Can. 27. And also that their Children are not to be baptized unless they will submit them to the dedicating sign of the Cross no nor to be buried with Christian Burial of which more afterward 3. If they have a Minister in their own Parish that never preacheth or so bad as that they dare not commit the Pastoral care of their souls to him they must not be admitted to Communion in any other neighbour Parishes Can. 28. That they are ipso facto excommunicated shall be anon shewed SECT IX The Matters of Fact that concern the Conformity and Nonconformity of the Ministers And 1. of Assâ—nt Consent and Subscription that nothing is contrary to God's Word 1. THE Canon to be subscribed 36th willingly and ex animo is That the Book of Common-Prayer and of ordaining of Bishops Priests and Deacons containeth in it NOTHING CONTRARY TO THE WORD OF GOD and that he himself will use the form in the said Book prescribed in publick Prayers and Administration of the Sacraments and none other 2. The meaning of this subscription is not agreed of by the Conformists that take it As to the first clause some say that by Nothing Contrary to the word is meant as it is spoken Nothing indeed Others say by Nothing is meant Nothing which I have discerned so to be Or Nothing except such failings as all humane writings are lyable to And by Contrary Some say Contrary in the Common sense of the word is meant But others say that by Contrary is meant so far Contrary as should drive us from Communion with the Church or Contrary to any great doctrine or precept of the Word of God And the Nonconformists interpret it as the first sort do according to the usual and proper meaning of the words 3. So the later clause that he himself will use that form in publick prayer and administration of the Sacraments and none other Dr. Heylin and very many others suppose is meant properly as is spoken viz. That by the form is meant all the words and orders and that by publick prayer is meant as is spoken All publick prayer used by a Minister in the publick assemblies And that by None other is meant neither wholly nor in part But others think that by Form is meant only the form of words and not the orders And that by none other is meant only No other Book of Common-Prayer or set Liturgie Or No other entire form and order excluding this And that it doth not mean No other form before or after Sermon in the Pulpit or in some parts of Worship so it be of our own Composure Nor yet that we may not use sometime some other order than is prescribed in the Rubricks viz. 1. Sometime read other Chapters than the Calender prescribeth because that Liberty is expressed in the Preface to the second Book of Homilies 2. Sometimes to give the Sacrament to some that kneel not 3. To baptize some without the Cross c. of which more hereafter Because the Rubrick saith only you shall do thus but saith not you shall do no otherwise But to this the former sort answer 1. That if any universal Negative none other may be particularly or limitedly interpreted upon our own surmises no Laws Covenants or Promises signifie any thing and no words are intelligible 2. That we subscribe strictly to this Article to use no other form But not so to the Book of Homilies but only that we take it for wholsom Doctrine 3. That if the Rubrick for Crossing Kneeling c. exclude not all other inconsistent forms of administration it signifieth nothing but leaveth every man to his own will 4. It is yet a greater doubt with the Conformists themselves whether these words be not at least a Covenant that They will use no other printed prescribed Liturgy And so some think that it plainly obligeth them not to use those printed Forms which the Archbishops and Bishops have used to draw up and impose for several Publick Fasts Thanksgivings and particular occasions But others think that it doth not bind them to disobey the Bishops therein but that such exceptions were intended though not exprest or at least had been inserted if not forgotten II. The Act of Uniformity requireth that every Minister that officiates Do openly and publickly before the Congregation there assembled declare his unseigned Assent and Consent to the Use of all things in the Book contained and prescribed in these words and no other I A. B. do here declare my unfeigned Assent and Consent to all and every thing contained and prescribed in and by the Book eatâ—tuled The Book of Common-Prayer Administration of the Sacraments and other Râ—tes and Ceremonies of the Church according to the use of the Church of England together with the Psâ—â—ter or Psalms of David pointed as they are to be sung or said in Churches and the form or mâ—â—â—er of making ordaining and consecrating of Bishops Priests and Deacons And page 10. He shall declare his unfeigned Assent and Consent unto and Approbation of the said Book and to the use of all the Prayers Rites and Ceremonies Forms and Orders therein contained and prescribed according to the form aforesaid 2. The Conformists themselves are not agreed of the meaning of these plain words One party expounding them as the Nonconformists do according to the properest and ordinary use of the words and the other party otherwise The former hold that as many Acts of Parliament Contein more in the body of the Act than in the Title and make the means more extensive than the end so here the ASSENT and CONSENT to the USE of the Book is the END in the first clause and APPROBATION also in the second And that the Declaring that form of words is the Means to that end That Assent signifieth Assent to the Truth and Consent and Approbation relate to the Goodness rectitude and use And that this is not only of the Prayers and other parts which the subscriber is to Read to the people but as is exprest of all things without exception Conteined in and prescribed by it particularly to all the Prayers Rites Ceremonies Forms and Orders without collusion or equivocation The other part hold that all this signifieth no more but that I Assent that I may lawfully use and I Consent to use so much as belongeth to my place and that I will not unpeaceably oppose it Their argument is Because to the Use is mentioned before the Form of words To which the other answer as before that 1. That Approbation is mentioned after as well as Use 2. That the Means are larger than the end As in the Corporation Act the end is the preventing of Rebellion but the Means is Declaring that There is no obligation on me or any-other from that Oath 3. That without gross violence Assent can be judged to mean no less than Assenting that it is true 4. That there is not a'word in the Book which was not intended for
28. When able faithful Pastors are lawfully set over the Assemblies by just Election and Ordination if any will causelesly and without right silence them and command the people to desert them and to take others for their Pastors in their stead of whom they have no such knowledge as may encourage them to such a change we cannot defend this from the charge of Schism which puts a Congregation on so hard a means of Concord as to judge whether they are bound to that Pastor that was set over them as Christ appointed or must renounce him and take the other when they are Commanded So Cyprian in the case of Novatian sayes that he could be no Bishop because another was rightfull Bishop before XXXI 29. In England it belongeth 1. to the Patron to present 2. to the Bishop to ordain and institute and therefore to approve and invest 3. to the people jure divino to be free Consenters 4. and to the Magistrate to protect and to judge who shall be protected or tolerated under him If now these four parties be for four Ministers or for three or two several men and cannot agree in one the culpable dissenters will be the causes of the Schism XXXII 30. If a Church have more Presbyters than one and will be for one way of worship discipline or doctrine and another for another as at Frankford Dr. Cox Mr. Horn and others were for the Liturgie and others against it so that the people cannot possibly accord it is the culpable party which ever it be that must answer for the Schism So much of enumerated Schisms XXXIII On the Negative we suppose that none of these following are Schisms in a culpable sense 1. All are agreed that it is no Schism for the Christian Church to separate from the ancient Jewish or from the Infidel Heathen World XXXIV 2. All Protestants are agreed that it is no Schism to deny obedience to the Roman Pope nor to deny that communion with them which they will not have without obedience To separate from other Churches is to deny them meer Communion But to separate from the Roman as Papal is but to deny them subjection To deny any other Christian Church to be a true Church is Schismatical if they have the Essentials of a Church But to deny the Papal Church or Monarchy to be a true Church of Christ's institution is true just and necessary though they be Christians because we mean only the Papal Church form as it is an Universal Ecclesiastical Monarchy of the whole Christian world which no other Church but that doth claim XXXV 3. It is no Schism to deny Subjection to Pope Councils or Patriarchs of other Kingdomâ— or to any forein Power by what names or titles soever called XXXVI 4. It is no Schism to deny that Christ hath any such Visible Church on Earth as is one by Union with any Universal Head Personal or Collective besides himself XXXVII 5. It is no Schism to Preach and gather Churches and elect and ordain Pastors and Assemble for God's Worship against the Laws and will of Heathen Nahometan or Infidel Princes that forbid it For thus did the Christians for 300 years And if there be the same cause and need it is no more Schism to do it against the Laws and will of a Christian Prince Because 1. Christ's Laws are equally obligatory 2. Souls equally precious 3. The Gospel and Gods worship equally necessary 4. And his Christianity enableth him not to do more hurt than a Pagan may do but more good If therefore either out of Ungodly enmity to his own profession or for fear of displeasing his wicked or Insidel Subjects he should forbid Christian Churches he is not to be therein obeyed XXXVIII 6. If a Prince Heathen Infidel or Christian forbid Gods Commanded worship and any Commanded part of the Pastors office as in Papists Kingdoms Prayer in a known tongue and the Cup in the Lords Supper is forbidden and as they say all preaching save the reading of Liturgies and Homilies is forbidden in Moscovie and as the use of the Keyes is elsewhere forbidden It is no Schism to disobey such Laws what Prudence may pro hic nunc require of any single person we now determine not XXXIX 7. If any Prince would turn his Kingdom or a whole Province Diocess or County into One only Church and thereby overthrow all the first order of Churches of Christs institution which are associated for Personal present Communion allowing them no Pastors that have the power of