not oppose Sect. XVIII We find proof thar ordinarily Churches were first planted in Cities there being not then in the Villages Christians enough to make Churches But we find no proof that when there are Christians enough to constitute Churches they may not be planted in Villages also Nor yet that there may not be more Churches than one in the same City For so Grotius saith There were even then when Christians were comparatively but few and that they were as the Jewish Synagogues in this respect And Dr. Hamond largely asserteth that Peter had a Church of Jews and Paul another of Gentiles at Rome and that so it was in other Cities Sect. XIX Much less is it by Divine Institution that Bishops and their Churches or Seats be only in such as we now call Cities which by their priviledges are distinct from other great Towns and Corporations whenas the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 then signified a great Town or Corporation such as our Market-Towns and Corporations now are Sect. XX. But it is the Law of God that all things about Churches and Church-affairs which he hath left to humane prudence should be done according to such general Rules as he hath prescribed for their regulation SECT IV What Princes and Pastors may do in such matters I. THese foresaid General Laws of God do both give the Rulers their Power for determining things committed to them and also limit their power therein II. These General Laws are that All things be done to Edification the circumstances fitted to the End the Glory of God and the Publick Good the promoting of Truth and Godliness that all be done in Love to the promoting of Love and Unity and that all be done in Order and Decently and as may avoid offence or scandal to all both those without and those within Gal. 6. 15 16. Phil. 3. 15 16. 1 Cor. 14. 3 5 12. 26. 17. Rom. 14. 19. 15. 2. 1 Cor. 10. 23. Ephes 4 12 16 19. 2 Cor. 12. 19. 6. 3. 11. 7. 1 Cor. 8. 13. III. Therefore no Rulers Civil or Ecclesiastical have their power to scandalize and destroy but only to edifie being the Ministers of God for good Rom. 13. 3 4 5. 2 Cor. 10. 8. 13. 10. IV. The great Dispute is handled excellently against the Papists for Kings by Bishop Bilson of Christian Obedience Bishop Andrews Tortura Torti Bishop Buckeridge Spalatensis and many more whether the Kings of Christian Kingdoms have not the same power about Church-matters as the Kings of Israel and Judah had David Solomon Hezekiah Josiah c. which cannot be answered by an only Yea or Nay without a more particular consideration of the compared Cases V. We suppose it certain that Christian Kings have no lesser power than the Kings of Israel except 1. What any such King had as a Prophet or in peculiar by an extraordinary grant 2. And what alteration is made by alteration of Church-offices Laws and Worship which may make a difference of which hereafter VI. And 1. It must be remembred that God then reserved the Legislation to himself which he exercised by Revelation and by special Prophets And so the Prophet Moses delivered them that Law which no King had power to abrogate suspend or alter by adding or diminishing Deut. 12. 32. Jos 1. But they had a mandatory power and of making some subordinate By-laws as Cities and Corporations have from and under the King VII 2. Yea great and special Mandates were oft sent from God by Prophets against which the Kings of Israel had no power VIII 3. The Executive or Judicial Power was divided part was in the Kings and Magistrates and part was in the Priests and Levites which the King could not usurp himself as appeareth in Uzziahs offering Incense nor yet forbid the Priests to use it according to God's Law nor change or abrogate their Office For he and they were subject to God's Laws IX 4. God himself settled the High Priesthood on the line of Aaron and all the Priesthood on the Tribe of Levi and it was not in the power of the King to alter it X. 5. God stated the High Priesthood on the Priests during life Numb 35. 25 28. Jos 20 6 c. which Law the Kings had no power to violate XI 6. There are more particular Laws made by God for the duty of the Priests describing their office and work than for any other particular case as many hundred Texts will tell us And none of these Laws might be altered or suspended by the Kings of Israel Nor those by which God stated some of the Judicial Power in the Congregation Num. 35. 12. to 26. XII 7. Solomon's putting out Abiathar and putting in Zadok is not contrary to any of this For supposing the words 1 King 2 35. to be not only a history of the bare matter of fact but a justification of it de jure 1. It poseth learned men to resolve how Zadok and Abiathar are oft said to be both High Priests before and Zadok still put before Abiathar 2. It is certain that Zadok had the right both of Inheritance and especial Promise Numb 25. 11 12 13. 1 Chron. 6. 3 4 c. And what Solomon did was that the word of the Lord might be fulfilled How the possession came into the hands of the line of Ithamar Expositors cannot find It is like it was by occasion of the confusions of their oft Captivity and Anarchy in the interspace of the Judges 3. Even the Priests were the King's subjects and might be punished for their crimes so it were according to God's Laws And if Abiathar forfeited his life he forfeited his Office XIII 8. The Priesthood then depended not on the institution or will of the King or People He might not put out a lawful Priest that had not forfeited his Life or Office He might not have put any one in his place that had not right from God or that was unqualified He might not have forbid the Priests the work appointed them by God But yet if he had injurioâ—slâ— deposed one Abiathar and put in a Zadok the loss had been little to the Church But if he had deposed so great a number of the Priests and Levites as that a great part of God's commanded work must needs thereby have been lest undone and Religion so far destroyed or had as Jeroboam put of the basest of the people or uncapable persons into the Priesthood the loss had been greater and the thing unwarrantable and such as he had not power from God to do XIV And the quality of Moses Law and its Works as different from the Laws of Christ and the Works thereof must be considered that we may discern the difference of the Cases A man that did attempt to draw the people to Idolatry was then to be put to death yea the City to be destroyed that concealed him Deut. ch â—3 so were they that blasphemed and such as committed other heinous
