WHETâ—ER Parish Câ—â—gregations BE TRUE Christian Churches â—â—d the Capable Consenting Incumbents be truly their Pastors or Bishops over their Flocks 〈◊〉 Whether the old Protestants Conformists and Nonconâ—â—rmists or the Brownists were in the right herein And how 〈…〉 our present Case is the same 〈◊〉 by Richard Baxter as an Explication of some Passages in his Forâ—â—â— Writings especially his Treatise of Episcopacy misunderstood and misapplied by some and answering the strongest Objections of some of them especially a Book called R. Baxters Judgment and Reasons against Communicating with the Parish Assemblies as by Law required And another called A Theological Dialogue CATHOLICK COMMUNION once more Defended upon â—â—ns necessitating importunity By RICHARD BAXTER LONDON 〈◊〉 in Parkhurst at the Bible and Three 〈◊〉 near Mercers Chappel 1684. Communion with Parish Churches vindicated In Answer to a Book entituled The Judgment of Mr. Baxter against Communicating c. Mistaking my writings A Church is not formally quid Physiâ—um but quid morale politicum Relativum a political Relative being II. The same name signifieth both the Genus and Species that are divers by use III. The same is true of the name Pastor IV. Diocesan Churches are of three sorts 1. Such as have at present but one fixed Assembly but design to gather more hereafter Such Dr. Hammond thought they were in Scripture times 2. Such as have one Diocesan Governour or Superintendent over many inferior Churches and their Pastors 3. Such as have one only Bishop or Pastor having no other true Pastor Elder Church-Ruler or Presbyter of Christs Institution under him but Chappels which have no such Ruler or Pastor V. The first sort of Diocesans we have now nothing to do with The second sort is controverible some holding it sinful some lawful and some and very many to be of Divine Institution as Successors of the Apostles not in the extraordinaries but in the ordinary parts of their Office Christ having made an imparity or a superiority of some over others they think that to say without proof that he changed that order in one Age is 1. to charge him with mutability and levity 2. And to diminish from his Law which hath a Curse The third sort of Diocesans is either 1. of a Diocess like a great Parish with Chappels so small that one Pastor may possibly oversee it This is tollerable when more cannot be had and when they can it hurts only â—he well-being of the Church Or 2. it is of a Diocess so great as that one man cannot do what is essential to a Pastor and so it is undone This nullifieth that Species of Churches which is of Christs Institution VI. A particular Church of Christs Institution of the lowest political order is A competent number of Neighbour-Christians who by Christs appointment and their own exprest consent are associated with one or more Pastâ—â— for the right worshipping of God in publick and the Edification of the Members by the exercise of the said Pastoral Office and their mutual Duties to God to their Pastors and each others for the welfare of the Society and the pleasing and glorifying of God VII The Pastoral Office as over this first or lowest Church and as it is in unfixed Ministers related yet to no one Church more than another differeth but as the subject matter or object of their charge doth differ and not in the fundamental Power or Order VIII This Pastoral Office is essentially Ministerial to Christ as the Prophet Priest and King of his Church 1. A Power to Teach 2. To Lead in Worship 3. To Guide by the Keys of Reception Admonition Exclusion and Restoration IX It is not Inconsistent with this Pastoral Office to be Governed by Superiors whether Magistrates or Ecclesiasticks as others were by Apostles and by Timothy Titus c. Therefore every limitation restraint rebuke or punishment for Mal-administration nullifieth not the Office nor yet allowing an appeal to Superiors X. To hinder a Pastor from forcible excluding men from Church or Sacrament and allow him only to do it by Application of Gods word is agreeable to his Office XI It is Power and Obligation to exercise and not the present actual Exercise that is essential to the Office in the fundamental Relation But should the Non-exercise be total and stated it would not make up a Church in act No more than a mere Power to Teach will make a School in act XII He that hath the entire Power and statedly exerciseth but one part of it statedly omitting an essential part may be in Order an empowred Minister but his Society is but a half Church But if it be only an Integral part that he omits it may be a true Church tho faulty or if it be an essential part and not statedly but only by some present impedition XIII The name of Church Pastor and Diocesan being formally Relative in signification are really divers things as the Fundamentum Relate Correlate and Terminus are divers They are therefore considerable I. As instituted and described by Christ II. As understood described and consented to by sound Orthodox Pastors and People III. As described by laws and Canons IV. As esteemed and described by many mistaking Bishops Clergy and People some Super-Conformists and some Misjudging that the Law saith as they The word as to these senses is equivocal XIV Christs Institution went before mens Corruption and is to be held to by all Christians who own him to be the Maker and Ruler of his own Church And no man hath Power to null his Institution nor to warrant 〈◊〉 to make his Church another thing XV. By Christs Institution every Ministerial Elder and Pastor hath Power 1. To Teach the People 2. To Lead them in Worship 3. To Receive by Baptism and to Communion or to refuse on just cause tho under Government as aforesaid The whole Office I have copiously described in my Universal Concord 24. years ago XVI The Parishes that have capable Christians and Ministers consented to by their sumbmission are such true Churches their Neighbourhood and Christianity making them capable matter Not that a man is of the Church because he is in the Parish Atheists Infidels Sadduces Hereticks and Refusers may dwell there Its thought that of 60000. that dwell in one London Parish 10000 Communicate not and so 40000 or 50000 are not of that Church but those that are capable Consenters and Communicants XVII This sort of Churches we were in Possession of 166â— and till August 24. 1662. And of 9000 Ministers then 2000 only were put out the other 7000 continuing in And of those that were put out some few gathered part of their old Flock into private Churches renouncing and disswading them from the publick Most gathered no such Churches but help their old People as they could not drawing them from the Parish Churches till the time of the Kings Licences for more open Ministry Many led them to the Parish Churches and took themselves for fellow
must serve is his Spouse and his Body and if it shall happen the same Church or any member thereof to take any hurt or hindrance by reason of your negligence ye know the greatness of the fault and the hâ—rrible punishment that will ensue Wherefore consider with your selves the end of your ministry towards the children of God towards the Spouse and body of Christ and see that you never cease your labour your care and diligâ—nce till you have done all that lieth in you according to your bounden duty to bring all such as are or shall be committed to your charge to that agreement in the faiâ—h and knowledg of God and that ripeness and perfectness of age in Christ that there be no place left among you either for error in Religion or viciousness of life Forasmuch then as your office is both of so great excellency and of so great difficulty ye see with how great care and study ye ought to aâ—ply your selves as well that ye may shew your selves dutiful and thankful to the Lord who hath placed you in so high a dignity as also to beware that neither you your selves offend nor be occasions that others offend And after their Covenant to preach according to the Scripture they promise to give faithful diligence to administer the Doctrine Sacraments and Discipline of Christ as the Lord hath commanded and as this Church and Realm hath received the same according to the Commandments of God So that you may teach the people committed to your care and charge with all diligence to keep and observe the same Here Doctrine Sacraments and Discipline are their Office-works Gods Commandments are their Rule tho on supposition that this Realm hath received them according to his Commandments Next they covenant with all faithful diligence to banish all erroneous and strange doctrines contrary to Gods word and to use both PUBLICK and PRIVATE Monitions and Exhortations as well to the sick as to the whole within your cures as need shall require and occasion shall be given And to keep quietness Peace and Love among all Christian people and especially among them that are or shall be committed to their charge All this is setled by Law and all Ministers subscribe to it And is not this enough to the essence of a Pastors office What is the Reason The next promise is Reverently to obey their Ordinary and other chief Ministers to whom is committed the charge and government of them following with a glad mind and will their godly admonitions and submitting themselves to their godly judgments This shews that 1. It is not a strict Divine Right that is meant over them for all Ordinaries and other chief Ministers pretend not to such right 2. If others superiority null their office then none is in office but the King Was Diâ—trepâ—es no Minister because John threatned him as his superior It 's liker he had been none for resisting John of the two Were all degraded that obeyed the Apostles If it should be an error that a Parochial Bishop is a Governor over his junior-Presbyters or a Diocesan over both that nulleth not the Presbyters office The Presbyterians give a Classis or Synod as much power over particular Churches as the Episcopal give to Diocesans or near And yet few Separatists have thence concluded that they have no particular Churches or that this nulleth them contrarily ab est tertii adjecti ad est secundi valet argumentum Parish Churches are govern'd Churches subject to superiors ergo they are Churches And the Law calls them Churches 〈◊〉 it taketh them for Churches while it taketh no essential from them XXIII There are some particular Drs. in England indeed who say that There is no Church without a Bishop of its own and 〈◊〉 Epiâ—câ—pus ibi Ecclesia and that Ecclesia est plâ—â—s Epâ—sâ—â—â— aduâ—ata and that our Parish Ministers are no Bishops and that their sole Ordinations are nullities and consequently it would follow that their Parish Churches are truly but parts of a Church infimae specieâ— And because these men speak against Reordination and yet require those to be ordained again who were here ordained by mere Presbyters therefore it seemeth plain that they take the former for no true Ordination These men I have oft confuted especially in my Treatise of Episcopacy And hence some gather that I charge this error on all the Church of England and take the Law and Clergy to nullifie the Parish-Ministry and Churches Therefore I am specially obliged to answer such misconcluders lest they make my writings a means of deceit against my sence and against my will for so unhappy is the controversal world even of men of Worth and Name that if I do but say that two is less than three and that four is more than three they fear not to say that I contradict my self and R. is against B. and sometimes I speak for and sometimes against the same cause and these being ordinary Disputers and Church-guides