the Keyes and all essential to their office though he should allow Parochial Oratories or Chappels which should be no true Churches but Parts of a Church It were no Schism to gather Churches within such a Church against the Laws of such a Prince Many write that there is but One Bishop in Abassia though some say that others have Episcopal power under him some that read the old Canons which confine Bishops to Cities and take not the word as then it was taken for any great Town or Corporation but for such priviledged Towns only as are called Cities in England hence gather that as the King may disfranchise Cities and reduce them to ten two or one in a Kingdom he may by consequence do so by Churches that have Bishops which if it be spoken but of Episcopi Episcoporum we resist not But if of Episcopi Gregis of the first Order of Churches called Particular we suppose that out of such a Kingdom-Church Provincial or Diocesan-Church it is no Schism to gather particular Parochial Churches though forbidden And the same reason will prove that if in a lesser circuit the same things be done though in a lower degree viz were it but three four or ten particular Churches of the largest size capable of Personal Communions turned into one which is capable only of distant Communion per alios it is lawful to gather particular Churches out of that larger sort of Church If the Bishop of Rome Alexandria Antioch Cesarea Heraclea Carthage c. should have put down the Bishops of ten twenty an hundred or many hundred Churches about them and set up only Oratories and Catechists in their stead making them all but part of their own Churches it would have been lawful to have gathered Churches in their Churches For God never made them proper Judges whether Christ should have Churches according to his laws nor whether God should be worshipped and souls be saved or his own nstitutions of Churches be observed XL. 8. If Bishops would ordain Presbyters by limiting words restraining them from any Essential or Integral Part of the Office or Power as instituted by Christ and yet profess that they ordain them to the Office which Christ hath instituted it is no Schism for those Presbyters afterward to claim and execute in season all the power which by Christ's institution belongeth to their Office though against the Bishops Wills Because the Bishops are not the Authors or Donors of
is it denyed but that as Father Son and Holy Ghost do enter into Covenant with us as Christians in our baptism so do they with Ministers as such in their ordination-covenant But such a Relation to the Holy Ghost as the Ministers future helper in his work cannot well be supposed to be all that is meant by the words Receive the Holy Ghost both Scripture and common use taking them in another sense XXV This Oath in the Consecration of Bishops is to be taken by every Bishop In the name of God Amen I. N. Chosen Bishop of the Church and See of N. do profess and promise all due reverence and obedience to the Arch Bishop and to the Metropolitical Church of N. and to their successours so help me God through Jesus Christ 2. It is not pretended that any such Oaths of obedience were instituted by Christ or his Apostles or were used in the Churches for many hundred years nor till the Papacy was rising which was furthered by such Oaths 3. They that suppose Bishops to be successours of the Apostles cannot make them subjects to any other Ecclesiastical Rulers without asserting that the Apostles were Governours over one another which we find not that they do 4. It was many hundred years before Arch-Bishops had any Governing power over Bishops or exacted any obedience from them being not Episcopi Episcoporum as the Carthage Fathers in Cyprian professed But were only such as had the first seats and voices in the Synods 5. The question therefore is whether such Oaths as necessary to a Bishops consecration be to be Approved and consented to XXVI An Oath of Canonical obedience also is put upon all that are made Priests and Deacons And Priests at their ordination must make this Covenant that they will reverently obey their Ordinary and other chief Ministers unto whom is committed the charge and Government over them 2. The ordinary is not only the Bishop but also the Chancellour Officials Surrogates Comissaries Arch-Deacons and all that are Judges ' in the Ecclesiastical Courts 3. to obey them that are thus de facto set over us is no less than to obey them in the excercise of that power which is given them as so set over us 4. The doubt is whether they that take any of them to be Usurpers of an Ecclesiastical power which indeed they have not and can prove it to be so should swear or Covenant obedience to them as such e. g. It is commonly confessed by the Conformists that the true power of the Keys of excommunication and Absolution is appropriated by Christ to the Clergy And yet our Chancellours being lay men do decretively excercise that power The question is may we swear or Covenant to obey them 5. And seeing Christ never gave one Presbyter the Government of others as Archdeacons Surrogates Officials c. whether all the rest may swear obedience to them or Approve of and consent to the use of such Oaths And divers Councils have condemned it as a dangerous practice for Bishops to tle subject Presbyters to them by Oaths XXVII Ministers that live among the people have greatest advantage to know the penitent from the impenitent 2. But it is the foresaid lay Chancellours who usually know nothing of them but by reports that excommunicate and absolve them And the Parish-Minister must as a cryer readeth a proclamation or sentence of a Judge openly read these excommunications and absolutions 3. These excommunications must pass according to the Canons against all that shall affirm that there is any thing in the book of Common-Prayer râ—pugnant to the Scripture or any of the 39 Articles â—rroneous or any of the Rites and Ceremonies such as he may not with a good conscience subscribe to or that the Government by arch-Arch-Bishops Bishops Deans Arch-Deacons and the rest that bear Office in the Church of England is repugnant to the word of God or that any thing in the form and manner of making consecrating Bishops Priests or Deacons is repugnant to the word of God c. 4. The present doubt is whether a Minister who knoweth such of his Parish to be godly peaceable men whom the Chancellour decretively excommunicateth may both openly read and declare such excommunications and also swear or Covenant so to do in obedience to the Ordinary And whether when he knoweth that a wicked impenitent man is absolved he may pronounce such absolutions XXVIII The Oath of Canonical obedience seemeth to mean obedience according to the Canons And he that Covenanteth to obey his ordinary must be supposed to mean no less than According to the Canon Laws by which he is known to govern and as Government thereby is excercised 2. And if so then there are more things in the Canons and present Government which the Nonconformists dare not swear or Covenant to obey besides those already named than we will now stand to enumerate XXIX The Rubrick saith that the Minister who repelleth any from the Sacrament shall be obliged to give an account of the same to the Ordinary within 14 daies after at the furthest 2. If all that by gross ignorance Atheism Infidelity Sadducism Heresie Schism Drunkenness Whoredom Stealing Malice c. are uncapable of the Communion be presented to the Ordinary within 14 daies no charity that is guided by knowledge of the common state of the people can think that in London Diocess there would be fewer than many score thousands presented at once And in other Diocesses many score hundreds at least 3. Some Ministers dwell a hundred Miles or neer from the Bishops And the Bishops are divers of them so much at London or abroad as that it cannot be expected that all these must be presented to the Bishop himself but to the Chancellours court as is usual 4. The Chancellours Court is so far from most Ministers in the Land and the prosecuting so many when proof is demanded will be so chargeable and take up so much time as that it will undo many poor Ministers that have scarce enough to maintain their families and it will take up the time which they should use in the necessary labours for their flocks 5. The Chancellour is a lay man to whom they must be presented And the issue will be but a lay mans excommunicating them if obstinate or absolving them Which is not justified by the Bishops themselves 6. At the said Chancellours court things are managed as at a civil judicature There is not that endeavour to convince sinners by Scripture and to draw them to true Repentance by humbling evidence intreaties and prayers for them as should be for the saving of a soul from sin But the charges of the court fees and the fears of a prison after excommunication maketh it an unacceptable and as unlikely means to convert men as the stocks 7. Therefore for a minister to present all his Parishioners to such courts whom he is bound to deny the Sacrament to were but to make him seem their greatest
only in worse lands but in Ireland and in England as part of Lancashire the far greatest part of the Parishioners are Papists who renounce the Protestant Churches in some places XXXII Neither dwelling in the Parish nor the Law of the Land makes any Christian a member of that Parish Church without or before his own consent But proximity is part of his extrinsick aptitude and the law of man or command of his Prince may make it his duty to consent and thereby to become a member when greater Reasons mollify not that obligation XXXIII Parish Bounds and such other humane distributions for conveniency may be altered by men and they bind not against any of Christs own Laws and predeterminations nor when any changes turn them against the good ends for which they are made of which more afterward when we speak of separation XXXIIII And about these humane Church-Laws the general Case must be well considered how far they are obligatory to conscience and in what cases they cease to bind Sayrus Fragoso and other the most Learned and Moderate Casuists of the Papists ordinarily conclude that Humane Laws bind not when they are not for the Common good We had rather say that when they are notoriously against the Laws of Christ or against the Common good or are made by usurpation without authority thereto they bind not to formal obedience in that particular though sometime other reasons especially the honour of our Rulers may bind us to material obedience when the matter is indifferent and though still our subjection and loyalty must be maintained But of this before and more largely by one of us Christian directory Part. 4. Chap. 3. Tit. 3. c. The Council of Toletum 1355 decreed that their decrees shall bind none ad culpam but only ad poenam see Bin. Inoc. 6th Sect. XXXV Kings and Magistrates should see that their Kingdoms