We justly maintain against the Anabaptists that Infants relation to the Covenant and the universal Church as members was not repealed by Christ because it was not founded only on the Law of Moses which if it had it were as such repealed § 12. The Holy Ghost by the Apostles Acts 15. hath declared to all the Churches of the Gentiles that they are not bound to keep the Law of Moses and hath absolved us from all saving things antecedently and on other reasons necessary verse 28. § 13 If the Jews form of Government be ours then the High-Priest must have the power of the Sword or sit in judgment for life or death as Deut. 17. 12 13. and other places shew But many Papists and Protestants are agreed that the clergy have no power of the Sword or force unless the King make them also Magistrates § 14. It is a matter of so great importance to the Church to know whom we must obey that it is not to be thought that any way is made necessary by Christ which he hath not made intelligible and certain to be indeed his will Especially when the Apostles strove who should be the chief and two of them made it their request and when the Corinthians and others were ready to set up one before another and say I am of Cephas c. § 15. Yea Christ on this occasion expresly forbad them to seek to be one above another and told them that though Kings exercise authority and have magnifying Titles with them it should not be so but their preeminence should consist as that of a servant in humility and service unto others Luk. 22. which will not stand as we suppose with establishing the Jewish order § 16. And Pauls reproof of their making a Church head of Cephas Paul or Apollo or taking them to be other than helps of their faith and not Lords of it and Ministers by whom they believed even then when Schisms made it necessary to have known to whom they must appeal and adhere if that had been the way doth further confirm what we say § 17. The argument that some worthy persons bring from the Prophesies that Nations should be converted unto Christ and that the Kingdom should be taken from the Jews and given to a Nation that would bring forth the fruits of it Matth. 21. 43. and that the Kingdomes of the world are made the Kingdoms of Christ and that Egypt and Assyria should be converted and equalled with the Jews c. do ineeed shew that there should be Christian Kings and Kingdoms which the Apostles were sent to endeavour Mat. 28. 19. to convert Nations But here is nothing that we can perceive to prove that these Christian Nations must have the Jewish Church Policy § 18. Nay contrary the Church is said to be built on the foundation of the Prophets and Apostles Eph. 2. 20. and not of the Mosaical Policy of Priesthood Rev. 21. 14. It hath twelve foundations § 19. It is said Zech. 2. 11. Many Nations shall be joyned to the Lord and shall be my people So Zech. 8. 22. Isa 65. 1. Rom. 10. 20. Isa 2. 2. 55. 5. Hos 2. 23. Isa 60. 3. 49. 22. But not a word in all this of the old form of Policy or Priesthood but Contrarily that the Law should come out of Zion and a new Covenant should be made And it is certain that so large a history as we have of Christ's performances is a far clearer light than obscure Prophecies and darker texts must be explained by the plainer and not contrarily § 20. We see not how the Synod Act. 15. maketh any thing for a National High Priest or Sanedrim or any like Policy For 1. It appeareth to be no act of proper National Government but did bind other Churches as well as those within the Empire 2. It was an arbitration at the request of doubting persons and it was not the Relation of the Arbitrators to one seat of National Power as the Metropolis that was respected but the quality of the persons sent to who would have been equally obeyed had they dwelt in the least Village of another Land 1. There were the Apostles that had the promise of the Holy Ghost 2. There were many whom the people must needs more confide in than in one especially whose power was questioned by gainsayers 3. Both Apostles Elders and Brethren there were such as had seen or were neer to Christ and his works and therefore likeliest to know his mind 4. They were Jews themselves and therefore most impartial Judges in the point that Jewish Teachers troubled them about so far as that they might well acquiesce when Jews themselves resolved them And when the Apostles were dispersed we find not any more Jerusalem-Councils Governing the Imperial Churches § 21. If that Councils Authority were properly National and arose from the prerogative of Jerusalem then 1. All the Apostles when scattered would have been subject to James the first Bishop of Jerusalem thought to be no Apostle 2. Then Jerusalem might have after claimed the Supremacy as of Divine right before Alexandria Antioch or Rome But it is certain by experience that the whole Church was of another mind when Jerusalem had not so much as the fifth or lowest Patriarchate till long after by another grant But if the Power was not fixed to the place but the Itinerant Apostles then it is nothing to prove any Governing Church over others as being affixed to such