Schism and Covenant-breaking in me whatever it is in others XLVI Obj. But you swore against Prelacy and Liturgy and now you strengthen them Ans 1. As the Covenant was made the terms or test of national Church Union excluding all the Episcopal who were half the Kingdom and more I think it was a rash sinful Engine of unavoidable division But when I took it it was not so imposed but offered to them that were of that mind and I saw not then that snare 2. I never swore against the Common-Prayer nor against the Englsh frame of Prelacy much less all Episcopacy any further than in my place and calling to endeavour Reformation according to the word of God and the example of the best reformed churches And this I have endeavoured to the utmost of my power perhaps more than my accusers And 3. There is much good in the Liturgy Parish Order and Government I never did covenant against that and therefore the Ministers who laboured for Reformation and Concord 1660 and 1661 thought they kept their covenant by craving some amendments and not an abolition and if we did think any thing to be bad that was good we must not be obstinate in that error forsaking the good which is our duty is not the way to amend any sin or error avoiding Gods publick Worship and living like Atheists save in private is not the way to amend the faults of publick Worship or Government Praying to God for what we want and owning the Scriptures and Christian Religion and communicating with Christians on lawful terms is not encouraging any sin in church Priests or Prelates unless men by our duty will be encouraged to sin and we must not forsake duty to avoid such mens encouragement the sons of the Coal are most angry with those that come nearest to them in all things save their sin and error and say those that stand afar off cannot hurt them I do not justâ—fie all that is in every Assembly that I join with must I needs renounce Local communion with every Independent Presbyterian or Anabaptist church that I dissent from for fear of strengthning them I covenanted as much against Schism as faulty Prelacy and yet if I must join with no church that is guilty of Schism alas whither shall I go 4. I humbly desire you to examine whether your way be not a breach of the covenant you plead not only as it advantageth Prophaneness Popery and Schism but as it strengtheneth that which you say I strengthen he knoweth not England who knoweth not that perceiving the error of unwarrantable separation and the unjust accusations of the Liturgy and churches used by very many besides some failings in some private churches hath been and is a grand cause of encouraging too great a number even to superconformity and to the fierce opposition of us and to the utmost confidence in their own way and as you charge me more than others as drawing more to the communion of Godly Protestant Parish Ministers that is to christian catholick love peace and communion So do the Sons of the Coal the superconformists more fiercely revile me as stopping more than you have done from their extremities Gods Word is a sufficient rule keep to that and fear not breaking any self-made laws XLVII Obj. But by this latitude you may join with Papists and say you judg of them according to Christs description Ans I answered this in the former book When I joyn with any church as a church I join with them as meeting to profess and practice christian faith and worship their by faults I own not But if they openly profess Idolatry or Heresie instead of Worship and Faith or if they meet to practice any sin which renders the whole church or worship rejected by God I must not assemble with them but avoid them which I must not do for tolerable failings lest I avoid all the world I say again I will cast away my Wine or Broth for Poyson in it which I will not do for a fly If the church renounce Christs description in the essentials notoriously I will not call it a church against their own consent But if they do it only in some Accident or Integrals I will only disown those faults XLVIII Obj. But say they p. 13.14 It is impossible there should be two national churches at least in one nation therefore by joining with a Parish you can be no part of the national church tho we confess that if you join with a Parish Assembly that forms it self into a compleat single church and the people â—onsent to take the Parish Minister for their Pastor and the Minister should exercise the whole power of a Pastor in this Parish church Mr. B. may hold communion with this Parish church and not own the Diocesan constitution Ans Of two churches in one assembly I spake before 1. Doth this Author think that exercise of power is as essential to a Minister as Power Yea that it must be the whole power that is exercised and so that no one is a true Pastor among the Presbyterians when the Classis exerciseth the highest part of the Power nor in Helvetia where Discipline is unexercised nor in England from the first Reformation Were all the Conformists that submitted to Diocesans no Church-Pastors nor no Independents whose Churches having many Pastors and Elders no one exerciseth no nor hath more than part of the power Integrity and essentiality office and exercise are not all one 2. All good Ministers that I know in the Parish Assemblies do consent to the Pastoral Office and the people love them and shew their consent by ordinary Communion and they exercise all essential to the office tho under the restraints of Government not owning in consent destructive but governing Diocesans some as de jure divino lawful some as best some as necessary many as merely impowered to a cogent Government by the King and doth not your concession imply that these are true Churches of intolerable men I speak not 3. What you confidently deny is certainly true There may be two national churches in one nation if not three that is the word is equivocal and hath divers sences and it is not called national because all persons in the nation are of it but because that the diffused parts of the Nation own it formally in a publick national relation 1. A Christian Kingdom as such is by many called a national Church thus England is such 2. A coalition of the most or all the publick Ministers in a Nation in Synodical Agreements for Communion as such is called a National Church such also is England 3. The subjection of the most of the Clergy in a nation by consent to some Ecclesiastical Primate Patriarch or other constitutive governing Head as a Bishop is in his Diocess may make a national Church in another sence The same men may be of divers of these equivocal Churches or if part be for one form and part
