their several fixed Provinces which I never saw proved I will not contend whether those Provinces may be called Churches If we agree about the thing use the name as you see cause Sect. 9. And to your talk of our Bishops being of the same sort I ask you whether any of the Bishops for 300 years or for long after save Cyril Alexand. by violence did ever use or claim any power over any Ministers or Christians besides meer fatherly Teaching Perswading urging Gods Word on them and applying it to the consciences of particular Persons by Admonitions verbal Censures and Absolutions Did they meddle by Force with Body or Purse Let your Bishops use no other force or way of constraint than the Apostles did if they be their Successors and not lay the excommunicate in Prisons and ruine their Bodies and Estates valeat quantum valere potest But Mr. Glanvile and many of you tell us how little you care for it without the Sword Sect. 10. If any man will but consider what I cited out of Greg. Nazianzen that saith Men unfit were so ambitious to be of the Clergy that the Clergy was in many Churches almost as many as the Laity And that Presbyters then were much like the Presbyterians Elders save that they had the power of Word and Sacraments though they seldom exercised Preaching in Cities but left that to the Bishop and that the number of their Acoluthi Exorcistae Ostiarii Lectores Subdiaconi Diaconi c. made up the great body of them And the very Boys and Schollars that were bred up under them yea or but for Church-singing are sometimes joyned to make up the number see Isidor de Offic. Eccl. L. 2. even all the Monks are often numbred with them And Victor cited by him seemeth to number twice the Infantuli so bred up with the great number of Readers to the Carthage Clergy I say he that considers all this will not judge of the number of people or Churches by the number of the Clergy as he would do now with us where the great Parishes have but two or three Priests Sect. 11. And as to the cause that I plead for it is enough that I have proved that even when the name of Bishop was confined to the Episcopi Pastorum yet the Presbyters had the power of the Keys and were Episcopi Gregis and exercised this power in their distant Countrey assemblies though under the Bishop and the Bishop was to exercise his with them as Assistants so that the particular Churches were not really unchurched Sect. 12. p. 265. He cometh nearer our controversie but first falsly stateth the question supposing that I say that the whole power of the Presbyters is swallowed up by the Bishops And is the disputing of a question falsly stated of any profit I only said that the office of a Church-Pastor or Presbyter hath three essential parts viz. the power of Teaching the Church of conducting them in Worship and Governing the people by the use of the Keys And that he that destroyeth one part that is essential though he swallow not up all the power altereth the essence of the Office and that so the English Diocesan Form doth I have largely proved in my Treat of Episcopacy which he doth not answer Sect. 13. 1. He tells us that the Presbyters are the lower house in the Convocation and so have their Votes in passing all the Rules of Discipline Articles of Doctrine and Forms of divine Service Ans 1. According to his description the Church of England hath no one Ecclesiastical Government either Monarchical or Aristocratical or Democratical And therefore the Acts of the Convocation are no Acts of governing the Church of England but meer Agreements Therefore this proveth not the Presbyters power of governing it 2. If this be a part of Government it is the Legislative Part or the Executive The later it is not The former the Lawyers say it is not King and Parliament only being Legislators But if this be Legislation we deny it to be any of the power of the Keys in question which is but to judge who is fit or unfit for Church-communion to Admonish Absolve or Excommunicate according to Christs Law and is the execution of Christs Law and not the making of new Laws 3. It is lis sub judice whether the things here named be any part of true lawful Church-Government Rules of Discipline Christ hath made enough except about meer mutable Accidents Articles of Doctrine man must not otherwise make than to declare what he believeth Christ hath made Forms of Divine Service commanded to all others the Apostles never made nor that we find appointed any others to make them If these be lawful by way of agreement of many Churches this is none of the Power we speak of Yet he calls this one of the greatest Rights of Government viz. making Rules for the whole body which he denyeth to have any constitutive Government Sect. 14. He saith In this main part of Government our Church falls behind none of the ancient Churches only there they were taken singly in every City c. Ans That is 1. When the Ministers of a Diocess choose four out of whom the Bishops take two And 2. This only to make agreements without any governing power over the Church of England 3. And this only about general Regulation 4. In either unlawful or doubtful Impositions on others about meer Accidents or Circumstances of Order This is the same or as good as when every true Church hath present Pastors personally to exercise the executive Church-Government called the Keys by the Laws of Christ already made in judging the case of each particular Person as to his Title to Church-communion and the Kingdom of Heaven For that is the thing which by us is pleaded for Sect. 15. Next he tells us of four that are to joyn in Ordinatiom and Examination when 1. It is not the making or governing of Pastors which I am speaking of but the Government of the Flocks 2. He knoweth that it is no strange thing for our Bishops to say that both in Convocations and Ordination the Presbyters act only as the Bishops Council and the Bishops only act by governing authority 3. I never disputed for Presbyters Power to ordain as essential to them nor did I ever meddle in any Ordination 4. If four Presbyters have such power that proveth not that four hundred have it that never exercise it in the same Diocess 5. If by all this you mean that really Presbyters have the governing Power of the Keys it condemneth those the more that give it to four and deny it to four hundred or one thousand 6. When I was ordained none examined us but the Bishops Chaplain and two or three City Ministers called by the Bishop that never saw us before meerly pro formâ laid hands on us with him But it 's well that you give such a power to ordain Sect. 16. Next p. 267. he
I think not invalidate and yet this goeth for no justification of us so is it with others § 10. Some think that it is a Conventicle as described by their Cannon that must make us Separatists which is of men that call themselves of another Church But that 's not it Mr. Gouge Mr. Poole Mr. Humphrey and my self and abundance more that never gathered any Church nor called our selves of any other then their own are nevertheless separatists in these mens account § 11. They that remembred what was called Separation in England of old supposed it had these two degrees which made men called Brownists First falsly taking the Parish Ministers and Churches for no true Ministers and Churches of Christ and therefore not to be Communicated with Secondly or in the lower rank falsly taking the faults of the Parish Ministers and Churches to be so great that its a sin to have ordinary Communion with them But they that have still disclaimed both these are Separatists still in our Accusers sence § 12. Some thought that ordinary Communicating in the Parish Churches and pleading for it would prove us no separatists with them But this will not serve as my own and many other mens Experience proveth § 13. I am called after to say more of this The sum of my separation is this First that I take not the Parish Churches to be the only Churches that I must Communicate with and will not confine my Communion to them alone as if they were a sect or All But will also have Communion with Dutch French or Nonconformists 2. I take not the Order Discipline and mode of worship in the Parish Churches nor the Preaching of very many Parsons Vicars and Curates to be the best and most desirable 3. I take those to be no true Political Churches which have no Pastors that have all the Qualifications and Call and Authority which is Essential to the Office and therefore can communicate with them but as with a flock without a Pastor or an Oratory Community or Catechized Company 4. I live peaceably under such Bishops as have many hundred Parishes and no Episcopos Gregis true Bishops and Pastoral Churches under them as they think But I own not their Constitution 5. I joyn with all the Churches in England as Associated for mutual help and Concord in all that the Scripture prescribeth and in all the Protestant Religion and all that all Christian Churches are agreed in and all that is truly needful to the ends of Christianity But not absolutely in all which their Canons Liturgy