a place Nor shall we easily find the Apostles Itinerant Successours in that power § 22. II. It is certain that Christ chose twelve Apostles besides Paul who had a preeminence before other Ministers and that he joyned with them some Prophets and Evangelists appointing them all to gather Churches through the world discipling and baptizing Nations and teaching them all things that he commanded a work to be still done and to which he promised his presence to the end of the world And that these having gathered Converts set over them fixed Bishops or Pastors or Elders to be their constant Guides in Teaching Publick Worship and Discipline under Christ the great Prophet Priest and King of the Church And that to the Apostles first and by them to others he gave them the Keys that is the Judging Power of reception and rejection and the Official Power of pronouncing God's reception or rejection of them according to his Word § 23. There is not the least evidence that these Apostles did affix a Superiour Power over the other Churches to any particular seats Patriarchal or Metropolitan much less National or that any of them exercised Government over the rest or that they themselves did fix themselves as Bishops to any twelve or thirteen Cities in the world much less to twelve Kingdoms § 24. There is no notice in Church history of any one National Church-power Priest or Synod setled asserted or exercised under Heaven of above three hundred years Egypt and Assyria that were
may use it in other Churches when called thereto and by consequence it may reach further For few Bishops will think if another Bishop come into their Diocesses or Parishes and excommunicate divers of their flocks that they and all others are bound to stand to such mens sentence and to hold such excommunicate That which a Pastor doth in ordinary Excommunicating is to declare after proof that This person is by his sin and impenitency made uncapable of Communion with the Church and therefore to require him to forbear it and the people to avoid Communion with him and to pronounce him unpardoned before God till he repent Now if this be done by one known to be heretical with whom the other Churches have no Communion those other Churches are not bound to deny that man Communion Nor yet if he offer himself to their Communion and they examine the matter and find him wronged It is concord in good and not in evil that we are bound to by the command of God Therefore if any man be wrongfully put out of this Church the next may and should receive him And what necessity is there then of going a thousand or an hundred miles to a Pope or Patriarch or Diocesan to right him And whoever thought that there was need of an Universal Physician or Schoolmaster or a General Council of such to receive appeals from Patients and Scholars that are wrongfully turned out of the Hospital or School The Caviller will here tell you of disparities in the cases but the question is whether the disrities be such as alter the reason of the Conclusion What man of conscience will be a Physician Schoolmaster or Pastor that hath not power to judge whom to receive for his Patient Scholar or part of his flock but must take all that some other man shall send to him or command him to receive and give them what others command him to give An Apothecary may do so but not a Physician What if a man had no other scandal but to say I will not take you for my Pastor nor take my self obliged to answer you speak with you give you any account of my self nor be questioned by you on any accusation must I be constrained to suppose this man to be one of my flock In despite of his own denyal If the freedom of consent be not mutual but I must be constrained to take those for my charge as Christians that renounce such a relation or will not own it a Pastor is not a free man nor hath any power of the Church-Keys but is as an irrational Slave a Cryer or Executioner that must but execute another mans commands 2. But if there be need of appeals and our own actions must not be free why will not the Synods of Neighbour-Pastors met only for Counsel and Concord and not to command the Pastors suffice for such persons to appeal to And what if I turn a servant out of my house or from his meat and he may take another Master when he will must there be an universal Judge of all family cases that shall force me to keep my servant against my will Is it not enough that I know why I am unwilling to keep him who am no way more bound to him than to others but by my own consent What if as Nazianzen left Sasimis Constantinople and Nazianzum at last I should give up my whole Charge and Bishoprick and say I will be a Pastor to none of them any more upon sufficient reasons as Latimer did Is it not better for the people to take another than to accuse me at Rome or Canterbury as wronging them 3. But if all this serve not neither the sufficiency of Pastors for one single Parish nor yet the Counsel of all the Neighbour-Pastors or Bishops what is there more to be done which the authority of Princes and Magistrates may not do All Christians confess almost that no Bishops or Pastors as such have from Christ any forcing power over the flocks that belongeth to the Magistrates only And they are to keep peace and force us to our certain duty And I would ask the contrary-minded whether if Bishops Patriarchs and Councils had no forcing power but only to excommunicate by the application of Gods word and leaving all men to their consciences would this sort of Government serve their turn and keep out Heresies or maintain order and unity They say no themselves And next whether it be not certain and confessed that the Pastors have no other power but the Magistrates only Obj. But shall all men gather Churches and teach Heresie and do what they will Answ 1. The power of Popes