the bare choice of a Patron without or against the peoples wills 2. In that they professedly ordain such as their Canon forbids to Preach or Expound any Doctrine 3. In that they determine that Bishops Priests and Deacons are three distinct Orders which yet is an undetermined Controversie among even the Learnedst Papists And must we damn and cut off men for that which the very Papists leave at liberty 4. In that they ordain men to an Office which Scripture maketh no mention of Dr. Hammond saith that it cannot be proved that there were any Presbyters subject to Bishops in Scripture times nor any but Bishops None that had not power of Ordination and the Keys nor any Bishops of a multitude of Churches and Presbyters both which are here ordained 5. In that they Swear Obedience to Arch-bishops and their Sees and make Priests Covenant Obedience to their Ordinaries as aforesaid If a godly man do as Bucer did to King Edward the Sixth as you may see in his Scripta Anglic. and desire some of these faults to be amended doth he deserve
a case that he understandeth not himself L How doth this make you a Voucher for their Souls M. 1. The case is of exceeding weight If I should publickly declare that no man is thus bound by a Vow and I should prove mistaken 1. Then I become guilty of all these mens sin by justifying it as no sin 2. And I am guilty of cruelty to their Souls in open telling them that they need not perform their Vows nor repent of non-performance 3. And Perjury is one of the heinousest sins on Earth 4. And the Perjury of Millions or Nations is yet one of the grievousest degrees of guilt 5. And I do my worst to make God destroy or forsake such a Land. And what yet can I do worse I say if in justifying them I should be mistaken what a guilt should I incur And doth Nature or Scripture bind me to run so great a hazard for so many thousand others Besides he that will be a Casuist must know all the case there are hundreds and thousands put upon these decisions that being then Children knew not who made the Covenant nor how it was imposed or taken and many that know not what it is and never saw it And there are thousands if not millions that took it whose Faces I never saw and know not what moved them nor in what sence they took it and Casuists say that if a man mistake the Imposers sence he is bound to keep it in the sence that he understood it when he took it if a lawful one especially if the Imposers had no Authority or their sence was doubtful And it is not uncharitable for me to think â—hat none of the Kings Compounding Lords or Clergy that after took it did take it in a sence which they thought found And must I tell them all that none of them is bound to keep it in that sound sence I will not run the danger of having thousands in judgment to suffer for Perjury and saying This man declared that it was no sin If they are all Innocent what need they my justification when they stand or fall by the judgment of God. If they prove guilty my declaring it no sin will not acquit them but condemn my own Soul by tempting them to impenitence I do not say that they are obliged by this Vow herein nor I will not say they are not There are many matters first to be known if we agree in point of Doctrine and I know that it 's an easie thing for confident men to multiply words to prove all lawful in this Oath and to Swear that it is rebellious Hearts that cause our doubtings and so say the Papists of the Protestants But whatever they say or threat I will not by their confidence and talk be drawn to cast my Soul into so great a hazard All men are not so bold in such things as some Chap. XXXVIII Point XXXV Of the Oxford Oath that we will never endeavour any alteration of Church Government M. THE Oxford Act is not content that we say that we are not bound by the Covenant to endeavour any alteration of Church Government but we must say and Swear that we never will endeavour it as any other way obliged to it L. The meaning is that you will never endeavour it by Rebellion Sedition or unlawful means M. The Parliament knew how to speak their minds By such Expositions you may Swear almost any thing in the World and no Government shall have any security by your Oaths The words are contrivedly as universal against all endeavour as can be spoken 2. But I 'll presently confute you undeniably You know Church and State Government are conjoined in the Oath and the Church put first Will you say as to State Government that the meaning only is That I will not endeavour to depose the King or alter Monarchy by Rebellion or any unlawful means but only by lawful means if you do you 'l soon be told home that the Oath doth mean That no means is lawful to such an end but the work it self as well as the means is forsnorn L. But the meaning is only that you will not endeavour to alter Episcopacy and not all other Offices and Courts M. This is as palpable a falsification as the former For 1. The words are a most express abjuration of endeavouring any alteration of Government at all And if you take the word Alteration strictly it more