Christs Name to invest him solemnly in the number of the faithful delivering him a sealed pardon of all his sins and a grant of right to grace and glory Can there be a higher exercise of the Keys Matth. 28.19 20. It is the Apostles work Disciple me all nations baptizing them c. And Dr. Hammâ—nd thinketh that in Scripture-time there were no Baptizing Presbyters but Bishops and indeed it is so great a use of the Keys that this chiefly condemneth Laymens and womens Baptizing at least the trying the Catechized and judging of their capacities must needs be the prime great act of Church-Power whatever be said of the executâ—â—n Now Papists and Protestants generally place this Power in Parochial Incumbents yea and in all other â—resbyters Even those that convert Countreys of Infidels and are under no particular Bishop must baptize and judg of the Catechumens capacity for baptism and are Parish Incumbents denied this Office power of the Keys and is it the Diocesan or they that use it by baptizing Obj. The Canon requireth them to baptize all Infants brought according to law and so not to be the Judges Ans You should say and so commandâ— them how to judge The Magistrate may command men how to do their office-work and yet neither be the maker nor unmaker of the office tho he mistake If Rulers misgovern that 's their sin but the office of Pastors is still the same and we must not misobey but suffer and as Bâ—shop Bilson saith Go on with our work as long as we can 2. And to bid them do more than they would is not to null their power of doing less And to punish a man for his duty is not to diâ—oblige him from it till it truly disable him 2. A second great exercise of the Church Keys is Ministerially as from Christ to declare his Laws and charge men to obey them both the Church together and particular persons singly As Legislation is the first and great part of Christs Government before Judicature so the Ministerial declaring Christs commands and demanding obedience is the great act of Government The same word therefore comprehendeth feeding and ruling 1 Pet 5.2 3. c. Matth. 24.45 46. Who then is a faithful and wise servant whom his Lord hath made ruler over his houshold to give them meat in due seaâ—â—n It is ruling by seasonable feeding 1 Thes 5.12 To be over them is exercised by labouring amongst them and admonishing them 1 Tim. 5.17 Ruling well is nothing greater than labouring in the word and dâ—ctrine 1 Tim. 3.2 A Bishâ—p must be apt to teach Dr. Hammond One that is able and ready to communicate to others the knowledg that he himâ—elf hath Heb. 13.7 â—7 24. Ruling the flâ—ck is by teaching and watching over thâ—m To be the greatest is to be most serviceable to all to be ruled by them is to know them to esteem them highly in love for their works sake to obey Gods word delivered by them and their conduct in mutable circumstances Heb. 13.7 1 Thes 5.12 And to imitate their good examples 1 Pet. 5.3 And what law forbids Incumbents to promulgate Christs commands and charge men to obey them Or to go to any negligent person of his Flock with the same charge or to go to any Drunkard Fornicator Railer and to tell him from God of hâ—s sin and danger and exhort and command him to repent and amend And who most doth this work among us 3. Another part of Government is to judg professing Christians capable of Sacramental Communiâ—â— and admit them and deliver it them as Christs Ministers bâ— his comâ—â—â—siâ—â— anâ— from him And therein to renew their publick absoâ—ution and theâ—r Coâ—enant pâ—iâ—â—ledg and their delivered part in Christ and right to life Noâ—e dare dâ—â—y that this is a high part of the power of the Keys and proper Governmeâ—t to judg who is capable of Church Communion and receive them and deliver them from Christ the pledg of life And all Papists and Protestants almost judg this power essential to the Priesthood and common to all Parochial Incumbents And the Church of England as I said before 1. Delivereth it to them in Ordination 2. Requireth them to catechize and certâ—fie for such as shall be confiâ—med and methinks the Diocesan here useth less of the judicial power than the Incumbent for he doth but lay his hands on them and say a prayer over such as come to him for no man can dream that he can examine all the people in his Diocess so far as to judg whether they are fit for Communion Therefore he is supposed but to execute the judgment of the certifying Incumbent If he take all at a venture without a certificate or knowledg or if the Incumbent be unfaithful I cannot help or excuse that 3. They are required to keep away all that be not confirmed or ready and desirous of it 4. They may hear any just accusation of the scandalous 5. They may admonish him if he will speak with them 6. They may refuse him if obstinate and impenitent 7. They may declare the reason why they do so as Christs Ministers by his Authority and tell the Church their duty to avoid the Communion of such 8. They may bind him over to answer his contumacy at the Bar of God and what of this is denied by the Church to belong to the Incumbents Office and who else is capable of doing this in Parishes that have multitudes of ungodly persons If all this should be made so difficult by the multitude and badness of delinquents or by bad Canons or bad Government of the Church by Diocesans Officials c. and thereby be almost all left undone I cannot help that nor excuse it but what I have said against such doing is too little And if Priests be so bad that they will any where sooner scorn it than practice it at the rate that it must cost them I am as much against such Priests as others are But I will not therefore make the Office of Christâ— Ministers the creature of man and mutable at his will nor will I forsake faithful Ministers for the sake of the perfidious no nor for their own tolerable faults or imperfections And now consider seriously 1. Whether there be any essential part of the office of a Pastor denied by that which may justly be called the Church of England to the Parish Incumbents 2. And whether incomparably more of it even of the government of the flocks by the Kâ—ys of Christs Institution be not by Law and Canon required and in fact performed by the said Incumbents than by the Diocesans And whether any use it if they do not If it be alledged that I have in my Treatise of Episcopacy named many instances in which they are deprived of the exercise of the very essentials I still answer that if any shall by misgoverning Canons or practise lay penalties on them that will perform their office these do their part to