be well provided of publick Preachers and Catechists to convert Infidels and Impious men where there are such and to prepare such for Baptisme and Church priviledges and Communion as are not yet Baptized but are Catechumens And they may by due means compel the ignorant to hear and learn what Christianity is though not to become Christians for that is impossible nor to prosess that which is not true nor to take Church-Priviledges to which they have no right and of which at present they are uncapable But they may grant those rewards and civil Priviledges to Christians and Churches for their encouragement which they are not bound to give to others and which may make a moving difference without unrighteous constraint XXXVI Christ and his Apostles having as is aforesaid settled the Right of Ordination on the Senior Pastors or Bishops and the Right of Consenting in the People and this continued long even under Christian Emperours Princes or Patrons may not deprive either party of their Right but preserving such Rights they may 1. Offer meet Pastors to the Ordainers and Consenters to be accepted when there is just cause for their interposition 2. They may hinder both Ordainers and People from introducing intollerable men 3. They may when a Peoples Ignorance Faction or Wilfulness maketh them refuse all that are truly fit for them urge them to accept the best and may possess such of the Temples and Publick Maintenance and make it consequently to become the Peoples duty to consent as is aforesaid so also when they are divided XXXVII Princes ought to be Preservers of Peace and Charity among the Churches and to hinder Preachers from unrighteous and uncharitable reviling each other and their unpeaceable controversies and contentions XXXVIII Christ himself hath instituted the Baptismal Covenant to be the Title of Visible Members of his Church and the Symbol by which they shall be notified And he hath commanded all the baptized as Christians to Love each other as themselves and though weak in the faith to receive one another as Christ receiveth us but not to doubtful disputations and so far as they have obtained to walk by the same rule of Love and Peace and not to despise or judge each other for tolerable differences much less to hate revile or destroy each other and it seemed good to the Holy Ghost and the Apostles to lay no greater burden on the Churches even of the Ceremonies which God had once commanded but Necessary things Act. 15. 28. And these terms of Church-Union and Concord which Christ hath made no mortal man hath power to abrogate All things therefore of inferiour nature though Verities and Good must be no otherwise imposed by Rulers than as may stand with these universal Laws of Christ which are the true way to prevent Church-Schisms XXXIX Princes by their Laws or Pastors by consent where Princes leave it to them may so associate many particular Churches for orderly correspondencie and concord and appoint such times and places for Synods and such orders in them as are agreable to Gods aforesaid generall Laws of doing all in Love to Edification and in order And how far if Rulers should miss this generall Rule they are yet to be obeyed we have opened elsewhere XL. As we have there also said that Princes may make their own Officers to execute their Magistratical Power circa sacra which we acknowledge in our King in our Oath of Supremacy and if such be called Eclesiastical and their Courts and Laws so called also that ambiguous name doth not intimate them to be of the same species as Christs ordained Ecclesiastical Ministers or as his Churches and Laws are so now we add that if Princes shall authorize any particular Bishops or Pastors to excercise any such visiting conventing ordering moderating admonishing or governing power as it belongeth to the Prince to give not contrary to Christs Laws or the duties by him commanded and priviledges by him granted to particular Churches we judge that Subjects should obey all such even for conscience sake However our consideration of Christs decision of his disciples controversie who should be the greatest and our certain knowledge how necessary Love and Lowliness and how pernicious wrath and Lordly-Pride are in those that must win souls to Christ and imitate him in bearing not making the cross together with the sad history of the Churches distractions and corruption by Clergy-Pride and Worldliness lamented by Nazianzene Basil Hilary Pictavus Socrates Sozomen Isidore Pelusiot Bernard and multitudes more yea by some Popes themselves these and other reasons we say doe make us wish that the Clergy had never been trusted with the sword or any degree of forcing power or secular pomp yet if Princes judge otherwise we must obediently submit to all their Officers XLI It seemeth by the phrase of His Maiesties Declaration about Ecclesiastical affairs 1660 in which after consultation with his Reverend Bishops the Pastoral way of Perswasion reproofs and admonitions are granted to the Presbyters that a distinction is intended between this Pastoral and the Prelatical Government And we
must with very great concern profess that if the Churches of the lowest sort Parochial be but indeed made true Churches such as Christ by his Apostles instituted and not only Parts of a Diocesan Church as if that were the lowest raâ—k And if these particular Churches have but Pastors that have the power of the Keys in those Churches and all that the scripture maketh essential to the Officâ—r which was then set over eveâ—y such particular Church And if the Discipline instituted by Christ himself be but made possible and seasible in such Parochiall Churches yea if we that were trusted by our calling with the mysteries of God may not be forced our selves to administer the Sacraments against our own knowledge consciences and against our consciences and knowledge of mens cases to pronounce men absolved or excommunicate upon other mens decrees or to pronounce the notoriously wicked to be saved and to deny worthy Christians the seal of Christs Covenant nor their infants their visible Christianity by baptism we say might we but have this much we should be so far from using the Controversie about the Divine Kight of Episcâ—pacy as a distinct Order from Presbyters to any schism or injury to the Church that we should thankfâ—lly contribute our best endeavours to the concord safety peace and prosperity thereof And might we but also be freed from Swearing Subscribing Declaring and Covenanting unnecessary things which we take not to be true against our consciences and from some few unnecessary Practices which we cannot justifie we should joyfully serve the Church in our publick Ministry though it were in poverty and rags But of so great a mercy experience hath made our hopes from men to be very small And the reason of the thing maketh our hopes as small of the happiness of the Church of England till God shall unite us on these necessary terms SECT VI. 3. What Separation and what Gathering of Assemblies or Churches is unlawful and what lawful I. THough some mens abuse of the word Schism and calling mens duty to God by that name hath proved a great temptation to many to take it but for a word of Passion or of no certain or odious signification even as the Papists abuse of the word Heresie and Heretick hath been to others yet the evill of true Shism and the odium that God layeth on it in the Scripture should move all Christians to fear the thing and use the name with the disgrace that it truely importeth without misapplication and to avoid all guilt of so great a sin II. There are several sorts and degrees of Schism which greatly differ from each other Its one thing to divide from a Church and another to cause divisions or factions in it It s one thing to divide our selves from it and another to cause others to divide It s one thing to draw men away by words and another to drive them away by laws or execution by unjust excommunication or by violent persecution It s one thing to tempt away or drive away a single person or a few and another thing to draw or drive away multitudes It s one thing to separate from the Universal-Church and another from a particular Church or a few only It s one thing to separate from the species of particular Churches and another from some individuals only It s one thing to separate from the Churches of Christs institution and another to separate only from those of mens institution It s one thing to separate from such as men make lawfully and another from such only as they make without authority and sinfully And here separating from one whose sinful constitution is traiterous against Christs prerogative as the Papal Universal Usurpation much differeth from separating from one whose constitution though sinful is of no such perniciousness It is one thing to deny total Communion and another to separate but secundum quid for some act or part And that is either a great and necessary part or some small or indifferent thing or ceremony It is one thing to separate Locally by bodily absence and another mentally by Schismaticall principles It is one thing to separate from a Church as accusing it to be no Church of Christ and another to separate from it only as a true Church but so Corrupted as not to be Communicated with It s one thing to judge its Communion absolutely unlawful and another only to forsake it for a better which is preferred It s one thing to depart willfully and another to be unwillingly cast out It s one thing to depart rashly and in hast and another to depart after due patience when reformation appeareth hopeless It is one thing to remove upon religious reasons and another upon Civil or Domestical or Corporal It is easy for a confounded head to pass over all such distinctions and with unjust and confounding censures to reproach others as Schismaticks in the dark before he knoweth what schism is being guilty of Schism in his very accusations But sober Christians must be discerners and know that confusion is an Enemy to truth and love and justice III. I The Union of the Church Universal is in the seven things mentioned by Paul Eph. 4. 3. 4 5. 6. viz. One Body One Spirit of faith and Love One Hope of Glory One Lord One faith or Creed One Baptismal Covenant One God and Father of all He that separateth from this Church directly is an Apostate Uisibly if from its Essential profession and invisibly if only from the inward sincerity of faith consent and Love This is damning separation And if he separate but from some one Essentiall article of faith or duty it is that which is most usually and strictly called Heresie of which we are now to speak no further IV. 2. To make Factions Parties Contentions and Mutinies in a true Church of Christ or in any Community of Christians yea or but in families in the Universal Church is a great sin in all that are the true culpable Causes of it and are not only the involuntary occasions by unavoidable accidents V. 3. To separate from all the particular Churches in the world as if they were no true Political Churches of Christ as those called Seekers do who say that the Ministry Scripture and Churches are lost in the wilderness is a very heinous sin though such as do so renounce not their Baptism or the Church Universal VI. 4. To separate from most or many Churches by so unchurching them is far worse than to separate from few or one it being a greater wrong to Christ and men VII 5. To separate from one upon a reason that is known to be common to all or most or many is virtually to separate from all or most or many VIII 6 To separate from a true Church accusing it to be no true Church is a greater injury and sin caeteris paribuâ— than to separate from it only on an unjust accusation or culpability consistent with a true