Patriarchs or Councils did not prevent it when there were all the Heresies that fill Epiphanius Volumns And when the far greatest part of the Clergy was long Arrian And when the Nestorians and Futychians so greatly multiplied after the condemnation of the Councils And when the Novatians lived so many years in reputation and when the Donatists nor they were not diminished by Prelates or Councils Censures till the sword dispersed them And cannot the Sword be drawn without such as have no power of it 3. And as to the last and greatest reason that the Apostles have successors who must orderly exercise their Government it is answered 1. The common doctrine of the Church was that all Bishops are their Successors so far as they have successions and every Church of one Altar had a Bishop in the daies of Ignatius and long after 2. The Council of Carthage said None of us calleth himself Bishop of Bishops 3. But if any be set as the Bishop of many Bishops and Churches so be it they use no violence but govern volunteers as all the old Bishops did and sorbid them nothing commanded of God nor command them any thing which God forbiddeth and destroy not the order doctrine worship or discipline of the lesser particular Churches we have before said that we shall submit to such §41 IV. As to the question whether the Government setled by Christ in National Churches be as to the Clergy from all parts Monarchical Aristocratical or Democratical and who must have the summam potestatem The disagreement of the persons that we have herein to do with puts us into utter despair of any solution And what good will it do us to believe that some must be obeyed if we cannot be certain who it is §42 V. And to the question Whether the King be the formal or only the accidental Church-head We find no more agreement 1. Some think that the King as Melchizedek is a mixt person secular and Clergy and hath both Offices to use and communicate as they say the Princes before Aaron had 2. Others say that this is not so but that the Clergy-jurisdiction distinct from the Priestly common power is a branch of the Christian Magistrates power and so derived from the King 3. Others say that the Church formally is distinct from the Civil
Sect. I. BEcause men will judge of such Causes according to their several Principles and Presuppositions we must take notice of some of the divers Principles of those whose censure we must expect Though not of inconsiderable Sects Sect. II. And 1. Some say that no humane Form of Church Government and of Churches as governed is of God's Institution or as they say Jure Divino but that it is left to humane prudence Sect. III. 2. Some hold only an Universal Church governed by a Pope say some of them or by a General Council while sitting and a Pope in the Intervals say others or by a Pope and Council agreeing while it sits and a Pope in the Intervals say others to be Jure Divino and all particular Church-Forms as subordinate left to the prudence of this Universal Governour as Supreme as Inferiour Officers in Kingdoms are made by the King Sect. IV. 3. Some hold that this Universal Church-Form and also Diocesan and no other are instituted of God Sect. V. 4. Some hold that the Universal Patriarchal Metropolitical or Provincial Diocesan and Parochial are jure divino or instituted by Christ and his Apostles Sect. VI. 5. Some hold that only Diocesan Churches and Metropolitical or Provincial are jure divino and not the universal And of these some take Diocesan Churches for those only that contain many fixed Assemblies and some for such as have one Bishop whether over one Congregation or over multitudes Saith the very learned Dr. Hamond in 1 Tim. 3. The Church of the living God was every such regular Assembly of Christians under a Bishop such as Timothy was an Oeconomus set over them by Christ Such again every larger circuit under the Metropolitane who as Timothy had 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ordination and Jurisdiction over the whole Province And such all the particular Churches of the whole world considered together under the Supreme Head Christ Jesus dispensing them all by himself and administring them severally not by any one Oeconomus but by the several Bishops as inferiour Heads of Unity to the several Bodies so constituted by the several Apostles in their plantations each of them having an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a several distinct Commission from Christ immediately and subordinate to none but the supreme Donor or Plenipotentiary He here supposeth as he elsewhere sheweth that de facto Episcopal Churches were in Scripture-times but single Congregations but that after it was otherwise And whether then the New Form of Congregations were jure divino when they became but Parts of a Bishops Church we leave to the Readers conjecture as also of the New Form of a Diocesan Church Sect. VII 6. Some hold that National Churches that is Christian Kingdoms as governed by the Soveraign Secular Power are instituted by God and that all Church-Forms else within that Kingdom are jure humano at the pleasure of the King so be it that worshiping-Assemblies be kept up and Bishops and Priests placed as it shall please the King Sect. VIII 7. Some think that Diocesans or Bishops whether over one Congregation or many are instituted by God and some say also Archbishops and that these have power by consent or contract among themselves to make Patriarchal and National Churches And so that these National and Patriarchal Churches are jure divino mediato but jure humano immediato and are rather made by the consent of Bishops than by Kings And so under Heathen Kings the Churches may be National Sect. IX 8. Some think that Parochial Churches consisting of Christians distinguished by the circuit of ground and combinations of these