I nor any other person is obliged by the vow to endeavour any such alteration of Church Government V. 12. The fifth Part of the Matter The Declaration and Oath as not understood of not resisting any Commissioned VI. 13. The sixth Part of the Matter To cease preaching and administring Sacraments till we conform at least not to preach to more than a family and four persons VII 14. The seventh Part Consequential Not to come within five miles of any City or Corporation which sendeth Burgesses to Parliament or of any place where we have preached to more than aforesaid since the Act of oblivion 15. The Adjuncts and the other Matters agreed on which affright the Nonconformists 16. The case and practice of the Ministers since they were silenced Additions occasioned by Mr. L. Fresh Suit and some others about National Churches THE Question stated § 3 c. Whether we are obliged by or to the Jewish National Polity § 5 c. or by scripture to a National limitation of them Whether a National Church-form be lawful § 30 c Whether it be a prudential desirable form § 38 c The resolution of this by a short history of Prelacie and Councils § 39 c. Obj. From the necessity of Appeals § 40 c. Obj. Shall all gather Churches that will ib. Obj. The Apostles have successours ib. Q. Whether the King or who is the National Church Head § 41. 42 c A Christian Kingdom what § 43 Q. Must real holyness in the judgment of rational Charity be required in all Church members § 1 Q. What Covenanting is necessary to particular Church relation § 5 c. The spirit maketh Ministrs how I. The Epistle of an African Council in Cyprian Ep. 68. p. 200. to Felix a Presbyter and the Laity at Legio and Asturica and to Laelius the Deacon and the Laity at Emerita concerning their Bishops Bafilides and Martial worthy to be read as to our present controversies II. The Letter of Rob. Grosthead the good Bishop of Lincoln to Pope Innocent containing the reason of his Nonconformity and shewing that hindring preaching is the greatest sin next Divelism and Antichristianism Out of Mat. Parâ— An. 1253. p. 871. 872. III. An extract from Bishop Saunderson de juramento SECT I. The Reasons of this writing and the sense of the word CHURCH IT was the saying of acute and holy Augustine though we call him not with Fromondus Omniscâ—um that no man ought to be patient under an accusation of Heresie He meaneth by Patience a silent neglect of his own Just Vindication Not that we must be like Hectoring Duellers that would kill or hurt others in revenge or in a sinful way of Vindication But by silence those that slander men may be encouraged in their sin to their own destruction and those that value the slandered persons may be tempted to think too well of Heresie for their sakes And the honour of God and his Truth and our own good names so far as they are serviceable are none of them to be disregarded We have with grieved souls beheld the Land of our Nativity distracted by Divisions and much if not most about Religion we wish it were not against Religion by some that indeed have no true Religion Teachers against Teachers in Discourses Sermons Books rendring each other despicable and unlovely and some calling out aloud to Rulers to draw the Sword against their Brethren so learnedly and industriously pleading the Cause against each other with the Laity high and low as if the destroying of their Love and kindling Wrath and Hatred were the Evangelical necessary work and without this zeal and skill and diligence hard to be accomplished No wonder then if we have people against people families divided and all confounded and this grievous Schism carryed on by crying out against each other as Schismaticks and implacably causing it while we loudly inveigh against it The case is lamentable that distraction should be thus expressed and promoted and when God hath warned us by the mischiefs of an odious Civil War and hath tryed us again with peace with all Nations about us when most of them are involved in grievous Wars that yet we will not give peace to one another but live as if Peace were the Plague which we most desire to escape Yet as it is the good providence of God that the Names of Wisdom Godliness Truth Justice Mercy Honesty and Vertue are all still honourable even among those that hate and oppose them and the names of Folly Ungodliness Lying Unjustice Unmercifulness Dishonesty and Vice are all dishonourable where the things themselves are followed and prevail so Love Peace and Concord are names that are by most commended when if most were for the things indeed we were in a hopeful way of recovery And Malice Schism and Discord are cryed down by those whom no intreaty will prevail with to forbear them or to accept any remedy against them Yet we are thus far prepared for peace that if we be not false Hypocrites if we did but know which is the true way of Love Peace and Concord we would follow it And if we knew what is Schism indeed we would avoid it And its pity that men that think themselves wise should yet not know the way of Love and Peace Especially that the Learned Preachers of the Gospel of Love and Peace should still be the incendiaries and stir up the Laity that would be more peaceable against each other And that after so many Volumes of History have these thirteen hundred years at least asperst the Clergy with the reproach of being the contentious troublers of the world And yet must we despair of a cure of so odious a disease The thing that Books Sermons and Discourses cry out against those called Non Conformists for is Humorous Obstinate Schism and Disobedience in Preaching when forbidders and keeping up Assemblies not allowed and gathering Churches out of Churches separating from the parish-Parish-Communion and Church of England If we can find out the Schismatick we hope he will be condemned by us all But that the Cause may be heard at least in some part before it is judged we that publish this here give an account of our own judgment and those that we are best acquainted with how far we hold it lawful or unlawful to gather Churches or to separate from Churches or to differ from what is established by Authority But the Application to our particular Case and our Arguments thereabout we must not here presume to publish They that accuse others as Schismaticks and Separatists for deserting Churches or gathering Churches out of Churches and will not tell us what they mean by the word Church nor give us leave to tell them what we mean but judge in confusion and despise explication and necessary distinction are men that we can neither be edified by nor edifie in this way SECT II. The Various Opinions of such us we have to do with
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
gently with them and adjudged Communion to them And the Africans pretended to no authority over them but by Counsell told them of Gods own Law which no man had power to invalidate They charge the people as heinous sinners if they forsake not a wicked unmeet Bishop or Pastor what Libellaticks were I supposed the reader to know viz such as to save their lives in persecution had permitted another to put their names by subscription to a false profession that favoured idolatry or infidelity Obj. 1. But Cyprian and the African Councils were mistaken in the point of Rebaptizing those baptized by Hereticks and so they might be here Ans 1. The Council of Nice decreed the rebaptizing of those that were baptized by some Hereticks though not by all And if the Africans did not confine the word to such they erred only in not sufficiently distinguishing of Hereticks 2. If we are excused from receiving the testimony of such Fathers and Councils as had any Errour or as great an Errour as that you may see what will follow 3. We do not citâ— Cyprian and the African Council as infallible nor as having more Governing power over us than the present Rulers but as being to us I say to us of more credit and authority in telling us what is jure devino than those Bishops or others that now condemn us as Schismaticks 4. Câ—pâ—â—an and the African Councill were not forbidden for this judgment of theirs to Preach Christs Gospel nor cast out of the Churches noâ— sent to Goals nor called and used as Rogues and Schismaticks and farr worse then drunkards adulterers yea or the atheists and infidels among us Nor were the people that obeyed their Councill so used But tâ—e names of these holy men are venerable to this day Obj. 2. There were then no Christian Magistrates and therefore the peoples power must be used in their stead Ans Church power was the same before and after The Lawes of Christ concerning it altered not The Pastors were then the Guides of the people by divine right And the power of the Keyes was no less forcible or effectual as used by the Bishops and Presbyters than when the power of the sword was added to them if not much more And the peoples power of choosing and refusing Bishops continued many hundred years after Magistrates were Christians confirmed even by Popes and Councills Obj. 3. This would cast all into confusion and there would be no Church Government if the people be Judges when a Minister is bad and then maâ— full him down or forsake him and choose another Answ This is after further answered I now only say 1. The people may not touch his Person by violence nor deprive him of his benefice or temple nor yet degrade him As they that change their Physician or Lawyer do no such thing but simply choose one that they can trust No man will win more by my salvation than I shall nor would suffer more than I by it if I were damned Who is more than I concerned what becometh of my soul Am I not to have more care of it than of my estate or health of body Who can easily believe those men that send us to goales and ruin us for trusting our soules with such Guides as to the best of our understandings we think meetest or at least for avoiding such as we cannot so farr trust and then tell us that they do it because they love our souls better than we love our selves and therefore will not trust them to our choice 2. what confusion doth it cause that every man now chooseth his owne Tutor in philosophy his own master his own Lawyer and physician and every woman at age her own husband 3. Doth not the Church of England as is said allow every man his choice when no man is forbidden to forsake any Bishop or Pastor and choose another by removing his habitation when he pleases So that all this is but about