though we hear that some of them take us as not sincere for keeping up a difference and giving no more reasons of it The thing which we so greatly desire leave to do but dare not be so bold yet as to venture by it to displease them who condemn us for not doing it lest their anger would be sharper to us if we do it so great is our difficulty between this Soylla and Charybdis But we hope we may adventure to open some part of the Matter of Fact which Conformity and Nonconformity are concerned in that so men may conjecture at the Case themselves which will be no reflexion on the Government barely to tell what they command nor a challenging any of our Superiours to a disputation nor a charging them as faulty that cannot bear it 1. Matters of Fact to be foreknown to the true understanding of the Cause 1. THE root of the difference between the Old Nonconformists and the Conformists was that one sort thought they should stick to the meer Scripture Rule and simplicity and go far from all additions which were found invented or abused by the Papists in Doctrine Worship and Government and the other side thought that they should shew more reverence to the customs of the ancient Church and retain that which was not forbidden in the Scripture which was introduced before the ripeness of the Papacy or before the year 600 at least and which was found lawful in the Roman Church and common to them with the Greek that we might not seem singular odd and humorous or to go further from the Papists than reason and necessity drave us And the Laity seemed no where so sensible of the difference as between the way of Ceremony and unceremonious simplicity and the way of our many short Liturgick Prayers and Offices and the way of free-praying from the present sense and habits of the speaker while pacificators thought both seasonably good 2. The sad eruption of this difference among the Exiles at Frankford while Dr. Cox and Mr. Horn and their party strove for the English Liturgie and the other party strove against it for the freer way is at large reported in a book called the troubles at Frankford 3. Queen Elizabeth and King James discountenancing and suppressing the Nonconformists they attempted in Northamtonshire and Warwickshire a little while to have set and kept up private Churches and governed them in the Presbyterian way But that attempt was soon broken and frustrate by the industry of Bishop Whitguift and Banctoft And the Nonconformists lived according to their various opportunities some of them conformed some were by connivence permitted in peculiars and small impropriate places or Chappels that had little maintenance in the publick Ministry which kept them from gathering secret Churches some of them had this liberty a great part of their lives as Mr. Hildersham Mr. Dod Mr. Hering Mr. Paget Mr. Midsley senior and junior Mr. Langley Mr. Slater and Mr. Ash at Bremicham Mr. Tailor Mr. Pateman Mr. Paul Bayne Mr. Fox of Tewksbury John Fox and many more Some had this liberty all their lives as Mr. Knewstubs Dr. Chadderton Dr. Reignolds Dr. Humphrey Mr. Perkins Mr. John Ball Mr. Barnet Mr. Geeree Mr. Root Mr. Atkins Mr. Gilpin John Rogers and many others some were fain to shift up and down by hiding themselves and by flight and these preached sometimes secretly in the houses where they were and sometime publickly for a day and away where they could be admitted so did Mr. Parker Mr. Bradshaw Mr. Nicols Mr. Brightman Mr. Brumskil Mr. Humphrey Fen Mr. Sutchff Mr. Thomas and many more and after their silencing Mr Cotton Mr. Hooker and many more that went to America Mr. Cartwright was permitted in the Hospital at Warwick Mr. Harvey and Mr. Hind at Bunbery in Cheshire and many more kept in having small maintenance being in peculiar or priviledged places Mr. Rathband Mr. Angier Mr. Johnson Mr. Gee Mr. Hancock and many others oft silenced had after liberty by fits Mr. Bowrne of Manchester Mr. Broxholm in Darbyshire Mr. Cooper of Huntingtonshire at Elton and many others suffered more and laboured more privately Dr. Ames was invited to Franekera some were further alienated from the English Prelacie and separated from their Churches and some of them called Brownists were so hot at home that they were put to death Mr. Ainsworth Johnson Robinson and others fled beyond seas and there gathered Churches of those that followed them and broke by divisions among themselves The old Nonconformists being most dead and the later gone most to America we cannot learn that in 1640 there were many more Nonconformist Ministers in England than there be Counties if so many 4. The Conformists shortly fell into dissension among themselves especially about three things Arminianism as it was called and Conciliation with the Church of Rome and Prerogative Dr. Heylin in the Life of ArchBishop Laud doth fully open all these differences and tells us that Archbishop Abbot was the Head of one party and in point of Antiarminianism even Archbishop Whitgist before him with Whitaker and others had made the Lambeth Articles driven the Arminians from Cambridge King James had discountenanced them in Holland and sent six Divines to the Synod of Dort who owned and helpt to form those Articles And he tells us that Bishop Laud had no Bishops on his side but Bishop Neale Bishop Buckeridge Bishop Corbet and Bishop Howson and after Bishop Mountague and thought it not safe to trust his Cause to a Convocation the major part called then The Church of England 1. Cryed down Arminianism as dangerous Doctrine 2. Cryed down any neerer approach to the Papists and the Toleration of them 3. And were much for the Law against absoluteness in the King and Dr. Heylins and Rushworth's Collect. will tell you the full story of Manwaring Sibthorp and Archbishop Abbots refusing to license Sibthorp's Book and the Consequents of all Thus these two Parties grew into jealousies the Old Church-men accusing the New on these three accounts and the New ones striving as Dr. Heylin describeth them to get into power and overturn the Old 5. In this contention the Parliaments also involved themselves and the Majority still clave to the Majority of the Bishops and Clergy then called the Church of England And in all or most Parliaments cried up Religion Law and Propriety and the Liberty of Subjects and cried down Arminianism Monopolies Connivence and Favouring of Papists and their increase thereby expressing by Speeches and Remonstrances their jealousies in all these points till they were dissolved 6. The writings of Bishop Jewel and much more Bishop Bilson and most of all Mr. Richard Hooker and such as were of their mind shew us what Principles there and then were by the Laiety that followed them received We will not recite their words lest our intent be misunderstood neither Bishop Bilsons instances in what cases Kings may be resisted by armes Nor Mr. Hookers that
Counties the Noblemen Knights and Gentlemen that had still adhered to the King profest and published their peaceable desires of Concord and resolution against revenge And Letters were written from France to divers here to take off all the unjust suspicions that some had raised about the Kings Religion all which promoted the Concord that accomplished the Change 27. Those that saw the marvelous success of this reconciliation and concord and knew that the Clergies distance was most likely if any thing to hinder the happy perfection and settlement of a full desired peace did presently attempt an agreement among them And upon the motion of some of the since silenced Ministers the Earl of Manchester and the Earl of Orery mentioning it to the King they told us that it was well pleasing to His Majesty Whereupon His Majesty vouchsafing them audience and great encouragement several persons on each side were appointed to treat of the necessary terms of setled Concord and to yield to each other as far as they could and offer their mutual concessions What was done in this is not now to be mentioned save that part of it was published by some body which declareth it and the first part being about Church Government and worship issued in the publication of His Majesties Gracious Declaration about Ecclesiastical Affairs by which all our breaches seemed at the present to be almost healed and the House of Commons gave His MAJESTY Publick thanks 28 At this time the Lord Chancellor as a token of His Majesties Gracious favour and acceptance offered Bishopricks to three that then treated for Reconciliation and Deanries to two or three of them Of the three first one did the next day save one refuse it but in a letter to him professing his gratitude and that he was so rejoiced in His Majesties Gracious Declaration that if it might but be setled by Law he resolved to use his utmost endeavours to perswade all men to conformity on those terms and therefore would not disable himself thereto by taking a Bishoprick and making men think that it was not for just concord but his own interest that he wrote or pleaded Another of them soon accepted The third and the two or three that had Deanries offered them only suspended till they saw whether His Majesties Declaration would live or dye 29. what was done in the next attempt upon His Majesties Commission to agree on such alterations of the Liturgie as were necessary to tender Consciences c. we are to make no further mention of then is made by the writings given in which some body shortly after in part and with many false printings published An Addition to the Liturgie A Reply to some former Papers of the Bishops and an Earnest Petition to them for the Churches Peace which were given in and never answered by them that we know of some one printed And being in writing required by a Right reverend Bishop then in the Chair as from superiours to lay by meer Inconveniences and to give in those points which we took to be flat sin we gave in eight particulars the next day as part and by that time but one of our arguments about one of them was half handled and the rest of the arguments untouched and the rest of the Controverted instances not medled with our Commission was expired And the Bishops argumentation as Opponents afterward on another occasion printed 30. Shortly after the convocation of the Clergie setled the Liturgie as now it is setled The Kings Declaration dyed The Parliament made the Act of Vniformity by which many Ministers for not conforming to that Law were on August 24. 