commonly signifieth a change of Quality or Manner 〈◊〉 of Essence But if you take it largely it comprehendeth both 2. And I appeal to any mans Conscience whether that was or is the Bishops sence Go ask them My Lords If I endeavour but to reduce Diocesans to every Corporation to take down your Lordships and great Revenues and your Chancellors Courts and all the rest of your Humane Officers will you take it for no breach of my Oath and I warrant you they will soon resolve you 3. Yet I shall fullier convince you The Bishops and Parliament are of the mind of the Church of England And the Canons do most fully speak the Churches mind And the Seventh Canon before cited when it makes it ipso facto Excommunication to call the Church Government sinful tells you that they extend this to Arch-bishops Bishops Deans Arch-deacons and the rest that bear Office therein 4. And I believe if you should say that I take my Oath to bind me from endeavouring no change of the Government of the State but only of the Essence of Monarchy you would quickly feel the Error of your Exposition L. But I can assure you that many able Conforming Ministers take the Declaration in the Act of Vniformity in such sences as aforesaid M. Our King is King of Scotland as well as of England and he hath thus declared his sence in the case of the Earl of Argyle and the Reasons of it are considerable And do you think that it can be the true sence in England and deserve preferment as to Loyal and Obedient Ministers which deserveth Death it self in Scotland can you wish for a clearer Exposition L. And why will you not Swear never to endeavour any alteration if you be required so to do M. I have read Dr. Stillingfleet's Irenicon and many such Books in which I see how great a number of our greatest Divines as well Arch-bishop Cranmer took the Form of Church Government to be alterable and not fixed by Christ And if the Doctor have changed his judgment that changeth not the Authority of those that he citeth 2. I have in my full Treatise of Episcopacy told you why I cannot but wish more than one thing in our Ecclesiastical Courts and Government changed 3. I take it for a matter that deserveth consideration whether it be no change of the State Government to make all the Church Government unchangeable and so to disable the King to change it And how to reconcile the two parts of the Oath And whether if the whole
just occasion to seek it 3. They say that there is no Church without a Bishop and that the Diocesan-Church is the least true political Church And if so he separateth not from any Church that separateth not from the Diocesan 4. These foresaid persons do nothing to forfeit the Communion of neighbour Churches therefore it is a sin and wrong to deny it them If it were proved an errour to avoid that as a sin which they avoid all mankind hath errours and to be over-fearful of Fire or Water or Plague or Poyson is a tolerable safe weakness and not like the sins that swarm in multitudes of tolerated Parishioners L. That which is not so immoral as Fornication Drunkenness Cursing and Swearing may be more hurtful to the Church and so deserve greater severity from Governours M. The Church-Keys are to be used with due relation to Heaven and those are to be taken in or cast out that Christ will take in or cast out from Heaven And if you think he will damn an obedient godly Christian for fearing to partake of the sin of wicked Priests or for fearing to be poysoned with love-killing Doctrine or for fearing the vain Worship of mens traditions rather than a prophane derider of Conscience and a filthy Fornicator Drunkard or Blasphemer I shall not think it worth my labour to dispute with you But men that take the Churches welfare to lie in the wealth and domination of such as they more than in the Holy Obedience Conscience and Piety of the People will object the same that you now do CHAP. LIII POINT X. Of Swearing never to endeavour any alteration of Government in the Church M. HOW far this extendeth objectively I before proved X. by 1. The words of the Oaths 2. The consent of the Bishops 3. And the words of the seven Canons and the Et Caetera Canon in 1640. so that there is no doubt of it 2. How far it extendeth as to the persons obliged I before told you and you may read 1. In the Corporation Act which imposeth it on all Corporations 2. In the Vestry Act which imposeth it on all Church-Vestries 3. In the Act of Vniformity which imposeth the subscription on all the Clergy 4. In the Oxford Act of Banishment which imposeth the Oath on Non-conformists and more 5. In the Militia Act which imposeth it on all the Military Commanders and Souldiers in the Land so that you may well say that is a National Covenant or Oath 3. What is amiss in the Church-Government that needeth an amending alteration I have so often told you that I will not repeat it Judge then what this Oath importeth L. It could never be the meaning of the Parliament that no man shall endeavour to amend the faults of any Officers Courts or Actions for they often amend their own Acts of Parliament and