Parish bounds which is confessed to be of humane alterable constitution And how ordinarily do many Gentlemen of the Church of England go from their own Parishes in London 4. You may see by Philip Nyes printed papers and Mr. Tombs his that even those called Independents and some Anabaptists are for hearing such Parish-Teachers as their Rulers shall appoint so they may but commit the Pastoral care of their souls to such as they can better trust and have Sacraments and special Church Communion free 5. what great confusion doth it breed in London that the French and Dutch Churches thus differ from the rest and have their proper modes and Government Yea or that the Nonconformists by the favour of his Majesties Licenses had their choice and several meetings Let not envy and animosity seign greater confusion than there is and the matter will appear much otherwise than it is represented even that the discords and confusions were incomparably less on that occasion than they were under the Bishops in the better times of the Churches even from An. 400 to 600 of which more in due place 6. They that will condemn all that hath inconveniences shall condemn all things in this world But the Greatest must be noted and avoided first Shall the people have any judgment of discerning or not If yea the bounds of it must be shewed and not the thing denyed as if it must bring in all confusion If Usurpers claim the Crown the Subjects must judge which is their true King and must defend his right Will you say If the people be Judges they may set up Usurpers and put down the King They are but discerners of that which is before their duty They have no right to erre nor to alter the Law or right But if it be otherwise they are to be ruled as brutes And so must not judge so much as whom they must obey Is there any Christian that dare say that Bishops or Princes are in all things to be obeyed lest the people be made Judges And so that under Heathen Mahometan Papist Heretical Rulers they must be all of their Religion as to the external professing and practising part None dare for shame say so save an Infidel Is not this a greater confusion or michief than that which is now disputed against Therefore the bounds must be set on both sides which are not difficult to discern As the people have property in their limbs children and liberties and acquisitions antecedently to humane Government which is to order these and not to destroy them so have all men greater interest in the safety of their own souls which no man can take from them no nor is it in their just power to put it into the hands of others from themselves If Hereticks blind guides oâ—â—faithless men or insufficient be made Pastors of the Flocks and all men commanded to hear no better nor trust the Pastoral Conduct of their souls into any wiser or safer hands Satan will be more gratified by it than by the
disorder of the peoples chusing their own spiritual Councillors Tutors and Physicians And when Church-communion is due to none but voluntary accepters men should not be used so as to take it still against their wills and to be as it were crammed and drencht with sacred Mysteries driven to take them against their consciences and wills from such as they think they cannot communicate with without being guilty of their sin When some Councils have owned Pope Nicholas's decree that no man ought to hear the Mass from a fornicating Priest much less from men that are far more liable to exceptions To this I may add that as in divers cases the Canons and Decrees forbad hearing some Priests and allowed several Churches in the same ground so they seem to give that Pastor a right to the Conduct of the People who was the chief Converter of them from Infidelity or Heresie And hence was the Popes Controversie with the Greeks about the Bulgarians and his claim to the Church of England and many others because he said his Missionaries converted them I shall specially note here that the old Canons sent by Adrian to Carolus Mag. reciâ—ed by Canisius and Binius say That no one must pray with Hereticks or Schismaticks and so not with Papist-Bishops that are the greatest Schismaticks by dividing Impositions That if a Bishop six months after admonition of other Bishops neglect to make Catholicks of the people multitudes then being Heathens and Hereticks belonging to his seat any other shall obtain them that shall deliver them from their Heresie Yet the Bishop is not deposed but another Bishop and Church of the new Converts set up in his Precincts and so a Church gathered in the Precincts of another Church and Bishop And so Gregory Nazianzen did long preach as their Pastor in a small Church in Constantinople before he had possession of the Cathedral the people claiming him for their prositing by his teaching and Theodosius gave him the Cathedral as merited by his success And in the said old Canons c. 19. it s said that Dioceses which then were every Corporation and the Suburbs or Villages which want Bishops receive none without the consent of the Bishop who hitherto held them so be it not proudly For if he over-hold them affecting to sit over the people and despising his fellow-Bishops he is not only to be driven from the retained Dioc se but also from his own Church And ex Con. Sard. 2. A Bishop that by ambition changeth his seat which was then forbidden by the Canons shal not have so much as Lay-communion no not at the end his death Even old Clemens Romanus ad Corinth tells them that they ought not to cast out these Ministers that live unblameably having been Constituted by the Apostles or deinceps ab aliis viris celebribus Cum Consensu Universae Ecclesiae But I find the Roman and Tyrannical spirit much insisting uppon this that the Christian Religion was but in the shell or Embryo in the Apostles dayes and under Christian Emperours is grown up to the maturity of Papacie riches pomp and grandeur and that great power which the Christian Emperours gave the Patriarchs and prelates of their times But this Hypothesis must be better proved before we can receive it We confess that for extent and number the Church was there in its minority But if it was so as to infallibility of doctrine perfection of Laws and exemplary lives then the Pope is better than Christ and his Apostles and their contemptible Decretals and firebrand Councills are better than the sacred scriptures and their degenerate Clergie and people better than the ancient holy peaceable Christians their blood-shedders better than the Martyrs and the Cross-makers better than the Cross-bearers which are things that the worldly sort may believe more easily than mortified and heavenly Christians One testimony more we will add for the antiquity and the estimation of many that are against us And that is the Apostolicall constitutions Lib 8. cap. 4. de ordinationibus having said before cap. 2. that Episcopus ignorantia aut malo animo oppletus Episcopus non est sed falsus Episcopus non a Deo sed ab hominibus promotus they here say that a Bishop must be one that a cuncto populo ex optimis quibusque electus est Quo nominato placente populus in unum Congregatus not a thousand Churches but one una cum Presbyteris atque Episcopis praesentibus Die Dominico consentiat Qui vero inter reliquos princeps Episcopus est percontetur Presbyteros populum an ipse sit quem praeesse petant illis annuentibus rursus percontetur an tribuunt ei omnes testimonium quod dignus sit hoc magno illustri munere praesidendâ— An quae ad pietatem erga Deum pertinent recte peregerit An jura adversus homines servarit An domum suam résque domesticas recte administraverit an vita ei peromnia honeste laudate act a suerit cum vero Omnes simul non secundum opinionem praejudicatam sed secundum veritatem testificati suerint talem esse eum tanquam in conspectu jâ—dicis Dei Christi praesente etiam Spiritu Sancto atque omnibus sanctis administratoriis spiritibus rursus tertio interrogent utrum sit dignus Ministerio ut in ore duoâ—um vel trium stet omne verbum Et cum tertiò annuerint et dignum esse assensi suerint petatur ab omnibus ut praebeant signum assensus Et libenter praebentes audiantur We urge not this as of Apostolicall authority but as of great antiquity and agreeing with the primitive practise This course much differeth from the ordaining of a Bishop at an hundred miles distance from his Church Yea ordaining him not in or to a particular Church but to many hundred Churches when the people neither know him nor are present and yet the question 's askt as if they were And as the people had ever a chusing or a free consenting Voice so they oft received Bishops and Presbyters who were ordained by such as were out-casts Nonconformists and banished both by Emperours and Synods as in many more instances might be proved As also that they adhered to the Pastors so chosen notwithstanding their ejections by the Imperial Power yea and by such Councils as they thought to be unjust as the sad divisions by the displacings restorings and changes of Bishops by the Councils of Constantinople 1. Ephesus 2. Calcedon and by the Emperours in those times do fully prove the people following some one and some another though fear oft prevailed for conformity with the greater part And no wonder when so many Bishops at the Council of Calcedon professed that for fear they had judged against Flavianus for Eutichus against their consciences and even old Osius and many more at Ariminum did the like and when the powers changed cryed Omnes peccavimus and when under Theodosius