What hope have the Christian Flocks of Unity and Peace but by such mens ceasing their disputes Here therefore it must be noted 1. That the men of this opinion are not to be called The Church of England The most of the Bishops and Clergy formerly were against them Dr. Hammond and Bishop Gunning and a few more were almost the first that seemed to go so far 2. And yet even these few do usually except the case of necessity and of the forreign churches as Dr. Sherlock hath lately done at large so that then they cannot take their Episcopal ordination received to be essential to the Priesthood 3. And these men themselves call our Parish societies Parish Churches and deny not the Presbyters to be Episcopi Gregis and to have a pastoral care of the peoples souls for they own the Liturgy Ordination and other writings of the Church which assert it 4. Their opposition to Presbytery hath carried them to appropriate the name Bisâ—op to the Diocesans but by it they mean only a Bishop over Presbyters having the power to ordain and depose them and to â—â— be chief in governing all the flocks But the controversie de nomine and de re are not the same This denieth not all Pastoral Episcopacy in Presbyters over the flocks under them That these men by running into extreams do ill many have written to prove But maiming the Parish Ministry or too much limiting it is not nullifying it 5. Let it be considered that even the Separatists say not that the Power of Ordination is essential to Pastors Some of them take Pastors unordained only elected and received with prayer Some take men ordained by nâ—ighbour Pastors that have no power over them Some take men ordained by Bishops some by Magistrates And Jurisdiction over nâ—ighbour Pastors I am sure the Separatists will say belongs neither to the being or well being of a Pastor If then it be the Power of Ordaining and of Jurisdiction over other Pastors which the Diocesans
ever I knew have not that I know of renounced any thing essential to a Parish-Pastor I before said Ordination and Jurisdiction over Presbyters or other Churches is no part of its essence To be obedient to a Diocesan is no such Renunciation Therefore it is no such Renunciation to promise to obey them in lawful things subordinate to obeying Christ If it prove a mistake in them and that they owe no such Obedience every such mistake doth not degrade them He that said that he that will be greatest shall be servant of all thought not that to obey an equal did null the Ministry Nor he that said Be suâ—ject one to another Christ and Peter paid tribute to avoid offence tho the Children be free But what if a man be in doubt whether such Obedience be not his Duty Is it not the safer side much more if he verily think it his Duty 2. To take Diocesans to be Jure Divino is said by some to be destructive of the Pastoral Office and Churches and a change of the English Church-Government But it 's error For 1. It is not the Destructive Diocesan Government which acknowledg no Church and Pastor under them that those in question consent to but the Governing Diocesan who ruleth subject Pastors and Churches 2. This Question of Divine right is threefold 1. Of that which by Dâ—â—ire right is necessary ad esse 2. Of that which is by Divine right best and mâ—st elegible or needful ad melius esse 3. That which is by right of Divine Concession lawful but not necessary The Church of England never determined which of these was the Diocesans Case All Conformists judged it Lawful multitudes judged it Better than other forms Many judged it necessary when it might be had But no Law determined for any of these alone Unless you will say the Preface to the Book of Ordination doth it by saying It is evident to all men diligently reading holy Scripture and Ancient Authors that from the Apostles time there have been these Orders of Ministers in Christs Church Bishops Priests and Deacons Which Offices were evermore had in such Reverend Estimation c. Here some say That the Church of England took not these for three distinct Orders before 1640 but now Therefore by the word these Orders is meant only two Ans At this rate he must have the betteâ— whom the hearer best trusteth whatever he say If these Orders of Ministers Bishops Priests and Deacons speak not three Orders I cannot understand them Here note partiality the same that refuse to subscribe them because they speak three Orders yet say they speak but two when they argue that Church-Government is changed 1662 from what it was 1640. Indeed Aelfricks Laws in Spelman make Bishops and Priests the same Order and so do a great part of Schoolmen and other Papists but the English Bishops and Clergy were some of one mind and some of another about it and determined it not Unless this Preface be a Determination the Name Order and Office being both used And to instance in no other Saravia tho no English man yet of the Church of England wrote more strongly almost than any that I ever read for Diocesan Episcopacy against Beza c. and that upon this ground of Divine right that they succeeded the Apostles and such as Timothy Titus c. in the Government of many Churches And the Kings Divines at the Isle of White went all on that Ground To say then that to plead a Divine right for them is new is to contradict large Historical Evidences And were it true that this had been never before Imposed or Subscribed surely it is not an Opinion of the Divine right of governing of many Churches that renounceth the being of those Churches it asserteth them to be by Divine right For that which is not is not governable Non entis non sunt accidentia But where and how hath the Law or Church altered the case since 1640. These words were in the Book of Ordination before and I know of none plainer that way since It s destructive Diocesan Government which renounceth the Government of any subject Churches but of one only and of any Pastors that I argue against and not Governours of such Churches XXXIV But it 's objected That they swear not to endeavour any alteration of Church-Government therefore they renounce the Pastoral Office because the present Government excludeth it Ans 1. This is to dictate and not to prove The Diocesan Government hampered and fettered it by the Canons in the time of Whitgift and Bancroft but null'd it not He that reads the Canons or knows the Church and thinks that it's Government hath no need of Amendment is far from my mind But governing is not nullifying 2. It is not true that ever I heard that they swear what this Objection saith The Ministers do not swear but subscribe it and swear Obedience in licitis honestis And I could never learn what Law commands that Oath And if it should extend to obey all the Canons it 's that which I would be full loath to swear but I know no Canon that utterly nulleth the Parish-Churches and Ministers And a Justice that sweareth to execute the Laws is not supposed thereby to justifie every Law nor to execute any if it should be against Gods Law that exception being still supposed 3. Their Subscription never to endeavour alteration engageth them never to endeavour to destroy the Parish Churches and Ministry and so is for them For that would be a great alteration indeed 4. If you should think otherwise yet if the Subscriber or Swearer think himself that it is not destructive but governing Diocesans that he subscribeth to it is not your Opinion or Exposition that bindeth him against his own No tho you were in the right as to the Imposers sense For Ignorantis non est consensus It 's unjust to face them down that they mean what they profess they do not Ask forty Conformists whether they think the Government which they promise not to alter be that Diocesan form which ruleth Parish Churches and Pastors or that which denieth their being and I think few will profess the latter sense 5. And suppose the worst that any Parish-Priest were of that mind yea and were really no true Pastor as to his own acceptance with God he may yet be a Pastor so far true as is necessary to the Essence of the Church if the People know it not For the Innocent suffer not for the guilties sin If a man be a secret Atheist or Heretick or do counterâ—eit Ordination and Election and really had none and the People be deceived by him and know it not while he possesseth the place and doth the work his Baptisms and Administrations are valid to the Church as a Church tho not to himself and his Ministry The Jews Church was not null when the high Priests had no lawful call but bought the Office of Râ—man
Towns by that nameâ— But at last the Bishops being loath to diminish their Jurisdiction decreed that very small Cities should have no Bishops ne viâ—câ—eat nomen Episcâ—pi And in process of time in some Countries the name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or City was appropriated at the Princes pleasure to some very few Corporations peculiarly priviledged above the rest So that a King that would have had but one Bishop in his Kingdom as it 's said that all the Abaâ—â—ian Empire hath had but one might have done it by calling but one Town a City VII Yet the People and Bishops being sensible that there was more work For a Bishop in a City-Diocess than one could do in many Countries they had Rural Bishops set over Pâ—pulâ—ns country Churches And tho these were subject to the Diocesans yet hereby the Churches were multiplied But the Bishops soon grew jealous and weary of these Rural-Bishops and most places put them down and set up instead of them a kind of Itinerant visiting Presbyters empowring all Arch-Bishops and Ach Deacons till at last to save themselves the labour and yet not diminish their Dominion they set up the Courts of Lay-Chancellors Officials and many such Offices besides the Arch-Deacons Surrogates c. VIII In England as is agreed by most Historians at first one Bishop had but one Church or Temple And at Luindisfarne saith Bede It was so poâ—â— a thing that it was a house thatcht with reeds The Pastor of this one Church was to convert as many as he could in all the Countrey about him The Heathen Country might be his Diocess but not his Church The converted Christians got into several Monasteries and not into Parish-Churches These Monasteries were partly for Society in Religious Exercise and partly for Studies like Schools to Educate Youth for the Ministry So that long a Diocess was only the Bishops Church with divers Monasteries At last Gentlemen for their convenience built and endowed parish-Parish-Churches the Bishops old single Churches being called the Cathedrals And finally by the help of Princes all the Land was divided into Parishes subject to the Cathedral-Bishops to whom Deans and Chapters were added in imitation of the old Bishops Colledg of Presbyters in every single Church IX When the Rural-Bishops were put down the Presbyters power in their several Parishes was somewhat enlarged And the Diocesses at last became so great that the Bishops were sain to commit more of the oversight to the Presbyters Tho they kept them under by severe Canons Lay-Deputies and the Cogent Sword X. It grew then a controversie among the Papists themselves whether the Parish Incumbents were proper Pastors and had any Power of Government and how much And my Objectors confess that they were reputed Pastors among the Papists and that Linwood calleth them Pastors and the Laity Oves I have cited in Treat of Epis â—ilesaâ—us and many more that prove it Ant. de Dom. Spalatensis is large and full in it Spâ—lman in R. Aâ—lâ—ricks Law shews that the Bishop and Presbyter made but one of their seven Orders A great sort of the Schoolmen say the same Most Drs. say That the Presbyters