into Synods less and greater Classical National are jure divino and no other lawful Sect. X. 9. Some think that only Parochial Churches ordinarily and single Congregations of any Neighbour Christians when Parish Order cannot be observed are jure divino Sect. XI 10. And some think that only such single Congregations of Christians with their Chosen Pastors without any necessary respect to Parish bounds are properly called Churches of Divine Institution though these Churches may and should hold such associations as correspondence and mutual help require Sect. XII There being so many sorts of Churches in the world as Universal National Patriarchal Provincial or Metropolitical Diocesan Classical Parochial Congregational it is hard to give a just decision of the question From which of these and when it is a sin to separate till it be first known which of these is Divine and which of Humane Institution and which Humane Churches are necessary which lawful and which sinful And it must be known of which the question is And while there is so signal a diversity of Judgment about the several Forms the nature of Schism will be hardlier opened SECT III. What Churches we hold to be instituted by God and what not Sect. I. OUR own Judgment we shall plainly express in this following Order 1. We shall shew what Church we judge to be of God's Institution and what not 2. What about Churches the Magistrates or Pastors may institute by God's Authority or allowance And what they may not institute 3. In what cases it is lawful to gather Churches where Churches are In what cases it is lawful to separate from Churches and in what cases neither of these last is lawful Sect. II. 1. All Christians are agreed that Christ is the Author of the Universal Church considered both as Baptized or Externally covenanting and professing called Visible and as Regeneraâ—e and sincerely Covenanting called Mystical as it is Headed by Christ himself and called his Body and his special Kingdom Sect. III. 2. We doubt not but Christ hath instituted the Office of the sacred Ministry to be under him as the Teacher Ruler and High Priest of the Church in Teaching Guiding and Worshiping And that he hath instituted holy Assemblies and Societies for these things to be exercised in And that a Society of Neighbour Christians associated with such a Pastor or Pastors for personal Communion herein even in such Doctrine Discipline and Woâ—sâ—â—p is a Church-Form of Divine Institution Sect. IV. If they be not Christians by Baptism or visible Profession they be not visible Materials for a Church If they be not Neighbours that is within reach of each other so as to be capable of such Communion they are not matter that hath the necessary extrinsecal disposition If they be not associated explicitely or implicitely by some signification of Consent they may be an accidental Assembly but not a proper Christian Church If they be not associated for this holy Communion they may be a Civil Society but not a Church If they be not associated for Personal Communion at some due seasons but only for Communion at distance by Delegates Messengers or Letters they are not a Particular Church of this species now defined though they may be members of larger associations National Diocesan c. If they are not associate with one or more Pastors they may be a Community of
crimes against Religion yea those that would not enter into or renew their Covenant with God were by Asa's command to be put to death But Christ will have mens Atheism Irreligiousness Idolatry and Iâ—fidelity cured by the Preaching of the Truth which therefore requireth that the Preachers for number and qualification be answerable to their work especially seeing they are things so mysterious and supernaturally revealed which men are to believe And the works of Moses's Law lay very much in ceremony and outward actions which a man of mean qualifications might easily do But the great work of the Gospel is to bring Life and Immortality to light and to Preach Christ by whom came Grace and Truth and more notably than the Law of Moses did to call men to Mortification Self-denial Cross-bearing contempt of the World by Faith and Hope and Love of a better World and to bring them to a heavenly mind and life And mens salvation is laid on this If it were but to offer Sacrifices and do over the task of outward Ceremonies a Mass-Priests qualifications might serve the turn And if it were but to put men to death that will not be Jews and take their Covenant and that draw any from their Religion neither so many nor so excellent Ministers were necessary But we are under a better Covenant even a Law of Love which is more eminently become the first and last the great and new Commandment and the regent Principle in Souls and Churches and the number and quality of the Preachers of it must be answerable XV. As Moses was God's ministerial Law-giver to the Israelites and was faithful in all his trust so Christ is the great Prophet like unto him as typified by him whom God hath raised up to his Church whom they that hear not shall be cut off by God and from that Church as he hath appointed The Legislation Universal is now the work of Christ by himself and by the Holy Ghost which he promised and gave for that use to his Apostles that they might infallibly understand his will and remember what he had commanded them to teach the world XVI Kings or Pastors may not now alter or suspend any of these Laws of Christ any more than the Jewish Kings or Priests might alter or suspend the Laws of Moses XVII Christ hath instituted a Ministry to be for ever stablished in the world to Preach his Gospel to convert volunteers unto Faith and Holiness and to gather by Baptism all Consenters into his Covenant and Church and to teach them all that he hath commanded them And this none have power to overthrow XVIII He hath stated on the Pastors of such Churches the Power afore described of Teaching Assemblies and particular persons of leading them in publick Worship and Sacraments and of judging by the power of the Keys whom to receive into their communion by Baptism and profession of Faith and whom to admonish and for obstinate impenitence to reject And this Institution none may alter XIX He hath instituted ordinary Assemblies and stated particular Churches as is aforesaid for these holy exercises and forbad all Christians to forsake them and he and his Apostles have appointed and separated the Lord's day hereunto None therefore may abrogate or suspend these Laws All this is proved Matth. 