Presbyterian National Church is one as headed by the General Assembly 10. An Episcopal National Church is one either as headed by one National Bishop or else by a Synod of Bishops Aristocratically or else by a Synod of Bishops and Presbyters Aristocratically All these that are constituted of One Regent and a subdite Part are called Churches in a Political proper sense and not only equivocally Now the Question is Of which sort is the National Church of England And the Doctor saith page 287. 1. That the Society of all Christians is counted a true Catholick Church from their Union and Consent in some common things and so is ours c. Answ But in what common things Not in one Bible for so may Hereticks much less in one Liturgy If it be not a consent in one Governing Head it makes no proper Church 2. He supposeth an agreement in the same Faith and under the same Government and Discipline Answ That 's right But what Government is it Civil or Ecclesiastical The first is no essential part of a proper Church If it be the later is it one in specie or in individuâ— politico Not the former for a 100 Episcopal Churches in several Nations may have one species of Government as many Kingdoms may have It is therefore the later that is all my Question which is the Church-Head He saith As several Families make one Kingdom so several lesser Churches make one National Answ True if that National Church have one Constitutive Head as a Family hath It 's no Family without a Pater or Mater Familias And no Governed proper Church without Governours and there is no Governour where there is no supreme in his place and kind For inferiours have all their power from the supreme There is no Universal supreme but God but the King is subordinately the supreme in his Kingdom in respect to inferiours and so it is in other Governed Societies He addeth The name of a Church comprehended the Ecclesiastical Governours and People of whole Cities and so may be extended to many Cities united under one Civil Government and the same rules of Religion Answ 1. If the question were only de nomine we grant that Civil Courts even of Heathens are usually by Writers called Ecclesia and so is any Assembly If this be all you mean speak out 2. Many Nations may agree in the same Rules of Religion yea so all Christians do Doth this constitute National Churches 3. One Civil Government is of another species and not essential but accidental to a Church and therefore doth not constitute or individuate it One justice of Peace or Mayor in a Christian Corporation doth not make it one Parish Church But if this be all your meaning speak out we grant de re a Christian Kingdom and contend not de nomine if you call it a Church § 3. page 297. â— As to the difference of a National Church and Kingdom he granteth what we desire confessing the difference But asketh whence cometh all this zeal now against a National Church Answ An untrue insinuation 1. To desire to know what it is is untruly called zeal against it 2. And agreeing with you in the description is no zeal against it He adds The Presbyterians and Mr. Hudson write for it Answ Mr. Hudson is a Conformist And the Presbyterians tell you what they mean a Christian Nation of particular Churches Governed by One General Assembly as the Supreme Ecclesiastical Government Whether this be just or unjust is now none of our question I have oft told what I think of it Do you also tell us which is your National Church-power and I have done Are you loth to be understood § 4. But page 299. He cometh to his plain Answer viz. 1. The National Church of England diffusive is the whole Body of Christians in this Nation consisting of Pastors and People agreeing in that Faith Government and worship which are established by the Laws of this Realm And now he continues his wonder at those who so confidently say they cannot tell what we mean by the Church of England Answ Yea your wonder may increase that I less and less understand it if you did not after tell us better â—â—an in this unhappy definition 1. Is this called the Church diffusive one Governed body Politick If not it is no Church in the sense in question and I 'le not stick with you for an equivocal name 2. Do you mean by Government agreed in 1. The Civil Government 2. Or the Ecclesiastical Government of the particular Churches severally 3. Or one Government of all the National Church 1. The first makes it no Church in the sense in question 2. The second makes it no Church but an Association of many Churches such as a thousand Independent Churches may make or the Churches of many Kingdoms Many Families Associated are no City or one ruled Society if they agree in no Common Governours but only their several Family Governours Many Cities associated are no Commonwealth if they agree not in one supreme power It 's no political body without one common Governour Natural or Collective Monarchical Aristocratical or Democratical And what is it of Worship established by Law that individuates your Church If all thâ—â— the Law hath established 1. Your Church hath oft changed its very being and may do at every Parliament 2. And the Church is small and unknown if all that differ in any point established are no parts of it But if it be not all established who knoweth by this definition what it is and what is the very matter of your Church So that here is a definition which neither notifieth matter or form § 5. Next he answereth the Question How all the Congregations in England make up this one Church and answereth By Unity of Consent as all particular Churches make one Catholick Answ Consent to what 1. If it be not to one common Government it is no Governed Church as one 2. Doth he think that the Catholick Church consenteth not to one Governing Head Christ And doth any thing else make them formally One Politick body or Church This were ill Doctrine § 6. Question How comes it to be One National Church Saith he I say because it was received by the common consent of the whole Nation in Parliament as other Laws of the Nation are Answ Whether How comes it Speak of the efficient cause or the formal or what it 's hard to know so singular are his Logical notions But the first is most likely And then 1. The question is still unanswered What is the One common Governing power in the Church which this Parliament consent hath â—â—t up He knows this is the question 2. And if it be by Parliament consent how old is your Church What Parliament first made it It 's not so old as Luther Is it no older than the Liturgy or Canons 3. Doth it die and live again as oft as Parliaments change it If the corruption of
the Scriptures there must be an acknowledgment of them as the indispensable rule of faith and manners which is that these books are the great Charter of the Christian society according to which it must be governed These things being premised as the foundation in general of Christian society we shall the better understand how far the obligation to communion in it doth extend For which it must be considered that the grounds of continuance in communion must be suitable and proportionable to the first reason of entring into it No man being obliged by virtue of his being in a society to agree in any thing that tends to the apparent ruin of that society But he is obliged to the contrary from the general grounds of his first admission into it His primary obligation being to preserve the honour and interest of it and to joyn in acts of it so far as they tend to it Now the main end of the Christian society being the promotion of Gods honour and Salvation of mens Souls the primary obligation of men entring into it is the advancement of these ends to joyn in all acts of it so far as they tend to these ends but if any thing come to be required directly repugnant to these ends those men of whom such things are required are bound not to communicate in those lesser societies where such things are imposed but to preserve their communion with the Catholick societie of Christians Pag. 291. Setting then aside the Catholick society of Christians we come to enquire how far men are bound to communicate with any less society how extensive soever it may pretend it's communion to be 1. There is no society of Christians of any one communion but may impose some things to be beleived or practised which may be repugnant to the general Foundation of Christian society Pag. 292. 2. There being a possibility acknowledged that particular Churches may require unreasonable conditions of communion the obligation to communion cannot be absolute and indispensable but only so far as nothing is required destructive to the ends of Christian Society Otherwise men would be bound to destroy that which they beleive and to do the most unjust and unreasonable things But the greater difficulty lies in knowing when such things are required and who must be the Judge in that case to which I answer 3. Nothing can be more unreasonable than that the society imposing such conditions of communion should be judge whether those conditions be just and equitable or no. If the question were only in matters of peace conveniency and order the judgment of the society ought to over-rule the judgments of particular persons but in such cases where great bodies of Christians judge such things required to be unlawful conditions of communion what Justice or reason is there that the party accused should fit Judge in her own cause 4. Where there is sufficient evidence from Scripture reason and tradition that such things which are imposed are unreasonable conditions of Christian Communion the not communicating with that Society which requires these things cannot incur the guilt of Schism which necessarily follows from the precedent grounds because none can be obliged to Communion in such cases and therefore the not communicating is no culpable separation Pag. 324. His Lordship delivers his sense clearly and fully in these Words 'T is too true indeed that there is a miserable rent in the Church and I make no question but the best men do most bemoan it nor is he a Christian that would not have Unity might he have it with Truth But I never said or thought that the Protestants made this rent The Cause of the Schism is yours for you thrust us from you because we call'd for truth and redress of abuses For a Schism must needs be theirs whose the cause of it is The Wo runs full out of the mouth of Christ ever against him that gives the offence not against him that takes it ever Page 325. I do say it now and most true it is That it was ill done of those who e're they were who first made the Separation But then A. C. must not understand me of actual only but of causal Separation For as I said before the Schism is theirs whose the cause of it is and he makes the Separation that gives the first just cause of it not he that makes an actual Separation upon a just Cause preceding And this is so evident a Truth that A. C. cannot deny it for he says it is most true That the Reader may clearly understand the full State of this Controversie concerning Schism the upshot of which is that it is agreed between both parties that all Separation from Communion with a Church doth not involve in it the guilt of Schism but only such a Separation as hath no sufficient cause or ground for it Page 131. There can be no Separation from the whole Church but in such things wherein the unity of the whole Church lies for Separation is a violation of some Union Now when men separate from the errors of all particular Churches they do not separate from the whose because those things which one separates from those particular Churches for are not such as make all them put together to be the whole or Catholick Church This must be somewhat further explained There are two things considerable in all particular Churches those things which belong to it as a Church and those things which belong to it as a particular Church Those things which belong to it as a Church are the common ligaments or grounds of Union between all particular Churches which taken together make up the Catholick Church Those things which belong to it as a particular Church are such as it may retain the essence of a Church without Now I say whosoever separates from any particular Church much more from all for such things without which that can be no Church separates from the Communion of the Catholick Church but he that separates only from particular Churches as to such things which concern not their being is onely separated from the Communion of those Churches and not the Catholick And therefore supposing that all perticular Churches have some errors and corruptions in them though I should separate from them all I do not separate from the Communion of the whole Church unless it be for something without which those could be no Churches An evidence of which is that by my declaring the grounds of my separation to be such Errours and corruptions which are crept into the Communion of such Churches and imposed on me in order to it I withal declare my readiness to joyn with them again if those errours and corruptions be left out And where there is this readiness of Communion there is no absolute separation from the Church as such but only suspending Communion till such abuses be reformed which is therefore more properly a separation from the errors than the Communion of such a