c. conttaine Especially their sinful Impositions and their Presumtious Canonical Excommunications of dissenters ipso facto 6. I am one of the Christian Kingdom of England as under the King according to the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy and am for obeying the Laws and Rules in all things lawfully belonging to their Power to command But not for obeying them in sin against God nor for believing all to be Lawful because they command it nor for their taking down Family Government or self Government and discerning private Judgment of the subjects This is my measure of separation § 14. And I think in cases that concern our own and many mens Salvation we should have leave freely to speak for our selves and not be used as we are that must neither be endured to be silent or to speak Let this Dr. open our case to you himself saith he Pref. p. 36. Speaking of my first Plea for Peace As though it had been designed on purpose to represent the Clergy of our Church as a Company of Notorious Lying and Perjured Villains for Conforming to the Laws of the Land and orders established among us For there are no less than thiâ—ty tremendous aggravations of the sin of Conformity set down in it and all this done without the 〈…〉 provocation given on oue side And elswhere he saith he shall less regard my aggravations Ans 1. If I do that which you think as bad I would gladly be told of it though false accusations I desire not And impenitence is too soon learnt without a Teacher or Academical degrees and I had rather be saved from it 2. But Reader I once more appeal to the Judgment of all reason and humanity as well as Christianity to decide the case of this Accusation 1. We did in 1660. and 1661. All that we were able by labour petition and yielding as far as we durst for fear of sin and Hell to have been united and lived in Church Concord with the Episcopal party 2. When our labour and hopes were frustrate and two thousand of us cast out of the Ministery and afterwards laws made against us as Conventiclers first for our Fining Imprisonment and then Banishment and after besides Imprisonment to pay twenty pound the first Sermon and forty pound the next and so on when after this the Law that banished us from all Cities Corporations c. and places where we lately Preached did most deeply accuse us as the cause I never wrote so much as the reasons of our dissent When by the execution of these Laws we were by Informers and others used as is well known I was still silent My not conforming shewed my dissent but I durst not so much as once tell them why lest it should more exasperate them 3. At last I was often told that the Bishop that first forbad my Preaching and many others after him oft said to Great men Mr. Baxter keeps up a Schism and yet holds all our conformity lawful save renouncing a rebellious Covenant And I yet continued silent 4. At last they wrote against us that we durst not say that any part of Conformity was sin but only inconvenient 5. Then many pulpits and books proclaim that we against our Consciences kept up a Schism for a baffled cause which we had nothing to say for 6. All this while Lords and Commons used to ask us what is it that you would have and what keepeth you from Conformity In private talk but would never allow us to speak for our selves and give the world or Parliament our reasons 7. Many years together Pulpits and Printed Books of the Clergy cryed out to the Magistrates to execute the Laws against us and as one said set fire to the Fagot and blamed them for not doing it 8. When the King gave us his Licence they were greatly offended as aforesaid 9. At last one great Bishop told me that he would desire the King to constraine us to give our reasons and not keep up a Schism and not tell for what And another greater told me that the King took us to be not sincere that would not give our reasons And all this while I durst not give them as knowing how they would be received 10. When the Bishops kept me from Preaching and gave me leisure I wrote 1. An Apology for our Preaching 2 A Treatise of Episcopacy and divers other such and yet durst not Print them
If in the beginning of Queen Elizabeths Reign when abundance of Papist Priests staid in the Churches for their Benefices a man had quietly gone from them to the Nonconformists I could not blame him though he had not been sure that they were not changed And I still say that if such erre by too much care to avoid sin and save their souls 1. It is a far greater error to give them the occasion 2. And in such as you to say that therefore they must be so far forsaken as that none may preach to them If I may preach to no erring people 1. I must preach to none 2. Or be no Physician to any that are sick And I must say that though I found no call to gather any together as a Church and give them the Sacrament I cannot say that no other had such unless I had heard them all speak for themselves yea I see such notorious need in many places that I dare not blame them Sect. 5. And now Reader Qu. whether the Dr. hath truly stated the case between him and me and whether you can expect truth and edification in his handling of a false-stated case These are the questions which as my accuser in his Book he should have handled had truth been his design 1. Whether for one that holdeth so much Communion with their Churches as I have done and here describe it be sinful separation to Preach in and Communicate with the Assemblies of Nonconformists or mixt ones as I have done 2. Whether to deny this to be sinful Separation or Separation as commonly taken for Schism be disingenious and worse than theirs that openly renounce their Communion Sect. 6. Three things he saith p. 94. we cannot deny 1. That there is no reason of Separation because of thâ— Doctrine of their Church Answ 1. We distinguish of Separation There is no reason to separate from you as no Church or further than we do there is reason to deny our consent 1. To your foresaid Doctrine of all baptized dying Infants undoubted salvation not excepting those of Atheists and Infidels 2. To your included Doctrine implyed in your Impositions viz. That if a man have unlawfully made a Vow and Oath to endeavour in his Place and Calling to reform some corruptions in Church-Government yea or to repent of his sin and oppose Popery Prophaneness and Schism there is no obligation on him from that Oath and Vow to do it These and such other Doctrines we separate from so far as to reject them Sect. 7. His second supposed Concession is That there is no other reason of Separation because of the terms of our Communion than what was from the beginning of the Reformation Answ 1. There are in my judgment no common reasons for going further from you than we do nor to justifie that which is commonly known by the name of Separation But there are many and great reasons to justifie our measure of dissent and ministration and to say that we grant there are no more reasons now than were then is too bold an untruth There is more reason 1. From the quality of the things imposed 2. From the designs and drift of the Imposition 3. From the effects 4. From the aggravation of Conformity as in the Church that we must communicate with 5. From the things which give us a fuller cause for our Preaching and Assemblies viz. 1. The late general contrary Church State and Engagement to it 2. The Plague 3. The burning of the Churches 4. The Kings License and Clemency 5. The number and quality of them that seek our helps Of these briefly in order 1. As to the things imposed now which were not then 1. The Vestry Act was not then made by which so considerable a part of your Parish Churches as the Vestries are to renounce all obligations to endeavour any alteration of the Government of the Church from the Oath and Vow called the Covenant So that all Reformation of Church Government as so sworn was thus renounced by them who in a sort represent the Parish Church 2. The Act of Uniformity had not then imposed the same declarative Renunciation of all such obligation on all the Ministers and Schoolmasters in England as it now doth 3. The Corporation Act was not then in being which constituteth all the Officers in power in all Cities and Corporations of such only as declare that there is no obligation from the said Oath at all not excepting so much as the sworn duties of opposing Popery Prophaneness and Schism to repent of sin and amend our lives And if swearing and vowing against Schism no whit bind men if the Oath were but unlawfully imposed why should the Dr. make so great a matter of it and think that his reasonings should make men afraid of Gods service if he will but call it Schism 4. None of these Acts then required men to profess and subscribe that there is from that Vow or Oath no such Obligation on any other person and so to become Vouchers for the Souls and Consciences of many hundred thousands whom we never saw even those Parliament men that were not forced to it but imposed it on others when we know not in what sense they took it 5. The Re-ordination