as much skill and honesty 2. It is not the validity of the Sacrament that is all that is to be looked at Quod factum valet saepe fieri non debuit Men must avoid sin as well as Nullities in Sacraments We take it to be a sin to own a man as Christ's Minister who is none through utter incapacity Yet we know that Reading is a sort of Preaching and that all Presbyters where one Church had many did not publickly and constantly Preach in the antient Churches But they were godly men capable of other Ministerial Offices to the People to pray counsel and direct them which must be regarded as well as Sacraments He that can administer a Sacrament that 's valid may be unfit for men to take for their Pastors or Guides 3. There is a double work of Sacraments to which they may be called Effectual one is God 's own collation of our Covenant-right to the promised Benefits viz. Pardon and Salvation To this we believe that the Sacrament is effectual to meet receivers when it is so delivered as to be no Nullity and so many heretofore thought that Baptism delivered by a Lay-man is effectual that is not Null but investeth the person in his Covenant Relation and yet that it is unlawful for a Lay-man to administer it or others to desire it of him The other work of the Sacrament is on the Peoples hearts to which the manner of administring much contributeth as experience proveth Obj. But Sacraments operate not as Lawyers and Physicians do by the skill of the Minister but by God's grace and blessing Ans 1. But God's grace useth to work according to the aptitude of means morally as constant experience proveth And the word which is used in the Sacramental administration must be regarded and so must other waies of teaching as well as by Sacraments 2. And we cannot expect God's blessing in a way of sin when we own one for our Pastor whom we ought not Obj. But some take a man to be uncapable if he be but a sinner worse than ordinary as a drunkard fornicator swearer perjured a scorner at diligence in Religion c. whereas the Ministers sin depriveth not the people of the benefit of God's Ordinances Ans 1. He that not knowing the Minister to be such a one or by true necessity useth such a one yea or by ignorance thinketh that he should not avoid him if he be himself a true Believer may have God's Covenant sealed to him by the Sacrament which such a one delivereth Yea by an Usurper or meer Lay-man that is in possession and mistaken for a Minister If a man forge his Orders or intrude uncalled or be an obtruded usurping Bishop the people cannot alwaies detect it Nor do they lose their right to God's Sacraments because the man hath unknown to them no right to administer them But if they know such an one they should not own him as a Minister of Christ so far as to trust their souls with him as their Pastor at least when they may have a better And he that so withdraweth himself from the communion of notorious wicked Pastors whom he hath no power to cast out not separating causlesly from others or the Church-state seemeth to us to have all the following reasons to excuse him from the guilt of Schism 1 God hath commanded his servants to beware of false or pretended Prophets and told us how to know them by the hurtful fruits of thorns and thistles And Paul adviseth the Galatians Colossians c. earnestly to beware of unsound Teachers and the Churches that had those that taught people to eat things offered to Idols c. are threatned And God commendeth those that tryed false Apostles and found them Lyars Therefore the people in such cases as those have a trying judgment in order to their practice And Paul warneth the Romans to mark those that cause divisions and offences or scandals and avoid them as not serving Jesus Christ but their bellies and the forenamed crimes are scandals 2. God hath commanded men to know love and imitate godly Pastors Heb. 13. 7 17. 24. 1 Thes 5 12 13. 1 Tim 5. 17 c. And he hath given no man power to set such criminals over them as their Pastors and so far to deprive them of the means of salvation as to confine them to them 3. Though the Apostles charge with such no not to eat enable not private men to exercise Governing discipline on bad Pastors it seemeth to us to bind them when the case is notorious to disown them 4. Cyprians conclusion before mentioned is known inviting the people to forsake a bad Pastor Plebs maximam habet potestatem c. And he convinceth the people that if they forsake not such they are guilty 5. The Christian Churches have formerly practised it 6. The Law or Canon forbiddeth it to no man in England to desert men sobeit they will but remove their dwelling into another Parish Which is an extrinsick Circumstance of humane order 7. Even Pope Nicolas in his Decretals saith that Priests that commit fornication cannot have the honour of Priesthood Yea Let no man hear Mass of a Priest whom he certainly knoweth to have a Concubine or woman introduced and we hope we may be herein as clean as Papists Yea of Popes he saith He that by money or the favour of men or Popular or Military tumults is intruded into the Apostolical seat without the Concordant and Canonical Election of the Cardinals and the following religious Clergie let him not be taken for a Pope or Apostolical but Apostatical Caran 2. p. 393. 395. 8. Gildas saith of the British wicked Priests that they were Traytors and not Ministers of Christ and that he was not Eximius Christianus that would call them Ministers 9. Isidore Pelusiota in many Epistles to Zosimus and other wicked Priests hath much to the like purpose 10. St. Martin would not come to the synods of the Bishops about him nor Communicate with them at all because they were some of them rash bad men and had instigated Maximus to subdue the Priscillian Gnosticks by the Sword and thereby brought Religious people that were strict into suspicion of Priscillianism but especially he holding that Heresie was not to be so punished And when to save some mens lives he vielded to Maximus once to Communicate with the Bishops an Angel in his way corrected him and his working of Miracles was diminished by it and he forbore their Communion after to the death Either this history is true or not If not when it is written by his own Disciple and acquaintance Sulpitius Severus and one of the most Godly and Learned of all the ancient Historians and by others and when Martin is Canonized for one of the greatest Saints upon supposition that the History of his Life and Miracles is true what Church-history even that for Bishops can we then believe But if it be true then one of the holiest workers
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
maketh Legislation the natural right of the Body politick and governing power to be thence derived to depend upon the Body and to returne to it by escheats when heirs fail and that the King is singulis Major and universis Minor c. His eighth Book was in print long before Bishop Gauden published it who yet vindicateth it to be Hookers own 7. In 1637 1638 1639. A. Bishop Land useing more severity against dissenters than had been used of late before and the visitations more enquiring after private fasts and meetings and going out of mens own Parishes to hear and such like and also the Book for sports on the Lords daies being necessarily to be read by all the Conformable Ministers in the Churches and Altars Railes and Bowing towards them being brought in and in many places afternoon Sermons and Lectures put down the minds of men before filled with the aforementioned jealousies were made much more jealous than before And after the imprisonment of some the stigmatizing of some and the removall of many beyond the Seas and the death of more the Nonconformable Ministers were reduced to the paucity before mentioned but the minds of many people were more alienated from the later set of Bishops and the old sort of Conformists more jealous of them and more afraid of Popery c. than before 8. The new Liturgy then imposed on the Scots with the other changes there attempted the designes charged on the Marq. of Hamilton the fear of the Lords losing the Tyths c. which Dr. Heylin mentioneth as the causes or occasions of their arming there with the progress thereof and their entring into England and the advantage thence taken by some English Lords to advise the King to call a Parliament once and again and the discontents and proceedings of that Parliament against the two Ministers of the King for former things with such other matters we had rather the reader took from others than from us We are unwilling to be the mentioners of any more than concerneth our present cause and the things are very commonly known 9. On the 23. of October 1641. The Irish suddenly rose and murdered no less than two hundred thousand persons and Dublin narrowly escaped them of which we refer the Reader to the examinations published by Dr. Henry Jones since a Bishop in Ireland and to the history of Sir John Temple and to the Earl of Orery's Answer to Mr. Welsh 10. The dreadfulness of this Massacre so far exceeding the French the news sent over that the Irish said that they had the Kings Commission and the foregoing jealousies of the people and the Parliaments Declarations raised in multitudes of the people a fear that the Irish when they had ended their work there would come over hither and do the like and that they had partakers in England of whom we were in danger and that there was no way of safety but to adhere to the Parliament for their own defence or else it would quickly be too late to complain 11. In 1642. the lamentable Civil Warr brake out At which time as far as ever we could learn by acquaintance with some of them and report of others excepting an inconsiderable number the Houses of Lords and Commons consisted of those that had still lived in conformity to the Church of England and the Episcopal Government and were such Conformists as Dr. Heylin describeth Archbishop Abbot and the Clergy and Parliaments of his times to have been Crying out of the danger of a new partie that said they would shake our Religion Liberties and Property And such were they when the War began Presbytery being then little known among them 12. Their fear of being overpowred by the party of whom they seemed to think themselves in sudden danger caused some of them to countenance such Petitionings and clamours of the Londoners Apprentices and others as we think disorders and provocation of the King 13. The first open beginning was about the Militia And whether the Lord Lieutenants whom the Parliament chose were not almost all Episcopal Conformists we intreat the Reader but to peruse the Catalogue in the ordinance for that Militia and to ask any that well knew them as some of us did many of them and he may certainly be satisfied 14. The same we say 1. Of the far greatest part of the General Officers Collonels Lieutenant-Collonels and Majors of the Earl of Essex's Army 2. And of the Sea-Captains 3. And of the Major Generals of Brigades and Counties through the Land 15. When the Parliament's Armies were worsted and weakened by the King and they found themselves in danger of being overcome they intreated help from the Scots who taking the advantage of their straits brought in the Covenant as the Condition of their help which the Parliament rather accepted than they would lose them which at first was imposed on none by force But to