Church wherefore if we suppose that there is no one visible Church whose Communion is not tainted with some corruptions though if these corruptions be injoyned as conditions of communion I cannot communicate with any of those Churches yet it followes not that I am separated from the external Communion of the Catholick Church but that I only suspend Communion with those particular Churches 'till I may safely joyn with them As suppose all the particular men I can converse with were infected with Leprosie my not associating with them doth not imply that I am separated from the Communion of all Mankind but that I am loath to be infected as they are and therefore withdraw my self till I can meet with such healthful persons with whom I may safely associate again And if several other persons be of the same mind with me and we therefore joyn together do we therefore divide our selves from the whole World by only taking care of our own safety And especially if any company of such leprous persons should resolve that none should live among them but such as would eat of those meats which brought that distemper upon them our withdrawing our selves and associating without them will still appear more reasonable and commendable Therefore we say we do not necessarily separate from all Churches that have errors or corruptions in them supposing those errors and corruptions be not imposed on us as conditions of communion and thence though we should grant no one visible Church free from taint or corruption yet it is not necessary we should separate from them all for we may lawfully joyne in communion with Churches having error and corruptions if our joyning be not an approbation of them Thus though the Greeks Armenians Albigenses Abyssins may have some errors or corruptions yet if they be not fundamental and be not joyned as necessary to be approved in order to their communion notwithstanding them we may lawfully communicate with them it doth not then at all follow that if there may be no one visible Church free from error and corruption it would be necessary to separate from the communion of the Catholick Church Because 1. All those particular Churches may not make those errors conditions of communion 2. Though they did we separate not from them as Catholick but as corrupt and erroneous particular Churches Pag. 336. To rectifie such gross mistakes as these are for the future you would do well to understand that Schism formally taken alwaies imports something criminal in it and there can be no just cause for a sin But besides that there is that which if you understand it you would call the materiality of it which is the separation of one part of the Church from another Now this according to the different grounds and reasons of it becomes lawful or unlawfull that is as the reasons do make it necessary or unnecessary for separation is not lawfull but when it is necessary Now this being capable of such a different nature that it may be good or evil according to its circumstances there can be no absolute judgment passed upon it till all those reasons and circumstances be duely examined and if there be no sufficient grounds for it then it is formally Schism i. e. a culpable separation If there be sufficient cause then there may be a separation but it can be no Schism And because the union of the Catholick Church lies in fundamental and necessary truths therefore there can be no separation absolutely from the Catholick Church but what involves in it the formal guilt of Schism it being impossible any person should have just cause to disown the Churches communion for any thing whose beleif is necessary to Salvation And whosoever doth so thereby makes himself no member of the Church because the Church subsists on the beleif of fundamental truths But in all such cases wherein a division may be made and yet the several persons divided retain the essentials of a Christian Church the separation which may be among any such must be determined according to the causes of it For it being possible of one side that men out of capricious humours and fancies renounce the communion of a Church which requires nothing But what is just and reasonable And it being possible on the other side that a Church calling her self Catholick may so far degenerate in Faith and Practice as not only to be guilty of great Errors and corruptions but to impose them as conditions of Communion with her it is necessary where there is a manifest separation to inquire into the reasons and grounds of it and to determine the nature of it according to the Justice of the cause which is pleaded for it Page 357. The Catholick Church therefore lies open and free like a Common field to all inhabitants Now if any particular number of these Inhabitants should agree together to enclose part of it without consent of the rest and not to admit any others to that right of Common without consenting to it which of these two parties those who deny to yeild their consent or such who deny their rights if they will not are guilty of the violation of the publick and common rights of the place Page 358. Although nothing separates a Church properly from the Catholick but what is contrary to the being of it yet a Church may separate her self from the Communion of the Catholick by taking upon her to make such things the necessary conditions of her Communion which never were the conditions of Communion with the Catholick Church Page 359. Since it appears that the Communion of the Catholick Church was free for many hundred years without approving or using these things that Church which shall not only publickly use but enjoyn such things upon pain of Excommunication from the Church doth as much as in her lies draw the bounds of Catholick Communion within herself and so divides her self from the true Catholick Church For whatever confines must likewise divide the Church for by that confinement a separation is made between the part confined and the other which separation must be made by the Party so limiting Communion As it was in the Case of the Donatists who were therefore charged with Schisme because they confined the Catholick Church within their own bounds And if any other Church doth the same which they did it must be liable to the same charge that they were The sum of this discourse is that the being of the Catholick Church lies in Essentials that for a particular Church to disagree from all other particular Churches in some extrinsical and accidental things is not to separate from the Catholick Church so as to cease to be a Church But still what ever Church makes such extrinsical things the necessary conditions of Communion so as to cast men out of the Church who yeild not to them is Schismatical in so doing For it thereby divides it self from the Catholick Church And the saparation from it is so
far from being Schism that being cast our 〈◊〉 that Church on those terms only returns them to the Communion of the Catholick Church On which grounds it will appear that yours 〈◊〉 the Schismatical Church and not ours For although before this imposing humor came into particular Churches Schism was defined by the Fathers and others to be a voluntary departure out of the Church yet that cannot in reason be understood of any particular but the true Catholick Church For not only persons but Churches may depart from the Catholick Church And in such Cases not those who depart from the Communion of such Churches but those Churches which departed from the Catholick are guilty of Schism These things I thought necessary to be further explained not only to shew how false that imputation is of our Churches departing from the true Catholick Church but with what great reason we charge your Church with departing from the communion of it and therefore not those whom you thrust out of Communion but your Church so thrusting them out is apparently guilty of the present Schism Page 366. The truth is such pretences as these are are fit only for a Church that hateth to be reformed for if something not good in it self should happen in any one Age to overspread the visible Communion of all particular Churches this only makes a Reformation more necessary so far is it from making it more disputable For thereby those corruptions grow more dangerous and every particular Church is bound the more to regard its own security in a time of general infection And if any other Churches neglect themselves what reason is it that the rest should For any or all other particular Churches neglecting their duty is no more an Argument that no particular Church should reform it self than that if all other men in a Town neglect preserving themselves from the Plague then I am bound to neglect it too Page 540. Every Church is bound to regard her own purity and peace and in case of Corruptions to proceed to a Reformation of them Page 541. Saint Augustine saith not only in that place but in very many others that Saint Peter did sustain the Person of the Church when Christ said to him I will give thee the Keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven That he did universam significare Ecclesiam signifie the whole Church and that those things which are spoken of Peter non habent illustrem intellectum nisi eum referuntur ad Ecclesiam cujus ille agnoscitur in figurâ gestasse personam have no clear sense but â—hen they are referred to the Church whose person he did 〈◊〉 Pag. 542 He means the formal right of them was conveyed to the Church and that Saint Peter was only a publick person to receive them in the name of the Church It primarily and formally resides in the whole body of the Church Pag. 544. His Lordship saith your opinion is yet more unreasonable because no body collective whensoever it assembled it self did ever give more powerto the representing body of it than a binding power upon it self and all particulars nor ever did it give this power otherwise than with this reservation in nature that it would call again and reform and if need were abrogate any law or ordinance upon just cause made evident that the representing body had failed in trust or truth And this power no body collective Ecclesiastical or Civil can put out of it self or give away to a Parliament or Council or call it what you will that represents it His Lordship saith that the power which a Council hath to order settle and define differences arising concerning faith it hath not by an immediate institution from Christ but it was prudently taken up by the Church from the Apostles example CHAP. II. Some Animadversions on his Preface § 1. THE impartial searchers after truth have hitherto thought that a strict method at least agreeable to natural Logick is more effectual than confusion or wordy popular haranges And that the controversie should be very cleerly stated before it can be profitably argued And therefore that first all ambiguity of terms be by due explication removed that men may not mean several things and not understand each other and to Define and distinguish where it is needful and then Affirm or deny and then effectualy prove But why this worthy person doth far otherwise with us both before and now it is more his part than mine to give the reason I dare not say he cannot Nor I dare not say he can but will not but all that I can say is that he doth not and I know not why § 2. The Preface of his Book called Unreasonableness c. Is so much answered already by Mr. Lob that I will not lose time by doing much to the same again And there is a posthumous book of Dr. Worsleys called The third part of naked Truth which hath strenuously handled the same chief matter for Scripture Sufficiency against unnecessary Impositions It being supposed though not there expressed 1. That he speaketh not against the guiding determination of undetermined accidents which must be determined one way or other As Time Place Utensils Translationwords Metres tunes c. 2. And that a man that intollerably breakes Gods Laws by Blasphemy Treason Murder Fornication c. is not to be tollerated because he erroniously thinks he keepeth them § 3. His sad saying that there is no improbability that the Jesuites should be the first setters up of the way in England which he calls the Doctrine of Spiritual Prayer Mr. Lob hath opened as it deserveth in part but to say all that it deserveth would seem so harsh that I have reason to think that it would but more offend than profit him § 4. For I find that he is grown too impatient with our Nameing what he patiently and confidently doth The cause of his impatience I leave to himself But that it is much within him I must conjecture when in his defence of Bishop Laud I read him saying to the Papists To speak mildly it is a gross untruth And yet wen I speak not so plainly to him and I think never more sharply he accounts it a continued Passion Rage Railing Intollerable indiscretion c. Do I give him harder words than these Yet I profess I smart not by them I take them for very tollerable words in comparison of his miscarriges in the cause in hand Several sorts of men I have found think other men speak in passion 1. Those that hear and read with passion They think that which angers them came from anger 2. Those that are too high to be dealt with on even terms and think the plain speech which agreeth to others is a contempt of such as them 3. Those that commit miscarriages so gross and defend causes so bad as have no names but what are disgraceful and then take all that is said to anatomatize their cause and errours to be said against themselves