they reserve a Power in King and Parliament to make alterations even in Church Governments But that belongs not to the People nor should they endeavour it M. 1. I hope you will not confound Stated Offices and Mens Exercise of them in Practice I grant that they do not bind us by Oath never to endeavour that Bishops and all the Officers of their Courts may be honest men and slander and injure no man against Law c. But it is the Offices as here stated that are made thus far unalterable named in the Canon Arch-Bishops Bishops Deans Arch-Deacons and the rest that bear Office therein 2. I grant that the Law is made to bind none but Subjects and that an altering power is reserved to King and Parliament But it doth not follow that all the Subjects be not bound by it Though They may change Laws yet We may not And as you say They suppose that it belongeth not to the People to endeavour it Which We grant as to any Rebellious Seditious or otherwise unlawful Endeavour But whether God bind not all men in their own Place and Calling by Prayer Conference Elections of Officers Petition c. to endeavour to amend all Crying Dangerous Common Sins is a farther Question L. They cannot mean to exclude Petitioning for that is the Subjects Right and is by them allowed with Restraints M. 1. It is meant in opposition to the Scots Covenant which tyed men to oppose Popery Prelacy and Schisme only in their several Places and Callings 2. It is expres'd in the most universal terms without the least Exception by men that knew how to speak 3. Reasons were given in Parliament against any Limitation and those Reasons carryed it 4. They were Men that were wholly for the Church of England whose Canon had before Excommunicated themselves and all men that accused any Office in the Church Government as sinful And they knew that should any of them when the Parliament is risen yea or there so say he is an Excommunicate Man. 5. It is most certain that they intended to bind all Subjects on whom these Oaths are imposed even from petitioning or any other Endeavour of Alteration though they allow petitioning in other Cases for they intended to fix and secure the Church-Government against all Alterations 6. Therefore as I said before they joined it with yea and set it before State-Government in all their Oaths and Covenants And do you think in Conscience they left men at liberty to petition against Monarchy or against the Life or Power or Honour of the King Far be it from us to think so ill of them I must profess to you that I do not think half so ill of well-order'd Monasteries of Men or Women as I do of our large Diocesses or our Lay-Excommunicators according to the Canons And yet even in the Times of Popery the Nation was not Sworn never to endeavour any alteration of Monasteries If you would have all Corporations Soldiers Vestries Ministers sworn never to endeavour to cure the Sick to relieve the Poor to seek more Wealth to reform all Play-houses Ale-houses and Taverns to Catechize their Families c. I would not join with you National Oaths and Covenants are Matters of great moment We have deeply suffered by rashness in such already And should any of them prove false and wicked and the Nation be stigmatized with Perjury you might more sadly write Lord have Mercy on us on the Land than on the Doors where the most dreadful Plague prevaileth CHAP. LIV. POINT XI Of Swearing an Abhorrence of taking Arms against any Commissionated by the KING M. THis also I have said enough of in the Case of the XI Ministers and told you that we are far from scrupling it in Disloyalty but in Loyalty only 1. Lest the Keepers of the Seals may by Commissions depose the King or deliver up the Kingdom to whom they please 2. Because the Authority of a Commission as above and against the King 's own Law is not a matter that Lawyers and Judges themselves are agreed of and therefore unfit for the unskilful Vulgar to determine by their
also many general and collateral and circumstantial considerations that make men fear the guilt of Conformity the more L. What are those I believe you will find as many of that sort of reasons on the other side to move you to Conform if you consider them M. I will tell you what I mean and then I will hear all that you have to say for it I. We are all agreed that no sin must be done for any commodity or on any pretence of good II. We are agreed that to pretend Gods Service or Name for our sin is a heinous aggravation To say I must do evil to please God to Preach and to win souls is Prophaneness and Hypocrisy III. We are agreed that it is worse in a Minister of Christ than in others because he is bound to be an example to the flock who are apt to imitate him IV. It is granted that God is jealous about his worship and that the profaning of Holy things and sinning openly in the Sacred Assemblies is caecris paribus worse than meer miscarriages in our Conversation V. Lying is by most acknowledged a great sin as overthrowing humane credit and converse But especially in a Preacher because it will tempt men never to believe him And to say