28. 19 20. 16. 19. 18. 18 19. Joh. 20. 23. Luk. 12. 37 38. Mat. 21. 36. 22. 4 5 c. 24. 45 46. Heb. 10. 25 26 Act. 11. 26. 1 Cor. 11. Ephes 4. 4. to 17. 1 Thes 5. 12 13. Heb. 13. 17 24. Tit. 1. 5 6 c. 1 Tim. 3. Act. 14. 23. Act. 20. 1 Cor. 16. 1 c. XX. Christs Laws empower and oblige the Bishops or senior Pastors to Ordain others for this Ministerial service of the Church and so to propagate their order to the end of the world By which Ordination 1. They are Judges of the persons qualifications whether he be such as Christs Laws admit into his Ministry 2. And they solemnly invest him in the office But the Power with which they ministerially invest him delivering him possession as Christ appointed resulteth directly from the Law or Donation of Christ As the power of a Mayor from the Charter of the King and not from the Electors or Investers None therefore have power given them by Christ to hinder such Ordination and Propagation of such a Ministry Act. 14. 23. Tit. 1. 5. XXI So exceeding great are the benefits and priviledges of being members of Christ and his Church universal and particular that no unwilling person is immediately capable of it Nor is it possible ex natura rei for any adult person that consenteth not to be a Christian or a Member of any particular Church He cannot be a just Communicant against his will nor pray and praise God with the Church nor take a man for his Pastor or use him as a Pastor against his will And God hath laid mens salvation or damnation on the choice or refusal of their wills Therefore no man can be the Bishop or Pastor of a Church either de jure or truly de facto against the Church or Peoples will or without their consent And as the Nature of the thing proveth this so doth the sacred Scripture Act. 14. 23. 2. 37 38. 1 Joh. 1. 7. Mat. 28. 19. And so doth the judgment and practice of Christ's Church for many hundred years which is so fully proved by Blondell de jure plebis and confessed by the Papists themselves and so express in all antiquity that we need not add the proof Therefore no power may change this Law of Nature and of Christ nor can they by any Law Mandate Choice Ordination Institution Imposition or other act make any man a real Pastor to that People that consent not to the relation Nor are they any true particular Churches where Pastor and People do not consent No more than the relation of Husband and Wife Master and Servant Tutor and Scholars can be without consent XXII Christ and his Spirit have commanded his Ministers to preach the Word to be instant in season and out of season to reprove rebuke and exhort 2 Tim. 4. 1 2. And having put their hand to Christ's Plough not to look back and none hath power to alter this Law of Christ or to suspend it His Ministers by his Authority preached against the will of Princes for above three hundred years and since then against the wills of erroneous Princes who professed Christianity XXIII If Church-History be not to be believed the pleas thence used for Prelacy must cease If it be to be believed God hath wrought miracles to justifie those that would not cease Preaching when Princes yea Christian-Princes have forbidden them And the Church hath honoured their fidelity herein The case of Athanasius Basil Meletius and abundance more evince the later And for the former we will now instance but in the case of the Bishops of Africa whose tongues
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
of Miracles since the Apostles hath assured us that his separation from communion with these Bishops though cruel to Hereticks so gross was confirmed by vision and by an Angel from Heaven and he forbidden their communion for the time to come We again mention this as not yet having heard any answer to it 11. Our own Canons forbid the people to communicate with Ministers for lesser faults as private Preaching Sacraments Fasts Conventicles or out of their own Parishes c. 12. Moses the Monk aforementioned is commended by Historians because he would not be ordained by Lucius not because erroneous but because he had persecuted others by the countenance of Valens the Emperour Though his persecution extended not to the silencing of thousands or hundreds or very many that we read of And as is aforesaid he chose to be ordained by banished men 13. Especially if men have no obligation to that insufficient heretical or ungodly Priest but humane because a Patron presented him or a Magistrate imposed him or because Parish-order which is a humane thing of meer convenience will else seem violated When as the avoiding of the danger of a false Pastor and the guilt of his sin which by owning him may be incurred and escaping the great loss of a faithful Pastor's guidance when we are conscious that we greatly need it are things of greater importance and of Moral and Evangelical Divine obligation In this case we cannot prove it Schism to avoid a wicked Priest The Bishops hold it a duty to avoid a Nonconformist that hath not their License But such a one as is foredescribed hath not Christ's License and is a Nonconformist to his Laws Again let it be noted 1. That even under the