pass by all other Considerations was judged by many wise men to be an occasion of division as making the opposition to Prelacy to be the terms of the Kingdoms Unity and Concord when they might know that the King and a great if not the greatest part of the Kingdom were of the contrary mind and so it was thought to be as the Papal terms of Unity a means of unavoidable division But others thought that because it tied them to no endeavours but in their Places and Callings they might take it 16. The Assembly of Divines at Westminster were men that had lived in Conformity except about eight or nine of them and the Scots But being such as thought Conformity lawful in case of deprivation but the things imposed to be a snare which should be removed if it could be lawfully done they also received the Covenant but were divided about the sense of the word Prelacy many professing their Judgment to be for Moderate Episcopacy whereupon the describing additions Archbishops Bishops Deans Archdeacons were added And upon such a Profession that it disclaimed not all Episcopacy Mr. Coleman is said to have given the Covenant to the House of Lords And they complained of the Parliament which tied them to meddle with nothing but what they offered to them 17. This Covenant and Vow was taken by the Parliament and by their Garrisons and Souldiers that would volunrarily take it as a test whom they would trust the rest being had in suspension And after the wars by such as were ordained Ministers and by the Kings adherents when they made their compositions so far was it afterward imposed But many Ministers and Gentlemen refused it and so did Cromwel's Souldiers and in many Counties few did take it 18. How far the Parliament was from being Presbyterians may partly be seen in the Propositions sent from them by the Earl of Essex to the King at Nottingham and partly by their defeating all the desires and endeavours of those that would have Presbytery setled through the Land We know of no places but London and
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
as an Innovator and those that followed him And some think that every side had too much hand in it and were to be blamed The truth is 1. That more by far of the Nonconformists than of the late sort of the Prelatists were for the Parliament in those times 2. That some that were Sectaries and some that were hot for the Parliament did conform 3. That some few that had been in the King's Army or Cause and that were sufferers for him and were against the Covenant and the Parliaments War were Nonconformists 4. That many more of the old Episcopal Comformists than of the later sort of them were for the Parliament 5. That the Archbishop of York Williams who had some time been Lord Keeper was one of the Parliaments Commanders in North-Wales as it is reported without denial 6. That most Ministers are dead that were in that War 7. That the Westminster Assembly as is said came thither almost all Conformists 8. That so small is the number of the present silenced Ministers who had any hand in those Wars that if no other were ejected and silenced but they the case would be judged comparatively very easie and it would be thankfully accepted as hath oft been told For most were then youths at School and in the Universities and many lived in the King's quarters and garrisons and many other never medled with Wars at all it being now about thirty four or five years since the War began 9. That all the Wars that have been since their opposition to the Parliament and violence done to the person of the King were far from being owned by the common sort of the now Nonconformists as was said 10. The Doctrine of Bilson Hooker and such like containing such Principles as Parliament men then usually professed is before mentioned though not fully recited and is commonly known and that the main body of the Parliament Assembly Army Commanders Lord Lieutenants Mâ—jor Generals of Bragades and Sea-Captains were professed Conformists of the Church of England 11. Lastly We had hoped that His Mâ—jesties prudence had by the Act of Oblivion long since ended this part of the Contention but we find still some conformable Ministers whom in other respects we much esteem and love who as if Truth Charity Justice and Humanity had been forgotten by them affirm in print that All the Nonconformists were guilty of the King's Death passing over what is aforesaid of the Conformists and others of them crying out to Magistrates to execute the Laws on us by the urged Motive of their late sequestrations and sufferings as if they knew not or would not have others to know how few Nonconformists in Parliament or Militia there were at the beginning of the War in comparison of the Conformists and how much the second third and following Causes Parties and Tragedies in that War were disliked by the now Episcopal and Presbyterian Nonconformists 36. The people who now adhere to the Nonconformists who were at age before the Wars whom we that write this were acquainted with had very hard thoughts of the Bishops persons and some of Episcopacy it self because of the foresaid silencing of Ministers and ruining of honest men about Sunday-sports Reading that Book and other such things besides Nonconformity But when the Ministers that guided them began to seem more reconciled to the Episcopal Party and upon the reports and promises which they had heard had put them in hope that the next Bishops would prove more moderate peaceable and pious than the former and would by experience avoid divisions and persecution the said people began to be enclined to more reverent and favourable thoughts of Episcopacy and the Bishops and were upon experience of the late confusions in a far fairer way to union submission to them than before But when they saw their Teachers taken from them and some such set over them against their wills who were better known to them than to the obtruders and when they heard of about 2000 silenced at once this so much alienated them from the Bishops that it was never since in our power to bring them to so much esteem of them and reverence to them as might have been but multitudes by this were driven further from Conformity than the silenced Ministers 37. The 2000 silenced were not a quarter of the Ministers of England who were in possession before the return of the Bishops so that it is evident that above three fourth parts of the Ministers that kept in under the Parliament and Protector notwithstanding Covenant Directory and all did prove Conformists 38. The New-altered Liturgy was not printed and published till August 24. or near it when the Ministers were to be silenced that subscribed not and consented not so that we must needs suppose that they were but few Ministers in England in comparison of the rest who ever saw and read much less long considered that Book before they declared their Assent and Consent to all things in it Sure we are that we that lived in London who had it at the first publishing found the time past or so short to examine all things in it with due deliberation that had it been blameless we must have been silenced unless we had consented upon an implicit faith 39. Since we were silenced His Majesties Declaration for more Liberty in Religion came out 1673. but soon died And since then we have been called to many attempts for Unity in which we have twice come to an agreement with those honest peaceable pious and learned Divines of the Church of England who were appointed to treat of it with us But that signified nothing as to our healing while Reasons unknown to us or ineffable prevailed 40. Yet still we have been called on to Tell what we sâ—â—ck at and what we desired and what would satisfie us who desire nothing but leave to excercise the Ministry to which we were ordained and the Cant still goeth on among the ignorant at least as if we had never told them to this day or as if since the new conformity we had ever been called or had leave to tell them or as if the same men would endure us to tell them our case of dissent and the reasons of it to this day But the Judg is at the door SECT VIII The Matters of Fact as to what is required of us by Laws and Canon to which we must conform And first of Lay-men I. OF Laymen that will have any Government or Trust in any City or Corporation is necessarily required the taking of the following Oath and Declaration by a Law I Swear that it is not Lawful upon any pretence whatsoever to take Arms against the King And that I Abhor that Trayterous position that Arms may be taken by His Authority against his Person or against those that are Commissioned by him And the Declaration is That there is NO OBLIGATION upon me or ANY OTHER person from the Oath Commonly called the solemn League and
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
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
called barren If one of these be God's Word the Nonconformists think that the other is contrary to it 4. In the old Book in the Psalms there are whole verses left out which are in the Hebrew Text and our new Translation and divers translated in a quite different sense the former following the Septuagint 5. The Rubrick for Christmas day is Then shall follow the Collect of the Nativity which shall be said continually unto New-years day And the Collect for all these several daies is Aâ—mighty God which hast given us thine only begotten Son to take our Nature upon him and THIS DAY to be born of a pure Virgin So the Collect on Whitsunday is God which upon this day c. The Rubrick is The same Collect to be read Munday and Teesday So on Christmas day and seven daies after Because thou hast given Jesus Christ thine only Son to be born as on this day for us c. And on Whitsunday and six daies after According to whose most true promise the Holy Ghost came down this day from Heaven These things and such other we must approve in the foresaid Approbation of all things in the old Common-Prayer-Book V. We must Assent Approve and Consent to all the mis-translations in the present Liturgy as well as to justifie the old Edition That before-cited Psal 105. 