deny the Parish Pastors theâ— deny them nothing hereby essential to theiâ— office All that can with any colour be said is that the Law now seems to be on these mens side by requiring Reordination But 1. The Law-makers profess to establish the Church and not to change it to another thing 2. The Law-makers were not all of one mind in the Reasons of their Laws nor had all studied these kind of controversies Many of them and of the Clergy to this day say that it is not a proper ordination that they require but the giving them Authority to exercise their Ministry in England and the decision of a doubtful case Part of the Church taketh them for true Ministers that were ordained by Presbyters and part do not and that the Congregations may not divide they say they require this like Baptizing after a doubtful Baptism If thou art not baptized I baptize thee I am against this But this proveth not that they take a Presbyter for no Pastor Yea tho they should take his ordaining others to be a nullity Ordaining not being essential to him XXIV The Act of Uniformity or the like Law cannot make the Church no Church or of another species than 1. As it is esteemed by God and his Law 2. Or as it is esteemed by the greater part of the Christian Clergy and Laity Tho the Law should speak as the foresaid odd innovators do For 1. All Christians profess that Christ is the only just Institutor of the essentials of his own Churches All Christians profess Communion with them as Churches of Christs making by his Law The present Church of England professeth this in many books it bindeth all Ministers to hold to Scripture sufficiency and use Discipiine as well as Doctrine and Worship as Christ commandeth It openly holdeth all Laws and Canons about Church essentials yea and integrals to be void and null that are against the Sacred Scriptures and Law of God There is no Power but of God God hath given no power to nullifie his institutions 2. All true Christians who consent to a Parish Minister and attend on his Ministry and join in the Assemblies openly profess to own him first as a Minister of Christ and to join in Worship and Communion of the church as prescibed by Christ which no man hath power to overthrow 3. The Parliament and Convocations and Bishops and Clergy all confess that they have no power to overthrow the Church essentials or offices of Christs Institution They have not revoked the Church Writings in which all this is oft professed They confess that if their Laws mistake and do contrary they bind us not They never openly professed a war against God or Jesus Christ What if one Dr. S. Parker make Christ subject to the King in his Kingdom he is not the Kingdom nor the Church of England For all his words they never made any Law to command Christ or to punish him They never cited him to appear before them nor did any penal execution on his Person which Government implieth They bow at his name and profess subjection to him Therefore if the law had by error said any thing inconsistent with the essence of Churches and Ministry it had not been obligatory to Pastors or people but they ought still to take Churches and Pastors to be what Christ hath made them and described them to be XXV Suppose a Law should say All families shall be so under Diocesans as to have no power but from them and all shall subscribe to this This doth not null family-power and society as instituted by God nor make it a sin to live in Families nor dissolve them all But all must continue in Families as instâ—tuted by God And if any subscribe to this it will not make it a sin in all Wives Children and Servants to live in those families If the Law had said All Schools in England shall be essentially subject to Diocesans must we therefore have had no more Schools Or if the School-master subscribe to them is it a sin to be his Scholar If the Law should say All Christians shall choose their own Pastors and meet and pray and preach as they please but only in essential subjection to Diocesans must all therefore give over Church Communion If the Law had said All the Parish-Assemblies in England shall henceforth be essentially subject to the Pope or a forreign Council We must not therefore have forborn all such Assembling but have kept to the state and duty appointed us by Christ XXVI Here the mistaking Opponents say 1. That indeed de jure none can change the Essence of Christs Ministry and Churches but de facto they may and have done Ans What is meant by changing it de facto Have they de facto nulled Christs Power Law or Offices and Churches What Nulled it by a Nullity of pretended Authority and overcome his Power without Power De jure and de facto to be a true Church or Pastor is all one Christ made true ones De facto they cannot unmake them but by destroying matter or form because they cannot do it de jure They have destroyed neither matter or form of such parish churches as I plead for and which Christ instituted for they had not power to do it Indeed they may de facto make other sort of Churches and Ministers to themselves tho not de jure but not to us who stick to Christs institutions XXVII But say they We confess if the Law did bid all assemblies in England meet in dependance on Diocesans private and publick this would not alter the species of our separate Churches because man hath not power and we consent not Ans Very good And I pray you what alters the case as to the Parish-Churches Is it that they have Steeples and Bells or that they have Tythes It 's the Calamity of Dissenters that they either cannot consider or can feel no strength in the plainest truth that is said against them but thoughts and sense run all one way which they think right XXVIII Obj. But say they Constitutive and Declaritive Laws must be distinguished They can but declare our Meetings to be Diocesan which is false 〈…〉 the Parish-Meetings such Ans 1. Remember that declaring the Parish-Churches to be such doth no more constitute them such than yours Why then talk you so much of the words of Bishops and Clergy and Books as if their declarations made them such 2. But how doth a Law constitute one the Parochial to be Diocesan or null more than your separate meetings if by a Law of toleration it should say the same of them The truth is They are such to consenters that judg them such But they constitute them not such to any that consent not to such a constitution but hold to Christs XXIX But it is said that our thoughts alter not constitutions they are our own immanent acts that nihil ponunt in esse and therefore the Pastors and Churches will be