Justinian and of seven after and Proconsular and the Church called Africae Caput as August ep 162. The sixth and seventh Carthage Councils tell us of the distribution of the Provinces decreeing three Judges to be sent out of each Province viz. Carthage Numidia Byzacena Mauritania c. Yea Leo 9. P. in Epist ad Thom. c. saith that the Bishop of Carthage was post Pont. Rom. primus Archiepiscopus totius Africae maximus Metropolitanus Though yet Binnius truly say that in Cyprian's time he was not an Archbishop that is no proper Governor of Bishops because they concluded in Council nemo nostrum dicitur Episcopus Episcoporum but he was the chief of that great Province And the Dr. himself out of Victor mentioneth one Cresseus that had one hundred and twenty Bishops under him He was Metropolitane of Aquitana and a Diocess then having many Provinces how many be in a Diocess Victor there 〈◊〉 you that the Bishop of Carthage in his own Eugitane Province had one hundred sixty four Bishops And how great were their Churches then and L. 2. when he lamenteth the great number of their banished Bishops Presbyters aud the Church-members were 4976. And one Parish here hath 40000 if not more He that considereth that Cyrus was at most but 60 miles from Antioch the Patriarchal Seat and that a Carthage Council had sometimes 600 Bishops and the Donatists perhaps had as many and that as he saith Cresceus had one hundred and twenty Bishops under him and that Cyprian so often tells us how Bishops were chosen by all the People and how he managed his Discipline in the presence of all his Plebs Laity and by their consent and how he telleth that it was the peoples duty to separate from the communion of a sinning Bishop which implieth communion before and how the Bishops in Council put the question When a Church wanted a Bishop whether one of them that was a Bishop and had perhaps but one or two or three Presbyters was bound to part with one to that wanting Church to make a Bishop of and considereth the circuit and distance of their Cities and much more which I have elsewhere named may well believe large Provinces and larger Diocesses but will think of their Bishops Churches as we must do of theirs in Ireland when a late converted Countrey had six hundred Bishops Make but Christs true discipline practicable and tie us not to swear or assent to your uncertain forms and we should no further trouble you in this Sect. 6. As for the credit he giveth to Syrmondu's copy of Theodoret's Epistle or to the later Editions of his Works I am not bound to be as credulous nor to take the last Editions for the best when they come out of the Jesuits hands And can prove the Epistle to Joh. Antioch which Bellarmine would disprove to be more credible than this And it 's one blot that he saith Theodoret's Epist 6. mentioneth the Metropolitane he was under when he was under none but was himself an Independant Metropolitane For so the Notitiae Episc tells us was Berytus Heliopolis Laodicea Samasata Cyros Pompriopolis Mopsuestia and Adama If his Province was as the Epistle cited saith fourty Miles square and the Christians so numerous as is said and he name none of the Bishops under him but number the Churches it 's like they were Episcopal Churches and very small And that Villages had Churches it 's no wonder when there were many Chorepiscopi not only under the Metropolitanes but the City Bishops And why I must reject his long received Work if I question his late found Epistles I know not But again I say this is nothing to our cause being so long after the ages I mentioned my contrary evidence being not at all confuted His confidence p. 260 261. about some citations out of Theodoret runs upon false Insinuations 1. That the question is not of the number of Churches but about the extent of the Episcopal Power whether it was limited to one Parochial Church or extended over many when he knoweth that I had no such question but whether those whose power was over many Churches in the first two Centuries at least had not as many Bishops under them over those Churches if such there were Or if the Bishops were of the lowest rank whether those under were not then denyed to be Churches for want of Bishops and were not only parts of a Church 2. And he feigneth me to bring Theodorets Testimonies to prove that even then in Alex. and Antioch a Church was but one Congregation when I brought it only to prove that even in that age they were so small that the footsteps of the ancient shape of them still appeared Such Fictions may deceive them that will not try what is said but only read the answerer But by this citation I see he read my Treatise of Episc before his Book came out And therefore I will pass by these niblings till he answer it Sect. 7. p. 262. He accuseth me of Rage and Bitterness for saying that if he will plead for so much Presumption Profanation of Gods name Usurpation Uncharitableness and Schism as to own their Churches to be new and devised without Gods Authority and yet may in his name be imposed on the World and all Dissenters called Schismaticks I leave him And first he feigneth that I charge him with this which is untrue unless he will charge himself with it But why do I put in If you will so plead Ans Because he accused me for saying the contrary viz. that so to divise and so to impose is worse c. But because I know not why he accused so plain a truth I said If you do so But he now tells me that he quoted it to shew that I looked on all Churches beyond Parochial as Churches meerly of mans devising which is another untruth confessed by himself who before had this up and cited my own words to the contrary viz. that I believe the Catholick Church and deny not National associated Churches nor Archbishops that put not down the particular Churches Pastors and Discipline one mistake is his excuse for another Had he meant as aforesaid had my words been Rage or necessary confutation Sect. 8. Yea it is his business in the very next page 263 to confute his own accusation of me by citing my own concessions And p. 264. he giveth me leave to call our Bishops Archbishops Ans But 1. Archbishops have Churches with their proper Bishops under them But our Bishops say that there are no such under them 2. I told you before that as the Major General Quartermaster General c. of an Army constituteth not a distinct body from the Army and the particular Regiments and Troops so I am not certain that Apostles or Evangelists or any general Preachers as such did constitute any Church Form distinct from the Catholick and the particular Bishops Churches But if they are supposed to have taken
one have been the generation of another how many Churches of England have you had 4. The whole Nation did not consent by Parliament when the Lords and Commons voted down the Bishops and Liturgy was there then no National Church 5. How shall we prove that the whole or half the Nation ever meant to put their consent into the hand of the Parliament to make a new Church of England and to alter it 6. What men make they may destroy May not the Nation withdraw such consent and the Parliament unmake their creature § 7. Next p. 300 he saith The Representative Church of England iâ— the Bishops and Presbyters of this Church meeting according to the Laws of the Realm to consult and advise about 〈◊〉 of Religion The consent of 〈◊〉 Convocations of Caâ—â—erbury and York Provinces â—â— the Representative National Church of England Answ 1. So here we have a Diffusivâ— Church and its Representative but no Government of either as a Church mentioned but the Civil 2. And they can be no Governours meerly as Representing those that are no Governours themselves Not as the peoples Representatives foâ— they are no Church Governours whatever elsewhere he saith like a Brownist of the Keys being given to Peter as representing the whole Church Not as the Presbyters representatives For 1. They are denied Episcopal power 2. And they are Governours at most but of their particular Churches and not of the whole 3. Not as the Bishops representatives for 1. They are there themselves 2. And they are no Common Governours of the whole as such 3. If he mean that the two Convocations when they consent become the One Common Constitutive Governing Power of the National Church this is intelligible but 1. He after denieth any such 2. And then their dissent would dissolve the Church and one Convocation not oblige it with much more such § 8. But yet he perceiveth he hath not answered me and therefore comes to it page 300 saying It 's a false supposition that where-ever there is the true notion of a Church there must be a Constitutive Regent part a standing Governing power which is an essential part of it Answ A true notion belongeth to equivocals The true notion and the proper political notion are words of various signification I have granted you that the true notion of a Church belongs to a Ship-full a Prison full a House-full of Christians as such and to our Parliament and to the Common-Council of the City But not the notion now in question 2. Is not Government essential to a Governed Church Fixed Government to a fixed Church and transient temporary Government to an answerable Church Deny this and few will follow you § 9. He adds Which I will prove to be false from Mr. B. himself He asserts that there is one Catholick visible Church and that all particular Churches headed by their particular Bishops or Pastors are parts of the Universal Church as a Troop is of an Army and a City of a Kingdom Then it will unavoidably follow that there must be a Catholick visible Head to a Catholick visible Church And so Mr. Bs Constitutive Regent part of a Church hath done the Pope a wonderful kindness But there are some men in the world that do not attend the advantages they give to Popery so they may but vent their spleen against the Church of England But doth not Mr. B. say that the Universal Church is headed by Christ I grant he doth But the Question is of the Visible Church of which particular Churches are parts And they being Visible parts require a Visible Constitutive Regent Head therefore the whole Visible Church must have likewise a Constitutive Visible Regent part This is to make a Key for Catholicks Answ I am glad he speaketh so intelligibly in denying a Constitutive Regent part though sorry that he speaks so ill 1. When I have written against Johnson alias Terrae the Papist two Books on this subject especially the later fully proving the Catholick Church headed by Christ to be that visible Church Catholick of which all particulars are members Can the Reader think I should write it over again because this Doctor will talk over a little of the