of Ministers ordained by Presbyteries was not then required and made a necessary condition of their Ministration and Church Relation even by them that confess Re-ordination unlawful and therefore plainly intimate the nullity of the first 6. The Act of Uniformity was not then made which requireth all Ministers publickly to declare their Assent and Consent to all things contained in and prescribed by the Liturgy Book of Ordination though part of this was in a Canon 7. The false Rule for finding Easter-day was not then to be assented and consented to as a condition of the Ministry 8. Nor the new Doctrine or Article of Faith of the undoubted certainty by Gods word that baptized dying Infants are saved without any exception of the children of Atheists c. For the old words at Confirmation as many Drs. of the Church have shewed only meant that nothing else was necessary on the Churches part that is not Confirmation 9. The word Pastor as applyed to Parish Ministers distinct from Curates was not then blotted out of most places in the Liturgy nor the twentieth of Acts as applied to Presbyters left out Take heed to your selves and the Flock c. in plain design to alter the Office and Parish Churches 10. The Oxford Oath was not then imposed to banish Ministers above five miles from all Cities and Corporations and Places where they had of late years preached so that their old Flock or Friends yea Wives and Children that could not follow them might not so much as see or hear such Ministers in their Families or familiar converse that would have come to the publick Churches And all Nonconformist Ministers that took not the Oath were thereby forbidden to come to the Parish Churches
more such might have deceived a man that judged by his words And his arguing that it is unlawful to preach to them because it is unlawful to hear What was the meaning of all this if not silencing us Sect. 34. p. 140. The next Crime is Plea p. 42. As long as they suppose the terms of our Communion to be sinful they say The Schism doth not lie on those that separate but on those that do impose such terms and therefore they may lawfully separate from such imposers Ans It 's hard to know what words to use to detect all these historical untruths without being thought passionate 1. I never said that supposing them sinful will justifie a false supposer but have oft said the clean contrary their supposing is of his forging 2. I said not the Schism doth not lie on those that separate but only that it's Schism in the Imposers This also is his Fiction 3. And I said not and therefore they may lawfully separate from such imposers But all Readers will not stay to find out his Forgeries But how much of this he said once himself see in my Chap. 1. Sect. 49. But here he comes to some closing distinction which should have gone before Between terms of Communion plainly and in themselves sinful and such as are only fancied to be so through prejudice or wilful ignorance or error of conscience Ans What a deal of labour might he have spared himself and us if he had here fixed the Controversie in the beginning we thankfully accept your late distinction we ever desired here to put it to the Issue If it be through prejudice wilful Ignorance or Error that we judge Conformity a sin not only Separation but Nonconformity is a sin If we do not prove some parts of Conformity for one is enough to be plainly sinful which are imposed as Conditions of our Ministerial Communion and somewhat imposed on the people as conditions 〈◊〉 all that part of your Communion which I ever disswaded them from let the blame be ours Sect. 35. He passeth next to them that deal more ingenuously than I in owning Separation And then returneth to me p. 151. and he over and over repeateth his false accusation that I think it lawful to communicate with them occasionally but not as Churches as thinking they want an essential part viz. a Pastor with Episcopal Power but as Oratories and so that I renounce Communion with their Churches as Churches Answ If these untruths had been made without evidence only and not also against evidence they had been the more excuseable in a man of consideration But now they are not so when I have so often declared that I take the Parish Churches that have true Pastors for true governed Churches and prove that they have true Bishops Episcopos Gregis whether the Diocesans will or not because Gods Will and not the Investers instituteth their Office and measureth their power and the people shew their consent by constant Communion Sect. 36. Then because I never gathered a Church nor baptized any in 20 years nor gave the Sacrament in 18 he would know what Church I have been of all this time and he supposeth of no Church Ans I thought he had done with this before but he thinks it an advantage not to be so easily let go Would he know 1. What my Thoughts were 2. Or my Church-Covenant 3. Or my actual Communion He shall know all 1. I thought divers Ministers where I lived true Pastors and the Churches true Churches I cannot say so of every Curate 2. I made no Covenant with any of them If I had Mr. Cheny would have condemned me of Atheism Infidelity and what not 3. With divers of them I went constantly to the Liturgy Sermon and Sacrament as with true Churches with some of them I only joyned in prayer and hearing I heard Dr. Rieves till he caused me to be sent to Jail and then I could not And though I was accused by many for hearing a swearer I told them he swore not in the Pulpit I heard his poor Curate constantly when I was accused for hearing a Drunkard and told them that he was not drunk in the Pulpit But I must tell you I communicated also with some Nonconformists And now account me of a Church or no Church as you please I doubt you are renewing the Independant Questions with me which I am loth to dispute 1. Qu. Whether an ordained Minister must be a private Member of another mans Church Q. 2. Whether when a Non-resident Dean leaveth his Parish to an ignorant drunken Curate the Parish Church be essentiated by its relation to the Resident Curate or the Non-resident Dean Q. 3. Whether a Minister not degraded but silenced living in such a Parish is bound toâ—ke that Curate for one that hath the Pastoral Charge of his Soul and aâ— the rest of the flock to commit his Soul to his Pastoral Conduct in personal private and publick Offices 4. But I would ask the Dean himself whether a man may not be a fixed Member of two or three Churches at once The Reasons of the Quaere are 1. Because by them a man may be the sixed Pastor of two or three Parish Churches at once And an Integral Member of many is not so hard a case as to be a constitutive Regent Part of many 2. Because a man may have two houses in two Parishes at once As many Londoners have half their Family at a near Country house and half at a City house and are themselves part of the week or day at one and part at the other And they make Covenants with neither but what actual Communion intimateth Q. â— And if so why might not I at once be judged a Member of two Churches at once so far as I communicate oft with both I therefore answer his question further what Church I was a Member of 1. I was a Member of Christs Universal Church Is that none and yet is in the Creed 2. I was a Member of the reformed Church if you will call that One because associated in one Reformed Religion 3. I was a Member of the Church of England both as a Christian Kingdom and as the Churches in England agreeing in the Christian Reformed Religion 4 I was a Member of the Provincial Church of Canterbury so far as living peaceably in it and submitting both to such power as they had from the King as Magistrates and a meer general helping instructing care of many Churches could make me 5. So far also I was a Member of the Diocesan Churches where I lived 6. And I was a Member of some Parochial Churches so far as constant Communion could make or prove me And of others two at once so far as partial and moveable Communion could prove me If this will not satisfie you I have proved before and oft to some Independants that many men are under no obligation to be fixed Members of any Parish Church whether the