essentially as Sacredetes have the power of the Keys infâ—ro interiâ—re by which they mean not a power that must be kept secret but that which consisteth in the perswasâ—vâ— use of Gods word on Câ—nferâ—nâ—e privately or publickly as distinct from Magisterial and Câ—gent Power And if they â—e of one Order then if one be a Pastâ—r the other is so also That they are taken but in partem curae is nothing against it but for it For equal Presbyters in one Church have each but partem curae The Reformation finding thâ—ngs in this case determined none of the disputes de nomine Whether Parish Rectors shall be called â—pisâ—opâ—s Gregis or Pastors or Rectors or Iâ—cumbâ—nts but use these names promiscuously Nor did they dispute whether the Parishes are Political Churches But the Definition and not the Name is the thing now before us in debate God hath given every such Minister the essence of a Pastoral oversight of his Flock Men may hinder the Exercise but can no more alter the Christian Office Power than they can deprive a Husband of the power over his Wife And the Diocesans at last have been necessitated to permit the essential Pastoral power by the word to the Incumbents having none else to use it by But Lawyers have taught many to call nothing Government that is not Cogent on the unwilling and so to say that Government is not in the Presbyters but the Bishops and that all is derived from the King which is all true of Cogent Government by the Sword in fâ—ro exteriore but not as to Pastoral Government of the Flock by Gods wâ—rd As Bishop Bilson of Obedience hath distinguished and applied well at large XI Now to come nearer our Case Diocesan Bishops have put down the ranks of Bishops which of old was setled as Presidents over the Presbyters in every Church in Cities and of the lowest Order described by Ignatius and Cyprian and others Every lowest Church hath not now a Bishop over the Presbyters as it had for divers hundred years And by this they have unchurched all the old sort of Churches in the sense of them that say There is no Church where there is no Bishop over Preâ—byters And they have set up a Diocesan Church and Bishop only wâ—â—re should be many Churches and Bishops and thus 〈◊〉 homâ—â—â—m I argued with them c. But indeed this Parochial Episcopacy or Prâ—sidâ—ncy being wrongfully said to be Essential to the Church being at most bâ—t useful to peace ad melius esse and the Epicopacy or Pastoral care of the Laity without any power over the Clergy being it that is essential to single Church Pastors In truth no man can alter this In Consent and â—â—putatiâ—n it is altered by those that think Parish Curates no Pastors and deny any Essential power over their Flocks But it is not in Consent and Reputation destroyed by them that acknowledg their Essential power and subject only themselves as Pastors to the oversight of Diocesans and Magistrates They do but destroy the 〈…〉 of Episcopacy of humane Institution which was over Presbyters in 〈◊〉 Châ—rchâ—â— but not the Episcopacy over the Flock which is of Christs Insâ—iâ—utioâ— XII 〈◊〉 whether most in England are of this Opinion or of that for 〈◊〉 or for meer gâ—verning Episcopacy and which way the Laws go and 〈◊〉 may be called the sense of the Church when Convocations and Bishops seem to differ and men change their Opinions with the Age and Interest it is impossible for me to be sure But I know how they govern by what Canons and by what Courts and as all their Cogent power is from the King it is no wonder if they be chosen by him But the old sort of Bishops that had no forcing power was so constantly otherwise chosen that their Canons nulled the Magistrates
Diocesans It is their example that sak to them thword of God that the Apostle sets before them And who be those Perhaps it will be said that Fame may tell the Diâ—cess of the example of their Diocesan tho they see him nâ—t I answer 1. But the Text speaketh of those that preach to them Fame may as well tell us of the good works of any other bishop as of the Diocesan Many bishops in London live near us it may tell us of any other good mans life What is this to the Text 1 Pet. 5.3 Neither as being Lords over Gods heritage but being examples to the flock Dr. Hammond VValking Christianly and exemplary before them Q. VVhat Before them that never knew them nor could do Doth the Diocesan or the Incumbent more walk as a known example before the Parish flock for their imitation 4. It is part of a bishops office as a general Minister not only to teach the Church but to preach to those that are yet no Members of the Church Matth 28.19 Go and disciple me all nations 1 Tim. 5.17 They that 〈◊〉 in the word and doctrine Dr. Hammond To preach the Gospel to whom it was nâ—ws Acts 26.17 18. To whom I send thee to â—pâ—n their eyes and turn them from darkness to light and from the pâ—wer of Satan unto God c. Not that fixed Pastors must wander to do this as unâ—ixed Missionaries but within their reach Hence Dr. Hammond noteth out of Clemens Râ—m That they are made Bishops over the Infidels that should after believeâ— And bishop Dâ—wname saith that the City and Territories are their Diocesses when the Christians were but few and as Dr. H. saith But one Congregation whicâ— one bishop only with a Deacon or two served So that either a Diocess was no Church or it was a Diocesan Church of Heathens save that Congregation Our great Parishes that have 70000 or 60000 or 40000 or 20000 souls have not the sixth part that I say not the tenth so many Communicants Who is it that preacheth most for the Conversion of the rest Atheists Sadduces Infidels Hereticks Bruitists and impious ones Is it the Diocesan or the Incumbent Who doth the Law most require it of 5. It is part of the Boshops office to Catechize or Teach the Novices that have need of milk and are as Children in danger of being tost up and down and carried to and fro with every wind of Doctrine See Eph 4.14 15 16 Heb. 5.11 12. With Dr. Hammonds Paraphrase Quest Doth the Law and Church lay more of this on Diocesans or parish Pastors 6. It is the Bishops work to defend the truth against gainsayers and confute adversaries and stop the mouths of Hereticks Infidels and other enemies as is confest by Dr. Hammond on many Texts to Timothy and Titus as 2 Tim. 2.24 25 c. Not by force but by evidence of truth And doth not the Law and Church lay more of this on the Incumbents than the Diocesans who are not Uâ—iquitaries II. The Second part of the Bps. office is Guidance and officiating before the Church in publick worship in subordination to Christs Priesthood 1. By confessing sin and to be the subintercessor or the mouth of the Church in publick prayer thanksgiving and praise to God 2. In Consecrating and Distributing and giving in Christs Name the Sacrament of Communion 3. To bless the Congregation in the name of the Lord c. All these Dr. Hammond maketh the Bps. office and so doth the Scripture and so did Justin Martyr Tertullian c. Citations in a confessed case would but be tedious Quest. And who doth this most in all the Churches Who confesseth sin prayeth for mercy praiseth God administreth the Lords Supper blesseth the people c. The Bp to many hundred Churches or each Incumbent to each Church And on whom doth the Law most impose it And what doth the Diocesan in it more than any one of the rest 2. Dr Hanmond on Acts 2. And Acts 4.33 34 35. Sheweth that it was the Bps. part to receive all the offerings of the Communicants and all the tythes and first fruits c. Who doth this most The Diocesan in all the Parishes of his Diocesse or the Incumbents 3. Dr Hammond and many old Canons before him tells us that the Bp. was out of the Church flock to take care of all the poor orphans widows strangers Deacons were herein but servants under them Dr. Hammond on 1 Cor 12.28 The supreme trust and charge was reserved to the Apostles and Bps. of the Church But the poor will starve if the Incumbent with his assistance do not more in this than the Diocesan 4. It is the Bps. office to visit the sick Jam 5. Call for the elders of the Church and let them pray over him c. Dr. Hammond in v. 14. Because there is no evidence whereby these may appear to have been so early brought into the Church that is Subpresbyters and because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the plural doth as way conclude that thâ—re were mâ—re of these elders than one in each particular Church and because elders of the Church was both in the Scriptures style and in the first writers the title of Bps. and lastly because the visiting of the sick is anciently mentioned as one branch of the office of Bps. therefore it may very reasonably be resolved that the Bps. of the Church one in each particular Church are here meant Quest Is it the Diocesan perhaps 50 Miles off that the sick must send for or that the Law and Church impose this on to visit the sick and pray over them c. or is it the Incumbents III. But the great doubt is who hath the Power of Government and who actually governs not by the sword but with the Ministerial Pastoral Government And here it must still be remembred 1. That this particular power of the Keys or Government is only by the word of God opened and applied as Bp. Bilson hath proved and is commonly confessed some call it Perswasive some Directive some Doctrinial But it is not such meer direction or perswasion as any man may use to another but such as is the part of one commissioned to it as his office An Authoritative perswasion and a Judicial decision as by an intrusted steward of Christ but only on Conscience and on Voluntiers and not by any power to exercise force on body or purse 2. That Governing and unjust restraining this power is not taking it away from the Pastor and laying penalties on men for exercising some part of that which Christ hath given doth but bind men to bear that penalty when the exercise is necessary Now let us consider wherein the Governing Power doth consist 1. It primarily consisteth in judging who is capable of Baptisme and so Baptizing them This is the first and great exercise of the Keys and that 〈◊〉 foro exteriore To judge who shall be taken publâ—ckly for a Christian and in