same with that Priest and take no notice of my proof or answer 2. Doth he believe that the Kingdoms of the World are not visible parts of God's Universal Kingdom and yet God invisible 3. Dare he say that all true Churches are not real parts of Christ's Universal Church as a Governed body and yet are not they visible Is it necessary then that the Universal Head must be visible if the subordinate be so 4. Doth he not perceive that he turneth the Controversie from the necessity of a Regent head to the necessity of his visibility As if our question had not been Which is the Regent part of the Church of England but whether it must be visible Is this edifying 5. All Christians are agreed that the Universal Church is Visible 1. In its parts and members on earth and their profession 2. In that Christ the Head was visible on earth 3. And hath left Visible Universal Laws 4. And hath a Body visible in Heaven as the King is to his Courtiers but not to most of his Subjects 5. And will shortly visibly judge all the World Thus far and no further save as seen extraordinarily to Paul Stephen c. is the Universal Head Visible And are we not agreed that this is a real and most excellent Political Church and that all other Visible Churches are parts of it Something besides spleen makes some men talk dangerously § 10. But really doth he think that this doth unavoidably set up the Pope Why first is there a word of this that a sober Christian dare deny or that the Christian World doth not commonly consent to And do the certain Doctrines of the Gospel and Church set up the Pope Will he turn Papist if this be proved and the Christian World be not deceived Is this our Champion against Popery now I thought no man but Mr. Cheny and some odd Papists had been of this Opinion But to Mr. Cheny and against Johnson I have confuted it and therefore thither refer the Reader Far be it from me to resist Popery by denying 1. That Christ's Church thus far visible is one Political body headed by himself 2. Or that all true visible Churches are parts of it 3. Or that every Political Governed body is constituted of the Regent and subdite parts Christians will reject me for the former and Politicians deride me if I hold the last § 11. He proceedeth 2. The plain resolution is that we deny any necessity of any such Regent Constitutive part or one formal Ecclesiastical Head as essential to a National Church For a National consent is as sufficient to make a National Church as an Universal consent to make a Catholick Answ No consent maketh a Catholick Church but consenting to one supreme Head Christ But I
men that thus make you agents for a Pope 3. Doth this Political description of Parochial Diocesane Provincial Patriarchal Churches also bring in Popery 4. Then either our Archbishops have no power or they have it from no superiour or else they infer a Pope 5. I again tell the Doctor as I did Mr. Cheny It is disingenious to say this to me when I have written so much against Johnson the Priest in my first and specially my second answer which none replyeth to without any confutation or notice of it I have fully proved that Christ's Catholick Church hath himself for an Essential Head sometime visible on earth leaving visible Laws and now visible to the Courtiers in Heaven and coming visibly to judge all and there is no other Indeed if the doctrine of Mr. Dodwell and many such hold who deny that the power floweth immediately from Christs Law or Charter to the Church and not from the Ordainers or Electors who do but determine of the Receiver and Invest him then all the Doctors in England cannot answer the Digression Cap. 14. of the Book called The Catholick Hierarchy proving that such a Prelatical subordination of Churches inferreth a Pope But I have fully shewed the vanity of that inference as to us But remember that the Doctor and I are agreed that A Nation consenting in an Association of particular Churches may be called a National Church equivocally Though it can make no Laws unless its consent also set up a Supreme Church-Government Meet Agreements are not Laws § 16. He next would make the unwary Reader think that he answereth my Question 1. What is the same Rule that all must walk by viz. that the Scriptures are the Foundation of our Faith 2. But our Church requireth Conformity to the Rules appointed by it agreable to the word of God Answ But it seems the Scripture then is not the whole rule but part the fundamental part 2. Which did Paul mean Was your Churches Rule then made 3. Doth your Church require this ad esse or but ad melius esse If the first all Canon-breakers are dismembred And is that according to God's word If the later why am not I of your Church 4. But how comes that Church to command and bind which hath no such Ruling power CHAP. IX Of the Peoples Consent to the Pastoral and Church-Relation § 1. PAge 307. Saith the Dean The next thing to be considered is the interest and power of the People as to the choice of their Pastors for want of which great complaints are made Mr. Baxter is very tragical on this Argument and keepeth not within tolerable bounds of discretion in pleading the Peoples Cause against Magistrates and Patrons and Laws Answ 1. That is tolerable to some men which others cannot bear Silken ears must have soft words The Land cannot bear all his words was an old Complaint And Speak pleasing things Prophecy deceit was an old Mandate It 's no wonder if that sort of men that must judg whether our Preaching and Worshipping God be tolerable and must write us down the words which we must say to God in Prayer or not be tolerated do also think themselves the meet judges whether our indiscretion be intollerable 2. But let us try whether he state this Controversie any more Logically or truly than the rest and whether he intimate not hurtful though tollerable untruth 1. It 's a crooked insinuation to put the word Power instead of Right and Liberty as if Power of Consenting in the People and Power of Rulers were univocal and not equivocal terms But this is tolerable For experience hath convinced me how little Logical strictness is from this Doctor to be expected I doubt lest next as some men instead of Learning maintain their reputation by deriding it we may expect some such defence of the Doctor◠Logick to prove that he is none of the Disputers of this World who deceive men by vain Philosophy 2. And the word choice instead of consent is somewhat more crooked For choice usually includeth the first nominating Vote And he knoweth that I pleaded for the necessity of no more than the Churches consent though it were subsequent to the choice of Magistrates or Patrons 3. But the next is worse that I plead the Peoples Cause against Magistrates Patrons and Laws when I do but desire their Conjunction § 2. His repetitions call me tediously to repeat the state of the Controversie a business quite below him I. I Have oft said that God hath not made either Magistrates or People the Judges who is fit to be and shall be a Minister of Christ in general but the ORDAINERS and the PERSON himself conjunct This is evident 1. From Scripture Instances of all that were Ordained 2. From the nature of the thing 1. Who is supposed so fit to judge as men and Seniors of the same Office Who but Physicians are fit to judge who is meet to be a Licensed Physician And who but Philosophers judge of Graduates and Professours in Philosophy 2. And no man can make me a Minister against my will nor know me to be fit if I know my self to be unfit § 3. II. I have oft said that the Supreme Civil Governour is the Judge whom he must countenance maintain and tolerate The proof is easie 1. Because to do it is his work and every man must be a discerning judge of his own work 2. Because it is a publick act of Government and he is the chief publick Judge therein § 4. III. I have oft said that the Disposal of the Tythes and Temples is in the power of the Prince and Patron by his grant But with these bounds 1. His power is not Absolute but Under Christ and limited by him and therefore he hath no power against him nor to cross his Laws or to contradict his ends 2. If the Tythes and Temples were given only for publick Teachers of Catechumens or for meer Lecturers the Magistrate must dispose of them to such as are capable of that Office 3. If the Tythes and Temples were given for the Pastors of the Churches the Magistrate is bound to give them to such as are lawfully called to be such Pastors and not by the advantage of his Trust overthrow the way of entrance instituted by Christ 4. However if they were devoted to God it is God who is the proprietor and it's sacrilege to alienate them And an intolerable ill disposal is alienation § 5. IV. I have oft said that it being supposed that their Ancestors gift of Tythes or Glebe and Temples is the reason of our common Patronage and presenting power the will of the dead Donors is to be observed and their gifts given to none but on the termes by them determined But their gifts are supposed to be for the Churches good and not against it Nor had they any power on pretense of beneficence to destroy or to take away more than they give But the Trusting of our Souls Conduct
Uniformity came out of about 9000 Ministers that kept in and had laid by the Liturgy before about 7000 Conformed to the altered Liturgy before any of them ever saw it save a few by declaring their Assent and Consent the Act being known before the Book could be Printed and about 2000 were silenced by that Act. How they behaved themselves since then is so well known and I have here and oft declared and how the Plague first and the burning of the Churches next and the Kings Licenses next did give them the opportunities and calls which made more publick Preaching seem to them a duty that I shall not make recital of it § 5. All this while abundance of invectiues were poured out against them by many of the Conforming Clergy in Press and Pulpits and especially in the ears of great men to whom we had no access but seemed what such men described us to be The new Laws against Conventicles and the Oxford Act of Consinement had been added to the first Many were hunted up and down their Goods and Libraries distrained many were imprisoned some there died The Informers and Prosecutors grew weary They saw the severity came most from the Prelates and the Parliament the King being not for severity therein The Justices grew unwilling of Execution the Preachers reprove them and call on them to put the Laws in Execution they are greatly offended at the Kings Licenses they continue to accuse us for Schism at least and some of Sedition though we invaded none of their Temples nor askt them for any part of their maintenance And the Parliament and Prelates were so sharp against us that we durst not tell the world what we refused in Conformity and why lest we put them upon more severity nor indeed could we do it the Press was lockt up by so great penalties But while we were forced to silence we were lowdly called to to say what we stuck at and what it was that we would have And after 17 years such calls I ventured to name the things and hence is the storm of the present indignation § 6. I had before proved the wilful desertion of our Ministry especially when the King Licensed us to be odious Sacriledg To this I am told of mens power to silence such as they think deserve it I grant it if they truly think so so may they on just cause alienate Churches and Church-lands and hang Malefactors but not when no such cause is given nor at their pleasure § 7. When in the fitst Plea for Peace I had stated the case of our Nonconformity I intended to bring the Proofs of each particular supposed sinful as I after found occasion And meeting with abundance that accused us of disloyal rebellious Principles I largly delivered my own and many others judgment of Civil and Eccesiastical Authority the power of Princes and the duty of Subjects and therein also wrote some Answer to Four Accusations brought against us 1. That we pretend Grace against Morality 2. That we hold that things Indifferent became unlawful if commanded 3. I largly confuted Bishop Morley's false Accusation of my Doctrine of the Magistrates power to command things unlawful by accident and Dr. Parker's Doctrine of Scandal 4. I confuted them that extend our Non-conformity to things which we refuse not All this in the second Plea for Peace which none yet that I know of have answered § 8. And lest any should think that we are all for Negatives I wrote a Treatise