that we assent and consent and that ex animo when we do not is heinous lying VI. It is granted that man hath not a despotical power of his own understanding to believe what he will And that if any of his errours be vicious vice and errour must have better cure than meer commands And if men could know and believe what they will they should will to believe nothing but what hath credible evidence without a carnal biass VII It is agreed that all men have errour and therefore that erring men or no men must be tolerated in our Communion and he that thinks otherwise condemneth himself and teacheth all men to condemn him VIII It is granted that it is a very low degree of knowledge that the universality of vulgar Christians do attain who hardly learn the common Catechism much less can it be expected that they should all be able to understand all indifferent things to be indifferent and to be judges of the minutissima IX If any errours be tolerable it 's like to be the errours about things indifferent and small X. St. Paul hath expresly determined the Controversy about loving and receiving such Rom. 14. 15. XI To encourage by compliance a generation and design of men that overthrow Christ's and his Apostles rule of Communion and by invented impositions of their own would make Church-Concord impossible and would propagate this way of certain Schism and stablish it in the World is to confederate for tearing the Church of Christ and making Schism common and uncureable XII It is granted that he that after his greatest study is perswaded that unnecessary Oaths Subscriptions Covenants Ceremonies are sinful is condemned if he go against his Conscience tho' he should mistake XIII Those therefore that make such snares for Souls and then tell us If you go against your Consciences you are damned for that and if you do not you are damned as Schismaticks for disobeying us are far unlike the Ministers of Christ or Men that help to save our Souls XIV We Non-Conformists offer cur solemn Oaths that we have by Prayer and earnest search and study laboured to know the truth herein And as our worldly interest would perswade us to conform so we would readily do it did we not believe that it is sin against God Yea we take it as to us to be no small but heinous sin by the aggravations which I am mentioning XV. Seeing then the way of our Condemners is either to cast all Christians out of the Church that have not a greater degree of Knowledge herein than I have and all men of my Rank or else to bring all men implicitly to believe all to be lawful that is commanded them we cannot consent to either of these two Measures for the Church XVI It is agreed that Perjury is so heinous a Sin as that few are greater It so taketh God's Name in vain as to engage his Justice in a special Revenge It depriveth Kings of due Security for their Lives and Crowns by the Oath of Fidelity It destroyeth all Trust and consequently all Commerce among Men as well as all Hope of publick Justice It exposeth the Estates and Lives of all men to the will of Perjur'd men so that he that dare be perjur'd may be supposed liable to any other Wickedness how great soever Therefore if we Ministers should be perjured we should make our selves utterly unmeet for our Office. XVII It is agreed that to sin deliberately by a Covenant under our Hands is one of the most heinous sorts of sinning and if it be done knowingly sheweth the person to be a wilful Servant of sin To sin by the sudden surprize of a Passion is too bad but to study it resolve it and covenant it is most dangerous To engage a Mans self by Covenant to be once a Month drunk or steal or commit Fornication is far worse than the bare Act. XVIII It is granted that Repentance is the condition of Forgiveness and for a man to swear or covenant that he will never repent or endeavour to amend or alter any thing that is amiss is to renounce Forgiveness XIX It is granted that publick common national Sins are far worse than private and personal in few and if heinous they are Prognosticks of the sorest Judgments and to promote them is to be the Enemy of the Land. XX. It is granted that if that prove Perjury which some Dissenters fear is such and the Kingdom should be stigmatized by it there could scarce be any greater Shame and Danger befall the Land to make it odious to GOD and Men and Recorded as such to all Generations As I said The Oaths and Covenants to endeavour no Alteration in Church Government is imposed on all Corporations all Souldiers in the Militia all Vesteries all Non-conformist Ministers that will take it and all Ministers as to covenant in the Act of Uniformity And he that without accusing others only studieth to be innocent of so mortal a feared Guilt sure is therein excusable if the fear of God and the love of our Souls and of the Church and State be not an unexcusable Crime Apply this no farther than I apply it XXI There is so much written for a foreign Iurisdiction over England in Church Affairs by Arch-Bishop Laud Arch-Bishop Bromhall Dr. Heylin Mr. Thorndike Dr. Saywell Bishop Gunning 's Chaplain and many others whose Words I am ready to produce as may assure us that it is in the same Mens thoughts to introduce it as the only way to Concord and that they therefore desire the Ejection and Ruine of such as we because we are against it And how far and how soon God will let these men prevail we know not But we