1662 ejected and silenced on severe penalties About Eighteen hundred of their names from several Counties were shewed Mr. Calamy and others and some say about 200 were omitted and that they were in all above 2000. 31. They that had treated for Reconciliation foresaw what sad divisions were like to follow if we were not healed and united and therefore in their Petition made a solemn Protestation that nothing but the fear of sin and Gods displeasure should hinder them from Conformity deprecating the woful effects of the division which could not possibly be otherwise avoided than by some necessary abatements of the Impositions and fore telling much that hath since come to pass which common understanding might easily see in the Causes 32. The persons that were silenced were not of one mind and measure about all the things imposed on them 1. Some of them were Episcopal and for as much as Richard Hooker writeth for and were against the Covenant and never took it and the Parliaments War and were for the Liturgie and Ceremonies and had Conformed had these been all that had been imposed who yet were cast out of Fellowships and Ministry Yea some had suffered for the King and been ruined in their patrimony some imprisoned for him and some had been in arms for him 2. Besides these and other Episcopal Nonconformists some and very many and we think the greatest part of any one were such disengaged pacificators as we before mentioned about associations 3. Some were for the Presbyterian Government and 4. Some for that called Independent which were comparatively but few Also some were as heretofore Dr. John Reynolds Dr. Humpbrey Mr. Perkins Mr. Paul Bayn c. for some part of Conformity Kneeling and Litâ—rgie and some for the Surplice against other parts Many would have come in to all the old Conformity had it not been for that one sentence in the Canon-subscription Nothing Contrary to the word of God which kept out Mr. Chilâ—ingworth himself as is reported till some dispensation let him in But the New Conformity was such as satisfied them all against it Many purposed to have yielded to Prelacy Liturgie and Ceremonies and gone to the utmost that Conscience would tolerate rather than lay by their Ministry But when they saw the new Act for Uniformity their deliberations were at an end 33. Their interest honour or somewhat else led many persons of those times when they had made the name of Presbyterians odious to call all the Nonconformists that were Episcopal or neutral by the name of Presbyterians even those that had declared themselves against the Presbyterian frame so they were not Independents And they continue that practice to serve their ends to this day 34. The elder sort of the Nonconformists were ordained by Diocesan Bishops The younger sort were ordained by Assemblies of the Parish Pastors of Cities and Countries no other ordination being then allowed by those in Power 35. As to the late Civil Wars which some most lowdly charge on the Nonconformists this is the truth that the several parties charge the beginning of that war on one another One party saith that the Presbyterians begun it in England Another party lay it on the old Church of England men that followed Archbishop Abbot and such like Both these accused Parties laid the beginning on Archbishop Laud
they promised it was not thâ—y but the Parents that were bound to perform 3. Or Nonconformists in this point who purposed before hand to be but the Parents Râ—pâ—esentatives and that the promise and obligation should all be devolved from them on the Parents though they knew the Church meant otherwise and that they were not bound to the Churches sense and therefore their standing to hear this is your part was no consent to take it for their part And none of all these do answer the Churches sense in their undertaking And if we are commonly baptized and made Christians in a way of false Vowing or Covenanting of such persons or of â—â—lusâ—â—y Equâ—vocation it is not well 11. We know not where Parents can procure any to undertake this Office as the Church imposeth it that credâ—â—ly signifie themselves able and willing to performâ—â— we could not do it our selves were we never so desirous Perhaps some Rich men might hire others to take their Children into their Care and Education as must be promised but who would do so for the poor yea for all the poor of England And the Nonconformists are not satisfied that it is lawful to engage any in a perfidious covenanting before God when before-hand they have no credible signification of any purpose to perform it Nay when the Parent resolveth to educate his own Child and not to trust him to the Provision or care of others 12. The Minister Covenanting to use the form in the Book of Common Prayer prescribed in administration of the Sacraments and no other Can. 36. No Parent may speak a word in the name of his own Child nor to enter him there into the Covenant of God nor profess that he offereth him to Baptism by virtue of and in confidence in the promise I will be thy God and the God of thy seed in their Generations Nor to promise himself what the Godfathers are to promise The words also of the Can. 29. are these No Parent shall be urged to be PRESENT nor be admitted to answer as Godfather for his own Child Nor any Godfather or Godmother shall be suffered to make any other answer or speech than by the Book of Common Prayer is prescribed in that behalf 13. It is the Godfathers work also by the Liturgy to take care that the Child be brought to the Bishop to be confirmed by him in the manner of the Church of England as soon as he can say the Creed Lords Prayer and ten Commandments and be further instructed in the Church Catechism which Godfathers use not at all to perform nor do the Parents use to expect it Nor doth one Child of a multitude understand what the Baptismal Covenant is of many a year after they have learned to say the said Catechism 14. That the Godfathers stand not there as the Representers of the Parents is evident according to the sense of the Church because the Parent himself is not suffered to do it or speak one covenanting word nor must be urged to be present nor are they to speak in the Parents name in any of their undertakings Nor is there the least intimation that the Church taketh the Sponsor for the Parents Representative 15. The Parents are to be admonished not to defer the Baptism of their Children longer than the first or second Sunday unless upon a great and reasonable cause to be approved by the Curate whether they can get understanding credible Godfathers or not These are the Matters of Fact Here note 1. That there is no Controversie between the Conformists and Nonconformists whether Christians Infants should be baptized 2. Nor whether a Conformists baptizing be valid 3. Nor whether the Parents presence be absolutely necessary and another may not speak in his name 4. Nor whether Adopters or any Proprieters may not covenant for the Child 5. Nor whether the old Sponsors be lawful who 1. Witnessed the credibility of the Parent 2. And undertook the Christian Education of the Child if the Parents should either die or apostatize The Nonconformists are against no such Sponsors though they think that their Children have right to Baptism without such 6. Nor do they deny that Baptism in the Parish Churches is valid and lawful as to the Parents and Godfathers if they do but agree on the Nonconformists way that the Sponsors shall but represent the Parents and that they be not bound by the contrary judgment of the Authors of the Liturgy to the contrary But the questions are 1. Whether a Christians Child whose Parents have no way forfeited their credit have not right to Baptism without other Godfathers 2. Whether the Parent should not solemnly enter his own Child into the Covenant of God as well as in times of Circumcision And whether any Parent should be forbidden it viz. to appear and speak as the Representer of the Child or Undertaker for him and Promiser of his Education 3. Whether that Child must profess by another that He Himself Believeth Renounceth Repenteth and Desireth Baptism And it be not rather to be prosessed that he is the seed of a Believing Penitent Parent whose Will is as his Will and is under God's Promise I will he thy God and the God of thy seed 4. Whether a Christian Parent may consent to the persidious undertaking of any Godfathers who give him not the least reason to believe that they intend that provision for the Children which they undertake Or else may let his Child be unbaptized till he can get such a credible Undertaker which is never like to be with most or many 5. Whether the Children of Heathens or Infidels or Atheists have right to Baptism upon the presentation of any Godfather who never adopteth them or taketh them for his own nor giveth any credible notice that he really intendeth to educate those Children as pro forma he seemeth to undertake Or whether such Children are truly said to believe because the Godfather or Minister or Congregation or Diocess or Nation or Catholick Church believe III. The Nonconformists are not of one mind about receiving the Lords Supper Kneeling Many judge it Lawful though neither necessary nor most eligible were they free some judge it also most eligible And some judge it as things stand unlawful Their reasons are 1. In doubtful cases duty lieth on the surest side But this to them is a doubtful case on one side and to imitate Christs institution by such sitting as men use to do at meat is certainly Lawful 2. Because they think this Kneeling violateth the reasons of the second Commandment being used where by whole Countries of Papists round about us and many among us it signifieth Bread-Worship or Idolatry by the same Action at the same season used For they suppose that the second Commandment forbiddeth Images as being External Corporal Idolatry and Symbolizing scandalously with Idolators though the mind intend the worshiping of the true God alone And such they think this kneeling is and that it encourageth the