28. is in the present Book and so are the rest of the omissions and differences in the Psalms before mentioned which are many Different Translations which have all the same sense may be all called God's Word because their sense is so But where they have different senses so far one of them is contrary to God's Word For God's Word is one and true and not contrary to it self The question is not whether these faulty Translations were not a good work and a great mercy to the Church till we had a better Nor whether they may not be lawfully used where there is no better Yea or where there is a better if the Command of Governours or Concord make it best for that time and place But it is Whether all the faults of the Translation may be Assented Approved and Consented to We commit some failings and sins every day but we may not Approve of them and profess that we Consent so to do 2. Some Conformists here think that the Declaration is to be taken properly without any force or distorting and they say that both Translations are justifiable because one followeth the Hebrew and the other the Septuagint and Christ and his Apostles have justified both by using them But others of them hold that this instance proveth that by All things Assented and consented to must be meant only All things that are not by humane frailty mistaken or erroneous or els that by Assenting and Approving must be meant no more than Assenting that they may be Used And so they consent with the Nonconformists in the matter but not in the exposition of the words And to the former they say 1. That there are other mistranslations besides those that follow the septuagint 2. That Christ and the Apostles by citing some Texts according to the septuagint do not thereby approve of all the rest for they cite others otherwise 3. That by citing them they justifie not alwaies the translation but only the sense so far as it is cited for it being that scripture which the people then commonly used 3. And they say that if this objection should hinder mens Assenting to the Liturgy it might as well hinder their Assenting to the Bible in our translations And indeed we know no Nonconformist who would declare or subscribe that he doth Assent to Approve and Consent to all things Contained in the Bible according to any Translation but only all things Contained in the Bible as it was delivered by the sacred writers and in all Translations so far as they truly signifie or express that to us But if they might but say as one part expounds the Declaration We Assent c. To all things Contained c. That are not by humane frailty mistaken they would soon Conform herein 6. The Calendar in the Common Prayer appointeth the publick reading of the Books called Apocrypha beginning September 28. And so Continuing to November 24. Every day of the week except the proper Lessons interposed Part of the Apocrypha to be read are the Book of Tobit Judith Bell and the Dragon c. 2. Learned Bishops and Divines of the Church of England have written to prove that these Books are not only Aprocryphal but fabulous and have manifest untruths As that the intralls of a fish will drive away all Devils and keep them from returning When Christ saith This kind goeth not out but by Fasting and Prayer And when the Angel saith that He was the son of Ananias of the tribe of Napthali c. 3. These Books are to be read just in the place and order as the Sacred Scriptures are and under the same title of the First Lesson Only called Apocrypha in the Bibles But 1. It is not appointed that the Priest tell the people so 2. If it were they understand not Commonly what Apocrypha signifieth 3. If they were sometime told it they forget it and apply not that name to every Lesson that they thence hear 4. It is not denyed that the sounder Books that are Apocrypha may be read in the Church as a Homily may be with due notice of their difference from the Canonical Books But the question is whether not only they but the Books proved fabulous by many Protestants may be there read and that instead of so much of the holy Scripture then omitted and that without any better notice given to the Common people of the difference 5. And the chief doubt is whether this may not only be done but also the Calendar as so appointing it may be Approved of and Consented to by us all 7 It hath been before opened that no Parent is permitted to be Godfather to his own Child or to speak one word at his baptizing to enter him into the Covenant of God or dedicate him to him nor to promise in his name nor to undertake any part of his Christian education nor so much as to be urged to be present Nor is there a word to intimate that the Godfathers represent the Parent or speak in his name or stead but the contrary is implyed Though the Parents are to procure these God fathers 2. It hath also been before shewed how great a Controversie it is whether Infants Right to Gods promises and Church state be not by that Covenant I will be thy God and the God of thy seed implyed in 1. Cor. 7. 14. els were your Children unclean but now are they holy And so whether Infants have any right upon a Godfathers words there who never took them for his own if on the Parents account they have no right And whether such Godfathers act be truly the Child 's in
they have obliged him and his Subscription hath secured his Obedience 4. And some of them say that it is not the Priest that refuseth them for he would Baptize them with the Cross if the parent sent the Child or the Adult person came But we need not strive about the word The thing we are agreed of viz. That the Priest consenteth not to Baptize them who dare not receive it with the use of the Cross Whether this be to be called a rejecting them or denying them Baptism unless they will be so crossed we need not call for extraordinaty accurateness to judge 5. No Conformists do pretend that this use of this Image of the Cross is of divine institution But all confess that Baptism is of divine institution and that Christ hath Commanded Math. 28. 19. 20. That they that are discipled should be Baptized and that one may be a disciple of Christ without the Image of the Cross 6. Some of the Nonconformists hold their use of the Cross it self here unlawful But others that would venture to use it rather than be silenced yet fear the guilt of denying Baptism Christendom and certain salvation as the Church judgeth to all that dare not receive it or present their Children to receive it believing that murdering natural life is a less hurt than undoing souls 7. But Covenanting by deliberate subscription and declaration to do it how oft soever they fear more than the actual doing of it rarely not daring to do their part to damn the Children of all that are against Baptizing with the Cross nor all the unbaptized adult that are of that opinion XI And as they fear rejecting such as will not be so Crost from Baptism so they much fear the English use of the Cross themselves and that much more than Crossing our selves on ordinary occasions or setting up Crosses on our doors or Churches or by the high waies and yet much more than they fear such using of the Cross as Augustine de Civ Dei and other ancients mention as an open Indication to Heathens that we are not ashamed of a Crucified Christ Much less are they against civil uses of a Cross 2. The name Sacrament signifying primarily any solemnization of a Covenant by Oath and Ceremony as the sacramentum militare among the Romans especially a Covenant which engageth one in a new relation and more largely any sacred mystical Ceremony the question here is whether the Cross be not made not only a sacrament in a larger sense as ordination and Matrimony may be called sacraments but even a sacrament of the Covenant of grace or so very neer it as to have the greatest part of that sacramental nature 3. The Church Catechism defineth a Divine sacrament thus An outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace given to us ordained by Christ himself as a means whereby we receive the same and a pledge to assure us thereof 4. That it be ordained by Christ himself is not essential to a sacrament in genere but to a sacrament of Gods making in specie as distinct from one that 's made by man as is evident in the reason of the name 5. The true nature of this Crossing is known by the Liturgy 2. And the Canon 1. The Liturgy appointeth it to be used at Baptism not as a part of our Baptism but as a thing added immediately after the words I Baptize thee c. even in our Covenanting with God 2. It thus describeth and appointeth it we receive this Child into the Congregation of Christs flock here the Priest shall make a Cross upon the forehead and do sign him with the sign of the Cross in token that hereafter he shall not be ashamed to confess the faith of Christ Crucified and manfully to fight under his banner against sin the world and the devil and to continue Christs faithful servant and souldier unto his lives end Amen 2. The Rubrick to which we Assent and Consent referreth us to the 30th Canon as giving us the true explication thereof and the just reasons c. The Canon saith Christians signed their Children therewith when they were Christned to dedicate them by that badge to his service whose benefits bestowed on them in Baptism the name of the Cross did represent The Church of England accounteth it a lawful outward Ceremony and honourable badge whereby the Infant is dedicated to the service of him that dyed on the Cross as by the words used in the Common Prayer it may appear 3. The Liturgy's Preface of Ceremonies saith that they serve to a godly discipline and are such as be apt to stir up the dull mind of man to the remembrance of his duty to God by some notable and special signification whereby he might be edifyed 4 We suppose that here 1. The sign is the transient Image of the Cross used in Gods service 2. The particular service in which it is used is our Baptismal Covenanting with God 3. The thing signified by the sign it self is the Cross and passion of Christ 4. The thing signified by the Receiving of it is that we do as Covenanters profess and oblige our selves not to be ashamed to confess the faith of Christ Crucified and manfully to fight under his banner against sin the world and the Devil and to continue Christs faithful servants and souldiers to our lives end And that by this we are dedicated to God And that we take it as an honourable badge hereof 5. Note that the Minister speaketh as Gods Officer from him and doth not represent the Child nor speak as in his name that being the part assigned to the Godfathers And the thing signified by him in his using this sign is that he doth as Christs Minister dedicate him by this sign to the service of him that dyed on the Cross the name whereof represents the benefits bestowed on him in Baptism which are all the benefits of that Covenant and to oblige him to this end not to be ashamed to confess the faith of Christ Crucified and manfully to fight under his banner as aforesaid And that this be a badge or symbol of his Christian profession 5. The great fear of the Nonconformists is lest this be a second sacrament of the Covenant of graee made by man added to Baptism or at least have most of the nature and uses of it And lest Christ will take it as an invasion of his prerogative so to use it and to make a new badge or symbol of our Christianity As the King would take it ill of one that would without him make a badge or symbol for his subjects as subjects or of the order of the Knights of the Garter as such And the rather because it is the use of an Image though transient in Gods Worship and to such high ends XII The Rubrick which we must Assent Approve and consent to saith that There shall none be admitted to the holy Communion till such time as he be confirmed