Jewish Law Magistrates were not the chusers of the Priests but God chose them by setling the Priesthood on one line 2. That Christ hath by his Spirit in the Apostles altered the Priesthood and the way of their calling and entrance under the Gospel 3. That the Church neer a thousand years was in possession of that way and many hundred of those years the possession was universal in all the Churches 4. That the chusing of Bishops or Priests by Magistrates or Lay-Patrons was none of that way which Christ appointed Therefore seeing it is not the chusing or making but the Governing of Bishops or Priests that is committed to Princes and Christ's Law is the first by which they must govern it seemeth to us that they cannot oblige the Subjects to take up with wicked Pastors when better are prohibited and are to be had LXVII 21. In those times and Countries where the allowed Bishops are corrupted by ignorance heresie ungodliness or faction and set themselves to bring in an unconscionable corrupt sort of Ministers into the Churches and will not ordain fit and conscionable men or by snares divide the Churches and cast out the most worthy and impose sinful conditions on all whom they will ordain it seemeth to us to be no Schism to seek ordination from other Bishops and in case of necessity at least to be ordained by such Presbyters as are either the sole or chief or equal Pastors in Parochial Churches especially in Cities and to perform the Office of Presbyters without such Bishops consent We here suppose such Bishops had themselves been duely elected and ordained yet 1. They have their power to edification and not to destruction 2. We are more obliged to Christ's interest and the Churches safety than to them God will have mercy rather than Sacrifice and preferreth mens salvation to ceremony or Church Laws 3. So the Oâ—â—â—odox forsook the Arrian and other wicked Bishops Malignity and wickedness is poison in the Clergy as well as Heresie and Schism So as is aforesaid Moses and Martin disowned the bad Bishops that were neer them so the Protestants disowned the Papist Bishops And Bugenhagius Pomeranus a Presbyter reformed and ordained Bishops in Denmark Bishop Vsher himself told one of us that being asked by his Sovereign whether he found that ever Presbyters ordained Presbyters he answered I can shew your Majesty more even where Presbyters made Bishops citing the Alexandrian custom out of Jerom to Evagrius The Judgment of English Bishops and Divines for the validity of such Ordination by Presbyters and of the Ordination in the Reformed Churches abroad some of us have proved heretofore at large 4. Christ having made a Law which conferreth the Pastoral Power on him that is made a due Receiver as the King's Charter doth the Power of the Lord Mayor on him that is duly chosen to it it followeth that no more is absolutely necessary to such reception of that Power but that the person be duly qualified and have consent and opportunity and the best investiture which the time and place will afford Of which Voetius de desperata causa Papatus and one of us in a Dispute of Ordination have long ago said that which we suppose will never be well answered 5. And Grotius de Imperio summ Potest circa Sacra an excellent Book hath shewed that he that is the sole Pastor of a Church is in effect a Bishop And indeed Dr. Hammond as is said in his Disser and Annotations asserteth de sacto that in Scriptures one Bishop without any Presbyter under him was setled in each Church so that every Pastor of a particular Church then was a Bishop as far as can be proved And if that was the Apostolical institution that every Church have a Bishop and that there was no sole Pastor at least but Bishops then he that is ordained the Pastor at least sole or chief of a particular Church is ordained a Bishop The reason is because his Office and Power followeth the Law and Charter of Christ that made it and not of the investing Ministerial Ordainer if he would alter it or pronounce it otherwise LXVI 22. Not to obey Lay-Chancellours where they govern the Church by the power of the Keys decreeing Excommunications and Absolutions and performing the work of Exploration and Admonition belonging to Bishops in order thereto we take to be no Schism nor to refuse subscribing or swearing to such a Government LXVII 23. Not sacrilegiously to desert the sacred Ministry when vowed and consecrated thereto is no Schism LXVIII 24. Where such sins are made the Condition of Ministration by men in power as that all the whole Ministry of a Kingdom are bound in conscience to deny consent and conformity thereto it is the duty of all the Ministry in primo instante to forbear their Ministerial Office or none for the reason is the same to all For example If ten or twenty untrue or unrighteous forbidden things must be subscribed declared covenanted or sworn or as many sins practised yea were it but one no doubt but the whole Ministry is bound to deny Conformity to any one such thing Now if all these must forbear or lay down their Office because forbidden by men to exercise it then it is