of the only Terms of Universal Christian concord which I value above all the rest being assured that the Churches will never otherwise be healed than by that impartial sure and easie Catholick way which some have reviled but none since that I know of confuted One Learned Bishop that had a chief hand in our present Impositions and ejection I desired to tell me which is the way of Christian concord if this be not And he maintaineth That the only way is to obey the Colledg of Pastors who are to govern the Catholick Church through all the world per Literas formatas Where this Colledg as one governing power do meet or how they signifie their Majority of Votes and in what cases and who must gather the Votes from Abassia to Moscovie and in how long time and how they shall come to all men with certainty and whether the ejected silenced and excommunicated c. may appeal to them c. I could not learn § 9. In the same Book I sufficientiy confuted Mr. Dodwell's great Book which denyeth not only the Churches and Ministry which are not by uninterrupted Episcopal Ordination but also the ordinary salvation of all such Churches as having no covenant promise by valid Sacraments delivered them He hath pretended some defence in a late Book of Letters to which if they can be Printed I hope to give easily a satisfactory reply § 10. In the same book he Publisheth some old Letters of his to me for the Diocesan frame of Government the notice of which beforehand given me caused me to Publish a full Treatise of Diocesan Episcopacy containing the Reasons why we cannot swear to it or approve it or swear never to endeavour any reforming alteration of the frame here setled and exercised And whatever Mr. Dodwell pretendeth to the contrary if this Treatise do not fully answer his Letter and justifie us in this part of Nonconformity I am unable to judg of the Cause but am willing to recieve any better information § 11. And because I find false History not the least cause of ordinary mistakes and men cry up Diocesan Prelacy as the ancient and chief cure of Schism I gathered an Abstract of the history of Bishops and their Councils that the true matter of fact might not be so commonly mistaken as it is § 12. At the same time came out against me First a book of Mr. John Cheyneys the mistakes of which I manifested in an Answer And afterward old Letters of Mr. Hinkleys to which I had an old Answer which I cast by and now Published and another Accuser abounding with untruths called the Impleder and another called Reflections or Speculum c. And another Book of Mr. Cheneys full of most pitiful mistakes All which with Justice L'Estrange's Dialogue and someothers I answered together in a Book called the Third Defence ef the Nonconformists c. § 13. But the Accusations of Dean Stillingfleet in his Sermon made the loudest noise In the Answer to which I chiefly desired to have come to some understanding agreement with him about the true state of our Case and Controversie and to that end craved his answer to several necessary questions but was not able to procure it And now in his large Book where I hoped to have found an Answer to them I look for it in vain Yea though Mr. Hikeringhill roughly provoked him but to expound his own Text and tell us intelligibly what the same Rule is which the Apostle
total and positive separation is lawful and convenient P. 117. Where any Church retaining purity of Doctrine doth require the owning of and conforming to any unlawful or suspected practice men may lawfully deny Conformity to and Communion with that Church in such things without incurring the guilt of Schism P. 119. Let men turn and wind themselves which way they will by the very same argument that any will prove separation from the Church of Rome lawful because she required unlawful things as Conditions of her Communion it will be proved lawful not to Conform to any suspected or unlawful practice c. They lay the imputation of Schism on all them who require such Conditions of Communion and take it wholly off from those who refuse to Conform for Conscience sake A Premised explication of the Equivocal word CHURCH THE word CHURCH being Equivocal is unfit for our disputation till explained It signifieth being a Relative several sorts of related Assemblies which are distinct I. In their Matter A Church of Jews Turks Christians of Orthodox and of Hereticks being not one thing II. In the Efficient A Church of Gods instituting or a Church of mans III. In the Fnds. 1. A Christian Assembly at a Fair or Market or Court or Army c. is not the same with an Assembly for Religious exercises 2. Nor an Assembly for Legislation about Religion in Parliament or Consultation in Synods or Disputation in Schools the same thing as an Assembly for stated worship c. IV. In the Form or Constitutive Relation to the Correlate And so the great difference which now concerneth us to note is that a Church of Equals in Office and Power is one thing and a Political Society related as Governours and governed is another The first is either an accidental Assembly or else a designed Assemby by consent This last is either an Assembly of Lay-men which may be agreed hereafter to come under Government and may meet to worship God without a Pastor and this in Politicks is usually called a meer Community 2. Or an Assembly of Rulers or Pastors in equality as to Government there And this is called a Council Synod Dyet Parliament Convention c. V. A Governed or Political Church is of Three several Species at least as there are three Species of such Government I. A Christian Family consisting of the Family-Government and Governed living together in holy faith love worship and obedience to God the Master being their Teacher Ruler and Guide in worship II. A Pastoral-Church consisting of one or more Pastors and Christian people correlated as his flock for the benefit of his Pastoral office which essentially containeth a power to teach them lead them in worship and govern them by the Keys as a Ministerial Judg who is fit for that Commmunion All together is called also the Power of the Keys and is subordinate to Christs Teaching Priestly and Ruling Office III. A Royal or Magistratical Church consisting of a Christian Soveraign and Christian Subjects to be ruled by his sword or forcing power under Christ and his Laws for the spiritual and temporal welfare of the society and the glorifying and pleasing the Lord Redeemer And IV. The Universal Church comprehendeth all these three as parts and is most excellently properly and fully called the Church consisting of Jesus Christ the chief Pastor Teacher Priest and King an eminent perfect Policy with all Christians as the subject part It is visible in that the subjects and their profession and worship are visible aod Christ was visible on earth is visible in the Court of Heaven his Laws and Providence are visible and he will visibly judg the world and reign for ever And it is no further visible The constitutive essential parts are only Christ and his subject-body The noblest organical parts of that body are Prophets Apostles Evangelists Pastors and Teachers In all this note 1. That we have no difference that I know of about the Church in any of these senses before mentioned except 1. How far men may invent Church-forms for Gods service without Gods particular prescript or institution 2. Whether it be true that the King is so persona mixta as some hold as to be King and Priest and to have the power of Church-Keys and Word and Sacraments 3. Whether over and above the lowest Pastoral Churches Christ hath instituted a direct superior Pastoral sort of Churches to rule the inferior in Faith Worship and the Keys of Discipline over Pastors and people And if so what are these superior Pastoral Churches whâ—ther Diocesan Provincial National Patriarchal Papal or all And if Christ made no such whether men may make them 2. And note that we are certainly agreed that the Magistratical form of forcing power and the Pastoral form of Sacerdotal power of the Keys are two though the subjects should be the same though usually the Church is in the Commonwealth as part And none of us deny a Christian Common-wealth Monarchical Aristocratical or Democratical and though this power be over the Pastoral Church it is but Accidental and not Essential to it 3. And note that the chief questions which I put to the Dr. about this were 1. What is the Pastoral specifying form of the Church of England And 2. Whether it be of Divine or humane Institution And I have brought him to maintain that there is no such Church of England at all And of the Royal Church or Kingdom we are Members as well as he 4. And Lastly Note that as to a Pastoral Church we agree I suppose in distinguishing a Transient and a fixed relation And as he that is a Licensed Physician acteth as such where he cometh though related fixedly to no Hospital so if a lawful Minister of Christ either fixed in another Church or in none but the Universal be called pro tempore for a day to do his office in another Church he acteth as Christs Minister and their Pastor for that dayâ— And if a travelling Christian joyn with them he is a Member for that day Yea if the whole company intend to meet but that one day in the same relations to the same ends it is a temporary transient Pastoral Church But fixed Inhabitants for order and edification ought to fix their relation and practice Though most of this be said after where he calls me to it I thought meet here to premise the Explication of the word Church as in divers books largely I have done of the word Separation lest I imitate him in leaving my explication to the hinder part and we should dispute about a word which the Reader and perhaps our selves understand not But we have a greater controversie than this risen since A. Bishop Laud's and Grotius's Reconciling design v z. what the Catholick visible Church is 1. Protestants have hitherto held as the first point of difference from the Papists that the Universal Church hath no constitutive Head or supreme regent Power but Christ He hath setled no one
Vicarious or deputed supreme Monarchical Aristocratical or Democratical 2. Accordingly they noted the difference of two sorts of Papists some that set the Pope as superior above Councils others as the Councils of Constance and Basil and the French that make the General Council supreme the Pope being President as the chief of the Patriarchs and having many priviledges as Primate to the Universal Church 3. But that in truth the Catholick governing power of Pope and the other four Patriarchs was but a humane form of Church Policy setled in one Empire as a National kind of Church and the Councils were Universal as to the Empire but not to all the Christian world which I have proved against W. Johnson fully called by the Emperour that had no power over other Nations and subscribed by his subjects 4. That the grand cheat that hath set up Popery is the turning this National Church into an Universal Government of all the Christian world and pretending that Christ or his Apostles set up that power over all which Emperours and Imperial Councils set up only over one Empire 5. We are sworn against Forreign Jurisdiction by the Oath of Supremacy For the Roman Empire is dissolved and if it were not we are no subjects of it 6. Yet we hold that all Christians should live in all possible love and concord counselling and helping one another for the edification of the Church and that such Councils are useful thereto as may be had without more hurt than good But that no Universal governing power besides Christs for Legislation Judgment or Execution is needful to that concord nor is a Government of the whole Christian world by any one Political supreme Pope or Council or Colledg of Pastors or Cardinals any more possible or lawful to be sought than that all the Kingdoms on earth have one humane civil Soveraign though all Kings as well as all Bishops are bound to serve God with the greatest concord that they can attain But now he that will read many late Divines of England will find that they are come to this 1. To take the foresaid Conciliar and French Papists to be no Papists and so to make it a controversie de nomine in which for me let them have their liberty 2 To take it for a necessary thing to believe that the Universal Church in the world hath one supreme governing power under Christ and is a Society that is therein visibly one And 3. That this one ruling power is either a General Council or the Colledg of all