conscious of Infidelity Atheism Sadduceism and Heresie and some of many secret heinous sins some of these in their hearts deride Christianity and the sacrament And the other are afraid of increasing their damnation But yet do not make known their sin But it is notorious that abundance of such there be And the doubt is whether these should be compelled to the sacrament thrice a year 6. The Nonconformists hold that to deliver a man that sacrament is to deliver him the body and blood of Christ and therewith a sealed pardon of sin and guift of life eternal And they think that the terms on which these are to be received are wholly devoting our selves to Christ denying all and taking up our Cross and following him And therefore that to say Receive the sacrament or he in a Gaol seemeth much to alter the terms of the Gospel which saith If thou canst not suffer a Gaol for Christ thou art unworthy of him It is he that can forsake all for Christ that is fit for the sacrament and not he that would not Communicate without the fear of a prison or other punishment To give the sacrament is to give more than all the riches of the world which none but volunteers and desirers are fit for 7. The ancient Churches made delinquents long beg for such great priviledges and gifts knowing that to give them to those that are unwilling is to subvert the Gospel But they never said Receive them or go to Gaol 8. Were it but granted in England that the great gift of Christs body and blood and holy Communion should be administred and received freely that is only given by and to voluntary agents and receivers it would heal almost all the English differences between Episcopal Presbyterians and Independents 9. Yet the Nonconformists are not against the encouraging of Communicants by special favours nor the prudent compelling of Ignorant men to hear the truth nor the hindering of pernicious heresies moderately But the foresaid compulsion of all Parishioners they dare not Approve XVI The Minister according to the Liturgy is himself to give the Eucharist to many to whom the Nonconformists dare not give it For they must give it thrice a year to all the Parishioners except such as are proved to him that hath no power to examine them or witnesses to be in malice towards others or to be in any scandalous sin and that but for that time till they are accused and acquit or still permitted viz. 1. They must give it to many that consent not to be any part of their charge nor take them for their Pastors but bid them deny them the Sacrament if they dare though they consent not to the relation 2. They must give it to multitudes of the grosly ignorant who know not the essentials of Christianity or the Sacrament nor will come to them to be taught When by fame yea or personal knowledge they know them to be such yet without proof nor we think with proof they cannot refuse them 3. It is known that Infidels and deriders of Scripture and mans Immortal state do swarm more among us And yet they must all Communicate till we can bring proof of it against particular persons When few men that report it will accuse their neighbours and prove the accusation for fear of their displeasure 4. We must give it to all the ungodly that are dismist by a Lay-Chancellour after accusation 5. We must give it to all that are unwilling to receive it sobeit they had rather take it than lie in a Gaol and be undone 3. On these terms the Nonconformists dare not Assent Consent to and Approve the giving of it as is prescribed 4. It is confessed that compelled Receiving is not commanded by Christ nor was used by the Church for many hundred years even after Emperours were Christians XVII The Liturgy requireth Ministers at Burial to use these words importing the salvation of the person Forasmuch as it hath pleased Almighty God of his great mercy to take to himself the soul of our dear Brother here departed And We give thee hearty thanks for that it hath pleased thee to deliver this our Brother out of the miseries of this sinful world And That we may rest in him as our hope is this our Brother doth 2. The Conformists are not agreed of the sense of these words One sort of them say that all these words import not the salvation of the person But the rest have more ingenuity and confess that else the words are not intelligible and that such equivocation is not tolerable 3. Some of them say that these passages are good supposing Discipline well exercised which if it be not it is not the fault of the Liturgy But others consider that 1. We know that Discipline is not so exercised as they suppose 2. And that these passages are not to be approved and used whether Discipline be so exercised or not The meaning is not I approve of this where Discipline is well exercised 3. It is known that the Bishops will not have every Priest to be Judge 4. The Canon which is the work of the same Church thus expoundeth the Churches meaning Can. 14. All Ministers shall observe the Orders Rites and Ceremonies prescribed in the Book of Common-Prayer as well in reading the holy Scriptures and saying of Prayers as in administration of the Sacraments without either diminishing in regard of Preaching or in any other respect or adding any thing in the matter or form thereof This also concerneth most of the cases before instanced in as Expositions of the Churches meaning 5. And Can. 68. it s said No Minister shall refuse or delay to bury any Corps that is brought in such manner and form as is prescribed in the Book of Common-Prayer And if he shall refuse to bury such except the party deceased were denounced excommunicated Majori Excommunicatione for some grievous and notorious crime and no man able to testifie of his repentance he shall be suspended by the Bishop 6. The new Edition of the Liturgy increaseth the exceptions thus The Office ensuing is not to be used for any that die unbaptized or excommunicate or that have laid violent hands on themselves 7. Note 1. That many children of good Christians by surprize die unbaptized 2. Many godly sober persons are excommunicated for some point of Nonconformity 3. Some upright Christians in phrensies melancholies and distractions make away themselves 8. Note That Atheists Infidels Sadduces Blasphemers Whoremongers c. swarm now among us and we rarely hear of any one of these multitudes that are excommunicated so that they are not excepted 9. It cannot be denyed that exceptio firmat regulam in non exceptis so that no other must be excepted 10. It is known that all England consists of all the Individuals and all the people are all England 11. We commonly Preach that without Faith and Holiness none shall see God and that Whoremongers Drunkards c. cannot enter into
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.
If God ask us why we did not teach our families visit the sick instruct ignorant neighbours study better for to discharge our Ministerial work that we might be men of knowledge and such like the doubt is whether it will pass for a good answer to say we had not time because we must twice a day read the Common-Prayer XXI Assenting Approving and Consenting to all things even to all forms orders c. includeth the order of the Liturgy Two Rules of the order of Prayer are commonly acknowledged 1. The nature and order of the matter to be expressed 2. The Lords Prayer us a directory delivered by Christ 2. The Nonconformists that think that for the main there is nothing but good contained in most of the Prayers of the Liturgy yet think that they are greatly disordered and defective neither formed according to the order of matter nor of the Lords Prayer but like an immethodical Sermon which is unsuitable to the high subjects and honourable work of holy worship 3. They have oft offered whenever it will be well taken to give in a Catalogue of the disorders and defects of the Liturgy Which yet they think it lawful to use in obedience or for unity or when no better may be used But not to approve of such disorder as we do not approve of the failings of any of our own duties though we are daily guilty of them unwillingly XXII The Preface to the Book of Ordination saith that It is evident to all men diligently reading holy Scriptures and ancient Authors that from the Apostles time there have been these ORDERS in Christ's Church Bishops Priests and Deacons as several OFFICES which are repeated oft in the Collects at Ordination To this all must Assent and Consent 2. Some of us are conscious that we have diligently read the holy Scriptures and ancient Authors and yet three ORDERS and OFFICES are not evident to us 3. We have great reason to believe that Calvin Beza and many more Reformers Blondell Salmatius Robert Parker Gersom Bucer Calderwood Cartwright John Reynolds Ames Ainsworth and multitudes of such Protestants did diligently read both Scriptures and Ancients As also Dr. Sâ—illingfleet Bishop Edw. Reynolds and many such who thought that Scripture instituted no particular forms of Government As also Armachanus and many other Papists who think that Bishops and Priests do not differ ordine but gradu which the R. Reverend Archbishop Usher ordinarily professed We cannot assert that none of these diligently read Scripture or ancient Authors 4. But especially when we find that even the ancient Church of England was of another mind as is legible in the Canons of Aelfrick to Wulfine in Spelman pag. 573. 