am glad I understand you § 12. Saith he Quest By what way this National consent is to be declared By the Constitutions of this Church the Arch-Bishops Bishops and Presbyters summoned by the King 's Writ are to advise and declare their judgments in matters of Religion which received and enacted by Parliament there is as great a National consent as to any Law And all the Bishops Ministers and People make up this National Church Answ Now we are come to the bottom And 1. Our question is of the Constitution of the Church and the Doctor tells us the Administration makes it To consult and advise and make Laws are acts of Administration and follow the Constitution Men must have Power before they use it and must be a Church before they act 〈◊〉 Church 2. Yea to Advise and Consult are not so much as acts proper to administring Government but belong to those that are no Governours also 3. If they be no Laws till the Parliament make them such then either the Parliament are your Church Head or you have none that 's Ecclesiastical But having your plain Confession that you have no such Regent part and so are no Church Political save Civil but a meer Association I ask § 13. 1. Why do you pretend that we are none of the Church of England or that we vent our spleen against it or deny it who deny not Associated Churches in England under one Civil Government 2. How unhappily are the Church-Defenders and Conformists disagreed Read Mr. Dodwell and many such others that take the Church to be a Governed body Politick and see what they will judg of you 3. Are not you and I liker to be of one Church of England who agree what it is than you and those Bishops and Doctors that speak of two different things and agree not so much as what it is 4. Have you not brought your Defence of the Church of England to a fair issue by denying that there is any such Church in the questioned political sense 5. What made you before talk of being under one Government If you meant only Civil Is your Governed Church as such only Civil or a Kingdom only 6. Do you not now absolve all men from the duty of obeying the Church of England aâ— such and from all guilt of disobeying them How can men Govern that are no Governours and how can we obey them It 's only the Civil power then that we herein disobey If you say that all the Bishops are Governours and altogether govern the whole I answer Yes per partes but not as a whole or Church If twenty Families in a Village agree as Masters and Servants to go one way as Consenters this maketh no one Government of the Village If the Physicians of London consent to one Pharmacopeia that maketh them not a body Politick If twenty Sea Captains consent to go one Voyage by one rule each one is a Governour of his own Ship but this maketh no Government of the whole All the Justices and Mayors of England rule the Kingdom per partes by the same Law But all together make not one Aristocracy to Govern the Kingdom as One whole Unless your Bishops c. are United in One persona Politica or Aristocracy they may rule their several Churches but they make not one common Government for the National Church as such An agreement of the Emperour Spaniard and other Confederates make not one Kingdom or body Politick 7. How can they be Schismaticks for disobeying them that are not their Governours 8. How come Dissenters bound by Parliament consent If it never was in their minds to trust them as Consenters for them yea and declare their own dissent as most of the Nation did lately against Prelacy and Liturgy yea and their chosen representatives Have such representatives more power to express our consent than we our selves 9. You unhappily erre with Hooker in your popular Politicks if you think that the Laws bind us only because we consent to them by our Representatives or that as such they make them Whereas it is as by Consenting in the Constitution they are made part of the Rullers or Legislators and not meerly as if we made the Laws by them 10. And as to Convocation consent how binds it all those that never consented to them How is the City of London so bound to Conform when they had not one chosen Clerk but only the Dignitaries in the Convocation that made us our Conformity the two chosen by them being refused by the Bishops 11. Will not you pass for an asserter of the Principles of Independency that not only say The Keys are given to the whole body and the Convocation represent the People c. but also that England is one Church but by consent without consenting to any one Constitutive Regent Church head The Independants are for a National Church meerly by confederacy and consent without National Government of it 12. You go further from the Episcopal Politicks than the Presbyterians do For they make an Aristocratical Regent Part but you make none 13. I doubt some Statesmen will be angry with you that say there is no power of Church Government in England but from the King as Head as Crumptâ—â— before Cousins Tables and others ordinarily 14. Do you make England in essentials any more one Church than England and any Foreigners agreeing are one Did the Synod of Dâ—rt make us one with them Do large Councils make many Nations one Church Did the Heptarchy make England one Kingdom when seven Kings Governed the whole by parts but none the whole as such 15. I beseech you think what you have done against the Parochial Diocesane and Provincial Churches in England Have none of these have not each of these a Regent Constitutive part Are none of them true Churches in sensu politico You dare not say No. If they are You have said that visible Churches as Parts unavoidably require a visible Head to the whole by which I bring in the Pope because you think Christ will not serve the turn And do you not say that all these Churches are parts of the Church of England And if you deny it to have one Regent part do you not then either destroy the rest or use the name Church equivocally to these several sorts so heterogeneal 16. I pray you tell us from whom our Arch-bishops receive their power If you say from the Bishops and so Inferiours or Equals may give power why may not Presbyters make Presbyters or Bishops and generare speciem If it must come from Superiours the Church of England hath none such 17. If the Peoples consent can make a National Church why may it not make an Independant or Presbyterian Church 18. If the Nations consent as such make the Church of England it is not made by Legislative power of King and Parliament 19. Do the Clergy represent the King or is he none of the Church 20. How prove you that the
thing the doubt is whether their undertaking to educate another mans Child be lawful while he is bound to do it himself 2. And whether men use to be serious in such undertakings which I never knew one perform nor seem to mean it save such as take poor mens kinsmens or dead mens children to keep as their own 3. And if it be done without serious intention Is it not to make perjury or perfidiousness and prophane taking God's name in vain to be the way of Christening and Covenanting with Christ in order to salvation § 4. This is a great point and he doth well to handle it diligently His explication of it is this p. 382. 1. The Church hath the power of the Keys True but not as he and the Brownists say The whole Church but only the Pastors 2. They may baptize capable subjects No doubt of it 3. Infants are capable subjects Answ But what Infants All or some Is this our satisfaction If it be All Infants then how come the Heathens Infants to be baptizable and have right when the Parents have none Then how great a deed of charity is it to bring an Army among them to baptize their Children by force When even Aquinas and other Papists say that Children may not be baptized against the Parents wills I have elsewhere at large proved 1. That Baptism is but the sealing of the Covenant and the delivering of possession by Ministerial Investiture and not the first gift or condition of our right to Christ and his benefits 2. That in the Adult faith and Repentance and heart-consent are the Conditions which Baptism after solemnly expresseth 3. That if a true penitent believing consenter die without Baptism he is saved and if tâ—…ptized adult die without faith repentance and heart-consent he is damned 4. That therefore all the adult must have an entitling condition to give them right first initially coram Deo to pardon of sin and then to be baptized which solemnly delivereth their full right before they can be lawfully baptized 5. That God dealeth not so differently with Infants and Adult as to require conditions of right in the later and none in the former as if they were all born with right 6. That the Covenant is made to the faithful and their seed and that Infants condition of right is that they be children of believers And that if both Parents be Infidels the Children are unclean but else they are holy And God that confoundeth not the Church and the World confoundeth not their Childrens case This I have fully proved in my Disp of Original sin and Treat of right to Sacraments 7. That Baptism sealeth and delivereth to the qualified subject the present pardon of sin and right to Christ and life as to adopted Children of God And therefore there must be some reason and proof of a right to it more than all Infants in the world have 8. That it is not a mans bringing them to baptism and speaking feignedly in their name that giveth them right to a sealed pardon and salvation It must be one that can prove himself entitled to represent the Child which none can that cannot say He is my own 9. If it were otherwise Atheists Infidels wicked men though Baptized could give no right to the sealed pardon or to the Investiture in a state of life to which they have no right themselves And if they represent no better Parents as such they can give them no right save coram Ecclesia when they are not infideles judicati 10. Nor doth it suffice to an