the Kingdom of Heaven 12. Therefore either we consent to pronounce almost all such to be saved at a time when our words take the deepest impression or else more exceptions must be made 13. Some say that the Excommunicable are included in the Excommunicated But the Canon and the express words of the Liturgy and the Churches abhorrence that the Priest shall be Judge do so notoriously confute this bold assertion that by such stretches almost any thing may be said or sworn and it shall not be known by authority when or how far any Subject is obliged by Covenants or Oaths XVIII The Liturgy requireth that such ornaments of the Church and of the Ministers thereof at all times of their Ministration shall be retained and in use as were in this Church of England by the authority of Parliament in the 2d Tear of Ed. 6. 2. The Canon of the same Church expoundeth their meaning cap. 58. Thus every Minister saying the publick prayers or Ministring the Sacraments or other rites of the Church shall wear a decent and comely Surplice c. 3. We suppose in the 2d of King Ed. 6. The Cope Alb and other vestments were in use which seem forbidden by the Common-Prayer Book in the 5th and 6th of Ed. 6. 4. The Conformists agree not of the sense of this Rubrick 1. Whether all these are hereby reduced or not 2. Whether it forbid all Ministers to officiate without a Surplice or only Command the use of it without an implyed penalty But the words and the forecited Canons shew that the Church intended an exclusion of all that will not use it And we must subscribe to administer in no other form 5. The Nonconformists differ about the Surplice some taking it to be Lawful and others to be unlawful But they Commonly hold that Preaching Christs Gospel is commanded by God and that Ministers by their ordination are obliged to do the work of that Office and that Surplices are not commanded by God and therefore if a man mistakingly should take the use of the Surplice to be sinful he should not therefore be ejected and silenced And therefore they dare not declare Approbation and Consent to the Rubrick or subscribed form in the Canon which implyeth this restraint XIX The Damnatory sentences in the Creed called Athanasius's are to be Assented Approved and Consented to 2. If they referred but to the Doctrine of the Trinity and not to the particulars of that explication it would not be excepted against But some R. Reverend Conformists do profess that those sentences are untrue and not to be approved 3. But such think that the Churches meaning is not to require us to Assent or Approve them as true but only to Consent to use them And they prove it because the same Church requireth us to Read the Books of Tobit c. which have palpable untruths and not to believe them to be true 4. But that reason seemeth null and vain 1. Because the Apocrypha is no part of the Book to which we must Profess Assent Approbation and Consent nor to which by the Canon we must ex animo subscribe that there is nothing in it contrary to the Word of God But Athanasius's Creed with those damnatory sentences are part of that Book Indeed the Liturgy requireth us to read those Apocryphal untruths but they are no part of the Book 2. And it being not the sense of the Liturgy but of a Statute of Parliament which we here doubt of it seemeth insufficient if not impertinent to tell us what is taken for the sense of the Church for the doubt is What is the sense of the Parliament which we can no otherwise know but by the plain words till they will otherwise declare their meaning 5. And indeed if the passages in Tobit which some Reverend Bishops call Lies about the Angel's saying that he was the Son of Ananias of the Tribe of Napthali and the fishes driving away all Devils that they shall never return were but to be read we know not how to approve of that Law Calendar or Rubrick that commandeth such reading of them But yet that is much less than the Assent required to Athanasius's Creed which yet we take save those damnatory sentences to be the best explication of the Mystery of the sacred Trinity which in so short a summe is extant in the Church XX. The Liturgy saith All Priests and Deacons are to say daily the Morning and Evening Prayer either privately or openly not being let by sickness or some other urgent cause And the Curate that ministreth in every Parish-Church or Chapel being at home and not being otherwise reasonably hindred shall say the same in the Parish-Church or Chapel where he ministreth c. 2. The Conformists agree not of the sense of this some think that the ordinary incommodities of such a commanded use may pass as those hinderances or urgent causes mentioned in the exceptions But the more plain and ingenuous dealers hold that the urgent causes and hinderances here mentioned must be somewhat extraordinary and not any thing which is the usual case of most Ministers 3. Cathedrals and some other Churches have many Priests and Deacons of whom one only can daily ossiciate in publick And many are Chaplains in such mens houses as will have other free prayers used And most Ministers have great and necessary work to do which must all be left undone while the Common Prayer is said over by them twice a day They have Sermons to study many Books to read that they may be furnished with necessary knowledge for their work They have abundance of ignorant parishioners to instruct exhort or comfort They have the sick to visit the dead to bury the Sacraments to administer families to govern instruct and provide for And many find free prayer from the immediate sense of their case and wants to be so profitable to them that they cannot spare it All which and more require the the strictest improvement of every minute of their time And if the Liturgy be read over by every Priest and Deacon twice a day it is certain that much of these aforesaid must be omitted And it is a great part of our Christian duty when two good things come together to choose that which hic et nunc is the greater to choose the lesser then being a sin 4. Therefore the Nonconformists dare not Assent Approve and Consent to the tying of every Priest and Deacon ordinarily to read over the Liturgy twice every day And they are the more averse to such Approbation by seeing so very few Conformists Comparatively to practice this themselves which sheweth that they take it to be unlawful seeing it is their judgement that our Rulers must be obeyed in all things which are lawful to be so done And if they that make such declarations of Approbation think it unlawful ordinarily to keep them we may doubt whether it be lawful so to make them as is required of us 5.
We are agreed that to commit a sin by passion or sudden surprize is not so wicked as to do it on deliberation Nor is the doing it only so bad as undertaking to justifie it and encourage others to do the like XVIII We are agreed that God is jealous about holy things and that wilful corrupting his Church worship or discipline to the disgrace of religion and encouragement of wickedness is a heinous sin Especially to Approve such things XIX We are agreed that to make a deliberate Covenant that I will sin against God and to subscribe and declare this is a heinous aggravation of the sin e. g. When the high places were kept up in Judea if any had Covenanted to keep them up and purposed to transgress the wilfulness had been the greatness and dangerous signification of such sinning XX. We are agreed that Repentance is Gods condition of forgiveness and that for a man to resolve and Covenant to sin and to profess it openly to all the Church and that oft times and so to renounce Repentance is alas XXI Most sober Christians are agreed that Christians should be united upon the terms which Christ himself hath made in the baptismal Covenant and in their obedience to his Laws and that Papall Usurpations and imposing of things unnecessary as necessary to Union Communion or Ministration hath been the great cause of Schisms through the Christian world for about 1000 years at least And that they who will still obey such dividing Imposers do continue Schisms in the world by encouraging the causes of them XXII We are on both sides agreed that it were heinous hypocrisie and prophaneness if we should make our sacred Ministerial work the pretended reason for our sinning and should swear declare or subscribe that which we take to be false and do that which we take to be sin that we may have leave to preach against sin in others and so offer God a Sacrifice of iniquity and put a beam into our own eye that we may have leave to Preach against the mote that is in our brothers eye XXIII We are afraid of making Separatists and Anabaptists and tempting men to avoid us as scandalous men XXIV We are afraid lest by such wilful sin we should by a carnal interest to defend what we have once done be tempted to impenitence and to persecute the just XXV We are agreed that they that will run into willful heinous sin as they deserve to be forsaken of God so they cannot expect such a blessing on their Ministry as Conscionable upright men may do XXVI It is agreed that the ancient Christian Pasters Preached against the will of Princes for 300 years and after that against the will of Christian Princes Constartius Valens Theodosius Junior Vaientinian c. And not only Apostles said that God was to be obeyed rather than men but such as Timothy who was ordained by man were charged before God and the Lord Jesus Christ who will judge the living and dead at his appearing and Kingdom to preach the Gospel and be instant in season c. XXVII We are agreed that the Children of Christians when they grow up know no more of God of Heaven of Christ without teaching than the Children of Heathens do And therefore that the opening and applying the Gospel is needful in England as well as in America XXVIII It is so far from saving unbelievers or ungodly persons that they are the Children of Christians and in the visible Church that it maketh their case more miserable if not worse than that of Sodom and Gomorrah XXIX As of old every single Church had usually many Presbyters and Deasons with the Bishop so it is undeniable that many of our Parishes have work enough for many Ministers and only want of maintenance is pretended for our present paucity with the want of worthy men XXX It is granted us that to alienate consecrated persons from the holy Ministry causlesly is greater Sacriledge than to alienate consecrated Lands Goods or Temples which are but means to the use of the said Ministry We are not here accusing our silencers of this heinous Sacriledge Their Righteous Judge and ours will quickly pass the final sentence But we dare not we will not sacrilegiously silence and alienate our selves lest we forsake our Lord and betray mens souls and be doomed as the slothful servant that hid his talent Mat. 25. and bring down more plagues upon the Land We fear when we read 1 Thes 2. 