576. which conclude that in the old large sense there were but seven Ecclesiastical Orders or Degrees and that the Bishops and Presbyters are not two but one Hand pluris interest inter Missalem Presbyterum Episcopum quam quod Episcopus constitutus sit ad ordinationes conferendas ad visitandum seu inspiciendum curandumque ea quae ad Deum pertinent quod nimiae crederetur multitudini si omnis Presbyter hoc idem faceret Ambo siquidem UNUM tenent EUNDEMQUE ORDINEM quamvis dignior sit illa pars Episcopi 18. Non est alius ORDO constitutus in Ecclesiasticis Ministeriis c. Et Leg. Canuti p. 551. Pastores vocamus Episcopos Sacerdotes quorum partes sunt eruditione at que doctrina gregem Domini speculari ac desendere c. 5. And Dr. Stillingsleet hath proved by sufficient evidence that the same was the judgment of Archbishop Cranmer and other Reformers of the Church of England And it is the judgment of some of our Bishops and Conformists now All which we speak not to shew which side we think to be in the right but that the state of the question is Whether we can assent to this as true and approve and consent that it be used as is appointed That it 's evident to all men diligently reading c. that de facto there were three ORDERS and Offices from the Apostles times XXIII The ordering of Priests requireth the Bishop to speak to the people at the Ordination of Priests calling them to come forth in the name of God and shew what crime or impediment they know in the persons to be ordained c. In imitation of the ancient Churches when the Congregation over which they were set had their voice in his election or reception 2. The doubt is whether such a solemn invitation as in God's name be not too vain to be Assented and Approved and Consented to in a Church where the people over whom he is set never use to be present nor invited to it nor have any notice of it or any call to meddle therein being usually many miles and often many score miles distant nor any other people called to that work and rarely any people there that have any knowledge of the man and his conversation XXIV The Ordaining of Priests and the Consecration of Bishops both use these words as concerning the Office Receive the Holy Ghost for the Office and work of a Priest of a Bishop c. 2. It is not doubted but that the Holy Ghost must set Pastors over the Flocks 1. By qualifying men for the Office and making them desirous of it Both Grace Ability and Willingness are of him 2. By giving the Ordainers a discerning skill to know whom to ordain 3. By giving the flock a discerning and a willing mind We yet know not of any other Collation of the Holy Ghost which Ordination can make Nor know we that in any of these senses these words can be well understood For 1. Grace Gifts and Willingness are the dispositio recipient is presupposed we see not how it can be lawful to ordain him that seemeth not before to have them what else are they examined about Nor know we that God hath given any power to the Ordainers now by the laying on of hands to make an ungodly man godly or an unlearned or ignorant man to be learned or wise or a man of ill utterance to have a better tongue or an unwilling man to be willing The Apostles had a miraculous power of giving the Holy Ghost for extraordinary works and for abilities suddenly infused and they did it we never knew of any in our age that did it and therefore suppose that they have no promise or power so to do 2. And to give a discerning skill to the Ordainers 3. Or to give a discerning or willing mind to the people are neither of them a giving the Holy Ghost to the Priest The doubt is whether this be not an abuse of the words which Christ himself or his Apostles used and so not to be assented to approved and consented to 3. Yet is it not denyed but that Ministerial Authority is given by the ordainers as Ministers Deliverers or Investers But Authority is not the Holy Ghost so called 4. Nor
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-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
a Christian Civil Governour of a Christian People that are his Subjects We daily pray that the Kingdoms of the world may all be Christian and we believe that their Kings are the Governours by the sword of all the Clergy as well as others 3. Nor is the question whether Kings may call all their Kingdoms into a holy Covenant with God by lawful means giving them an example first themselves 4. Nor do we contend about an Equivocal Name whether a Christian Kingdom as such may be called a National Church 5. No nor whether a Christian Nation governed by a Heathen or Mahometan King may be called a Christian Church or Kingdom or a Protestant Nation ruled by a Papist King is to be called a Protestant Kingdom or Church for this is but about bare names 6. Nor do we question whether a Christian King may make such accidental disparity between the Pastors as we have before described 7. Nor yet whether the Pastors of one Kingdom may associate and hold Synods for Unity and Counsel and be named a National Church as they are such Associations obliged to Concord §4 But our doubts are these 1. Whether it be in it self specially instituted by God that every Kingdom or Nation of Christians shall have One summam Potestatem essentialiter Ecclesiasticam or one Priest-Head whether a single person or an Aristocracy or a Common Synod as a constitutive part of the National Church 2. Whether this Priest-Head whether High-Priest or Council stand in subordination to the King as part of the same formal Church as a General or a Vicerov that maketh not a distinct Kingdom though he may make a distinct subordinate Society as an Army City c or is he Head of a coordinate different species so as that the same Kingdom shall be two Policies formally viz. a Christian Kingdom or Royal Church and a Priestly Church each being supream in their proper species and both made coordinate by Christ and so they are formally two Churches National About the Jews the Controversie is made by Dissenters e. g. Galaspie Coleman Selden c. exceeding difficult 3. Whether the very Jewish Church Policy be established by Christ for the Christian Church or be repealed 4 Whether the said Ecclesiastical Head must be One as the High Priest or an Aristocracy of many or a Synod of the whole Clergy or whether it be left indifferent which 5. Or whether God hath ordained such a National Church-form only by the general Command of doing all things in Order and Unity and to Edification 6. Which is the Priestly-Head or highest Governour of the Church of England which is a constitutive part as a King in a Kingdom 7. Who is it that chooseth or authorizeth the National Priestly Head that we may know when we have a lawful Chief Pastor and when an Usurper 8. Whether the King or he is to be obeyed in Circumstances or matters Ecclesiastical if they differ and make contrary Laws Without the solution of these questions the name of a National Church will not be understood nor of any practical importance Our own thoughts of them are as followeth § 5. It is certain that the Mosaical Law made for the Jews peculiar republick as such is abrogate not only the Ceremonial part but all All that was not then made for all the world is ceased 1. Because the Common-wealth is ceased for which it was made 2. The Holy Ghost expresly and frequently determineth it so even of that Law that was written in stone as such 2 Cor. 3. 7 8 9 10 11. Heb. 7. 12. 19. Gal. 4. 21 o. 3. 24. The natural part and that which was instituted positively long before for perpetuity were both of them God's Laws before Moses's time and as such obliged other Nations and so do still The matter written in stone except some few mutable particulars as the seventh day Sabbath c. is such as we are still obliged to 1. By Nature 2. By Christ But not as it was part of the Jews peculiar Mosaical Law Much less doth it bind all the world to its Policy § 6. If the Jewish Law either as such or as stablished by Christ for his Kingdom did bind all the world to this day then it would bind them to their Civil Policy as much at least as to their Ecclesiastical But few Christians think that it binds them to their Civil Policy For if it did then 1. All Nations that have varied from it to this day have sinned 2. No diversity of Governments could be lawful 3. Then it would perplex men to be sure whether it be the old Mosaical form by Judges or the later Regal form that bindeth 4. Then such a Civil Council or Sanhedrim as was appointed the Jews would be a Divine Establishment and not variable at the will of Kings or People Many other things would follow which Kings would not easily believe § 7. There may be much more said for the continuance of the Jews civil Policy than for their Ecclesiastical For there is much more forbidden of the latter than of the former Though all nations be not bound to their civil policie they may set it up if they please They are not prohibited For Christ hath not made new Laws for civil states as such But he hath made new Church Laws and thereby altered yea prohibited much of the old § 8. We know no more reason why the Jewish form should bind us than that which was before the Jews and particularily Melchezedeks who was a King and Priest God owned both and commandeth us neither at least as in conformity to them § 9. The Holy Ghost saith expresly Heb. 7. 11. 12. That perfection was not by the Levitical Priesthood and that the Priesthood being changed there is made of necessity a change of the Law which is called the Law of a carnal Cammandment verse 16. and that there is a disanulling of the Commandement going before for the weakness and unprofitableness of it for the Law made nothing perfect v. 18 19. the Covenant or Law being not faultless a new one doth succeed it v. 7. 8. 9. 10. The first Tabernacle is not standing which had their ordinances of divine service and a worldly sanctuary Heb. 9 1. 8. 11. He taketh away the first Law and Priesthood that he may establish the second Heb. 10. 8 9 11. 16. 17 c. § 10. Whilest it is agreed on that the essentials of the work or office of the Jewish Priests is ceased as Heb. 7. and 8 9 and 10 shew and their Title by birth and the appropriation to one Tribe c. it followeth that the Jewish Priesthood is ceased But yet we confess that Christ if he had pleased might have setled a High Priest and Council like theirs in every nation for his own work But if the old form bind us not we are left only to enquire what new one is setled by Christ and whether he have done so or not § 11.