Infants right that the Minister or Church be Christians Therefore to tell us that Infants are right subjects signifieth nothing till either 1. He tell us what Infants 2. Or prove that all Infants have right which he can never do And if he could I would easily prove that all dying Infants are saved whether Baptized or not As I can prove that true Christian Infants are § 5. While he gives us not the least satisfaction of Infants Right he tells us of difficulties on the other side if we lay it on Parents or Owners right And 1. He tells us of divers mens Opinions which the Reader will be loth I should digress to try having done it so largly in my Christ Direct and Treat of Right to Sacraments 2. He nameth the qualification which I â—â—â—rt A profession of the Christian faith not invalidated and saith nothing to disable it but that Others will reject it Others wild Opinions named goes for my Confutation And now I desire the Reader to see the Catalogue of the things we account sinful in Conformity in my first Plea for Peace and try how many of them the Doctor hath so much as meddled with And whether he think by these few touches he hath proved either our Conformity lawful or our Preaching unlawful or our Communion with those Christians who are not of his mind herein unlawful If he say again that he meddleth not with Ministers Conformity but the Peoples 1. Note how he hath passed by even the greatest things also in their case 2. Whether he meddle not with the Ministers case who seeketh to prove their preaching unlawful and so perswades them to be silent 3. Whether their case should not be so far meddled with as to prove the things which they think sinful to be lawful or their preaching unnecessary before the endeavours used against them well known be justified as needful to the Churches Peace CHAP. XIII Of the three French Letters which he subjoyneth § 1. WHat advantage to the Drs. Cause the three Letters of the French Divines annexed can be to any that will not be decoyed by meer sounds and shews I know not But could we know these things following we might better understand the judgment of the Writers Quest 1. Whether he that sought their judgment did make them understand what all our present Impositions and Acts of Conformity are and what alterations are made in the Church of England since the beginning of Bishop Lands power 2. Whether he made them truly understand the difference between the ancient Episcopacy and the English Diocesan frame in all its parts 3. Whether he did put the Case as about Subscribing â—â— Declaring Covenanting or Swearing Assent and Consent to all things and practising accordingly or only of living in Communion with them which do such things 4. Whether he put the case as of denying active Communion in the practice of unlawful things or as denying Communion in the rest which are lawful 5. Whether he made them understand that we are ipso facto excommuncate by their Canon for telling our judgment 6. Whether he made them understand that it was about 2000 Ministers that were silenced and what men are in many of their places and what claim their ancient Flocks lay to many of them and what men they are and what they did to prevent all our divisions 7. Whether he made them understand what measure of Communion we
would have all walk by he will not do it but instead of that with unusual gentleness tells me he will not differ about it if I do but grant that it is a Rule that binds us all to do all that lawfully we can for peace which I cheerfully grant And if it be not lawful for peace and concord to forbear silencing us imprisoning us accusing us as odious for not wilful sinning and urging Magistrates to execute the Laws against us and making us seem Schismaticks for not forbearing to Preach the Gospel to which we were vowed and consecrated by Ordination I know not lawful from unlawful I cannot yet get him to tell us what he would have the many score thousands do on the Lords Days that have no room in the Parish-Churches with many such which our case is concerned in § 14. I thought his Book had been an Answer to mine and other mens Prefaces but I find that I was mistaken Indeed he nameth five Books written against his Accusation what he saith to Dr. Owen and Mr. Alsop I leave to themselves to consider of The Countrey Gentlemans Case in sense was this Whether all they that think Parish Communion under the present impositions to be sin are bound till they can change their judgment to forbear all Church-worship and live like Atheists and so be damned And who can find any Answer to this Mr. Barret's Queries out of his Books he saith next nothing to but a dark retracting his Irenicon And far be it from me to blame him for growing wiser But why took he no notice of his own words cited in the Epistle out of his late Book against Idolatry threatning us all with no less than damnation if me prefer not the purest Church And as to my Defence his Book is nothing like an Answer unless his naming me and citing out of that and other Books a few broken scraps which he thought he could make some advantage of may be called an Answer § 15. I confess he hath made some attempt to tell me what the National Church of England is but so Independently as I doubt his party will disown it with great offence In short he holds that there is no such thing as a Church of England in the usual Political sense having any Constitutive Ecclesiastical Supreme Power Monarchical or Aristocratical or Democratical but it 's only the many Churches in England associated by the common consent in Parliament c. Remember that he and I are so far agreed As I was writing this I saw a Book against him of a friend too much for me and somewhat freely handling the Dr. which in this point would help them by saying that the Convocation having the Legislative Church-Power may be the Constitutive Regent part But he confesseth to me that he spake not what is but what he counts should be or wisheth for the Dr. himself had before told us that the Convocations of Canterbury and York are two and not united to make one National supreme power so that this proveth no one political Church of England at all but only 2 Provincial Churches in England § 16. The Dr. hath so judiciously and honestly pleaded our Cause in his defence of A. Bishop Laud and his Book against Idolatry that I have made his words the first Chap. of this Book which if he candidly stand to I see not but our principles are the same § 17. His book is made up of 3 parts I. Untrue Accusations II. Untrue Historical Citations abundance III. Fallacious Reasonings Would you have an undeniable Confutation ad hominem in few words I. As to his Principles he saith himself as aforesaid Of Idolat p. 7. We are sure that wilful ignorance or choosing a worse Church before a better is a damnable sin II. As to his History of the old Nonconformists read A. Bishop Bancrofts dangerous Positions and Heylins History of Presbytery charging them odiously with the clean contrary and the Canons made against them on that supposition III. As to his History and Doctrine against the Election of Bp s which I pleaded as I have fully proved his abuse of History in it I repeat Mr. Thorndikes words Forbear of Penalty It is to no purpose to talk of Reformation of the Churchtoregular Government without restoring the liberty of choosing Bishops and priviledg of enjoying them to the Synods Clergy and people in the making of those of whom they consist and by whom they are to be governed that I need make no other reason of the neglect of Episcopacy than the neglect of it O pray hard to God to provide greater store of skilful holy and peaceable Labourers for his Harvest that by the sound belief of a better world have overcome the deluding love of the honours prosperity and pleasures of the flesh and wholly live to God and Heaven POSTSCRIPT DR Edward Stillingfleet Irenic P. 114. saith The Episcopal men will hardly find any evidence in Scripture or in the practice of the Apostles for Churches consisting of many fixed Congregations for worship under the charge of one Pastor nor in the Primitive Church for the Ordination of a Bishop without the preceding Election of the Clergy and at least consent and approbation of the people and neither in Scripture nor Antiquity the least foot-step of the delegation of Church-power so that upon the matter all of them at last make use of those things in Church-Government which have no other foundation but the principles of humane prudence guided by Scripture and it were well if that were observed still P. 370. Surely then their Diocesses we re not very large if all the several Parishes could communicate on the same day with what was sent from the Cathedral Church P. 361. I doubt not but to make it appear that Philippi was not the Metropolis of Macedonia and therefore the Bishops there mentioned could not be the Bishops of the several Cities under the jurisdiction of Philippi but must be understood of the Bishops resident in that City P. 157. There must be a form of Ecclesiastical Government over a Nation as a Church as well as of Civil Government over it as a Society governed by the same Laws For every Society must have its Government belonging to it as such a Society And the same reason that makes Government necessary in any particular Congregation will make it necessary for all the particular Congregations joyning together in one visible Society as a particular National Church For the Unity and Peace of that Church ought much more to be lookt after than of any one Congregation P. 131. The Churches power as to Divine Law being only directive and declarative but as confirmed by a Civil Sanction is juridical and obligatory P. 113. Where any Church is guilty of corruptions both in Doctrine and in practice which it avoweth and professeth and requireth the owning them as necessary conditions of Communion with her there a Noncommunion with that Church is necessary and a