destroy it but their sin may consist with the true office that is hindred If we cannot pray without penalty we are yet bound to pray And if any such penalties should prevail with any Ministers to cast off so much of Discipline as is indeed their duty their office is so far destroyed as to its exercise But it is not every ill Council Canon Bishop or Priest of old when they began to be corrupted that changed and nullified the Pastoral Power and Office as from Christ I have repeated things over and over here because I would not be misunderstood nor leave a snare behind me to mislead men The sum again is 1. The Pastoral Office in specie is instituted by Christ and his Spirit therefore the essence of it is unchangeably fixed by him and no Bishops or Churches may change it by pretending they may give Presbyters as their servants what degree or kind of power they please or make the office another thing II. The said office in mutable accidents or circumstances may be altered by Princes Laws or the several Churches Agreements and thus far it is humane Of the Divine sort was the Apostolick and other extraordinary Prophetick offices And the ordinary Presbytery commonly called Priesthood and Elders setled over particular Churches were Episcâ—pi Gregis Bishops over the flock And of the humane sort is the Presidency of one in every single Church over the rest of the Presbyters who was the Episcopus Presbyterorum a Bishop over the Presbyters of one single Church as well as over the people This was the old Episcopacy of the first three Centuries this is it which I say our Diocesans have put down and we that would have them restored and would have such a Bishop and Assistant Elders in every Church are by the heighth of impudency said to be against Bishops because we would have them restored to each Church tho not as essential to it as hath been thought of old yet as a way of peace to comply with Antâ—quity and avoid singularity and they that put down many score or hundred Bishops and instead of them would have but one call themselves Episcopal III. Whether Arch-bps Diocesans as successors of the Apostles in the ministerial care of many Churches by the word and not the sword be of Divine or Human Institution I am in doubt IV. The cogent Power by the Sword is only the Magistrates and if Diocesans appropriate this only they are Magistrates and thereby take none of our office from us V. The â—ssence of the Parish ministerial oversight being of God de specie and the accidents that are mutable from man the existence of the office in individual persons is not without consent of the Pastors so that no man can be a Pastor against or without his will nor yet without a capacity in qualifiâ—atiâ—n so that if you prove any person to be uncapablâ— or else to have truly disclaimed and renounced the essentials of his office I am not about to perswade you that such a man is a true Pastor VI. But then we must know that indeed it is such an incapacity or renunciation and not a tollerable defect nor subscriptions and Oaths which by unseen consequences may seem to renounce it when the man took them in a sense which renounced it not For tho such a man may greatly sin by taking Oaths or subscriptions in a forced sense which plainly taken would infer worse yet his sin is not a renunciation of the office if he declare that he meant it in a better sence and took it on such mistake for we must not for bare words against mens meaning quibble or dispute our selves into unwarrantable separations out of Christian Communion especially when it is specially necessary VII And if any lay-men or men unauthorized will usurp the Keys or any Councils will make hurtful Canons and hinder men in the work appointed by God we must be faithful and patient and God in due time will judg and decide all causes justly VIII The office-power is essentially related to the work so far as Parochial Incumbents are allowed the work as of Christ they are acknowledged to be Pastors and Bishops of the flocks tho the name were denied them and so far as the Bishops office may be delegated to Lay-men or to Clergy-men of another Order so far it is Humane and not proper to them by Gods Institution They therefore that say All Diocesans Jurisdiction may be so delegated to them that are no Bishops but that the Pastoral Rectorship by Word Sacraments and Keys cannot be delegated to any men that are not of the same office do thereby say as much as that the Diocesan government is of men and may be changed by men but the Pastoral Incumbency is of Christ and cannot be changed The Lord that instituted it protect it and save it from Satans most dangerous assault which is by getting his own servants into it by error and malignity and strife and cruelty to do his work as the Ministers of Righteousness and as by Christs Authority and in his name London Aug. 13. 1684. POSTSCRIPT Aug. 25. 1684. HE that gave me notice of this Book which I answer did withall send me a Manuscript to be privately answered containing the very same things but somewhat enlarged His displeasure against my former mention of his private Writings to me and the Contents made me confident that he would not have any thing Published which I should answer to his last By which I found my self in a notable strait For if he at once privately sent me his reasons and also in another Book Printed them if I should answer his private papers which reason forbad me doing in my condition for his use alone I should judg my self forestalled from answering the Printed Book because the matter being the very same and 't is likely by the same man I should be supposed to have broken the Laws of Civility to have answered his private papers But having no Amanuensis or Scribe to take any Copy of his papers or my own I thought it the best way to return his unanswered they being Written for my use which Reading will as fully serve as answering them but supposing the Printed papers must be answered I inserted also an answer to the strength of all his additionals in the Manuscript And at last he giveth me some notice of his thoughts of publishing the Manuscript or a vindication of it Which falls well for the Readers use that I have answered that Manuscript before it is Published without taking notice of it and sâ— avoiding wordy altercations The Author professeth himself my great acquaintance Who he is I know not but he seemeth to be a very rational sober man God forbid that I should ever contribute unless duty do it accidentally to the grievance of such men I doubt not but he speaketh as he thinketh And I doubt I have given him occasions by some uncautelous words in my writings I
Let us rise upward till we come to the Apostles days None of all these churches named dare profess all their agreements and confession to be without fault that ever I heard of except the English who bind Ministers to assent and consent to all things commanded and prescribed in three Books and excommunicate those that say their Books or Ceremonies and Government hath any thing contrary to the Word of God but no Lay-man is bound to believe them Wickliffe and John Hâ—s the Waldenses and the Bohemians Confessions are not faultless Of the Papist and the Sâ—cinians we will make no question the forenamed churches of Greeks Russians Armenians Abassines Nestorians Jacobites c. are alas past question faulty the general councils upward from that of Trent Basil Constance c. to the six first yea the four first which some equal to the four Gospels are far from being faultless in the Judgment of these Objectors and of my self the Arrian and other heretical councils are past question even that of Nice the first and best I suppose he and I think did not well in setling church-power as they did and forbidding all kneeling on the Lords days in Adoration and other the like The Donatists and the Novatians called the Puritans of those times had faulty agreements were it but for Bps. and Arch-Bps â—e will think them so this Writer can name no one church on the face of the Earth Orthodox or heretical tho Aerius called Presbyters equal with Bps. that was not for Bishops over Presbyters from the year 100 after Christ tâ—ll the Reformation that ever I could read of Yea consider whether they were not in the Apostles days when Jerome who most depresseth this degree saith That there were such at Alexandria chosen by the Presbyters from the days of Mark and Mark died long before John the Apostle But Episcopacy is not all Not only Epiphanius but all Church History that speaketh of such matters agreeth that besides the croud of latter Ceremonies there were certain ceremonies called the customes of the Universal Church which all the known Churches agreed in even those that differ'd about Easter-day and other such that is 1. Cloathing the Baptized in white Garments 2. Giving them milk and hony to tast 3. Anointing them with Oyl 4. Not kneeling in adoration on any Lords day or any other day between Easter and Whitsunday There is no notice when these began so ancient were they nor of any one Church or Christian that refused them but they were commonly called the Traditions Apostolical or customes of the Universal Church Now I agree with this Author that these things were indeed a deviation from the Apostles practice and ought not to have been thus used But the question is whether every Christian was guilty of the fault that had communion with any of these churches and whether had he then lived he should have separated from all the Churches on earth By this you see that this opinion must needs make men seekers who say that the church was in the wilderness and lost all true Ministry and say they particular churches and Scripture after the first or at most the second century and so that for fourteen hundred years Christ had no visible Kingdom on earth And consequently that we have no wiser answer to the Papist where was your church before Luther than to say that it was Invisible that is that we cannot prove that there was any such thing on Earth and consequently that we cannot prove that Christ had any Kingdom on earth and was its King that is whether there was any Christ in actual church-administration And doth separating from the whole visible church-communion agree with the prophecies and precepts of union Was this church like a grain of Mustard seed in its growth Was all the wonderful works of redemption wrought for no visible society after one or two hundred years in which a few persecuted ones were visible Is not this the next step and a temptation to utter infidelity If Christ have now no visible church on earth but the people called Brownists or Separatists doth it answer the Scripture description of him and his church And is it not exposing christianity to the scorn of infidels so to say Would not almost all rather turn Papists than believe this And be rather of their church than of none 2. But let us next speak of the persons I may speak my thoughts without imposing on you I think that the Major vote is no rule to the Minor nor always is in the right If a hundred men that understand not Greek or Hebrew Translate a Text one way and a good Linguist another way I will more suspect their judgment than his And so in the like case But if I hear a few odd persons condemn the judgment of the generality that are far better acquainted with matters of the same nature as if School-boys that are but in their Accidence should oppose all the upper Forms in expounding Horace or Hesiod or Homer which think you should I most suspect I say again to you compare the writings of Bucer Peter Martyr Calvin Beza Melancthon Chamiâ—r Blondel Dailee and a bundance such and also Greenhams Perkins Dr. Jâ—â—n Râ—ignolds Cartwrights Dods Hildershams Hieroms Amesius's Payneâ— Râ—lâ—eâ—ks and many such yea with such conformists as Jewels Bp. Downames John Downames Davenants Bp. Halls Arch-Bp Ushers Bp. Rob. Abbots Dr Fieldâ— Dr. Challoners Dr. Airys c. I say compare these with the Theological writings of Mr. Penry Mr. Can and all other called separatâ—sts or Brownists in their times and tell me whether these later did manifest more Holy Wisdom in Heavenly things more skill in all other points of Divinity than the former If their writings giving Mr. Ainsworth his due honour in Hebrew and Piety were as far below the other as the lower forms of School-boys are beneath the highest which should we most suspect to have had the greater or the lesser light specially when the lower condemn and cut off themselves from communion with all Christs known Churches on earth for thirteen hundread years When Mr. Smith and lately a very good man here thought none fit to Baptize him again but Baptized himself was not that singularity a just cause of suspicion Yet I make not the old Nonconformists your rule VIII I argued also from the common frailties of us all that it will be unlawful to communicate with any Church on earth even with those of the objectors mind if we are guilty of the sins in Doctrine worship and discipline of all Churches that we communicate with I will aggravate none nor render that odious which God accepteth My work is to confute those that do so But I say that 1. we have all many errors And men use to put their errors into their prayers and preaching 2. Do not men use to deliberate more and study what to write than what to preach And have men reason to be confident that our preaching