Bishops on earth 4. And that the Imperial Church-form was and is to be the true Universal Church form viz. a General Council where the five Patriarchs are by themselves or by consent 5. And that the Pope is President and Principium unitatis and chief Patriarch and so to be obeyed by us 6. And that there is no true way to Universal concord but by being of this one Church so formed and obeying its Universal Laws which they say christ hath given them power to make 7. And that they are Schismaticks and not to be tolerated that do not so consent and obey 8. Yea say some to us in England it is compelled obedience to all the present Impositions which only must cure our divisions without abatement for Union or any Tolerations A great deal more of this nature is built on this principle that the Church in all the earth is one as under one humane supreme Government under Christ and that all are Schismaticks that are not of it and obey it not I am not for disgracing any by the name of Papists that refuse it whether the French and the councils of Pisa Constance and Basil shall be called Papists I contend not But whether those false principles be the only terms of concord wise men will cautelously consider ADVERTISEMENT THere is lately Published a Book of the same Authors called A Search for the English schismatick by the Case and Characters 1. Of the Diocesan Canoneers 2. Of the Present Meer Nonconformists Not as an Accusation of the former but a necessary Defence of the latter so far as they are wrongfully accused and persecuted by them And is to be sold by Nevill Simmons at the Sign of the Three Golden Cocks at the West-end of St. Pauls THE CONTENTS AN Historical Preface Dr. Stillingfleet's judgment as in his Irenicon A Premised explication of the equivocal word Church What the Catholick Church is in our judgment and what in the judgment of many of our silencers Chap. 1. Dr. Stillingfleet's large and plain Asserting of our principles in his Defence of Archbishop Laud and Rom. Idolatry p. 1. Chap. 2. Some Animadversions on his Preface Whether the Jesuits first brought in Spiritual Prayer A full explication of our judgment about Spiritual Prayer His hard terms against mens high or low chusing Tutors for their Children p. 11. Chap. 3. Dr. Stillingfleet his Accusations examined His confusion disputing a question not stated What he means by Our Church by Communion by Constant by Withdrawing by Separate Congregations what Separation I am for or against Whether he say true that my Tremendous aggravations of the sin of Conforming were written without the least provocation on their part or that as designed to represent the Clergy as notorious Lying perjured Villains p. 22. c. Chap. 4. His false History of the old Nonconformists as if Bancroft's Danger Posit Heylin and all such old accusers utterly belyed them and the Canons made against them had a false supposition his citations examined More proof of his falsification The difference between the Nonconformists and the Brownists How we are used by them The Reformatio Legum Eccles how much for discipline I now add my request to the Reader that would know how far the first Reformers were of the Nonconformists mind and against our new Church-men that they would but read Cranmers and the other Drs. words cited by Dr. Stillingfleet in the end of his Irenicon and left out of Dr. Burnet's History and Bucer's Scripta Anglicana De Regno Del his Censura of the Liturgy de cura Anim. c. The story of Dr. Ames Paul Bayne Dr. Fulk c. Dr. Humphrey's Letter to the Bishops p. 55 56 57. Chap. 5. The false Reasonings and accusations of his second part p. 59. My judgment and case stated which he falsly reporteth Others Cases considered Whether it be true That there is no other reason against Communion than was at the first Reformation Difference proved 1. From the things imposed 2. From the design of the imposers 3. From the effects 4. From the case of the Church with whom we Communicate 5. From the additional reasons for our Preaching p. 64. What he would have them do that cannot have room in their Churches p. 70. His appeal to my case at Kederminster shamed p. 71 c. His false supposition that most of my Hearers need not our Teaching because they sometimes hear in the Parish-Churches
that ordinary people that understand not Latine and Greek ought not to be concerned what becomes of their Souls If they be and do in good earnest desire to know how to please God and serve him what directions will they give him They must do as they are bidden true say they if we were to worship you for Gods we would do as you bid us for we think it fitting to serve God in his own way But we would know whether that God whom we serve hath given us any Rules for his worship or no. How shall we know whether we keep them or not or will you take upon you the guilt of our sins in disobeying his will This seems to be a very just and reasonable request and I fear it will one day fall heavy on those who conceale that which they confess to be the will of God from the knowledge of the people Pag. 548. I agree with him in the way of proof of a Churches purity viz. by agreement with the doctrine of Christ and his Apostles and that the Church is to be judged purest which shews the greatest Evidence of that consent and that every one is bound to enquire which Church hath the strongest motives for it and to embrace the Communion of it Pag. 565. 14. To suppose the books so written to be imperfect i. e. that any thing necessary to be believed or PRACTISED are not conteined in them is either to charge the first Author of them with fraud and not delivering his whole mind or the writers with insincerity in not setting it down and the whole Christian Church of the first ages with folly in believing the fulness and perfection of the Scriptures in order to Salvation Read the rest of those excellent Rules to the end In his excellent Vindication of Arch Bishop Laâ—d called A Rational account of the Protestants Religion he hath the same termes of Communion and the same description of Schism with mine and I know not how better to express my thoughts nor plead my Vindication viz. Pag. 289. In his defence of Arch Bishop Land not yet disowned since so great and considerable parts of the Christian Churches have in these last ages been divided in Communion from each other the great contest and enquiry hath been which party stands guilty of the cause of the present distance and separation For both sides retain still so much of their common Christianity as to acknowledge that no Religion doth so strictly oblige the owners of it to peace and unity as the Christian Religion doth and yet notwithstanding this we find these breaches so far from closing that supposing the same grounds to continue a reconciliation seems to humane reason impossible an Evidence of which is that those persons who either out of a generous desire of seeing the wounds of the Christian world healed or out of some private interest or designe have made it their business to propound terms of reconciliation between the divided parties have been equally rejected by those parties they have professed themselves the members of Page 290. The distance then being so great as it is it is a very necessary enquiry what the Cause of it is and where the main fault lies and it being acknowledged that there is a possibility that corruptions may get into a Christian Church and it being impossible to prove that Christianity obligeth men to Communicate with a Church in all those corruptions its communion may be tainted with it seems evident to reason that the cause of the breach must lie there where the corruptions are owned and imposed as conditions of communion For can any one imagine it should be a fault in any to keep off from communion where they are so far from being obliged to it that they have an obligation to the contrary from the principles of their common Christianity And where men are bound not to communicate it is impossible to prove their not communicating to be Schism For there can be no Schism but where there is an obligation to communion Schism being nothing else but a willful violation of the bonds Christian communion And therefore whenever you would prove the Protestants guilty of Schism you must do it by proving they were bound to communicate with your Church in those things which they are Protestants for disowning of or that there is so absolute and unlimited an obligation to continue in the society of your Church that no conditions can be so hard but we are bound rather to submit to them then not joyn in Communion with you This being a matter of so vast consequence in order to the setling mens minds in the present disputes of the Christian world before I come to particulars I shall lay down those general principles which may manifest how free Protestants are from all imputation of Schism Schism then importing a violation of that communion which we are obliged to the most natural way for understanding what Schism is is to enquire what the foundations are of Christian communion and how far the bounds of it do extend Now the Foundations of Christian communion in general depend upon the acknowledgment of the truth of Christian Religion For that Religion which Christ came to deliver to the world being supposed true is the reason why any look on themselves as obliged to profess it which obligation extending to all persons who have the same grounds to beleive the truth of it thence ariseth the ground of society in this profession which is a common obligation on several persons joyning together in some acts of common concernment to them The truth then of Christian Religion being acknowledged by several persons they find in this Religion some actions which are to be performed by several persons in society with each other From whence ariseth that more immediate obligation to Christian society in all those who profess themselves Christians and the whole number of these who own that truth of Christian Religion and are thereby obliged to joyn in society with each other is that which we call the Catholick Church But although there be such a relation to each other in all Christians as to make them one common society yet for the performance of particular acts of communion there must be lesser societies wherein persons may joyn together in the actions belonging to them But still the obligation to communion in these lesser is the same with that which constitutes the great body of Christians which is the owning Christianity as the only true Religion and way to eternal happiness And therefore those lesser societies cannot in Justice make the necessary conditions of Communion narrower than those which belong to the Catholick Curch i. e. those things which declare men Christians ought to capacitate them for communion with Christians But here we are to consider that as to be a Christian supposeth mens owning the Christian Religion to be true so the conveyance of that Religion being now to us in those books we call