Communicant hath not so much more than I. XXXVI But say they then you are bound to avâ—â—d sâ—andal by professing openly that you Communicate 〈◊〉 a Dissenter and not with the Church as established by Law Ans 1. Then I should falsly say that which I either think is otherwise or am not resolved in I tell you Few can truly say this if any 2. What need this when the open Profession of all Christians is That it is a Church and Worship of Christs making which they own and intend and none that is against them And when the Articles of the Church of England and the Ordination covenant own Scripture-sufficiency and disclaim all that is against Gods word Must we be supposed to renounce Religion when we meet to profess it And surely for disowning any thing which the Nonconformists judg unlawful all the Books written by them and all the notorious sufferings in twenty two years Ejection and Prosecution are no obscure Notification of their Judgments without speaking it at the Church â—oors or before the Assemblies Must I openly protest against Independency Anabaptistry or Presbytery if I dissent before the face of their Congregations if I will Communicate with them 3. But to stop your demand befâ—re I Communicated in the Parish â—hurch where I now am I went to the Incumbent and told him that I would not draw him into danger or intrude against his will I had been â—â—iled by the Kings Commission and after by the Lord Keeper to debate about Alteration in the Liturgy and Worship and Discipline and I thought that thereby I waâ— by 〈◊〉 6 7 8. ipso facto Excommunicate but not bound to do Execution on my self and therefore if I were separated it should not be my act but I left it to his will He took time and upon advice admitted me Obj. But you must tell them that the Parish Church hath no dependance on the Bishops but as the Kings Officers and that it is Independent and then you fall not under our opposition Ans 1. How many Lawyers and Civilians do openly say as Crompton before Cosins Tables that all Church Government floweth from the King And doth that satisfie you 2. And why must the Parish Church and Pastor needs be Independent Will you have no Communion with Presbyterians 3. And what if it be dependent on the Diocesan as governour tho not as destroyer Is it any more destructive of its Essence than to be governed by a Classis or Council XXXVII As for your telling us Wâ—â—m the Canons eâ—câ—mmunicate or 〈◊〉 Lay-chancellors Officials Surrogates Archdeacâ—ns c. excâ—mmunicate what Oaths they impâ—se c. tell them of it and not us who are not responsible for other mens deeds It no more concerneth our cause of Parochial Lay-communion than to tell us how bad men some Ministers are nor so much neither For I that willingly joyn in the Liturgy will not willingly if I know it so much as seem to own the Ministry of any man that is notoriously Insufficient Atheistical Heretical or so Malignant or Wicked as to do more hurt than good Avoid such and spare not XXXVIII Obj. They want the Peoples câ—nsent and so are no Pastâ—rs Ans The People shew their consent by ordinary Submission and Communion Obj. The People must be supposed to consent to the Law which maketh them no Pastors but the Bishops Curates Ans Both the Suppositions are before confuted both that the People are supposed to consent to any Law against Gods and that the Law maketh Curates to be no Pastors XXXIX To conclude the Objections about the Essence of Parish Churches 1. The question is not Whether there be not a sort of Diocesan Prelacy which nulleth them 2. Nor whâ—ther there be not some men in England that write and plead for such Diocesan Churches as have no true Episcopâ—s pregis much less Episcopus 〈◊〉 under them but are 〈◊〉 Bishops in that Diocess Nor of what number power or interest these men are of against whom I have oft written 3. But whether the Law be on their side or against them for the old Diocesan Government of subordinate Pastors and Churches is to me nâ—w uncertain I did once incline most to the fiâ—â—t sense of the Law but on secâ—nd thoughts hope better of it and am not Lawyer good enough to be certain 4. But if it should be so I verily think â—â—e main 〈◊〉 of the 〈…〉 and therefore 〈◊〉 not to renounce their Pâ—rish â—overnment â—ut only to use it in subordination to the Bishop 5. And I am pâ—st doubt that all the Communicants of England are neither â—ound to decide this Law-doubt nor to understand it nor to believe that the Law hath altered the Government 6. And if they did believe it they ought to keep on in Church Assemblies according to Christs Law taking all that 's against it as void as long as they are put â—n no sin themselves nor the Church notoriously renounceth its â—ssentials 7. And if they were stated Members of other Churches e.g. the Greâ—k the Dutch the French they might â—ccasionally Communicate in our Parishes transiently without examining the Pastors call and discipline but judging by possession and practice 8. And if they should prove no lawfully called Ministers their Office would be valid to those that blamelesly were deceived and knew it not 9. And if they were sure that they were no true Ministers they may joyn with them in all Worship belonging to Lay-Christians 10. But if they prove able godly Ministers of Christ tho faulty setled by Law to the advantage of Religion in a Christian Kingdom where all are commanded thus to maintain national Concord and the upholding those Churches is the very National possession of the Protestant Religion and it goeth for publick Disobedience and Scandal to forsake them and that at a time when many forsake them too for unjust grounds and by suffering for it stand to unwarrantable Accusations of them and sharply Censure those that do not as they and oppugne Peacemakers and all this after the old Nonconformists full Confutation of the Separatists unwarrantable way and the doleful experience of Subversion of all sorts of Government by the Prosecution of such mistakes I say If all this should be the case it is deeply to be considered XL. But the most effectual hindrance is the opinion of unlawfulness in jâ—yning in the Liturgy yet my last Objectors confess that It is lawful to some and that it is nâ—t Communion in it much less in all forms which they call unlawful tâ— all And the sober sort are loth to say tâ—at the Millions of Christians in England and Scotland who live where they can be in no other Churches should rather like Atheists live without all Church-Worship and local Communion And in gaining this I have gained the better half of what I pleaded for And they confess and so do I that publick Communion may be one mens duty and anotâ—â—rs sin as circumstances vary