deny the Parish Pastors theâ— deny them nothing hereby essential to theiâ— office All that can with any colour be said is that the Law now seems to be on these mens side by requiring Reordination But 1. The Law-makers profess to establish the Church and not to change it to another thing 2. The Law-makers were not all of one mind in the Reasons of their Laws nor had all studied these kind of controversies Many of them and of the Clergy to this day say that it is not a proper ordination that they require but the giving them Authority to exercise their Ministry in England and the decision of a doubtful case Part of the Church taketh them for true Ministers that were ordained by Presbyters and part do not and that the Congregations may not divide they say they require this like Baptizing after a doubtful Baptism If thou art not baptized I baptize thee I am against this But this proveth not that they take a Presbyter for no Pastor Yea tho they should take his ordaining others to be a nullity Ordaining not being essential to him XXIV The Act of Uniformity or the like Law cannot make the Church no Church or of another species than 1. As it is esteemed by God and his Law 2. Or as it is esteemed by the greater part of the Christian Clergy and Laity Tho the Law should speak as the foresaid odd innovators do For 1. All Christians profess that Christ is the only just Institutor of the essentials of his own Churches All Christians profess Communion with them as Churches of Christs making by his Law The present Church of England professeth this in many books it bindeth all Ministers to hold to Scripture sufficiency and use Discipiine as well as Doctrine and Worship as Christ commandeth It openly holdeth all Laws and Canons about Church essentials yea and integrals to be void and null that are against the Sacred Scriptures and Law of God There is no Power but of God God hath given no power to nullifie his institutions 2. All true Christians who consent to a Parish Minister and attend on his Ministry and join in the Assemblies openly profess to own him first as a Minister of Christ and to join in Worship and Communion of the church as prescibed by Christ which no man hath power to overthrow 3. The Parliament and Convocations and Bishops and Clergy all confess that they have no power to overthrow the Church essentials or offices of Christs Institution They have not revoked the Church Writings in which all this is oft professed They confess that if their Laws mistake and do contrary they bind us not They never openly professed a war against God or Jesus Christ What if one Dr. S. Parker make Christ subject to the King in his Kingdom he is not the Kingdom nor the Church of England For all his words they never made any Law to command Christ or to punish him They never cited him to appear before them nor did any penal execution on his Person which Government implieth They bow at his name and profess subjection to him Therefore if the law had by error said any thing inconsistent with the essence of Churches and Ministry it had not been obligatory to Pastors or people but they ought still to take Churches and Pastors to be what Christ hath made them and described them to be XXV Suppose a Law should say All families shall be so under Diocesans as to have no power but from them and all shall subscribe to this This doth not null family-power and society as instituted by God nor make it a sin to live in Families nor dissolve them all But all must continue in Families as instâ—tuted by God And if any subscribe to this it will not make it a sin in all Wives Children and Servants to live in those families If the Law had said All Schools in England shall be essentially subject to Diocesans must we therefore have had no more Schools Or if the School-master subscribe to them is it a sin to be his Scholar If the Law should say All Christians shall choose their own Pastors and meet and pray and preach as they please but only in essential subjection to Diocesans must all therefore give over Church Communion If the Law had said All the Parish-Assemblies in England shall henceforth be essentially subject to the Pope or a forreign Council We must not therefore have forborn all such Assembling but have kept to the state and duty appointed us by Christ XXVI Here the mistaking Opponents say 1. That indeed de jure none can change the Essence of Christs Ministry and Churches but de facto they may and have done Ans What is meant by changing it de facto Have they de facto nulled Christs Power Law or Offices and Churches What Nulled it by a Nullity of pretended Authority and overcome his Power without Power De jure and de facto to be a true Church or Pastor is all one Christ made true ones De facto they cannot unmake them but by destroying matter or form because they cannot do it de jure They have destroyed neither matter or form of such parish churches as I plead for and which Christ instituted for they had not power to do it Indeed they may de facto make other sort of Churches and Ministers to themselves tho not de jure but not to us who stick to Christs institutions XXVII But say they We confess if the Law did bid all assemblies in England meet in dependance on Diocesans private and publick this would not alter the species of our separate Churches because man hath not power and we consent not Ans Very good And I pray you what alters the case as to the Parish-Churches Is it that they have Steeples and Bells or that they have Tythes It 's the Calamity of Dissenters that they either cannot consider or can feel no strength in the plainest truth that is said against them but thoughts and sense run all one way which they think right XXVIII Obj. But say they Constitutive and Declaritive Laws must be distinguished They can but declare our Meetings to be Diocesan which is false 〈…〉 the Parish-Meetings such Ans 1. Remember that declaring the Parish-Churches to be such doth no more constitute them such than yours Why then talk you so much of the words of Bishops and Clergy and Books as if their declarations made them such 2. But how doth a Law constitute one the Parochial to be Diocesan or null more than your separate meetings if by a Law of toleration it should say the same of them The truth is They are such to consenters that judg them such But they constitute them not such to any that consent not to such a constitution but hold to Christs XXIX But it is said that our thoughts alter not constitutions they are our own immanent acts that nihil ponunt in esse and therefore the Pastors and Churches will be
what Law maketh them whatever we think Ans Are not Churches formally relative societies what maketh them such but thoughts and wills of men expressed Gods mind exprest in his Institutions is his premised consent our consequent obedient consent maketh Christians Pastors and Churches If a Law cannot make the Parish consent to null Christs Officers and Churches it doth not null them to them If a Law say All marriages shall be void unless the Bishop remarry them This maketh them not void to any that consent not but say we stand to the valid marriage we had What doth another mans consent do to constitute me a Christian or Church-member except Parents for Infants And if my thoughts and consent put nothng in esse then the thoughts and consents of the conforming Clergy alters not their Churches and what then is that constituting cause you talk of Is it only the law for shame say not so Gods own Law as commanding us to be Christians Pastors or Churches maketh us not such without consent And can mans Law both null Gods Law and make us of what species it doth but bid us be without our consent XXX But here our Disputants think they expose me to derision What Do I intimate that one and the same Congregation may be two Churches of different species Ans I think to be such by open profession is disorderly and unusual But I think he that denieth this is unfit to deride the ignorance of another 1. If the people in one Kingdom may be in specie two Kingdoms the people of one Assembly may be two Churches but Bishop Bedle in his printed Letter said that Ireland was then two Kingdoms the King being Sovereign to some and the Pope to other And I think Hungary is so now between the Emperor and Turks 2. When Paul ordinarily held his assemblies in the Jewish Synagogues where half were Infidels and half Christians before he separated his Christians from them I think they were two Churches 3. If Independents had leave to meet in the Parish churches where the Parish Minister and their own Minister should preach by turns and the Parish only heard theirs as a lay preacher or none of their Pastor and so they heard the Parish Preachers I doubt not but they would be distinct church If one Parish church have two Pastors and one of them be professedly for an essential subjection to the Pope and the other against it and half the people of one mind and half of the other I think they are two Churches in one place If those Anabaptists who take none but the re-baptized for Church-members should with their Pastors join with Independents in worship tho esteeming them no churches I suppose you think they would be distinct churches in one place But I think none of this is the case of the churches that I join with for I suppose they null not Christs species of Ministers to themselves or me But if they did it to themselves that would not do it to me XXXI Obj. But one and the same Minister cannot be of two species and therefore relation to him cannot constitute distinct Churches Ans 1. One and the same man cannot be a Minister of Christ and no Minister of Christ so much is true nor of any two inconsistent species But if you will call any circumstantial difference a distinct species that will noâ— hinder the consistence The same man may be Christs Minister and the Kings Chaplain or a Dean or Preâ—endary or a Diocesan Bishop or Subject to a Diocesan such Bishops as Chrysostom Augustine Ambrose 〈◊〉 Parkeâ— Grindal Ushâ—r Davenant c and their Chaplains did not cease to be Christs Ministers 2 Relation to one of these men may make two sorts of consistent churcheâ— if the same man have a Parish and a Diocess as the German superintendents have and many other Bishops the warrantableness we are not now disputing 3. Yea one and the same Parish Minister may be Pastor of two Churches in one Assembly If he openly profess himself Orthodox the people that so own him are a church and if he secretly to a party of them profess himself an Anabaptist or a Papist and they unite with him as such they are another church such as it is Vespae habent favos marcionitae ecclesias Tertul. XXXII Obj. But the grand Objection is No man can be a Pastor of Christ against his will The Parish Ministers have all by conforming renounced the essence of the Christian Ministry and subscribed and sworn this renunciatâ—â— by subjecting themselves to Diocesans and swearing never to endeavour any alteration of the Diocesan Government and the Vestries who represent the churches have sworn the same and you have ofâ—en said that the Diocesan form of Government 1. Deposeth the Parish Bishops and maimeth the Ministry 2. Depâ—seth the Parish Churches 3. And maketh Parish Discipline impossible Ans It is impossible to write that which no man can misunderstand and make an ill use of I have oft told you 1. That I am in doubt whether Arch-Bishops as Successors of the Apostles only