15 16. the signs that wrath was come to the utmost on the Jews even their forbidding men to preach the Gospel of salvation lest we should contribute to such a dreadful desertion of this Land SECT XVII The Case of the Ministers since they were silenced and their Practice with the Peoples WE humbly crave of those narrow Seers who venture to censure the generality for somewhat which they dislike in some persons that are neerest to themselves that they would truly understand the case and practice of their Brethren before they any further in Sermons and Writings provoke the Magistrate to execute the Laws upon them as Schiâ—maticks Seditious or what accusation is readiest at hand I. That the elder sort of the Nonconformists are ordained by Bishops and most of the rest by such Pastors of Churches of Cities Corporations and other Parishes associate as the times then allowed and that in this Ordination be the Ceremonious part right or wrong they are all by Consent or Covenant devoted to the sacred Ministry and that not for a time as hirelings but for life this is denied by none that we know of II. It is known to all Faithful Ministers and others who converse with the common sort of men that a great part of the people of England are ignorant of the very Essentials of Christianity and a great part dull and worldly neglecters of all serious religiousness and a great part senâ—ual drowned in filthy fleshly sins Besides the ignorance weakness and unwarrantable opinions and passions of many that are more seriously religious than the rest And that it is a hard work to cure one ignorant erroneous vitious soul And each one is precious and not to to be left in sin as desperate considering the everlasting consequents III. It is certain that most great Parishes especially in Cities and great Towns have more souls which call for Ministerial help than Conformists and Nonconformists if they lovingly joyned are able well to afford necessary help to IV. The Ministers that dwell in Cities or Corporations when they were cast out did quietly surrender Temples and Tythes But many of their people claimed the continuance of their Relation and Ministry and many professed that they could not trust their souls to the Pastoral guidance and care of many of those who were placed in the Temples in their stead and charged the neglect of their souls on such as refused V. The Bills of Mortality shew us that the 7 Parishes within the walls of
prophesied to be Christian Nations never were distinct Christian Kingdoms but parts of the Empire nor had a National Church or Head being but parts of such a Church Nay when Rome got the National Primacy it had not such a Priestly Governing Soveraignty as the Jews High-Priest had § 25. Though there was no Christian King for three hundred years unless he of Edessa or Lucius of England of whom we have little certainty but it 's like that both were subjects to others yet if a Supream Church-Power had been necessary the Apostles would have before erected it which they never did For even Rome pretendeth to be by them made the Ruler of the whole world and not a meer National Head which Constantinople claimed but not as of Apostolical institution § 27. The question whether the Jews had they believed should have continued their High-Priest and Church Policy is vain as to our purpose 1. It being certain to Christ that they would be dissolved by unbelief And 2. he having setled another way and changed theirs 3. And if their Priesthood and Law except as it typified spiritual things had stood yet it would not have bound the Gentile Christians in other Nations § 28. When Emperours became Christians they did not set up the Jewish Policy nor thought themselves bound to it no nor any setled Priestly Supremacy for National Government For Councils were called but on rare accidents by the Emperours themselves and to decide particular cases about Heresies And the Pope had but the first voice in such Councils § 29. But if every Nation must have the Jewish Policy then the whole Empire must then have one High Priest and then the Pope hath a fair pretence to his claim of a Divine Institution as the Church Soveraign of the whole Empire which it 's like was then seven parts in eight of the whole Christian world at least unless Abassia were then generally Christians as now But then his power would change with the Empire and fall when it falleth § 30. III. But if the question be only whether a National Priestly Soveraignty be lawful or whether God's general Rules for Concord Order Edification do bind the Churches prudentially to erect such a form To this they sayas followeth 1. We will first lay hold on certainties and not prefer uncertainties before them We are sure that such a power of Apostles and Pastors as is before mentioned was established and that the junior Pastors were as Sons to the seniors ordained by them Whether the power of Ordaining and Governing Ministers was by Apostolical Establishment appropriated to men of a superiour degree in the sacred Ministry seemeth to us very dark 2. We are past doubt that all particular Churches by Apostolical order had Bishops and that a Church was as Hierom saith Plebs Episcopo adunata and as Ignatius the Unity of every Church was notified by this that to every Church there was one Altar and one Bishop at that time and as Cyprian Ubi Episcopus ibi Ecclesia 3. And we are satisfied that every Presbyter is Episcopus Gregis whoever claim to be Episcopi Episcoporum which the Carthage Council in Cyprian renounced 4. And we are satisfied that no Church-superiours have authority to destroy the particular Church form Ministry Doctrine Worship or Discipline which were setled by the Holy Ghost in the Apostles And that the priviledges and duties of these single particular Churches being plainest and surest in Scripture they must be continued whatever Canons or Commands of any superiour Priests should be against them 5. Nor can they force any man to sin 6. Nor have any Priests a forcing power by the sword or violence but only the power of the Word and Keys that is of taking in or putting out of the Church where they have power and binding men over on just cause to the judgment of God The power that they have is from Christ and for him and not against him and for the Churches edisication and not destruction and what is pretended contrary to this is none They cannot dispense with the Laws of God but preach and execute them 7. And these things being thus secured though in our doubts we dare not swear or subscribe that National Patriarchal Provincial or Metropolitical Powers are of God's institution yet we resolve to live in all Christian peaceableness and submission when such are over us § 31. And we must profess that when we find how anciently and commonly one Presbyter in each Church was peculiarly called the Bishop without whom there was no ordinary ordinations and against whom in matters of his power none was to resist and also how generally the Churches in the Roman Empire conformed themselves to an imitation of the civil power as to their limits in all the official part being all subject to the Emperour who set up no Ecclesiastical Peer we are not so singular or void of reverence to those Churches as not by such notices to be much the more inclined to the aforesaid submission and peaceableness under such a power nor are we so bold or rash as to reproach it or condemn the Churches and excellent persons that have practised it §32 Nay we have already said that securing the state worship doctrine and true discipline of the inferiour particular Parish Churches there are some of us that much incline to think that Archbishops that is Bishops that have some oversight of many Churches with their Pastors are Lawful successours of the Apostles in the ordinary part of their work And such of us have long ago said that the Episcopal Government of the Bohemian Waldenses described by Commenius and Lascitius is most agreable to our judgment of any that we know excercised Therefore that which we humbly offered for our concord in England at His Majesties Restauration was Archbishop Ushers form of the Primitive Church Government not attempting any diminution of the Power wealth or honour of the Diocesanes or Archbishops but only a restauration of the Presbyters to their proper Office-work and some tolerable discipline to the particular Parish Churches §33 But we must ever much difference so much of Church order and Government as God himself hath instituted and is purely divine and unchangeable from those accidentals which men ordain though according to Gods general Rules For these are often various and mutable and are means to the former and never to be used against them And of these accidentals of Government we say as they that say no such form is fixed by God Concord order decency and edification are alwaies necessary But oft times it may be indifferent whether concord order and decency be expressed by this accidental way or that And that which is most congruous for order decency edification and concord in one Countrey Church or time may be incongruous in another Therefore if the question be but how far the giving one Bishop or Pastor power over others or making disparity of Cities in conformity to
State though not alwaies materially And that the King as King is but an Accidental Civil Head as he is over Physicians and Schoolmasters being neither himself and that the National Church must have a formal Clergy-head Personal or Collective which shall in suo genere be the highest though under the Magisttates Civil Government as Physicians are 4. The Papists say that all National Churches are under the Pope as Universal Pastor who may alter them as he seeth cause 5. Some moderate men say that only Diocesan and Metropolitical Churches are jure Divino and that they are called National only improperly from one King or concording association as ab accidente and not properly from any formal Clergy-head § 43. VI. Lastly which is the formal Head of the Church of England and so what that Church is we are left as much uncertain 1. If it be only a Civil Head that denominateth it One then it is but a Christian Kingdom which we never questioned And Dr. Rich. Cosins in his Tables of the English Church-Policy saith That the King hath Administrationem supremam magisque absolutam quae dicitur Primatus Regius And Tho. Crompton in his dedication of it to K. James saith Ecclesiastica Jurisdictio plane Regia est Coronae dignitatis vestrae Regiae prima praecipua indivisibilis pars Ecclesiasticae leges Regiae sunt neque alibi oriuntur aut aliunde sustentantur aut fulciuntur penes Ecclesiasticos judices per Archiepiscopos Episcopos derivata a Rege potestate jurisdictio Ecclesiastica consist it And yet our Kings and Church explaining the Oath of Allegiance declare that the King pretendeth not to the Priesthood or power to administer the Word and Sacraments but as Crompton adds from Constantine is extra Ecclesiam constitutus a Deo Episcopus alii intra Ecclesiam Episcopi This is plain If they hold to this and claim no power in the English-Policy but as the Kings Officers in that part which belongeth to Christian Magistrates who will oppose them But this reacheth not to the Keys Preaching or Sacraments 2. Some say that the King is partly a Clergy man as Melchizedek and so that he is the formal Head and might perform the Priestly Office if he would But this our Kings have themselves renounced 3. Some say that the Archbishop of Canterbury is the formal Head but that