the young Clergy that can talk thus shew us by any good evidence that in other things they are so much Wiser Learneder than the Dissenters Are they all of greater Learning than Iohn Reignolds or better Hebricians than Hugh Broughton or better Logicians than Sadeel or Ramus or Sohnius or of greater Reading than Blondel c. 3. Do they know us better than we our selves We offer our Oaths that we hold what we do by the Cogency of appearing Evidence and are willing to know the truth 4. Have I here and elsewhere given no Reasons for our Dissent Have they answered my Treatise of Episcopacy my First and Second Plea for Peace my Apology my Treatise of the Terms of Church-Concord or any one thing that I have written for our Cause save two or three by disputes which when I have vindicated they have let fall the Disceptation What front have these men then that say we Dissent without giving Reason for it But you know how long the Press was shut against our Writings and yet then they that would not endure us to Speak accused us for being Silent L. Obj. IV. They say you are Non-Conformists meerly to make good your former Errours because you will not confess that you did amiss but will make the People justify you M. 1. What are those Errours If it be our dislike of any of the things before described I confess it is because we will not renounce them If it be an errour to be against their Church-corruptions and cruel Excommunications and denying Christendom to the Seed of the Faithful and Communion to faithful Christians I confess we will not recant these errours till they have better proved them such The Papists that swarm with Errours as a Beggar doth with Lice yet burn the Protestants as for Errour 2. I pray you wish those infallible men that in the ditch of dirt are delivered from all the uncleanness of errour to send only those those that are without errour to cast the first stone at us or those that have no worse errour than ours to silence excommunicate and destroy us 3. Have we given them no reasons of our dissent 4. Do they not know that the argument that hath brought us all into the case that we are in was thus given us 1664. and oft since in Print If we abate them any thing they will say that our Church was faulty and needed that Reformation who then is it that hath divided us to avoid confession of any former faultiness Tho' good Bishop Hall pronounceth a heavy Sentence on them that will justify the miscarriages of the Prelates L. Obj. V. They say that you took part with the Parliament against the King and involved the Land in Blood and have still the same rebellious principles M. 1. I confess there were some among us that were of the mind of Hooker Bilson Grotius Barclay and the common sort of Casuists Politicks c. and that thought that as in a doubt about Physick the College of Physicians were most to be trusted so in a doubt about Law the Parliament had been most credible And when the Irish had murdered two hundred thousand Protestants falsly pretending that they had the Kings Commission and threatning to finish their works in England there were many formerly tempted to fly in fear to the Parliament for safety being ignorant that the Kings bare word notwithstanding the Papists strength and interest was more to be trusted with our Laws Lives and Religion than all the Lawyers Courts and Pariament and that if all the Protestants in England had been used as those in Ireland they ought to have died patiently unless the killers would have given them time to send to the King to know whether he would have them live or die They were ignorant that a Lord Proprietor may do with his own as he list Who accuseth the owner for killing his own Sheep But the times of this ignorance are past The Long Parliament that made the Act of Vniformity cured it And shall not the Act of Oblivion be permitted to reconcile us and continue our peace 2. But Sir Who be they that were thus deceived I told you 1. That of near ten thousand that had Churches under the Parliament and Cromwel there was but two thousand that refused to Conform And is not seven thousand Conformists more than two thousand Dissenters 2. Many that were in the Parliament's Army Conformed and some that were for the Kings Death when the generality of those called Presbyterians abhorred it and the Engagement and brought in the King on reasons of meer Conscience 3. I have told you that we will take it thankfully if only those were silenced that had any hand in that War believing that it will not now be twenty Ministers in England And why are the rest that were Boys at School accused for other Mens opinions or actions For the time to come you need not fear them I heard some tell the Members of the Long Parliament that called them Rebels for