in the ordinary continued part of their Office be jure divino or not 2. That Congrational Bishops over Presbyters being ejusdem ordinis are an old venerable and lawful humane Institution 3. That Congregational Bishops only over the Laity are all Presbyters as such and of Christs Institution 4. Hereupon I have oft distinguished Diocesans into two sorts 1. Those that are but the Governors of true particular Churches that depose them not but Rule them by the word perswasively These are called Bishops being really Arch-Bishops These I never charged of the Consequents forenamed And if the King make them Cogent Magistrates also I will obey them I take the judgment of the Church of England manifest in Ordination Liturgy Articles c. to be for such Diocesans only tho I vastly dissent from many things in the Canons by which and the Mode in which some exercise their Government 2. The other sort is the Innovators form of Diocesan Government which hold that there is no Church without a Bishop and no Bishop but Diocesans either Bishop of Laity or Presbyters and so that the Parish Churches are no Churches but part of the lowest sort of true Political Churches These I take to be Super-conformists yea Nonconformists and Dissenters from the Church of England tho they may strive to get the name of the Church to themselves Now what I say of these Innovating Nonconformists and their designs and attempts our mistaking Separatists say I speak of the Laegal Church frame and so of all the Bishops and Parish-Churches And I see no hope of delivering the Church of God from the trouble of incogitant confident erroneous Dissenters that are not able to distinguish XXXIII I further answer this great Objection being concerned in Conscâ—ence to do it when men father their mistakes and Separation on me 1. The Parish-Ministers that I joyn with and I think the most that
for another yet agreeing in the same ordinary external Communion one part may be called national as well as the other The question is de â—omine the name equivocal from diversity of relations I own 1. A Christian Kingdom 2. I own a national association of Parish Churches and Pastors 3. Tho these submit to Diocesan superiority and be parts of a Diocess but true single Churches I do not therefore separate from them 4 A national Church headed by one constitutive pastoral Head I disown call which you will the national Church But saith he of his approved parish Church P. 14. Such a Church aâ—â—iâ—meth to it self all that pastâ—ral pâ—wer that in pursuance of Canon and Statute Law is fixed in the Bishop Ans Incogitantly spoken Do all Independents assume the power of Ordination Jurisdiction over others Citations Licencing Subspendings Degradings silencings instituting inducting c. which are so fixed on the Bishop If none of this be pastoral power then the appropriating it is no depriving parish Ministers of pastoral power and to be under Magistrates power nulls not the pastors XLIX What he saith about unlawful terms of Communion p 21. c. in the instances of kneeling putting off the hat standing up c. I answer 1. The Author all along seemeth to forget that I am not accusing him not telling every man his duty but only giving the Reasons of my own and such others practice so they make a long ado to vindicate him whose Manuscript I answered and say His question was only whether it be lawful to communicate with the churches as setled by Law and not in other respects When I ever told them I meddle with none of their Questions but my own viz 1. Whether I and such other do well or ill in that communion we hold with the Parish Churches 2. Whether all Protestants in England are bound in conscience to renounce and avoid Communion in the Liturgy with all Parish Churches and Chappels and rather to give over all church worship I only gave my Reasons why that Manuscript divulged and boasted of as unanswerable changed not my Judgment and I answered that in his Arguments which went further than the question put by them and assaulted my own assertions having before in my Christian Directory and cure of Church divisions without naming him fully answered his printed Reasons to prove it unlawful to use an imposed form or Liturgy especially because Ministers must use their own gifts But if any man believe that it is a sin to communicate kneeling or standing or sitting unless he lye down as Christ did or at any time save at a feast or supper or any where save in an Inn or an upper room or with any women or more than twelve or if they think it sin to kneel at prayer or be uncovered or to sing Psalms in our Metre and Tunes whether these men should separate from all the Churches that will not receive them in their own way or how far they do well or ill that will not let every man do what he will is none of the case that I have before me It will not follow that I must separate from a Church that bids me kneel and be uncovered c. because you take it to be sin put not your measures on all others And here because same maketh Mr. Faldo the Author of the Vindication which I answered that I may so far vindicate him as to shew that it 's â—earce likely I ask whether if Mr. Faldo did well as a pastor to keep up a church at Barnâ—â— many years which would not endure the singing of a psalm of praise to God but constantly forbore it tho his Judgment was against them besides that many of them were not only against Infant Baptism but fâ—rther differ'd in other things was this communion more lawful or laudable than with honest parish Ministers in the Liturgy Did he the whole office of a pastor What if the Bishop had forbid him to sing â—salms Is not the Church State more concerned in the whole congregation than in an absent Bishop what greater omission or defect is there in many Parish-Churches I again say that I am so far of the Judgment of Hildersham John Ball c. that I had rather joyn caeteris paribus in a Church that useth the Psalms Chapters and all the Lords-day Prayers in the Liturgy before Sermon than one that only giveth us one Psalm or none and a Pulpit-prayer and a Sermon without all the rest of Church Worship L. I will conclude all with repeating a little of the Explication of my misused writings I. The pastoral Oversight of the Laity by the Elders or Bishops of the several Flocks is of Christs Institution and belongs to all true Presbyters And tho in necessity it may be done by divers transient Ministers pro tempore most regularly every Church should have it s stated Pastors II. Where such Churches are large the work requireth many Ministers where each one hath but part of the Charge III. Reason and Church-consent among these made one a President over the rest and called him the Bishop pecularly if it were in Marks days as Hierom saith it was in John's And tho this be not essential to a Church it is lawful and fit and at last it grew to so great a Reputation and Opinion of necessity that all Churches had such Bishops and gave them a Negative voice and ordained not without them and defined Churches as essentiated by Relation to them Ecclesia est plebs Episcopo adunata If now such men as J.O. Mr. Nye Dr. Goodwin c. should have in one Church six or seven young men of their own training up to be their Assistant-presbyters I do not think an Independent Church would take it for any crime that he should have a Negative voice in acts of Order and Discipline or that they should ordain Ministers therein without his Consent IV. By degrees single Congregations increased to as many as our great Parishes that have Chappels and tho still they communicated in the chief Church at some special times of the year they ordinarily met in divers places and the Presbyters officiated some in one meeting and some in another at first whosoever the Bishop daily sent but after their particular Tyths or Chappels were assigned to each yet all together were esteemed but one Church governed by one Bishop and his Colledg of Presbyters V. When they increased yet more and more fixed Chappels were assigned to fixed Presbyters but not as distinct Churches but parts of the Diocesan Church tho at last they were larger than one Bishop and Colledg could guide according to the first Institution VI. Yet long every Christian City had a Bishop and Church and every incorporate big Town like our Corporations or Market-Towns was called a City not because it had a Market as a reverend Slanderer seigneth me to lay but because Custom the master of Language called all Corporations and great
choice And our present Canons since 1604 tho they null not the Parochial Pastorship do so far restrain it as I hope my Conscience shall never approve But yet for that I will not forsake what is of God nor make mans failings a pretence against my duty to God and Man to the Violation of Love Unity and Peace Yet I will try by distinct speaking to make both the Case and my meaining plainer if I can And thereby to shew that our case differeth but gradually from the old Nonconformists as to Lay-mens Parochial Communion where there are honest Ministers And that the old Nonconformists had better Evidence Scripture and Reason on their side than either those Innovators who make Parish-Pastors to be but de specie of humane Institution made by Bishops and changeable by them having just so much power as they please to give them or the Brownists that are so much of the same Principles as to think that mens Laws or Canons can change the form of the Office or that judg it nullified by tollerable Imperfections and Communion made unlawful by such faults as are found in almost all the Churches on Earth Qu. Whether according to the description of the Scripture and the exposition of Dr. Hammond himself all qualified Parish Ministers be not true Pastors and Bishops of the Flocks and with their consenting Christian Communicants true particular Churches and de facto all be not in the power given them by God which is essential hereto and in the power generally acknowledged by the legal Church Ans I have spoken to this so largely in my Treatise of Episcopacy and there added the testimonies of Writers old and new Protestants and Papists that I will give but a breviate of it here The essence of the Church Ministry consisteth in POWER and OBLIGATION FROM CHRIST to teach to guide in Worship and to oversee and guide the Conversation and Communion of the Flocks If it were not of Christ they were but officers of men de specie even of an office of mans making Dr. Hammond saith that Christ gave the Keys only to the Apostles and they only to their Successors That there is no evidence that there were any of a second order of Presbyters in Scripture time that this order was after made by Man Mr. Dodwell sheweth how and why and more fully than Dr. Hammond asserteth that such Presbyters have no more power than the ordaining Bishops intended to give them Or saith Dr. H. If they have a first power it is such as may not be exercised without a second so that it is indeed no true power to act And the Dr. plainly tells the London Ministers p. 80 81. There is no manner of incongruity in assigning of one Bishop to one Church and so one Bishop in the Church of Jerusalem because it is A. CHURCH not Churches being forced to acknowledg that where there were more Churches there were more Bishops And he denied our Presbyters that were not Diocesans to be Bishops both City and Country Presbyters And consequently that our Parishes were no Churches And on these grounds he and Bishop Gunning and such others judged Presbyters Ordination null because they were no Bishops And the said Dr. tho I thought he had been next Petavius one of the first that had expounded the new Testament