choice And our present Canons since 1604 tho they null not the Parochial Pastorship do so far restrain it as I hope my Conscience shall never approve But yet for that I will not forsake what is of God nor make mans failings a pretence against my duty to God and Man to the Violation of Love Unity and Peace Yet I will try by distinct speaking to make both the Case and my meaining plainer if I can And thereby to shew that our case differeth but gradually from the old Nonconformists as to Lay-mens Parochial Communion where there are honest Ministers And that the old Nonconformists had better Evidence Scripture and Reason on their side than either those Innovators who make Parish-Pastors to be but de specie of humane Institution made by Bishops and changeable by them having just so much power as they please to give them or the Brownists that are so much of the same Principles as to think that mens Laws or Canons can change the form of the Office or that judg it nullified by tollerable Imperfections and Communion made unlawful by such faults as are found in almost all the Churches on Earth Qu. Whether according to the description of the Scripture and the exposition of Dr. Hammond himself all qualified Parish Ministers be not true Pastors and Bishops of the Flocks and with their consenting Christian Communicants true particular Churches and de facto all be not in the power given them by God which is essential hereto and in the power generally acknowledged by the legal Church Ans I have spoken to this so largely in my Treatise of Episcopacy and there added the testimonies of Writers old and new Protestants and Papists that I will give but a breviate of it here The essence of the Church Ministry consisteth in POWER and OBLIGATION FROM CHRIST to teach to guide in Worship and to oversee and guide the Conversation and Communion of the Flocks If it were not of Christ they were but officers of men de specie even of an office of mans making Dr. Hammond saith that Christ gave the Keys only to the Apostles and they only to their Successors That there is no evidence that there were any of a second order of Presbyters in Scripture time that this order was after made by Man Mr. Dodwell sheweth how and why and more fully than Dr. Hammond asserteth that such Presbyters have no more power than the ordaining Bishops intended to give them Or saith Dr. H. If they have a first power it is such as may not be exercised without a second so that it is indeed no true power to act And the Dr. plainly tells the London Ministers p. 80 81. There is no manner of incongruity in assigning of one Bishop to one Church and so one Bishop in the Church of Jerusalem because it is A. CHURCH not Churches being forced to acknowledg that where there were more Churches there were more Bishops And he denied our Presbyters that were not Diocesans to be Bishops both City and Country Presbyters And consequently that our Parishes were no Churches And on these grounds he and Bishop Gunning and such others judged Presbyters Ordination null because they were no Bishops And the said Dr. tho I thought he had been next Petavius one of the first that had expounded the new Testament Elders to be all Bishops of several Diocesses yet tells us that he thought most of his brethren were of his mind herein And when we in Worcestershire formed a Pacificatory Association of the Epicopal Presbyterians Indepâ—ndents and Peace-makers agreeing lovingly to practice so much in Doctrine Worship and Discipline as we were for according to our several principles forbearing each other in the rest and Dr. Warmstâ—â—â— and Dr. Tho. Good being for Bishops subscribed to it Dr. Peter Gunnâ—â—g wroâ—e largely against so doing to Dr. Warmstrie and took him off upon these aforesaid principles and they then called their Judgment the Judgment of the Church of England and wrote as if the Church had been of their mind and gone their way I wrote â—large Answer to Dr Gunning's Paper not printed and proved that the old Protestant Bishops and Doctors were of another mind largely citing their testimonies in my Christian Câ—ncâ—rd and plainly warned English Protestâ—nts to take heed of these Innovators and that the name of the Church and Episcopacy deceive them not against the Church and Protestant Cauâ—e many â—ose against me for this with great indignâ—tion especially Arch-Bishop Bramhall and two or three learned Writers and would make the world believe that it was the Church of England which I sought to defame and bring under suspition and which owned Grâ—tius and his way of Reconciliation with Rome when as it was for departing from the professed principles of the reformed Bishops and Doctors and from the book of Ordination and other writings of the Church that I blamed them Yet would they needs claim the name of the Church of England And it is not here seasonable for me to tell how many and how great men in 1661 and 1662 seemed by their wâ—rds and doings to be full at least as high as they nor how they expressed it nor how many strongly conceited by the Act thâ—â— requireth reordination of men ordained by Presbyters and by the number rejected who refused it That the Parliament had been of thâ—ir mind and much more the â—â—nvâ—cation called the church-reprâ—sentative especiâ—lly when they heard men call the old Bishops and Arch-Bishops such as â—sher Downame 〈◊〉 c. in Iâ—eland and G. Abbot Rob. Aâ—bâ—t Grindal and many such in England Puritans and Presbyterians And when Pâ—â— Hâ—lâ—â— maketh Arch bishop Abbot and the Bishops and Clergy in his days to â—e of one mind vilified by him and Arch-bishop Laud and his Clergy after of another In this case I gave the name of the present Diocesans to those that thus claimed it and pretended so confidently to the present possession of it but I thought not their claim just And when I sometimes used the name of English Diâ—cesans for this sort who nullifie the Parish Churches and Pastorship it was but to notifie them that so claimed it supposing I had oft sufficiently opened my sense and usually added that they nullifie them not effectively but quantum in se and by their consequences But I again now tell the Reader that I think the Judgment of the church of England considered as humanely constituted by publick professions and by Law much less as divinely constituted is not to be measured or named from any innovators or any that most confidently claim it or think they are uppermost at the present and thereby have that right but as Divine by Gods word whose sufficiency we all profess and as humane by the published Church professions that is the Liturgy the book of Ordination the 39 Articles of Religion the Apology of the Church of England the Defence of that Apology set in all Churches the book of Hâ—milies Nowels