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
Perjury even already white to the Harvest God the most righteous judge should quickly put in the sickle utterly to cut down so perfidious and profane a nation We have long felt that our most merciful Father is angry and that the infinite patience of God is turned into fury being infinitely wronged and if I may so say overcome It is not easy to say for which sins this chiefly is when all sins are very great But verily he that will seriously think since God hath begun to scourge us by a neerer rod how we have not grieved for these grievous sins of swearing and perjury yea how greatly on one side is increased the unbridled and unpunished licence of swearing and blaspheming and on the other side the soul hypocrisie of forswearing on pretence of religion it can scarce be but that of Jeremy will come into his mind Because of Oaths the land mourneth These things being to neer Fathers and Brethren we that are here and all others that wish well to the publick peace of the Kingdom and Church and the private peace of their own hearts and consciences must be intreated that they first carefully beware of the name of God and the crime of violated fidelity and wholly avoid unnecessary Oaths and constantly refuse those that are unduely imposed or offered by others and fulfill those faithfully that are duly and rightly taken by our selves and then that as much as we are able we strenuously restrain the liberty of sinning in others and that we pray to our most Good and Great God continually that being taught by his scourge and admonished and humbled under his mighty hand we fly to his mercy acknowledge his justice implore his grace for the pardon of our sins the amendment of our lives and the safety of our souls by and for the merits of our Lord Jesus Christ To whom with the Father and the Spirit the Three one-Omnipotent God be Kingdom Power and Glory for ever Amen It 's like Dr. Sanderson had some special eye to the Scots Covenant but doubtless he made not any new or singular Doctrine for that end which will not hold true in all cases by him described Mr. Rich. Hollingworth in a late Plea for the Church of England vehemently urging the execution of the Laws against Nonconformists saith Page 71. 1. Thereby by Perjury the conscience of the Minister is debauched and he thereby made very unfit to give those instructions and wholsom counsel to the people that otherwise he might do For all wilful sins especially such a Notorious one as Perjury hardens a mans mind and divests him till repented of of all the necessary and useful influences and assistances of Gods good spirit and maketh him careless as of his own so of the souls of others And a man so easily ensnared by such a sin is easily induced by any temptation to a neglect of those duties which his Office calls for and a remiss performance of those Ordinances which were designed and commanded on purpose to reform and instruct the people And page 73. They must be accountable at the last day not only for their own sin but for that very sin of Perjury which the vicious Priest is guilty of For he that inviteth a man to a sin is reckoned as if he had committed the sin himself What then would become of me if I undertook to justifie the Perjury of multitudes yea if also I did by Press and Preaching earnestly press Magistrates to execute the Laws upon many hundreds of Christs Ministers because they dare not venture on that which they fear on such reasons as are here rendred to be a participation of many thousand Perjuries nor on the heinous sacriledge of deserting their sacred function and encouraging neer two thousand silenced Ministers to do the like by my example besides many other feared sins If I were the man that for this did plead and beg that they might be laid in Gaols with rogues and pay fourty pound a sermon and be banished five miles from all Corporations c. and all this as necessary to the Church and as for God fathering it all on him who is the God of Truth and Love and pretending that there is no need of their Ministry because that I and such as I do better perform all that office against ignorance ungodliness and popery without them c. How could I expect regard when I preached against the sins of others Or with what face could I do it When my sin shall be opened to me must I not with Origen after his fall instead of preaching shut the book and weep remembring Psal 50. 16 17. and the dreadful third Commandment and tremble when I thought of death and judgment For a Judas in Christs family sinneth at a dearer rate than strangers and will quickly find his gain too hot to hold and those that hired him to be woful Comforters who will turn him off with a see thou to that Obj. Fewer words might serve Ans Nondum satis dicitur dum non satis discitur Nec paucis dicendum est quod paucis non discendum est While I long wondered that I could not see what satisfied both all the Learned Convocation and the Parliament for the truth of the Rule in the Liturgy to find out Easter-day for ever which is contrary to our Almanacks and we must all be silenced and ruined for Preaching unless we profess that we Assent to it I met with no Conformist that gave me any other satisfaction than to refer me to Dr. Pells Book And meeting him happily I craved his information and the grave learned honest Doctor was so far from making me a Conformist that he professed the passage now is indefensible I was lately assaulted with this as the strongest Argument for Conformity Deliberate lying is no sin but a duty when it doth no harm but a necessary good As by a Physician to save his patient or to save a mans life much more to save souls by preaching Ans This case requireth a longer answer than I have here room for Briefly 1. God best knoweth who is wisest and meetest to Govern the world for the good of all and he forbids it 2. This principle believed would make all men untrusty to each other while every man would think he had reason to lie when his interest required it and untrustiness overthroweth all humane polities societies and converse and so would do a thousand fold more harm to Kings Subjects and all than the saving of a mans life would compensate 3. It s hypocrisie to sin my self that I may preach against sin in others 4. The Church of God is against this doctrine fathers And the best casuists have copiously confuted it though some Jesuites are more lax and use to serve their interest by it 5. At least me thinks that where Jesnites lying is cryed down men should not judge my fearing a lie a crime that rendreth me intolerable in the Ministry and my
were cut out by the King's command and they spake freely by miracle after they were cut out as is testified by Aeneas Gaze◠and by Victor Uticensis who saw and spake with and heard the persons when this miracle was wrought upon them and by Procopius XXIV It will be objected that Constantius Valeus Gensericus Hunnericus c were Arrians and the later conquering Usurpers Answ 1. Even Heathen Emperours and Kings are our Governours though they want due aptitude to their duty as also do many wicked Christian Princes And we owe them obedience when their Laws or Mandates are not against the Laws of God We must not say as Bellarmine that Christians should not tolerate such Princes and that the ancient Christians suffered for want of Power to resist 2. Let the Emperours called Arrians be made no worse than they were Some were for Concord and Toleration of both Parties and so are more suspected than proved to be Arrians And Arrians themselves though unexcusably erroneous were not like the Socinians that utterly deny Christ's Deity They subscribed to all the Nicene Creed save the the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They would say that Christ was Light of Light very God of very God begotten not made c. They thought that as the Sun-beams or Light are its immediate emanation but not its substance as commonly Philosophers say they are not how true we say not so Christ was an immediate emanation from the Father before and above Angels by whom all things else were made And how dangerously Justin and most of the ancientest Doctors before the Nicene Council speak hereabout and how certainly Eusebius and other great Bishops were Arrians and how lamentably the Council at Ariminum endeavoured an uniting Reconciliation by laying by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And even old Osius by their cruelty yielded to them as Liberius subscribed to them we need not send any men to Philostorgius nor Sondius for proof it being so largely proved by D◠Petavius de Trinitate who fully citeth their dangerous words And if the heterodoxies of the Prince shall be made the reason of the Subjects disobeying him in a matter lawful in it self as some that we speak to now suppose we shall hardly know where to stop nor what bounds to set the Subjects when they are made Judges of the Princes Errours and what examination of cognisance of it they must have 3. Constantine that banished Athanasius who kept in while he could against the Emperours will is not proved an Arrian Nor Valentinian who commanded Ambrose not to cease Prenching himself nor to forsake his Church nor to subscribe to Arrianism but only to tolerate the Arrians to meet in one spare Church which was in Millan as an act of moderation But Ambrose resolutely disobeyed the Emperour we justifie not the manner because he thought that God's Law made it his office as Bishop so to do 4. And as to Gensericus and Hunnericus's Usurpation it was then ordinary with the Bishops even of Rome to submit to men that had no better title and alas how few of many of the old Roman Emperours had any better at least at first XXV We doubt not at all but that Kings are the Governours of Bishops and Churches by coercive power as truly as of Physicians or other Professions And though they have no Authority to abrogate or suspend the Laws of Christ yet they have a Power of Legislation under Christ as Corporations for By-laws have under them which power is only about those things which God hath left to their determination and not either above Christ against Christ or in coordination with Christ but only in such subordination to him and to his Laws XXVI How far Rulers have power or not to command things indifferent and how far things scandalous and evil by accident some of us have opened already distinctly and need not here repeat XXVII And we have there shewed that as they may regulate Physicians by General and Cautionary Laws but not overthrow their Calling on that pretence by prescribing to the Physician all the Medicines which he shall use to this or that Patient at this or that time c. so they may make such General and Cautionary Laws circa sacra 1. As shall drive Bishops and Pastors on to do their certain duties 2. And as shall duely restrain them from sin and doing hurt 3. And they may punish them by the sword or force for such crimes as deserve that punishment And a King of England may depose or put to death a traiterous Bishop Priest or Deacon as lawfully as Solomon deposed Abiathar XXVIII And as we have there said we suppose that there are some circumstances of the Ministers work which it belongeth to his own office to determine of and are a true part of his Ministerial works But there are others which it is meet should be universally determined of for the Concord of all the Churches in a Kingdom These the Pastors and Churches by consent may agree in without a Law it Kings leave it to them And Kings by the advise of such as best understand Church Cases may well by their own Laws make such determinations As for instance in what Scripture Translations what Versions and Metres of Psalms the Churches shall agree Much more may they determine of the Publick Maintenance of Ministers and the Temples and such other extrinsick accidents XXIX Princes and Rulers may forbid Atheists Infidels Hereticks and Malignant opposers of necessary truth and godlyness and all that preach rebellion and sedition that propagate such wicked Doctrine and may punish them if they do it And may hinder the incorrigible and all that provedly or notoriously are such whose Preaching will do more hurt to men than good from exercising the Ministry or Preaching in their jurisdiction or Dominions For such have not any power from Christ so to Preach but serve the Enemy of Christ and man XXX Princes and Rulers may for order sake distribute their Christian Kingdoms into Parishes which shall be the ordinary bounds of particular Churches And such distribution is very congruous to the Ends of the Ministry and Churches and conduceth to orderly settlement and peace And experience hath shewed us that such Parish Churches where the Pastors are faithfull and fit may live as Christians should do to their mutuall comfort in Piety Love and Peace And such Parish-order we desire XXXI But no Rulers may hence conclude 1. that Parishes are distributed by God immediately or that he hath commanded such a distribution as a thing of absolute necessity to a Church But the Generall Rules of order and Edification do ordinarily in Christian Kingdomes require it 2 Nor may any make a Parish as such to be a Church and all to be Church members that are in the Parish as such for Atheists Infidels Hereticks Impenitent Rebels may live in the Parish and many that consent not to be members of that or any Church And not
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