saying that a Parliament may use defensive Arms against the Kings Commissioned Souldiers that if that would serve they would promise that if the King would but send a dozen Irish-men to kill them all in the house they would never be guilty of taking Arms to defend them nor perswading any else to do it L. Obj. VI. But they say that these Non-Conformists tho' they had no hand in the late War yet have the same Principles that caused it and that is Non-Conformity M. This is an argument a baculo ad angulum A man is against the Cross in Baptism or a Lay-Chancellor's excommunicating Men for a Ceremony c. ergo he is against the King and for Rebellion The other side say that the Irish Principles and the Popish were the cause and must we therefore conclude all Irish or Papists to be against the King They were Papists that raised the Wars on both sides in the aforesaid days of King William K. Stephen H. 1. and H. 3. and Ed. 2. and Rich. 2. and H. 6. and Rich. 3. and Ed. 4. c. Doth it follow that all rapists are rebels 2. But I have elsewhere fully proved that the Parliament when that War began were of the Church of England and Conformists and it 's strange that any should have the face to deny it while so many are yet living that know them Whitlocke tells us in his Memorials that they voted that every County should have a Bishop and his Presbytery And were those then against Episcopacy One would think that a County should be big enough to keep Episcopacy from dwindling to nothing every Bishop of old had but one City Many Counties have ten or near twenty Towns that were then called Cities But when Papists dare say that all are against Kings that are against the Pope who is the ruler and deposer of Kings it 's no wonder if every Bishop or Chancellor or Official c. will say If
they ought to be restrained and there are lower punishments than depriving them of their Toleration which are for lower faults 2. But if Rulers will oppress we cannot help that and must not therefore be ungoverned CHAP. LXI Whether the Extirpation of the Non-Conformists be not rather to be attempted than an Vnion with them by these means L. IT 's long since our former Conference and now there is discovered a Treasonable Plot against the King and his Brother and a multitude of Addresses tell us that it was the Plot of the Dissenters and the Product of Conventicles and therefore â—â—ave the extripation of them all and that they may no more be trusted as having Principles were concileable to Monarchy and Subjection and the loudest cry now runs that way M. What is the Treasonable Plot L. To Kill the King and Duke and raise an Army and to Change the Government or Governours at least M. Who do they mean by Dissenters or Conventiclers L. All that Conform not to the Church of England as it is now setled by the Law. M. The Law setleth the Essentials Integrals and Accidents of the Church Do you mean every one that disliketh any one Office as Lay-Chancellors use of the Keys or any Ceremony or Form If so I do doubt most that come to Church and Communicate with it dissent from some such Circumstances L. Well suppose it be those that separate from it M. There are now these following sorts of known Dissenters called by many Conventiclers I. Those that like the way of Episcopacy and Liturgy best as here setled but yet will also occasionally join with other Churches as the French Dutch Lutheran or some Non-Conformists II. The Pacifick Non-conformists who at the King's Return Petitioned for Arch-Bishop Vsher's Model of the Primitive Episcopal Government and thankfully accepted the King's Declaration III. The Presbyterians who are for Government only by Synods of equal Presbyters Teaching joined with meer Ruling ones IV. The Independants and Separatists V. The Anabaptists who are half Arminians and half not VI. The Fifth-Monarchy Party most of which are Anabaptists also VII The Quakers VIII The Papists IX The Infidels Iews Hobbists and Atheists Is the meaning that all these are the guilty Rebels to be destroyed or which of them is it L. If all I doubt the King would lose no small part of his Subjects But you know the Papists are not numbred with the Dissenters or Conventiclers M. Say you so Do those that differ but about a Ceremony or Lay-mans use of the Keys or the largeness and paucity of Bishops Churches dissent more from you than the Papists that would bring King and Kingdom under a foreign Jurisdiction and introduce all the Mass and doctrinal corruptions of their Church Read Bishop Downham's Catalogue of Popish Errours de Anti-Christo or Dr. Willet's Chamier's Iewell 's or any such and judge And do you think that the Mass is no Conventicle or more lawful than the forbidden assemblies of Protestants L. Well But it 's Protestant-Dissenters that I mean. M. So then You would have Protestant-Dissenters rooted out and not Papists or Infidels L. We would have those rooted out that were in the Plot which the Papists were not M. No doubt but such a Plot as you describe deserveth the extirpation of those that were guilty of it But I pray you compare