Elders to be all Bishops of several Diocesses yet tells us that he thought most of his brethren were of his mind herein And when we in Worcestershire formed a Pacificatory Association of the Epicopal Presbyterians Indepâ—ndents and Peace-makers agreeing lovingly to practice so much in Doctrine Worship and Discipline as we were for according to our several principles forbearing each other in the rest and Dr. Warmstâ—â—â— and Dr. Tho. Good being for Bishops subscribed to it Dr. Peter Gunnâ—â—g wroâ—e largely against so doing to Dr. Warmstrie and took him off upon these aforesaid principles and they then called their Judgment the Judgment of the Church of England and wrote as if the Church had been of their mind and gone their way I wrote â—large Answer to Dr Gunning's Paper not printed and proved that the old Protestant Bishops and Doctors were of another mind largely citing their testimonies in my Christian Câ—ncâ—rd and plainly warned English Protestâ—nts to take heed of these Innovators and that the name of the Church and Episcopacy deceive them not against the Church and Protestant Cauâ—e many â—ose against me for this with great indignâ—tion especially Arch-Bishop Bramhall and two or three learned Writers and would make the world believe that it was the Church of England which I sought to defame and bring under suspition and which owned Grâ—tius and his way of Reconciliation with Rome when as it was for departing from the professed principles of the reformed Bishops and Doctors and from the book of Ordination and other writings of the Church that I blamed them Yet would they needs claim the name of the Church of England And it is not here seasonable for me to tell how many and how great men in 1661 and 1662 seemed by their wâ—rds and doings to be full at least as high as they nor how they expressed it nor how many strongly conceited by the Act thâ—â— requireth reordination of men ordained by Presbyters and by the number rejected who refused it That the Parliament had been of thâ—ir mind and much more the â—â—nvâ—cation called the church-reprâ—sentative especiâ—lly when they heard men call the old Bishops and Arch-Bishops such as â—sher Downame 〈◊〉 c. in Iâ—eland and G. Abbot Rob. Aâ—bâ—t Grindal and many such in England Puritans and Presbyterians And when Pâ—â— Hâ—lâ—â— maketh Arch bishop Abbot and the Bishops and Clergy in his days to â—e of one mind vilified by him and Arch-bishop Laud and his Clergy after of another In this case I gave the name of the present Diocesans to those that thus claimed it and pretended so confidently to the present possession of it but I thought not their claim just And when I sometimes used the name of English Diâ—cesans for this sort who nullifie the Parish Churches and Pastorship it was but to notifie them that so claimed it supposing I had oft sufficiently opened my sense and usually added that they nullifie them not effectively but quantum in se and by their consequences But I again now tell the Reader that I think the Judgment of the church of England considered as humanely constituted by publick professions and by Law much less as divinely constituted is not to be measured or named from any innovators or any that most confidently claim it or think they are uppermost at the present and thereby have that right but as Divine by Gods word whose sufficiency we all profess and as humane by the published Church professions that is the Liturgy the book of Ordination the 39 Articles of Religion the Apology of the Church of England the Defence of that Apology set in all Churches the book of Hâ—milies Nowels
discharged from obedience in lawful things by the addition of some unlawful commands that destroy not acceptable Worship and turn not our food to Poyson I tell those Ministers that publickly charge this on Nonconformists that they must not charge any Doctrine of Seekers or Anabaptists or such separatists to be the Nonconformists Doctrine I know not one meer Nonconformist of that mind What we of this Age thought of Epâ—scopacy Liturgy and Magistracy all that would come in and own that cause openly with us have told the world in our published Proposals of 1660 and 1661 To which we refer them that would know their minds XI But when I oft alledged the example of Christ and the Apostles this Objector and Answerer saith p. 19. We make not Christ and his Apostles Hypocrites for we have proved that Christ never joined with false worship so much as with his presence at the place of it unless with this intent to bear witnâ—ss against it nor did he ever advise his disciples so to dâ— As for Moses Chair it was then Christs own Institution and he had thâ—n no other Church or Institution on earth Ans It was cautelously done to pass by the instances of the Apostles that neither separated nor commanded one man to separate from all the faulty Churches Rev. 2.3 Notwithstanding the Woman Jezabâ—â—s Doctrine and that of the Nicolaitans which God hated and the evil practices nor from the Church of Corinth where were carnal Schisms Defraudings Lawsuits before Heathens incest unlamented Sacrament disorders even to excess of drink disorder in Church Worship c. Nor from any other faulty Churches Methâ—nâ—s thâ—y that are so strict against any additions in Modes of Worship should not so much add or alter Scripture or accuse it of deâ—â—ctiveness as to suppose the Apostles to have culpably communicated with such Churches as Coâ—inth Coloss Ephesus Sardis Laodicea Smyâ—na c. yea and with the Jews who by falsifying the Rules called it unlawful to eat with the Gentiles or to eat what Moses Law foâ—bad and not to keep their days Pauls accomplishing of his Vow in the Tâ—mple and becoming a Jew to the Jews was fully contrary to the opponents Dâ—ctrine And as to Christs practice we said before you that he conformed not to any evil nor should you But did he not send the Lepers to a false ill-called corrupt sort of Priests to do by and with them what the Law required Did he not ordâ—narily joyn in the Synagogues in their worshâ—p Could he have leave constantly to teach there if he had there used to cry down their ordinary worship Had the Ceremonious Pharisees no ill forms nor ceremonies in their Worship Again I say Their long Prayers which were the Cloak of their oppression were either â—xtâ—mporate or forms of Liturgy If extemporate then the worst of Hypocrites may constantly use long extemporate Prayers and it had been no injury to the Spirit in them to have perswaded them to use Christs form instead of them If they were Liturgies then Christ did not separate from such no nor reprove them at all when he reproveth the hypocritical abuse of them Yea seemeth to commend them while he nameth them as a Cloak to cover evil which nothing is fit for that is not good Obj. He had no othâ—r Church Ans 1. Then most in England mâ—y go to the Parish Churches where they have no other Church to go to 2. But Christ had twelve Apostles and 70 or 72 other Teachers and many more Disciples Were these no Church nor matter for a Church XII Obj. Page 4. God hath not left it in our power to communicate with any society when they make that the condition of my Communion which I am convinced of to be sin to me that I question whether it be lawful or no c. Ans How oft have I answered this without any reply 1. If they make your consent to any sin the condition of your Communion you must avoid it But if they put no sin on you to be present when they sin is a condition to all Church Communion and to your own praying who sin in all your self you before excepted sins of ordinary infirmity as not warranting separation And when did you ever prove that the composing and imposing of the Liturgy much more the Obedient use of the Lords-day part is not a sin of infirmity as much as slandering it and the Churches and writing such Books as yours Accusing is not proving 2. If your taking it for sin be true you must forbear it If you mistake it for sin which is duty per se or per accidens you sin against God and truth by your mistake and by your Omission God bindeth you to alter your Judgment and so he doth if you take an indifferent thing for sin tho here it is safest to forbear An erring Conscience is no Lawmaker less then a Magistrate but a misconceiver and doth ligare non obligare XIII Obj. But none of the things are indeed Worship which you say men may command Ans That man shall be none of my guide that makes questions of bare names to seem to the people as if they were about the matter named They are such accidents of the Worship which God himself commandeth as are done in the outward expression of reverence and honour to God and the more decent and edifying performance of his own Institutions This is the description of them Kneeling being uncovered swearing with outward signs singing in Tunes Metre c. Agree to the thing and call these Worship or no Worship as you please You say False Worship is no Worship If so it is no bad Worship but all faulty Worship is not null XIV As for his general talk of me how much I have promoted Popery and being for Justification by works and merit c. I give him leave to ease his Stomach without an Answer and all those to be deceived by him that will take his word and not read mine especially my Treatise of imputed Righteousness Page 9. He saith When the Scripture speaks of justification by faith Doth any sound Divine or Christians understand it of the act of believing but that its the objâ—ct of faith that justifieth Ans See how strictly these men stick to Scripture that will have it the sole Law of Circumstances and yet can deny it as Expositors at their pleasure when Paul over and over so often saith That we are justified by faith and faith is imputed for righteousness and Christ saith Thy faith hath saved thee It is not faith that they mean but Christ It is faith in Christ There is no faith but the act or habit of believing Rom. 3.21 The righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ on all that believe 25. Through faith in his blood 26. The justifier of him which believeth in Jesus Many ways such will be odiously perverted if you put Christ instead of Faith we are justified by no