cannot be because he is no Governour over the Arch-Bishop of York or his Province 4. Most say that the Convocation is the formal Church-Head which makes it One Political Church But 1. If so then why saith the Canon that the Convocation is the true Church of England by Representation and those excommunicate that deny it We enquire after the Church-Head or Governour And that which is but the Church it self by representation is not its Head unless the Head and Body be the same and the Church govern it self and so it be Democratical The governed and Governours sure are not the same 2. And the Supream Power is supposed by those that take Episcopacy for a distinct Order to be in the Supream Order only But the far greater part of the Convocation are not of the Supream Order Nay thus the Presbyters should be partly the chief Governours of the Bishops while they make Canons for them 3. When we did but motion that according to Arch-Bishop Ushers form of the Primitive Episcopacy Presbyters might joyn with the Bishops in proper executive Church-government instead of Lay-Chancellors and such like they decryed it as Presbytery and call us Presbyterians ever since And if they say that the Presbyters have so great a part in the Supream Government it self which obligeth all the Nation how much more would they be themselves Presbyterians which they so abhor § 44. Having oft said that we desire Christian Kingdoms as the great blessing of the world we mean not either that 1. All in a Kingdom should be forced to be baptized or profess themselves Christians whether they are so or not For lying will not save men nor please God and even the Papists are against this 2. Nor that all should be supposed to be Christians that are in the Kingdom But that the Kings be Christians and the Laws countenance Christianity and the most or ruling part of the Kingdom be Christians and all just endeavours used to make all the rest so The Ancient Churches continued them Catechumens till they were fit for Baptism and though they were for Infant-Baptism they compelled none to be baptized in Infancy or at Age but left it to free choice They baptized but twice a year ordinarily They kept many offenders many years from communion And if Crabs Roman Council sub silvest be true they at Rome admitted not penitents till fourty years understand it as you see cause The true Elibertine Canons kept many out so many years and many till death and many absolutely as shewed that they were far from taking all the Nation into the Church And the Christian Emperours compelled none It was long before the greatest part of the Empire were Christians In the daies of Valens the Bishops were some of them banished into places that had few Christians if any In France it self even in St. Martin's daies the Christians of his flock were not the most but he wrought miracles to convince the Heathens that raged against Christianity where he dwelt c. § 1. There are two appendent Controversies handled by some that write for National Churches which need but a brief solution The first is whether it be not an Independent Errour to expect real holiness in Church-members as necessary in the judgment of charity The second Whether it be not such an Errour to require the bond of a Covenant beside the Baptismal Covenant § 2. To the first we say that so much is written on this point by one of us in a Treatise called Disputations of Right to Sacraments c. that we think meet to say no more The Opponents now confess that it must be saving Faith and Consent to the Baptismal Covenant that must be professed And Papists and Protestants agree with all the Ancient Church that Baptism putteth the true Consenter into a state of certain pardon and title to life And God maketh not known lying a condition of Church-communion He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved It is true that God hath not made Ministers Arbitrary Judges of mens secret thoughts but hath limited them in judging to take their tongues that profess Faith and Consent to be the Indices of their minds But sure the power of the Keys containeth a power of judging according to Christ's Law who is to be taken into the Church by Baptism and who not If only the seeker be made Judge it will be a new way of Church-Government and a bad And then the question is 1. Whether he that accepts ones profession seemingly serious of Faith and Consent and that de praesente is not bound to hope in charity that such
For all that he inferreth or can infer from them all is obligation to consent and to other duties after consent But obligation maketh not the relation of a member All that are obliged to be Christians are not Christians All that are obliged to be Pastors are not Pastors Nor all that are obliged to consent first and to do the duty of Pastors after Even as all that are obliged to consent to be subjects Husbands Wives Masters Servants Tutors Scholars c. are not such If meer obligation serve to one relation why not to others 2. Else a man might be a true Pastor unchosen unordained and against his will For he may by his qualifications be obliged to be ordained and to become a Pastor 3. And so the people may be the flock of one that was obliged to be their Pastor when another is set over them and in possession because it was the first that was obliged and they to choose him And so utter Confusion will come in And if a man can prove that another mans wife and servant was obliged to be his he may take them as his indeed 3. By this rule all the Papists Seekers Quakers c. that renounce our Churches should yet be members of them because they live in the Parish and are commanded to be members Which who believeth 4. A member of a Church hath right to Communion and Ministerial vigilancie and help But so hath not every baptized person that is commanded to be a member and obeyeth not that command If a man say to a Pastor I will be none of your flock or Church but yet I require you to do the office of a Pastor to me though I renounce your relation to me and the people to use me as a member of the flock because I am commanded to be a member this were a strange claim 5. If this did hold then no man that liveth in the Parish could be a proper separatist so as to break off himself from that Church nor become a member of another unless he apostatized from Christ For he would be still under the Magistrates Command and obligation But the consequent is absud Why do the same men speak so much against schismatical rending mens selves from the true Churches and gathering other Churches if there be no such thing The Laws change not which oblige them 6. They that are against schism and singularity should be against this opinion because as it is utterly absurd so it is notoriously contrary to the Judgment of all the Christian world in all ages to this day as acquaintance with Church history may fully inform them They have ever taken mutual consent between the Pastors and the flock to be necessary to the being of a particular Church and that whatever they were obliged to they were not actually related to each other as Pastor and flock till they consented And therefore have noted schismatical Churches in the same Cities that have been no parts of the Church which they disowned § 8. But it is objected that this unchurcheth our Parish-Churches and all the Churches in the world Ans Not one But the contrary would Our Parish Churches are associated by mutual consent The Pastor expresseth his consent openly at his institution induction and officiating The Flocks shew their consent by actual submitting to his Ministerial Office They hear him and communicate ordinarily with him and seek Ministerial help from him though all that are in the Parish do not so those do it that are indeed his flock or Church They do not perhaps by word or writing covenant to submit to him as their Pastor but they do it by actual signification of consent to the relation And the Bishops in Consecration enter into a Covenant to watch over the flock as do the Priests and the Priests promise if not swear in England to obey them This is a Covenant §9 It is objected that this is a disparagement to Baptism which is the only Church-making Covenant Ans Baptism only as such maketh us members of the universal Church but is not enough to make us of any Ministers special flock I am not a member of the Church of York Norwich Bristol c. because I am baptized Nor am I a member of the Parish Church now where I was baptized Consent to be a Christian is one thing and consent to be a member of this particular Church and to take this man more than all the rest about us for the Guide of my soul is another §10 And if a man would say I will be a member of this Parish Church and you shall perform so much of your Office as I desire and no more I will hear and receive the Sacrament but when I please and I will not admit you to catechize or instruct any of my family nor visit the sick nor will I be responsible to you for any thing that I hold or say or do nor have any thing to do with you but in the Church is a Minister bound to do his office to men or take them for his special flock on these terms The ancient Churches had abundance of strict Canons if the people should have chosen a Bishop and said We will obey none of these Canons nor you but you shall be our Bishop on our terms was he bound to have consented and to have been such a Bishop This is really the case of no small part of England though they say it not openly by words §11 It is objected that as Apostles so ordained Ministers have their authority before the consent of the people and receive it not from them Ans 1. Who ever questioneth it that is considerate as to an indefinite charge in the Church universal But what 's that to the question Are all the Ministers in the world bound to be the Pastors of this Parish or Diocess Our question is what constituteth the relations between a Pastor and his Particular flock Doth not the ordainer here say Take thou Authority to Preach the Word of God c. when thou art thereto lawfully called Because a man is a Licensed Physician without me doth it follow that he is my Physician without my consent 2. Are all those Church-members that Ministers are authorized to preach to Then all the Heathen-world are Church-members 3. They receive not authority from the people but their consent is necessary to make themselves capable receivers of the relation and right of Church-members God and not the Wife giveth the Husband the superiority but he is no such Husband to any that consenteth not §12 God hath laid mens rights and benefits on their wills so that no man can have them against his will It is a great priviledge to have right to communion with a particular Church and to this or that faithful Pastors oversight And its new Doctrine to say that unwilling persons have this right because they are willing of something else viz. to be members of the Church universal §13 We conclude