not the innocency of Papists in their Principles with the Protestants Or read Bishop Barlow's and Hen. Fowlis's Books and Prin's History of Bishops Treasons and judge as you see cause But it 's none of my business now to accuse the Papists Do but grant that the innocent should not suffer for the crimes of the guilty and we are agreed L. But is it not justly supposed that the whole Party is guilty of those Principles which have caused particular mens rebellions and that it is their Preachers and Conventiclers that have caused all M. You that are a Lawyer should know somewhat of the Rules of Iustice or Humanity at least Come on and let you and I consider soberly of the case And first to your face I challenge you to name and prove any the least difference between the Non-conformists who sought for Concord at the King's Restoration or the party of meer Non-Conformists and the Protestants of the Church of England in their Principles about the Power of Princes and the Subjection and Patience of the People Name any difference if you can L. You would make one believe that great Numbers are inhumanely impudent that charge them with such heinous difference if there be none M. Why do you not name the difference if there be any Contrarily 1. We all take the same Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy 2. We Subscribe all the same Articles of Religion about the Power of Magistrates 3. We have often professed our consent to all that is written for Magistracy and Subjection in all the Scripture in any General Council save what is for the Papal Tyranny over Princes and People or in any Confession of any Christian Church Greek Papist or Protestant that ever we saw and for all that for the Power of Kings but not all against it which the generality of Fathers Historians Philosophers Politick-writers Lawyers Canonists or Divines are for And is not all this yet enough 4. I have oft told you where e.g. Bishop Andrews in Tortura Torti Sir Fran. Bacon Lord St. Albans and many others have vindicated the principles of the English Non-conformists as the same with the Church's in point of Loyalty against the Papists accusations L. But do not you know who wrote the Political Aphorisms or Holy Common-wealth condemned lately by the Oxford Convocation M. And do not you know 1. That the Author had never leave to confute his accusers about it 2. Do you not know that he hath divers years ago written a large Book called his Second Plea for Peace fully opening the Principles which he and his Consenters hold and no man hath writteâ— one word against any of them that I hear of to this day Is this fair dealing then to silence what at large he owneth and name only a writing 29 years ago which he never was heard about 3. Do you not know that the Famously Learned Tho. White a Papist wrote at the same time the like Doctrine and will you charge that on the Party of Papistâ— 4. The Historians Rule is Distingue de temporibus Do you know in what times that was written And know you not that few men then living wrote and spake more plainly against the Usurpation than he did 5. And you see that the Oxford Convocation condemn the writings and principles of the Doctors of the Church of England as well as others And as for Knox and Buchanan we are no more guilty of their words than of Iewell 's Bilson's Hooker's Laud's or any such L. But if you differ not from the Church of England in Principles of Loyalty why do you not take the
Oxford-Oath in the Act of Confinement and the Subscription in the Act of Vniformity M. I have told you fully before Not because we differ in Doctrine but in expounding the words of that Oath and Subscription 2. Were neither Arch-bishop Abbot nor his Clergy nor the Parliaments of those times of the Church of England as well as Sâ—bthorp and Mainwaring Were not the Laws made by those Parliaments made by the Members if not Representatives of the Church of England You know that our late great Defenders of the Church describe the Church of England to be those that Worship God according to the Law And were the Parliaments that made those Laws none of the Church themselves Chillingworth would not Subscribe without a limitting Profession Was he therefore none of the Church Was Bishop Bilson none of the Church Was R. Hooker none of the Church The first dedicated his Book to Queen Elizabeth and the latter is Dedicated to our King Charles the second and Praised by his Father And yet the Author of the Holy Common-wealth hath larglier than any man confuted Hooker's Popular Principles When William Barclay a Lawyer defended the King of France his Temporal Power against the Popes Usurpation of a Power to depose and restrain him he is fain to profess that the contrary opinion was so common that he was taken to speak some strange and singular thing And yet none doubts but he was of the same Church of Rome I again challenge you to name that point in which we differ in this Doctrine from the true Church of England L. You hold that Kings may be resisted by Arms. M. Not so much as the aforesaid Bishop and Doctors of