Nation into his Church as a Hen gathereth her Chickens under her Wings And Rom. 11. Only their own unbelief broke them off from being a National Church including Infants And it is part of the Saints triumph that the Kingdoms of the World are become the Kingdoms of the Lord and of his Christ If you will read Mr. Beverlys Book called The whole duty of Nations it will give you full proof of this Where hath the Gospel extensively much prospered where Princes and Rulers were not Christians The Turks give liberty of Religion And yet the sometime famous Greek Churches Corinth Philippi Coloss Ephesus Laodicea Philadelphia and more than all the West are Apostatized or withered to a few ignorant vicious scandalous Christians Obj. IV. 8. If such a confederation in lawful Circumstantials as well as Integrals will make a Church I know not why we may not have a Catholick Visible Church organized if this be a due acception of a Church Ans This is as much as to say If the name Church may be used equivocally as all words must of several sorts then all those sorts may be the same I deny it If you dislike the use of the name you have your liberty as a Grammarian to forbear it But sure the Name and the Thing are not all one nor the Controversies about them 2. But we have a Catholick Visible Church Organized as I have oft proved against the Papists viz. under one Christ the Head and his Ministers as his subordinate Officers Obj. V. Page 3. If you touch a mans finger you touch the man we have communion with an integrum perpartes and with a Genus by the Species and with both by individuals Nay as every part of the Scripture one verse or sentence of it makes up sence so every part of the Liturgy as in form and manner therein contrived is Liturgy and worship thereafter is according to the Liturgy tho it be but part of the wâ—rship Page 20. As for the falseness in Integrals it gives the denomination to the whole for an Integral part is an essential part of the whole Much more there is to the same purpose making him guilty of all that useth a part Ans 1. You have the freedom of using words at your pleasure but not imposing them on mankind when necessity hath taught the World to distinguish essential and integral parts you have no authority to confound their Language by the quibble of calling Integrals essential causes of the whole A totum per aggregationem as a heap of Sand or a field of Grass is not constituted of a proper essentiating form and so homogeneous matter aggregate is all the being it hath And if you make contiguity an essential cause or how else you will you have liberty of speech But we will not be cheated by it to believe that it causeth any more than Totality or Integrality and the absence of it is a privation of no more And all mens Graces Obedience and Worship are defective in point of Integrality and degree and I hope you will not say that they need no favour or pardon or amendment 2. All human actions have their faults must we therefore do nothing or converse with no men England is one Kingdom If there be one or many faults in its Laws or officers may we therefore obey none that are faultless The Laws are the Rule of National Justice may a Judg Justice Officer or subject use none of them because some are faulty Doth that make him guilty of all Bonum est ex causis integris The fault of a part may indeed denominate the whole faulty so far But the whole Law or Liturgy may be called faulty for a part and yet he that useth either not be guilty of any of the bad part for using the good The Law and Liturgy are one thing and the use is another Its faults are no further his than he owneth them your Bread or Meat may be called bad if part only be bad and yet if you eat none but the good part it will not hurt you 2. But if it must be otherwise no man may hear you or joyn with your Churches And do you think as aforesaid that Mr. Faldo and all his Church at Barnet lived not in a sinful communion very many years that omitted at least an integral part of publick worship the singing of Gods praise Christ with his Disciples sung a Hymn after the Sacrament The Jews Church made it the chief part of their Worship James prescribeth it us in all our Holy Mirth such as the Lords Day is appointed for 1 Cor. 14.26 Every one had a Psalm and with them no one had a Psalm tho his Judgment was for it the question was Whether he should forsake them for refusing it I thought not because it was better that they had something that was good than nothing But your argument would not only unchurch them but make all sinners that communicated with them for omissions of great duties are faults and greater faults than tolerable failings in performance He that prayeth not at all doth worse than he that prayeth by a Book and he that preacheth or teacheth not at all doth worse than he that readeth a Sermon so that their total stated omission and opposition to singing by your false rule denominated them no worshippers of God if the whole must be denominated from a part How many private Meetings in London never sing a Psalm for fear of being discovered Yea how many seldom read a Chapter but only preach and pray and sometime administer the Sacrament Must we needs say therefore that they omit all Worship VI. On such occasions I argued That if we must not communicate with any Parish Church because of the faults of the Liturgy it will follow that we must not communicate with any Church on Earth that hath as great faults and that by this we must renounce Communion with all Christs Body on Earth All the Armenians Nestorians Eutychians Copties Abassines Georgians Greeks Russians Papists yea Lutherans have a more faulty Liturgie or manner of worship than the English Yea the Churches called Calvinists have their Liturgies and faults And I instanced in Switzerland because as God hath of late most preserved their peace so they are taken to be the honestest sort of Protestants that in poverty serve God with soundest doctrine and least scandal of Life but yet have no proper discipline but the Magistrates Is it a sin to have confederacy or Communion with their Churches To this he plainly saith Page 11. It is That is all that confederate with them as Churches are guilty of their error called Erastian For subjection tâ— such discipline is the condition of their Communion Ans Subjection is an equivocal word If it were by profession or subscription of consent it were indeed to be guilty of that error tho not by a fauâ—t of the Part denominating the whole to make their worship unlawful or their Churches none but