while you deny not that half or a quarter of your own Parish cannot hear you much less many greater Parishes that if some of them do but sometimes crowd in perhaps once in many months or weeks by coming with the first and do but dwell in the Parish and own you that they have no need to hear or worship God publickly all the rest of the year and to pretend such need becometh not Sincerity 2. And as to those that meet in lesser Parishes you thought not meet to take notice of my answer assigning many Reasons which I will not repeat any further than to tell you 1. That many Churches there are unbuilt 2. Many come from the greater Parishes to them and some have other Reasons Sect. 15. P. 102. He saith Mr. Baxter hath a whole Chapter Plea p. 141. of Reasons against the Communion of Laymen with our Church Answ You are unhappy in History though it be your strength There 's not a word to prove it unlawful for Laymen to have Communion with your Churches but only the Matter of Fact named which is supposed to the Controversie But it being cunningly worded by you it may be by Reasons against Communion with our Churches you meant but as I did Reasons for Nonconformity in those particular Acts But do you not your self all-along suppose and plead that though we conform not yet we should hold Communion with you Why call you then the Reasons of Nonconformity Reasons against Communion Sect. 16. P. 103. He adds in the same Books he saith it is Schismatical in a Church to deny Baptism without the transient Sign of the Cross or for want of God-fathers c. or to deny Communion to such who scruple kneeling Now if the Church be Schismatical then those who seperate in these things are not Answ 1. Say you so Then we are not only quit but further quit than we can own our selves I undertake to prove that it may be Schism to separate from a Church that is guilty of some Schismatical Acts and Impositions And it needs no proof but the plain History and their Accusations of one another that there are few if any Churches on Earth that are not guilty of somewhat that is Schismatical in East VVest North or South in Africk Asia Europe or America Greeks Muscovites Jacobites Abassines Nestorians Armenians Georgians Mengrelians Circassians Papists Lutherans Calvinists Prelaticalls Presbyterians Independants Anabaptists c. And must we separate from them all 2. Verily Sir denying Persons Christendom and Church-Communion are great things And if a Cross and a gesture forbidden by the Ancient Councils in Adoration every Lords Day be now matters so weighty as for them to deny Christendome and Communion for shame call them Indifferent no more one would verily think that when you writ your Defence of Archbishop Laâ—d you had been of another mind if words are any notifying Signs of your mind 3. Other Pastors may be used in such instances without separating from you Sir these are not impossibilities to peaceable men In both the places where I formerly preached a publick Minister and a private lovingly joyn as assistants one doing that part which the other cannot And they all live in peace Sect. 17. I am next assaulted Pag. 110. I say The Benefit of Christian Love and Concord may make it best for certain seasons to joyn even in defective Modes of Worship as Christ did c. though the least defective must be chosen when no such Reasons sway the other way Reader is not this true Will not the denyal of this drive us from the Parish Churches and from almost all or require us causelesly to choose sins of omission Would you not take him for a separatist that is against this But he saith And hence we take notice 1. That no Obligation to the Peace and Unity of this Church as they are Members of it doth bring them to this occasional Communion with it but a certain Romantick Fancy of Catholick Unity by which these Catholick Gentlemen think themselves no more obliged to the Communion of this Church then of the Armâ—nian or Abissine Churches Only it happens that our Church is so much nearer Answ 1. This is not true For 1. we take this Church to be far less corrupt than the Armenian or Abissine 2. We have more Obligations to it from the civil Magistrates Laws and Protection c. 2. Is nearness such a trifle with you How much do you differ from Mr. Cheny Tell us why we should be of your Parish Church rather than of one an hundred miles off but for nearness and Cohabitation why else of old had each City its own Church 3. Is Catholick Unity become a Romantick Fancy Is this the same man that wrote the Defence of Archbishop Laud we are not ashamed of the title of Catholick 4. If I name one Obligation to Communion with you is it a learned Note to gather that I deny all other 5. When prove you that I am only for occasional Communion when I have so long practised constant Communion with you These are reasons suitable to your cause Sect. 18. He adds Ask him what Church he is a Member of If he answer he could have occasional Communion with all tolerable Churches but was a fixed Member of none would they if he were at Jerusalem take such a man for a Christian What a Christian and a Member of no Church And I much doubt whether they would admit such an one to occasional Communion c. Answ 1. Wonderful Who would have thought that this man had been so much for the Principles of Separation more than the Independants In his defence of Laud he maintaineth that the Power of the Keys is formally in the whole Church and given to Peter as their Representative which is not true for it was given only to Pastors as such and not to the Laity And now he would make that man no Christian that is no fixed Member of some particular Church Let us examine whether this be true CHAP. VI. Q. Whether he be no Christian that is not a fixed Member of a particular Church Sect. 1. HE that is a true Member of the Universal Church which is Christs Body is a true Christian But many are Members of the Universal Church which are no fixed Members of any particular Church Ergo. 2. All that are rightfully Baptized are Christians for it is their Christening But many rightfully Baptized are no fixed Members of any particular Church Ergo. 3. He that hath all the Essentials of Christianity is a Christian But many that are no fixed Members of a particular Church have all the Essentials of Christianity Ergo. 4. A fortiore They that are not so much as bound in Duty to be fixed Members of a particular Church though Baptised are not unchristened for want of such Membership But many Baptized person are not so much as bound in Duty to be fixed Members of a particular Church Ergo. Instances
far to heal us could we obtain it He saith that any one that hath seen them knoweth it to be a mistake to say it was published by John Fox Ans His Reader must be a strong believer and take much on his word 1. I have seen them and spake with men of great understanding that have seen them that yet judge it no mistake 2. The Preface of the publisher is like his Style 3. It is called Praefatio I. F. And can every Reader know that I. F. meaneth not John Fox 4. Ordinary Tradition saith it was Fox's And what should I sooner believe in such a case Instead of proving that they have all a power to their condemnation which we see they exercise not let him procure a real power declared and granted and it will do more than these words Sect. 23. But when it comes to the question whether me may so much as call a sinner to repentance by name before the Church who rejecteth all more private admonition he puts the question whether the obligation to admonish publickly an offender or to deny him the Sacrament if he will come to it be so great as to bear him out in the violation of a Law made by publick authority c. Ans The first question is whether Christ have not made his Church so different a thing from the World that they should be openly differenced by a Communion of Saints 2. And whether he hath not instituted an office to judge of this and by Government execute it And 3. Whether any man have authority to suspend this Law or Office And then 4. I shall grant that not only Discipline but Preaching and Prayer and Sacraments may be forborn hic nunc in the present exercise when else the exercise would do more hurt than good 5. But are these Laws good that forbid it and should we Covenant never to endeavour an Alteration Sect. 24. He next tells us of the great difficulty of exercising true Discipline which is most true and seems thence to defend the forbearance of it with us Answ I have in my Treatise of Episcopacy and oft proved that it is of great importance to Christ's ends and that he would have it continued to the last and that the Communion of Saints is a practical Article of Faith and that making small difference between the Church and the World tends to Church destruction and to the reproach of Christianity and the utter undoing of millions of Souls And though Pope and Prelates have abused it to captivate Princes and Nations the just use of it he knoweth is mentioned by the Universal Church and visibly recorded in the Canons of the several ages Though some Erastians are of late against it And Jesuits and worldly Protestants can dispense with it when it would hurt their worldly Interest and turn it chiefly against Gods Servants that displease and cross them Sect. 25. p. 284. He saith The want of Discipline in the Parish Churches was never thought by old Nonconformists destructive to the being of them Answ They did not confound the Power and the Exercise Nor what the Ministers office is indeed and from God and what it is by the Bishops Mind and Rules of Conformity I say as they 1. The Exercise may be suspended without nulling the Power or Policy 2. They are true Pastors and Churches by Gods will against the will of those that would degrade them Sect. 26. But supposing every man left to his own Conscience for Communion 1. He saith the greatest Offenders generally excommunicate themselves Answ 1. And is it your way to leave all the rest to their Consciences and yet to preach and write against and lay in Jail dissenting godly People that communicate not with you 2. And are not all these Offenders still Members of your Church Albaspineus complaineth of their Roman French Church that he never knew any further cast out than from the Sacrament and left still to other parts of communion as Members And so do you by thousands who are all Sons of your Church but we are none He is again at it what Church I was of and I have told him oft enough CHAP. VIII What the National Church of England is Sect. 1. ACcording to the Doctors Method we come now to the Explication of one of the terms of our Controversie so long and loudly called for viz. what the National Church of England is which we must obey and from which we are said to separate p. 287. And the answer is such as may tell Dr. Fulwood and him that it's time to give over wondering that I understood not what they meant by it Sect. 2. Our question is of the Church Policy and Political Form All writers of Politicks difference a meer Community from a Political Body This is essentiated of the two constitutive Parts the Pars Regens and Pars subdita the former is much like the Soul and the later the Body The Ruling Part is called the Form by most and the sorts Monarchical Aristocratical Democratical or mixt the form in Specie as the rational or sensitive Soul to Animals But the Relative Form is the Union of both in their proper order Such a body Politick is a Kingdom a City a Church in the proper and usual sense But in a loose sense many other things may be called a Church As 1. a Community prepared for a governing Form not yet received 2. An occasional Congregation about Religion as Prisoners that pray together Men that meet about a Religious Consultation or Dispute c. 3. Many Churches as under one Christian Magistrate as an accidental Head 4. Many Churches associated for mutual help and concord without any governing Head Either of one Kingdom or of many 5. Many Churches as meerly agreeing in Judgment and Love in distant parts of the World None of these are Churches in the political Sense but are equivocally so called But Politically 1. All the Christian World is one Church as formed by their Relation to Christ the Head 2. All single Churches that have Pastors to guide them in the Essentials of the Pastoral Office are true Churches formed by this mutual Relation These two are undoubted 3. The now Roman Catholick Church is one by Usurpation as informed by one Usurping head 4. A Patriarchal Church is one as Governed by a Patriarch 5. A Provincial Church is one as headed by the Metropolitan or as mixt where Aristocratically others are joyned with him 6. An Archiepiscopal or Diocesan Church that hath particular Churches and Bishops under it is one as headed by that Diocesane Jure an injuriâ I dispute not 7. A Diocesane Church of many score or hundred Parishes having no Episcopus Gregis or true Pastors and Pastoral Churches under him but only half Pastors and Chappels that are but partes Ecclesia is one even of the lowest sort in their opinion as headed by that Diocesane 8. A Presbyterian Classical Church is one as headed by the Classes 9. A