p. 73. He acquits them from Schisme that separate if the Church be Schismatical 74. I desire the Reader then to Read my few Sheets called A search for the English Schismatick More mistakes p. 74 75. Chap. 6. Whether he be no Christian that is not a fixed Member of a particular Church The Doctors Schismatical Error Confuted p. 76. He by this condemneth Apostles and Evangelists that were Itinerant and unfixed such as Bucer de Regno Dei would have sent abroad my exceptions about Churches and Ministers justified and his Calumny detected p 80. Whether I give too much to the People or am against the Rights of Patrons or Magistrates p. 82. Many more Calumnies to p. 89. He accuseth me as accusing them for naming the sins that I dare not commit p. 89. More of his vain Accusations to p. 92. Whether he be for silencing us p. 92. More of his Calumny p. 99. Considerable Quere to him p. 94. How he would drive men to Separation p. 95 96. He is come to Self-condemning Gentleness in expounding his Rule and Text Phil. 3. 16. p. 97. His sad Ennumeration of the causes of just Separation p. 98. Chap. 7. He begins his Third Part with more false Accusations p. 99. His History for Diocesan Churches against Parochial found fallacious p. 100 c. His vain Plea for the English Frame p. 106 c. He saith It s probable while the Apostles lived there were no fixed Bishops or but few p. 108. And Dr. Hammond saith No Subject Presbyters whether John Fox were the Publisher or Prefacer of the Reformatio Legum c. p. 109. Discipline hard but not unnecessary p. 111. Chap. 8. What the National Church of England is fully discussed and the Doctors Self-contradictions detected He denyeth any true Political Church of England He and we more agreed than he and other high Church-men that are for a Constitutive Political Government p. 112 113 c. He maketh it an introduction of Popery to hold that a Church must have a Constutive Regent church-Church-power and so fasteneth Popery on the Masters of his cause Chap. 9. That the mutual Consent of Pastors and flock is necessary to the very being of their Relation About Thirty Proofs from Antiquity that the Universal Church was for about 1000 years of that mind and decreed it p. 128 c. The necessity of consent proved from the Nature of the work where the reasons of it are all plainly opened p. 133. c. The Doctors contrary surmises and false Histories fully confuted p. 136 c. Chap. 10. Of the imposed Use of the Cross in Baptisme and denying Baptisme to the refusers p. 153. His vaine excuses confuted Whether the Cross be used as a Sacrament His disingenuous falsifying my words of the use of Crucifixes and other Images p. 156 c. What the Papists ascribe to Sacraments p. 168. Chap. 11. Whether the Excommunicating Church or the Excommunicate Nonconformists for not Communicating when ipso facto Excommunicate be guilty of Schisme p. 163. Chap. 12. Of the English sort of Sponsors and the Exclusion of the Parents Duty p. 167. see more in the Postscript Chap. 13. Of the three French Letters which he subjoyneth p. 171. Chap. 14. Epistles and Testimonies Compar'd with the Doctors And notes on Mr. Jo. Glanviles Book called The Zealous Impartial Protestant With a Letter of his to the Author and a Digression about Dr. Lewis du Moulin his Published Picture and Death-bed Repentance A Postscript of five notices viz. 1. Of a new Observation of the Trade of taking mony to be Godfathers to Poor mens Children and missing Baptisme for want of mony 2. A Letter of Mr. W. Rathbands of his Fathers judgment and Practice 3. An Excellent Confutation of Dr. Stillingfleets History of the extent of Dioceses and Choice of Bishops fully proving that the old Bishops were Parochial or Congregational and always chosen by the People or not made theirs without their free Consent By a Learned and faithful Minister 4. An Excellent Vindication of the silenced Ministers by a Conformist c. 5. My Apologie for the Nonformists Preaching Written by me and Comming out with this ERRATA IN the Preface Sect. 17. line 13. read pleaded for l. 17. after Clergie and People add of â—â—â—â—â—iâ—â—â—sâ— So Evident is the right of Synods Clergie and People AN ANSWER TO Dean STILINGFLEETS c. CHAP. I. The Concord of Dr. Stillengfleet and the Nonconformists especially with the Principles of my Book of Church Concord about the true Nature of Schism and who is the Schismatick written by him at age in his most owned books and not in youth in his Irenicon I stand to all my words against Schism which he hath cited and so I doubt not but he stands to these following of his DIscourse of Idolatry of Rome p. 7. Though we know not what allowances God will make for invincible ignorance we are sure that willful Ignorance or CHOOSING A WORSE CHURCH BEFORE A BETTER IS A DAMNABLE SIN and unrepented of destroys Salvation The Papists consent p. 43. I agree so far with him that every Christian is bound to choose the Communion of the purest Church but which that Church is must be seen by the grounds it brings to prove the Doctrines it teaches to have been delivered by Christ and his Apostles That Church is to be judged purest that hath the best groundâ— and consequently it is of necessity to Salvation to embrace the Communion of it Pag. 194. 195. 1. The Churches power is only to Edification and not to distruction For this was as much as the Apostles challenged to themselves and I hope none dare challenge more But this is a principle of Natural reason that no power in a society ought to be extended 〈◊〉 the 〈◊〉 of it or to contradict the end and designe of it 2. The Apostles were the most competent Judges of what made for the Edification of the Church Pag. 216. 217. 1. It is agreed on both sides that the Scriptures do contâ—ine in them the unquestionable will of that God whom we are bound to serve and it being the end of devotion as it ought to be of our lives to serve him what is there the mind of any one who sincerely desires to do it can be more inquisitive after or satisfyed in than the rules God himself hath given for his own service Because it is so easly a matter for men to mistake in the waies they choose to serve him in I see the world divided more scarce about any thing than this Pag. 218. Can any man imagine a better way if it could be hoped for than that God himself should enterpose and declare his own mind according to what way they ought to serve him And this is acknowledged to be done already by all Christians in the Scriptures and after all this must not all persons concerned be allowed to enquire into that which is owned to be the will of God or do they think
of England where the Author I suppose some Lawyer Pag. 23. tells us what was the difference between the Papists and them that desired Reformation Nonconformists about the power of Magistrates And. 1. They give the Prince Authority over all Persons Ecclesiastical whatsoever The Papists exempt the Clergy 2. They hold that a Prince may depose a Priest as Solomon did Abiather and accordingly they obey being silenced The Papists deny it 3 They affirm if the Priests make wicked decrees the Prince may enforce them to better The Papists deny it 4. They say Princes must and ought to make Laws for the Church but with the advise of Godly Pastors The Papists deny it 5. They hold that if the Pastors be unlearned and ungodly the Prince may of himself without their advise make Orders and Laws for Ecclesiastical matters The Papists deny it 6. They will subcribe in this point to the Articles of Religion established by Law to the Apology of the Church of England to the writings of Jewel Horn Nowel Whitaker Bilson Fulk They take the Oath of Supremacy Here the second Article seemeth to be contrary to what I have said But the book whence he citeth it de discipl Eccles and all their writings shew that it is but the same that I say which they assert viz. That Princes ought to restrain or silence intollerable men and such Usâ—pers or dilinquents as give just cause 2. That if they mistake and do it unjustly we must leave Temple and Tyths to their will 3. Yea and forbear our own publick Preaching when the publick good on the account of order and peace requireth it but not