will be more sounder than our writing This Author exclaims against me as Popish Arminian for Justification by works for merit c. May it not be expected that I preach as bad as I write And is it not then a sin to be my hearer Can I think that he will not preach as ill as he writeth in this book And are all sinners therefore for hearing him I promise him that if I know of any Parish Minister that will usually preach with as much error reflexion and gall as he here writeth I will be none of that mans hearers or usual Communicants But to this he saith P. 19. We distinguish between the rule of worship and the administration and performance 1. It is not sins of ordinary infirmity 2. Nor sins not foreknown so as to prevent joining with them but them that worship God by a false rule c. Ans 1. This is the great strength of all his Book That we sin by a false rule but they sin only against a true rule but I think nothing is sin indeed but that which is against a true rule even Gods word making and using a false rule is therefore sin because it is against the true rule Most hypocrites are supposed to own a true rule while they are false to it and sin against it To sin against knowledge and an acknowledged rule is an aggravation of the sin and such shall be beaten with many stripes Paul opens it to the Jews Rom. 2. at large therefore this will not excuse our communion with such 2. This Reason crosseth the business of the opponent for whereas the greatest reason against Communion with Parish Churches is the badness of the Communicants and Ministers lives these are not the obeying of the Law or Canons but disobeying them The Law called the Rule bids no man swear rashly lye be drunk unclean slander rail c. Nay it commandeth the Minister to deny the Sacrament to such Ignorance unbelief hypocrisie are not commanded but forbidden by that Rule Ministers break the rule iâ— they preach error or heresie or against Love and Peace and promote not Godliness and mens salvation with all holy diligence by Doctrine and Life so that no sins against this is cause of separation if it be only using a false rule that is just cause 3. But what is the false Rule The word Rule maketh all this excuse and accusation of his a meer equivocation In general a rule is any thing to which we purposely conform our actions that they may be right Of this there are divers sorts 1. The Primary Rule is the absolute Law of God to which all mens actions should be conformed 2. Subordâ—nate humane Rules These are of divers sorts 1. The obliging commands of Authority 1. Of Magistrates 2. Pastors 3. Parents and Masters of Families 4. School-Masters and Tutors of Youth c. 2. Contracts or Agreements of men for concord 1. Gods Law is never a false rule but an erring Expositor may make the words the matter of a false rule by putting on them a false sense 2. Just subordinate rules are not false justly used 1. Magistrates rule either by common Laws or temporary and particular Mandates both being obligatory to duty and indeed but several sorts of Laws while they use but that authority which God gave them Laws or Mandates are just rules 2. Pastors can make duty by ruling-authority for none but the Flocks committed to them They may command what God authorizeth them to command whether it be by word or writing is all one And whether you will call it a Law or not the name altereth not the case Tho indeed in the general notion all is true law which authoritatively by command maketh a subjects duty It s a true rule when the Ruler goeth not beyond his authority Heb. 13.7 17 24. 1 Thes 5.12 17 c. 3. The same must be said of Parents Masters Tutors c. 4. Agreements or contracts are rules made for Concord by the self-governing power that all men have over themselves and they are just rules when justly used 5. Besides all these most make a mans own reason judgment or conscience the immediate subordinate rule of his actions Indeed it is more fitly called the discerner of his rule and duty as the eye is to the body For it maketh not duty but discerneth it made But if any will call the Understanding a Rule to the Will instead of a Guide we may bear with the impropriety All this is clear truth Now the question is how any of these subordinate rules are just or false 1. Two things God hath not only allowed but commanded them all to do about Religion 1. To command subjects as Gods officers to obey Gods Laws and in just cases to punish the breakers of them in matters within their jurisdiction And to do this by Laws Mandates Judgment and Execution 2. To make subordinate Mandates or Laws for determining such Circumstances as God hath commanded them to determine by the General Law of Governing or Ruling and of doing all to unity concord edification peace order and decency These things Christian-Magistrates may do Nationally Pastors to their Flocks Masters to their Families and Scholars and equals Pastors and People may make fit agreements where they are free And these rules may be called false or true in several degrees 1. It 's gross falsood and usurpation to set up an office forbidden of God and false in its very nature 2. It 's next in degree false for men of an office of Gods institution to command things utterly out of their calling and jurisdiction in which they have no power from God mediately or immediately Conscience binds none to formal obedience propter authoritatem imperantis to either of these tho material obedience and non-resistance may be duties The lower degree is when the office is of God and the matter is in their power and not only belonging ad alienum forum But they mis-determine it in the manner not usurping anothers office but doing their own amiss Tho herein conscience is not bound to obedience gratia materiae sub ratione indebiti modi yet if the matter be not forbidden of God obedience may be a duty herein sub ratione medii necessary to several ends that is to concord to honour the governor to avoid offâ—nce and to avoid greater hurt to the Church others or our selves But if the thing commanded be forbidden of God no man must do it But divers things commanded unlawfully in the manner may become duties by that command because they be made thereby needful means of Unity Peace Honour to Rulers c. as aforesaid which else would have been sin as to meet at an inconvenient time or place to use a Translation metre c. less fit Now all these being subordinate rules they bind only subordinately by virtue of Gods supreme rule who made them rulers and he is no ruler that can give no rule even as corporation