after against the Emperours negative voice in the confirmation of Popes 2. And his negative in Investing Bishops But even in this strife the Election was confest to be in the Clergy the People chusing or freely consenting and no man to be made their Bishop against their will and it was but the Investiture per bâ—culum annulum as a confirmation which the Emperours claimed § 14. I have formerly named elder Testimonies not denied I will now recite but some Canons of Councils 1. The 9th and 10th Canons of the first great Nicene Council nullifieth the very Ordination of scandalous uncapable men And in the Arab. Can. 4. Si populo placebit is made a condition of the Episcopal relation And c. 5. in case of the Peoples disagreement the said People must take the most blameless 2. The Roman Council said to be under Silvester of 275 Bishops saith No Bishop shall Ordain any Clerke nisi cum omni adunatâ Ecclesia but with all the Church united If this Council be not certain the very forgers shew the Antiquity of the Churches right and custom 3. I before named a Council at Capua that decreed that the two Bishops at Antioch chosen by their two Churches should live in Love and Peace 4. Chrysostom's Church of Joannites would rather separate than forsake their chosen Bishop or his honour though Emperour Council and Patriarch was against him and though Cyril Alex. wrote that their breach of Canons was intolerable and to tolerate them a few stubborn Nonconformists would but discourage the obedient 5. Even the famous Pope Caelestine who helpt Austin against the Pelagians Decreed Let no man be given a Bishop to the unwilling Let the sense and desire of the Clergy the Laity and Magistracy ordinis be required or necessary 6. How the people deposed Theodosius Bishop of Synada and chose another and the change approved I have elsewhere shewed 7. After Atticus death the Clergy at Constantinople were for Philip or Proclus but the people chose Sisinnius and prevailed 8. Sisinnius sent Proclus to be Bishop at Cyzicum but the people refused him and chose another 9. The Orleance Council an 540. Can. 3. decreeth about Ordaining Bishops Qui praeponendus est omnibus ab omnibus eligatur as of old viz. Let him be chosen by all who is to be set over all 10. An. 541. The Concil Avern decree c. 2. That none seek the sacred Office of a Bishop by Votes but by merit nor seem to get a Divine Office rebus sed moribus and that he ascend to the top of that eminent dignity by the election of all and not by the favour of a few and that in chusing Priests there be the greatest care because c. Therefore another Council at Orleance decreed that a Bishop must be ordained in his own Church which he must oversee 11. Another Orleance Council decree c. 10 That none get a Bishoprick by gifts or seeking but with the will of the King by the election of the Clergy and the Lay-people And Can. 11. And as the ancient Canons have decreed Let none be made Bishop to an unwilling People or without the Peoples consent Nor let the People or the Clergy be inclined to consent by the oppression of persons in power a thing not lawful to be spoken But if it be otherwise done let the Bishop be for ever deposed c. 12. I have formerly cited Pope Gregory I. his express Decrees herein 13. Clodovâ—us his Council at Cabilone renewed the old Decree That all Ordination of Bishops be null which was otherwise made than by the election of the Com-Provincials the Clergy and the Citizens 14. The General Council called Quinosextum an 692. decreed Can. 22. That Bishops and Priests Ordained with Money and not by Examination and Election be deposed Though the same Council by humane wisdom decreed Can. 38. That whatsoever alteration the Imperial power maketh on any City the Ecclesiastical Order also follow it The way by which Humane Order overthrew Divine Order and Institutions 15. And by the way you may conjecture of the Chusers by the Council of Toletane an 693. under King Egica where the King Preaching to the Bishops as was then needful decreeth That every Parish that hath twelve Families have their proper Governour But if it have less than twelve it shall be part of another's charge 16. K. Pepin who advanced the Pope to advance himself and added the Sword to Excommunication by mischievous decree yet altered not the common way of Election and decreeth that every City like our Corporations have a Bishop and none meddle in another's Diocess without his consent 17. The choice of Pope Constantine the humiliation of Stephen and many such instances shew that even at Rome still the People had the greatest hand in chusing the Pope and that to Communicate with a Bishop irregularly chosen was taken for a great sin And when Charles Mag. was gratified as to the Papal Chair it was but by making him a necessary Confirmer 18. The French Constitutions l. 1. c. 84. objected about this by Baronius and Binius say Not being ignorant of the sacred Canons we consented to the Ecclesiastick Orders to wit that Bishops be chosen by the Election of the Clergy and People according to the Statutes of the Canons out of their own Diocess without respect of persons or rewards for the merit of their life and their gift of wisdom that by example and word they may every way profit those that are under them 19. The old Canons gathered by Pope Adrian and sent to Charles Magn. recorded by Canisius depose a Bishop Presbyter or Deacon guilty of Theft Fornication or Perjury And Can. 28. A Bishop who obtaineth a Church by the secular power shall be deposed And Can. 33. That no one pray with Hereticks or Schismaticks Ex conc Sard. Can. 2. A Bishop that by ambition changeth his seat shall not have so much as Lay Communion at his end That no Bishop be above three weeks in another City nor above two weeks from his own Church Can. 17. A Bishop contradicted by opposers shall not after be ordained or purged by only three Bishops but by many And Can. 94. The people converted from Heresie by another Bishop may be of his flock without removing their Parish dwelling where another is Bishop Amongst the other 80 Canons against oppression as one is That no Bishop judge any Priest without the presence of his Clergy it being void if not so confirmed So another is against all foreign Judgment because men must be judged by those that are chosen by themselves and not by strangers And none of the Clergy must be condemned till lawful Accusers be present and the Accused answer the Charge 20. The second General Council at Nice though by servility they were for Images held to the old Church-Canons for Elections saying Can. 3. Every Election of a Bishop Priest or Deacon which is made by Magistrates shall remain void by the
Canon which saith If any Bishop use the secular Magistrates to obtain by them a Church let him be deposed and separated and all that Communicate with him How much more say these than my intolerable indiscretion I fear some will think that all this binds them to more separation than I am for The 15 Can. forbids them to have two Churches Can. 4. condemneth those to Lex talionis as unsufferably mad that faultily drive any from the Ministry and segregate them from the Clergy or shut up the Temples forbidding God's worship 21. By the way a Council at Chalons under Charles Magn. finding some Prelates setting on foot an Oath of Obedience to them thus condemn it It is reported of some Brethren Bishops that they force them that they are about to Ordain to swear that they are worthy and will not do contrary to the Canons and will be obedient to the Bishop that Ordaineth them and to the Church in which they are Ordained which Oath because it is very dangerous we all ordain shall be forbidden which other Councils after repeat yet our Bishops rest much on such an Oath of obedience to them 22. What the Electing Churches were may be partly conjectured from the Concil Regiaticin in Canisius Can. 6. That the Arch Presbyters examine every Master of a Family particularly and take account of their Families and lives c. A Council at Soisons about 852. a Presbyter by the King's Command being Ordained to the Church of Rhemes irregularly Decree That they that are made Presbyters without examination by ignorance or by dissimulation of the Ordainers when they are known shall be deposed because the Catholick Church defendeth that which is irreprehensible c. 23. An. 855. under Lotharius Rennigius Lugd. and others at a Council decreed because that bad King had by imposing corrupted the Clergy That because Bishops were set over the Cities that were untryed and almost ignorant of Letters and unlike the Apostolick prescript script by which means the Ecclesiastical vigor is lost they will petition the King that when a Bishop was wanting the Canonical Election by the Clergy and the People may be permitted that men of tryed knowledg and life and not illiterate men blinded by covetousness may be set Bishops over the Flocks 24. An. 857. Pope Nic. 1. is chosen by the Emperour Ludovicus consent and by All the People And he so far maketh the People self-separating judges as to decree Tit. 11. c. 1. That none hear the Mass of a Priest whom he knoweth undoubtedly to have a Concubine or sub-introduced Woman And Can. 2. That by the Canons he cannot have the honour of Priesthood that is faln into Fornication 25. An. 1050 or thereabout one of the worst of Popes at a Council at Rhemes was constrained to confirm the old Canon That no man be promoted to Church Government but with the election of the Clerks and the People c. 26. An. 1059. Again a Roman Council forbidding all men to joyn with a fornicating Priest maketh them so far separating judges 27. About An. 1077. A Council at Rome reneweth the Canon nulling all Ordinations made aus pretio precibus aut obsequio or that are not made by the common consent of Clergy and People for such enter not by Christ c. 28. From hence the Popes grew to usurp most of the power in chusing Bishops to themselves by degrees till they got Councils to judg it Heresie for Emperours to claim so much as a confirming investiture Whence bloody Wars rose And it 's greatly to be noted that yet these Emperours supposed the Bishops elected by the Clergy and People and claimed but the said investiture as is seen in the formula of Pope Paschals Grant of investitures to them 29. When they made Princes Investiture Sacrilege and entring by them they so far made the People judges of Priests and Communion as in a Council at Benevent an 1087. sub Vict. to decree That if no Catholick Priest be there it 's righter to persist without visible Communion and to Communicate invisibly with the Lord than by taking it from an Heretick to be separated from God For what concord hath Christ and Belial And Simoniacks are Infidels 30. But were good and bad Bishops in all Ages thus minded or was it only Popes I next add that it was one of the Articles charged against Wickliffe the Reformer as before against Wecelo who contemned their Excommunications That they that give over Preaching or hearing Gods word for mens Excommunications are Excommunicate and in the day of judgment shall be judged traitors to Christ Art 13. in Conc. Const Reader are we not in a hard strait between Wickliffe and Dr. Stillingflect 31. The same is one of the Articles against John Hus That men must not for Excommunications give over preaching We grant that they mean unjust ones 32. This became one of the great Controversies with the Bohemians against whom one of the four long Orations were made at Conc. Basil They would never yield that their chosen Ministers should obey the Silencers 33. Lastly the Romans themselves oft deereed That a simoniacal election even of the Pope is plainly null and conferreth no right or authority to the elected though this certainly overthroweth the uninterruptedness of their own Succession And how Popes were elected till the device of Cardinals is well known § 15. If all this be not enough to prove the constant consent of the Christian Churches down from the Apostles for the necessity of the Flocks consent to the relation of the Bishop and Pastors to them Let him that would have more read all that Blondel hath produced de jure plebis in regim Eccles § 16. I shall next prove the said necessity from the nature of the thing the work and benefit and the common nature interest and reason of mankind if more light will not put out the eyes of some unwilling men that are loth to know what they cannot easily be ignorant of And 1. Propriety is in order of nature antecedent to Regiment which supposeth it and is to order the use of it for common safety and good 2. As a mans propriety in his Members Children acquisitions is antecedent to Regiment so much more in his soul which is himself 3. Nature obligeth all to care for their lives but yet those must sometime be hazarded for publick good But the obligation to please God and obtain Salvation and escape Sin and Hell is so great that no man is to pretend publick good or the will of man against it 4. Self-government as to power and obligation is antecedent to humane publick Government in order of Nature And publick Government doth not destroy it but regulate it And therefore is not for destruction but for edification 5. The end of Self-government is so much to please God and save our Souls that no man on pretence of publick Government can disoblige us from this 6. God hath in the fifth Commandment