when the publick good and the necessity of Souls and our own opportunities require the contrary And the silenced that submitted still went on to exercise their Ministry against Law in that manner as best conduced to its ends And what this Auother saith of the Papists I suppose many of the highest Prelatists come nearer then the Nonconformists and were the Prince against them would obey the Bishops before him And the same book describing the Nonconformists in twenty Articles p. 55. in the 8th thus expoundeth it They teach that neither the Miniâ—ters nor people ought to make any general Reformation with â—orâ—â— and armes or otherwise of their own authority change any laws made or â—â—â—â—â—shed for Religion by Authority of Parliament But they hold that the general Reformation doth belong to the Magistrates as Gods Lieutenant and that for themselves they may and ought in dutiful sort both Preach and Write and sac to the Magistrates for redress of Enormities and also practice the ordinances of Christ which he hath commanded his Church to keep to the end of the World And Article 20. It is not all the unprepared Parish that they would have brought under Discipline But those of each Parish who are prepare and willing § 8. In short the demonstration the supplication the humbe motion to the Council and almost all the Nonconformists writings shew that 1. Their great Cause was to set up Parish Discipline under Superior Synods 2. Bâ—ing themselves almost all in publick Churches at least per â—ices and being still in hope of publick reformation they were greatly against the Brownists violence that would break those hopes 3. They held that Christs Law was their Rule which commanded this Discipline which no Magistrate could dispense with 4. But that Magistrates must be obeyed in such ordering of Church matters as belong to them But not in forbearing such exercise of the Ministry as was needful to its ends the Churches good And as it s said they practised accordingly I. The Brownists denyed the truth of the Parish Ministry and Churches and the lawfulness of Communion with them II. The Semiseparatists held it lawful to hear them preach but not to joyn in the Liturgy and Sacrament And this is it that Phil. Nye wrote for III. The Presbyterians and meer Norconformists thought it lawful and meet in those Parishes which had capable Ministers to joyn in both Liturgy Sermons and Sacraments where sin was not imposed on them But so as though forbidden while they had publick Churches to do their best to practice Christs Commands and Discipline and where they could have none to further the same ends as effectually as they could in the opportunities left them But never took it for their duty to leave all their Ministry or publik preaching meerly in obediene to the laws much less to the Bishops When all this is so notorious and when I knew the minds of many aged Nonconformists about forty years agoe as my familiar friends who were all of the same mind in this as I am what history can I be more assured of than as I said that First They took not praying publickly and gathering Assemblies to be therefore sinful because it was forbidden by the Law 2. But to be a sin against Prudence and the ends of their Ministry when it was like to do more hurt than good by exasperating the Prince and depriving themselves and others of better advantages for those holy ends 3. And that it was a duty when it was like to do more good than hurt 4. And therefore they broke Laws where they could be endured even in Chappell 's and Parish Churches § 5. And it is not inconsiderable that the reasons why Calvin Bullinger Zanchy Beza said what they did for submissive forbearing publick Preaching and Church gathering were First Because as they saw that the Prince was resolved not to suffer it so Reformation was then but begun and the Prince and Magistrates were the pricipal means of it and they had great hopes that what could not be done at present to perfect it might be done afterwards at a fitter time King Edward was sain to quiet the seditious Papists by making them beleive that Latin and English was the great difference between the former Mass worship and the Liturgy Aftertimes had no such necessity and tumultuously to disturb the Magistrate in his prudent progress of Reforming had been to serve the enemies of Reformation But in our times Parliaments who the Doctor S. saith are intrusted so Consent for us have these fifty years told the Kingdom that the Reformation was growing backwards and the increase of Popery by favour and publick tolleration designed and much accomplished and Plots threatned the restoring of it and if Parliaments deceived us yet the chief Actors themselves were to be believed Doctor Heylin maketh the syncretism and closure with them in the bosom of the now indulgent Church to be Arch-Bishop Lauds very laudable designs Arch-Bishop Brombal saith Grotius was to have held some place among us as a Protestant and was of the English Bishops mind and he himself doth say the last and I have shewed in his own words that Grotius took Rome for the Mistris of all Churhces and that there was no way for the Union of Protestants but to joyn in Union with Rome and that he owned the
More and more untruths 1. Where do I say that owns it self to be Independant as if that were necessary to its being 1. Doth he not confess that I own general Visitors or Archbishops and appeals 2. That I own Associations which he makes the state of the Church of England 3. That I own Synods for obliging concord 4. That I own the Magistrates Government of all Is there no dependancy in any of these or all what dependancy more doth he assert 2. As to the Power of the Keys dare he come into the light and tell us whether any power of the Keys that is of the Government of his particular Church be essential to the Pastor of a true organized governed Church or not If not is it not a contradiction to call it a governed Church If yea then is he a Pastor that wants what is essential to a Pastor But if they will call a forcing Power or the present secular Mode of their Courts by the name of the Keys I never said that these are essential to a Church nor desirable in it but am a Nonconformist because I will not by Oath or Covenant renounce just Endeavours to amend it Sect. 12. p. 121 122. The next Accusation is They leave it in the peoples Power notwithstanding all legal Establishments to own or disown whom they judge fit Answ He tireth me with putting me on repetitions 1. They can unjustly judge of none and disown them without sin It is not I that give men power to sin no more than Power to die or be sick which is but impotency would I could give them power against it 2. It is not power to reject any chosen by King or Patrons from being publick Teachers or to have the Tithes and Temples nor to be a Pastor to others But it is to have a discerning Judgment whether one chosen by the Patron be a person to whom he himself ought to trust the pastoral Conduct of his Soul Either the Dr. thinks that Laymen have this discerning power and duty or not If yea is it nothing to him to seem thus seriously to plead against his conscience If not I ask him 1. What meant Christ and his Apostles to call men to beware of false Teachers to avoid the Leven of their Doctrine to mark them and avoid them and turn away from them and not bid them good speed 2. What meant all the ancient Churches to forbid Communion with Hereticks and even some Popes and Councils to hear Mass of Fornicators â— What meant all those Fathers and Councils that make him no Bishop that cometh not in with the peoples consent if not Election 4. Why will he not be intreated to tell us in what Countries or with what Limitations the contrary Doctrine must be received Must all the people trust only such Pastors as the Prince or Patrons choose all over England or also in Ireland France Spain Italy Germany among Lutherans Calvinists Greeks c. supposing the Law be on that side Must we all be of the Kings or Patrons Religion 5. Is this agreeable to his old Doctrine cited Chap. 1. Sect. 13. p. 122. He adds Mr. Baxter speaks his mind very freely against the Rights and Patronage and the Power of the Magistrates in such Cases and pleads for the unalterable Rights of the people as the old Separatists did Ans Is this true 1. What is it against the Right of Patronage or Magistrates Power for me to choose who I will trust the guidance of my Soul with while I contradict not his power to choose publick Teachers and give the Tithes and Temples and confess that for order sake I ought to consent to such as he chooseth thus unless he put on me a true necessity of a better choice If the King choose all the Hospital Physicians what wrong is it to him if I at my own charge choose a better for my self when I think else ignorance or malice will murder me Doth he that desireth as I ever do that in so great a case there may be many Locks to the Church Door deny any one of them viz. The Ordainers consent the Magistrates and Patrons and the Peoples Is this the same