discharged from obedience in lawful things by the addition of some unlawful commands that destroy not acceptable Worship and turn not our food to Poyson I tell those Ministers that publickly charge this on Nonconformists that they must not charge any Doctrine of Seekers or Anabaptists or such separatists to be the Nonconformists Doctrine I know not one meer Nonconformist of that mind What we of this Age thought of Epâ—scopacy Liturgy and Magistracy all that would come in and own that cause openly with us have told the world in our published Proposals of 1660 and 1661 To which we refer them that would know their minds XI But when I oft alledged the example of Christ and the Apostles this Objector and Answerer saith p. 19. We make not Christ and his Apostles Hypocrites for we have proved that Christ never joined with false worship so much as with his presence at the place of it unless with this intent to bear witnâ—ss against it nor did he ever advise his disciples so to dâ— As for Moses Chair it was then Christs own Institution and he had thâ—n no other Church or Institution on earth Ans It was cautelously done to pass by the instances of the Apostles that neither separated nor commanded one man to separate from all the faulty Churches Rev. 2.3 Notwithstanding the Woman Jezabâ—â—s Doctrine and that of the Nicolaitans which God hated and the evil practices nor from the Church of Corinth where were carnal Schisms Defraudings Lawsuits before Heathens incest unlamented Sacrament disorders even to excess of drink disorder in Church Worship c. Nor from any other faulty Churches Methâ—nâ—s thâ—y that are so strict against any additions in Modes of Worship should not so much add or alter Scripture or accuse it of deâ—â—ctiveness as to suppose the Apostles to have culpably communicated with such Churches as Coâ—inth Coloss Ephesus Sardis Laodicea Smyâ—na c. yea and with the Jews who by falsifying the Rules called it unlawful to eat with the Gentiles or to eat what Moses Law foâ—bad and not to keep their days Pauls accomplishing of his Vow in the Tâ—mple and becoming a Jew to the Jews was fully contrary to the opponents Dâ—ctrine And as to Christs practice we said before you that he conformed not to any evil nor should you But did he not send the Lepers to a false ill-called corrupt sort of Priests to do by and with them what the Law required Did he not ordâ—narily joyn in the Synagogues in their worshâ—p Could he have leave constantly to teach there if he had there used to cry down their ordinary worship Had the Ceremonious Pharisees no ill forms nor ceremonies in their Worship Again I say Their long Prayers which were the Cloak of their oppression were either â—xtâ—mporate or forms of Liturgy If extemporate then the worst of Hypocrites may constantly use long extemporate Prayers and it had been no injury to the Spirit in them to have perswaded them to use Christs form instead of them If they were Liturgies then Christ did not separate from such no nor reprove them at all when he reproveth the hypocritical abuse of them Yea seemeth to commend them while he nameth them as a Cloak to cover evil which nothing is fit for that is not good Obj. He had no othâ—r Church Ans 1. Then most in England mâ—y go to the Parish Churches where they have no other Church to go to 2. But Christ had twelve Apostles and 70 or 72 other Teachers and many more Disciples Were these no Church nor matter for a Church XII Obj. Page 4. God hath not left it in our power to communicate with any society when they make that the condition of my Communion which I am convinced of to be sin to me that I question whether it be lawful or no c. Ans How oft have I answered this without any reply 1. If they make your consent to any sin the condition of your Communion you must avoid it But if they put no sin on you to be present when they sin is a condition to all Church Communion and to your own praying who sin in all your self you before excepted sins of ordinary infirmity as not warranting separation And when did you ever prove that the composing and imposing of the Liturgy much more the Obedient use of the Lords-day part is not a sin of infirmity as much as slandering it and the Churches and writing such Books as yours Accusing is not proving 2. If your taking it for sin be true you must forbear it If you mistake it for sin which is duty per se or per accidens you sin against God and truth by your mistake and by your Omission God bindeth you to alter your Judgment and so he doth if you take an indifferent thing for sin tho here it is safest to forbear An erring Conscience is no Lawmaker less then a Magistrate but a misconceiver and doth ligare non obligare XIII Obj. But none of the things are indeed Worship which you say men may command Ans That man shall be none of my guide that makes questions of bare names to seem to the people as if they were about the matter named They are such accidents of the Worship which God himself commandeth as are done in the outward expression of reverence and honour to God and the more decent and edifying performance of his own Institutions This is the description of them Kneeling being uncovered swearing with outward signs singing in Tunes Metre c. Agree to the thing and call these Worship or no Worship as you please You say False Worship is no Worship If so it is no bad Worship but all faulty Worship is not null XIV As for his general talk of me how much I have promoted Popery and being for Justification by works and merit c. I give him leave to ease his Stomach without an Answer and all those to be deceived by him that will take his word and not read mine especially my Treatise of imputed Righteousness Page 9. He saith When the Scripture speaks of justification by faith Doth any sound Divine or Christians understand it of the act of believing but that its the objâ—ct of faith that justifieth Ans See how strictly these men stick to Scripture that will have it the sole Law of Circumstances and yet can deny it as Expositors at their pleasure when Paul over and over so often saith That we are justified by faith and faith is imputed for righteousness and Christ saith Thy faith hath saved thee It is not faith that they mean but Christ It is faith in Christ There is no faith but the act or habit of believing Rom. 3.21 The righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ on all that believe 25. Through faith in his blood 26. The justifier of him which believeth in Jesus Many ways such will be odiously perverted if you put Christ instead of Faith we are justified by no