truly thank God and him that I am called to review them and to clear my sence before I die And I adjure the tearing persecuting sect to think no more strangely and odiously of our differences in this case than of the sharp contention of Paul and Barnabas or that men should scramble if Gold and Pearls were scattered in the streets where dogs and swine would never strive about them Gods servants would please him we are all of weak understandings The Wisest best know their weakness The rest are nearest the state of the Fool who rageth and is confident It is impossible but offence must come Luke 17.1 But wo wo wo to any who will make canons so extreme hard for men to agree in as terms of their Union and Communion and excommunicate all that say a word against any word ceremony circumstances or office of their train and when they have done cry out against men for not agreeing to every syllable which a thousand to one are uncapable of understanding and the better men understand them the more they dislike them A Short Answer to the Chief Objections in a Book ENTITULED A Theological Dialogue c. THE chief matter of this Book is already answered by the Holy Ghost 1 Cor. 1.10 1 Cor. 3. Rom. 16.16 17. Eph. 4.4 to the 17. Phil. 2.1 2 3. 1 Thes 5.12 13. John 17.22 23 24. And 1 Cor. 12. And Acts 20.30 The Spirit and Stile of it is answered in the third Chapter of James throughout I have nothing then to do but to answer the pretended argumentation of it For the Author shall not draw me from my Defensive part to play the part of a plaintif against others or to wast my time in altercations and spend many sheets to tell the world that another man hath not skill to speak sence and that he seduceth others by ambiguous words and by confusions Obj. 1. To prove us sinful for being members of the Church of England he saith Pag. 15. Is he not by Communion in the Sacarment of Baptisme made a member Page 13. Is not Baptisme according to the Liturgy a symbol of incorporation into the Church of England Confirmation another receiving the Lords Supper another symbol c. Ans 1. Baptism as such incorporateth no man into any particular Church but only into the universal as it did the Eunuch Acts 8. 2. The ceremonies or circumstantials of Baptism only shew what men submit to rather than to be unbaptized and not what particular Church they are of 3. This objection would insinuate that all that are Baptized in the publick manner in England were thereby incorporated into an unlawful Church which they must by being rebaptized or by open renunciation disclaim And so that it is not Lawful to Communicate with any that were Baptized in the Parish Church till they have repented it or are Rebaptized or Penitent openly And if you must have all in England renounce their Baptism before you will take their Communion for lawful the same reason will hold against your Communion with all the rest of the Churches on Earth And when you cut off your self from all saving a shred are you a Member of the undivided Body of Christ 4. If our Baptism in England doth incorporate into their Church which you suppose is no Church being a false Church doth not Baptism into your Church incorporate Persons into yours And what then if your Schism prove a Sin What if Rebaptizing prove a Sin What if the Covenant descriâ—ed by your Client to obey none but Christ in matters belonging to Worship prove a Sin are they all guilty of all these and such others Obj. II. All that are liable to a Church Excommunication when they have offended are declared Members of the Church But all Communicants and Native Inhabitants are so Therefore the Law hath excepted none How comes it to pass that the Church hath power of excommunicating any Person but by vertue of Incorporation which she hath by the same Law He that is not in the Church how comes he to be cast out Is he not by Communion in the Sacrament of baptism made a Member Ans 1. Doth their esteeming you a Member prove that you are so 2. You know that they excommunicate Papists and Atheists who deride them for it and say It 's a strange Church that will cast us out because they cannot compel us to come in 3. If this be a good argument that all are of their Church that are excommunicate then you are either safe from Excommunication or of their Church whether you will or not If to make good your argument you will aver that no Separatist Independent Presbyterian Anabaptist or Quaker was ever excommunicate or imprisoned as such you will change the Current of Intelligence and comfort many that can believe you and teach them how to escape a Prison for the time to come But if not you make your self and all these parties incorporate Members of the Church of England as well as me 4. Do you think a Lay Civilian by Excommunicating can prove or make a man a member of any Church against his will Then mens Argument against Parish Churches for want of consent is void They may be made such against their wills 5. But tho few men dâ—slâ—ke the Lay-Excommunicators and Absolvers more than I do nor grudge more at the Bishops and Deans who use them and let them put their names to the Excommunications especially of the poor Church-Wardens for not swearing c. yet let us not render them causelesly ridiculouâ— I imagine that they excommunicate not known Papists Anabaptists and such like out of their Church who they know were never in it but out of the Universal Church If this be not their sense let them give it you themselves for I am not bound to be their Interpreter And yet to moderate our Censures of them I 'le tell you a wonder Within this hour I received a Letter of credible Intelligence of a Chancellor who hearing of a Conventicle not presented by the Church-Wardens and being told that they met to repeat the publick Sermon said God forbid that they should be hindered Obj. III. Page 8. A Church in a sense is a Christian Kingdom that is a Royal Nation under Christ their King But there is no such Gospel-Church in your sense for there was neither Christian Kingdom nor King in the Apâ—stlâ—s days Ans The Institution may be in the Gospel before the existence Christian Kings and Kingdoms are neither unlawful nor needless because there were none then The Prophets not only foretel that Nations shall come in to Christ and serve him but that all Nations that do it not shall perish And Christs Commission to his Apostles was To go and Disciple all Nations as much as in them lay baptizing them Nations as such were first to be discipled and then baptized Infants are part of Nations And Matth. 23. Christ would have gathered Jerusalems Children all the Jewish
Nation into his Church as a Hen gathereth her Chickens under her Wings And Rom. 11. Only their own unbelief broke them off from being a National Church including Infants And it is part of the Saints triumph that the Kingdoms of the World are become the Kingdoms of the Lord and of his Christ If you will read Mr. Beverlys Book called The whole duty of Nations it will give you full proof of this Where hath the Gospel extensively much prospered where Princes and Rulers were not Christians The Turks give liberty of Religion And yet the sometime famous Greek Churches Corinth Philippi Coloss Ephesus Laodicea Philadelphia and more than all the West are Apostatized or withered to a few ignorant vicious scandalous Christians Obj. IV. 8. If such a confederation in lawful Circumstantials as well as Integrals will make a Church I know not why we may not have a Catholick Visible Church organized if this be a due acception of a Church Ans This is as much as to say If the name Church may be used equivocally as all words must of several sorts then all those sorts may be the same I deny it If you dislike the use of the name you have your liberty as a Grammarian to forbear it But sure the Name and the Thing are not all one nor the Controversies about them 2. But we have a Catholick Visible Church Organized as I have oft proved against the Papists viz. under one Christ the Head and his Ministers as his subordinate Officers Obj. V. Page 3. If you touch a mans finger you touch the man we have communion with an integrum perpartes and with a Genus by the Species and with both by individuals Nay as every part of the Scripture one verse or sentence of it makes up sence so every part of the Liturgy as in form and manner therein contrived is Liturgy and worship thereafter is according to the Liturgy tho it be but part of the wâ—rship Page 20. As for the falseness in Integrals it gives the denomination to the whole for an Integral part is an essential part of the whole Much more there is to the same purpose making him guilty of all that useth a part Ans 1. You have the freedom of using words at your pleasure but not imposing them on mankind when necessity hath taught the World to distinguish essential and integral parts you have no authority to confound their Language by the quibble of calling Integrals essential causes of the whole A totum per aggregationem as a heap of Sand or a field of Grass is not constituted of a proper essentiating form and so homogeneous matter aggregate is all the being it hath And if you make contiguity an essential cause or how else you will you have liberty of speech But we will not be cheated by it to believe that it causeth any more than Totality or Integrality and the absence of it is a privation of no more And all mens Graces Obedience and Worship are defective in point of Integrality and degree and I hope you will not say that they need no favour or pardon or amendment 2. All human actions have their faults must we therefore do nothing or converse with no men England is one Kingdom If there be one or many faults in its Laws or officers may we therefore obey none that are faultless The Laws are the Rule of National Justice may a Judg Justice Officer or subject use none of them because some are faulty Doth that make him guilty of all Bonum est ex causis integris The fault of a part may indeed denominate the whole faulty so far But the whole Law or Liturgy may be called faulty for a part and yet he that useth either not be guilty of any of the bad part for using the good The Law and Liturgy are one thing and the use is another Its faults are no further his than he owneth them your Bread or Meat may be called bad if part only be bad and yet if you eat none but the good part it will not hurt you 2. But if it must be otherwise no man may hear you or joyn with your Churches And do you think as aforesaid that Mr. Faldo and all his Church at Barnet lived not in a sinful communion very many years that omitted at least an integral part of publick worship the singing of Gods praise Christ with his Disciples sung a Hymn after the Sacrament The Jews Church made it the chief part of their Worship James prescribeth it us in all our Holy Mirth such as the Lords Day is appointed for 1 Cor. 14.26 Every one had a Psalm and with them no one had a Psalm tho his Judgment was for it the question was Whether he should forsake them for refusing it I thought not because it was better that they had something that was good than nothing But your argument would not only unchurch them but make all sinners that communicated with them for omissions of great duties are faults and greater faults than tolerable failings in performance He that prayeth not at all doth worse than he that prayeth by a Book and he that preacheth or teacheth not at all doth worse than he that readeth a Sermon so that their total stated omission and opposition to singing by your false rule denominated them no worshippers of God if the whole must be denominated from a part How many private Meetings in London never sing a Psalm for fear of being discovered Yea how many seldom read a Chapter but only preach and pray and sometime administer the Sacrament Must we needs say therefore that they omit all Worship VI. On such occasions I argued That if we must not communicate with any Parish Church because of the faults of the Liturgy it will follow that we must not communicate with any Church on Earth that hath as great faults and that by this we must renounce Communion with all Christs Body on Earth All the Armenians Nestorians Eutychians Copties Abassines Georgians Greeks Russians Papists yea Lutherans have a more faulty Liturgie or manner of worship than the English Yea the Churches called Calvinists have their Liturgies and faults And I instanced in Switzerland because as God hath of late most preserved their peace so they are taken to be the honestest sort of Protestants that in poverty serve God with soundest doctrine and least scandal of Life but yet have no proper discipline but the Magistrates Is it a sin to have confederacy or Communion with their Churches To this he plainly saith Page 11. It is That is all that confederate with them as Churches are guilty of their error called Erastian For subjection tâ— such discipline is the condition of their Communion Ans Subjection is an equivocal word If it were by profession or subscription of consent it were indeed to be guilty of that error tho not by a fauâ—t of the Part denominating the whole to make their worship unlawful or their Churches none but