the Church of England did or the Parliaments that made Church-Laws Again See our second Plea for Peace how far we disclaim it I profess that I am acquainted with no meer Non-Conformist Ministers that hold it at all lawful for Subjects to resist the King or any Supream Power by a War except in case that he notoriously declareth that he will if he can destroy the Common-wealth or deliver it up to a foreigner or destroyer that hath no right L. Sure the cry would never be for Extirpating the Dissenters for this Plot and their disloyalty if they were not guilty M. Nay if that be your argument Strangers to them say they are disloyal and guilty ergo they are so I leave you to God's answer for I will not undertake to answer you But will you use Sobriety a little further 1. It is now twenty seven years since they were ejected and cast out of maintenance and countenance and left to beg or crave their bread Long have they been laid in Gaols and fined deeply the Law laying on them twenty and forty pound a Sermon Their Goods Beds Books taken from them and they left destitute How many in all these years have ever been accused and proved guilty of one disloyal or seditious Sermon or Word I know of none Certainly it was not for want of will in the Accusers Those that by Oaths have brought them under Convictions and Warrants for distress of five ten and much more forfeitures even divers hundred pounds at once before they were ever summoned to speak for themselves would sure have sworn some disloyal Words against them had they been able And can many hundred Ministers have a fuller proof of their innocency than that they had no such prosecution twenty seven years from such a sort of Adversaries in so great Sufferings 2. And now this Plot is detected It is divers Months since and many Countries and Corporations have accused the Dissenters of it and cry them down to Extirpation And to this day I cannot hear of any one English Minister or at most not of two that is either an Episcopal or Presbyterian Non-Conformist so much as accused or named as guilty The French and Dutch Churches in London are Dissenting Presbyterians Yet no man accuseth any of them for being in Plots and yet must they also be destroyed But Sir if any one or more of the Episcopal or Presbyterian Non-Conformists Ministers or People had been found guilty would you condemn thousands or any of the guiltless for their sakes On what account Is it for their Relation to them They are mostly strangers to one another Come and let us try your rule of Justice I. Is there any Relation nearer than that of Father and Son And can any Minister be supposed to have more interest in or influence on his Hearers than a Father hath on his Son And you know that the chief man accused is the Kings eldest Son I hope you will not for this charge the King as if he principled him for Treason against himself Nor as if he were to suffer for his Sons faults II. The Judges have oft declared that many Iesuits and Papists were Plotters and Traitors and they died for it I hope you will not make all Papists guilty of their crime nor extirpate them for it And yet the Papists are Conventicling Dissenters too III. The Lords and great Men accused of this Plot and Treason how justly God knoweth were of the Church of England and shall all the Church of England be destroyed for their sakes Dr. Whitby and others now blamed by the Oxford-Convocation and Bishop Bilson Mr. Hocker c. were of the Church of England and shall all the English Clergy be accused of their words IV. Many of the accused were Hobbists and Infidels and some common ill-living Protestants Shall all the Hobbists and Infidels and ill-living Protestants be extirpated for their faults V. Many Gentlemen of some late Parliaments are accused not yet tried and proved guilty Shall all the Parliament-men therefore be extirpated as guilty VI. Some Lawyers and Students at Law are accused Shall all Lawyers and Students therefore be extirpated VII Divers of the Nobility are accused Must all Noble-men be therefore reproached VIII Some that have been of the Kings Privy Council were accused Is his Council therefore to be disgraced or destroyed IX Formerly many Judges have been guilty Are Judges therefore to be dishonoured X. By this justice you may next conclude They were Englishmen that were accused therefore let all English-men be rooted out Or they were Protestants and Christians therefore away with all Protestants and Christians Whereas I think it an unjust conclusion that because they were Irish-men and Papists that murdered two hundred thousand in Ireland therefore root out all Irish-men and Papists unless you will inferr They are men that commit all sin therefore root out mankind If it had been men that hate serious Godliness and are the seed of the Serpent and of Cain that are at deadly enmity to the true fear of God and thirst for the blood of the innocent that are accused of this Plot and if People had petitioned to have all this sort of men rooted out for it it would have fallen on more than you and I are willing to name or