that the old Separatists did Should Glocesier take Goodman a Papist for their Bishop because the King chose him Abundance of Patrons in the beginning of Q. Elizabeths Reign presented Papists It seems if they were imposed by Law and Patrons you would have the people submit to those that cry down Bishops Liturgy and Ceremonies too Father Paul Sarpi translated by Dr. Denton will tell you how new a way this is Sect. 14. p. 122. He adds The People are made Judges of the Competency of their Ministers Answ They are discerning Judges Doth not your charge imply that you think otherwise and yet you dare not say so Must they not judge when Forreigners heretofore were set over them whether they speak English or no or if a Socinian deny Christs Godhead or the im mortality of the Soul whether he be Competent or not Or if they have an ignorant Curate that when necessary advice for the Soul is asked of him will say no more but Trouble not your head about such matters but cast away care and live merrily If when the blind lead the blind both fall into the ditch must we not note the difference Alas how little would some men have a man care for his Soul in comparison of caring what Physick what Food what Wife what Servant what Trade he chooseth Trust one to the conduct of such as all the Patrons of England will choose for you but not any of the other As to the not causeless forsaking former Pastors he knoweth that it was the strict charge of the old Canons of the Churches and the Bishops themselves do hold the same I thought they ought not to be forsaken because men thrust them out The Churches at Antioch Alexandria and many more did oft and long cleave to those Pastors whom the Christian Emperors cast out and reject those whom they imposed When I have proved this so fully in my first Plea and Church-history what an unsatisfactory answer is it for such a Dr. to repeat it and say This is plain dealing Is the Judgment and Practice of the Churches so light with him Sect. 15. p. 123. The next charge is They give directions to the people what sort of Ministers they should own and what not Answ We do so And I had thought all Christians had been of the same mind It 's sad with the Church when this Doctrine needeth a publick defence Dare he say that all imposed must be owned Then either Salvation is at the Magistrates will or it 's the priviledge of such Countries as have good ones or a man may be saved in any Country Religion contrary to the Article which they all subscribe Sect. 16. Next the Accuser falls on my general Rule The Ministry that tendeth to Destruction more than to Edification and to do
Magistrate may restrain him and refuse to tolerate an intolerable man And yet the people ought not to accept an uncapable man offered by Bishops or Patrons no nor a man next to uncapable when they need and may have much better Many Negatives are safe § 53. He saith The prophane have right to their own souls and to the care of them and therefore are equally concerned with others to chuse Answ It is sad with the Church when they need to be saved from such reasonings of their great Teachers 1. A Right to care for their Souls giveth no man right to chuse men for others Souls to do that which they will not have done for their own The question is whether that man will Communicate with the Church on Christs terms He refuseth and will not else he ought not to be refused And shall he that refuseth Communion chuse one to give it others because he hath a Soul himself Had the neighbour Heathens and Hereticks of old power to chuse Bishops for the Church while they refused to be of the Church themselves Shall he that will not be of the Society chuse for the Society 2. We distinguish between what a man may be forced to and what not He may not be forced to the great gift of Sacramental Remission and Communion because no unwilling person hath right to it But an ignorant person may be forced as a Catechumen or hearer to hear what can be said for his conviction For truth may conquer the unwilling But none on this pretense can hinder the Church from hearing its own Pastors nor force men to be the ordinary Auditors of Mahometans Hereticks or Heathens § 54. p. 331. He again tragically exclaims of me on the old false supposition that I make the people the sole chusers and not only plead for their free Negative Vote though chusing also but not alone was the old way And here tells us of the tumults that would follow Answ 1. So they would if the people chose in France Spain Italy And yet I would they did No humane actions are free from inconveniencies which are not to be cured with a mischief 2. Let him name me ten places that have suffered so deeply by the peoples choice as I can tell him of ten thousand that have done by the choice of Prelates Patrons and Princes and I will confess my errour It was not by the peoples choice that all preaching was put down in Moscovy It is not the people that have this many hundred years chosen all the Popish Bishops Mass-priests c. in Italy and most of the Roman Church even in Spain France Bavaria c. 3. I told him but had no answer that not only the Innes of Court but also Black fryars Aldermanbury and such other places as have chosen their own Teachers have peaceably had as happy a succession of Learned Godly able Pastors as any place in London or in England 4. It 's known by experience that Learning and great worth doth as Light so reveal it self to humane nature that usually most of those that are loth to be holy themselves would have a Saint and an able man 5. Doth he think in his Conscience that all the Patrons in England are liker to be judicious and free from solicitations favour and respect of persons than the majority of the Communicants of such Churches 6. If the Parsons first admit great numbers of profane and wicked men to be Communicants and then tell us how unfit these men are to chuse they do but condemn themselves § 55. p. 333. He tells us we do but say We judge we think c. the things unlawful but for particular arguments to prove them unlawful he finds none Answ If this be true then they that never found our arguments never answered them If it be not true it is not well Then you here and Mr. Falkener Fulwood Durel c. have not yet answered any of our arguments Remember this 2. Though I did not argue but name the things in my first Plea you and others took it for arguing and we ever craved leave to do it 3. Is it true indeed that there are no arguments in our Writings 1660. and 1661. with the Bishops nor any in my Book of Concord or Treatise of Episcopacy nor in my old Disputations of Church-Government nor in any other mens Books these eighteen years I doubt the angry Bishops will think that in my Treatise of Episcopacy there is some sort of Argument and that my Book against Sacril Desertion of the Ministry hath some and that an Apology for our preaching now in the Press hath some But if there be none accuse us of none CHAP. X. Of the Imposed use of the Cross in Baptism and denying Baptism to the refusers § 1. PAge 343. He cometh to our charge against the Church though he never found any Arguments as aforesaid And I. Why doth he silently balk the chief things which I had named will this satisfie Conscience will excusing some things make others lawful II. As to what he saith for the Cross I have so fully answered it twice to Mr. Cheney and once to the Impleader that I am loth to repeat all again In short 1. He saith the Church intends it not for a sign of Immediate dedication Answ 1. What is the Medium 2. What if it were not Immediate 3. Can it be more Immediate than in the very present dedicating act to use the sign and expressing the dedicating signification 4. The words of the Canon are To dedicate them by that badge to his service whose benefits bestowed on them in baptism the name of the Cross doth represent And after the Church of England accounteth it an honourable badge whereby the Infant is dedicated to the service of him that dyed on the Cross And the service is named Christianity in practice to fight under his banner c. 2. He saith In baptizing the Minister acts by Authority derived from Christ but at Crossing he speaks in the name of the Church We receive this Child c. Answ 1. It 's meet it should be so that Christ's Sacraments be used by Christ's Authority and mens by mens 2. But I hope this is but a quibble and that notwithstanding the word we the Minister as Christ's Minister and in his name saith we receive this child when even the absolved are to be received by Christ first and then by the Church I will not else aggravate the ill consequences § 2. He before saith Was the Cross a dedicating sign to God or a declarative sign to men Answ The Canon saith expresly twice To dedicate them by this badge to his service And an honourable badge whereby the Infant is dedicated to his Service And the Rubrick which we must subscribe refers us to the Canon for the true sense and reason of the Crossing 2. Is Baptism and the Lords Supper a sign to God or to man It is a sign to man for God God knoweth