Lancashire where it was commonly taken up and some little of it at Coventry and some few such places And that was only as a tolerated or commended thing without any imposition that ever we knew of And accordingly it came to nothing in a short time 17. Till their new modelling their Army the Parliament had given out all Commissions to their Souldiers to fight for King and Parliament But then the King's name was lest out which seeming to many thousands an utter change of the Cause from that time many did desert them And thereupon the Party called Sectaries flowing in to Cromwel and his Army conquering the power fell into their hands who imprisoned the King accused and drove away eleven Members of the Parliament and afterward imprisoned and excluded the major part of the remaining House and with the rest cut off the King cast down the House of Lords pretended a while to set up a Commonwealth as they called it imposed an Engagement to that Commonwealth as established without King and House of Lords ordered the sequestration of the Ministers that refused it and of those that kept not their daies of fasting and thanksgiving for the Scotish wars which then they made After which they cast out with scorn that remnant of the Commons that had joyned with them and chose themselves some men called a Parliament who attempting to put down all Parish-Ministers Tythes and Universities the first put to the Vote and carried but by a few against them they were broke up by delivering up their Commission to Oliver who was made Protector and had the honour designed of saving the Ministry Tythes and Universities from the Sectaries even from that danger into which he had brought them 20. From the time of these New Causes and Changes especially the destroying the King violating and casting out the Parliament men imposing the engagement c. the Ministers called Presbyterian in England some few compliers excepted many of whom since Conform declared themselves against all this and were lookt upon as enemies though kindness was offered to reconcile them Some were imprisoned many cast out of their places in the Universities some sequestred and Mr. Love and Mr. Gibbons a Gentleman beheaded Mr. Gee with the Lancashire Ministers with some of us wrote against these proceedings of the then Power Many Preacht against them so that the sober Religious people of the land grew commonly disaffected to them And what the Scots did and how they were conquered we need not here relate 21. The Ministers who were then in possession of the Parish Churches were of many minds about Church Government 1. Many were for the old Episcopacy and Liturgie 2. Many were for a reformed Episcopacy 3. Many were for Presbytery that is Church Government by Presbyteries Classes and National assemblies of Teaching and of Governing unordained Elders Conjunct as jure divino 4. Some were for that which is called Independency 5. Some thought that no form of Church Government was jure divino 6 But the most of our acquaintance were peaceable moderate men that thought several parties had somewhat of the right and that the points of difference were so few and small that they might well live in peace and love and that none of the parties was so right as that in all things they should be followed and others trod down to set them up And many of these were young men that being at the Schools had not been engaged in the first quarrels and desired not to side with any dividing parties and modestly professed that they had not maturity enough to study themselves to any great confidence in the Controversies 22. This last sort of men beginning in Worcest shire set on foot a work of reconciling Association in which the Episcopal Presbyterians and Independants agreed to practise so much of Church Government and Ministration as they were all agreed in with mutual Love and assisting concord and to forbear one another in the rest till God should bring us neerer And after they added another Agreement to Catechise every person in their Parishes old and young that would come to them or receive them thereto and personally to instruct and exhort them about the practicals of Religion and preparation for death and the life to come This example was presently followed by the Ministers in Cumberland and Westmorland Wiltshire Dorsetshire Essex and going on in other Counties till the confusions 1659 interrupted it and the return of the Prelacie ended it and many such endeavours 23. When Oliver was dead many sorts of Government were set up in one year First his son Richard who having never been in Arms and being famed to be for the King many thought he would have been ready when he could to resign the Kingdom to him and spoke him fair on that account and others because they thought he would quiet the violent and keep out utter confusion After his ejection the Remnant of the Commons called the Commonwealth was restored After this they were cast out again and a Council of State Chosen by the Army till the Kingdom grew to scorn them all and was weary and ashamed of the confusions and revived their designs to restore the King 24. The first open attempt of united endeavours against the Army to restore the King was by the Cheshire Lancashire and Northwales men under Sr. Georg Booth now Lord De lamere and Sir Tâ—o Middleâ—on who had been commanders for the Parliament and was broken by the Armies Conquering them Mr. Cook Mr. Harrison Mr. Kirby Mr. Seddan sent up Prisoners and in danger of death and other Ministers who since are silenced and ruined by those they helpt 25. But the attempts being renewed at the same time the division of the Opposers the Army and the Commonwealth Members shook them all to pieces and ruined them and the new closure of the Old Parliamentarians and the Royalists and the Presbyterians and other Ministers with the Episcopal strengthened them and restored the King The Presbyterian Officers and Souldiers of General Monk's Army concurring with the rest and Sir Thomas Allen then Lord Mayor many London Ministers on their part counselling him thereto with the Aldermen and others inviting General Monk to joyn with the City herein against the Opposers from which very day the scales were turned and all went on without any considerable stop and the old ejected Members of Parliament first and the Council setled protempore after prepared for His Majesties return and Dr. Gauden Mr. Calamy and Mr. Bâ—xter Preaching at the Fast of the next Parliament as their Printed Sermons shew the King the next morning was voted to return and to be invited to his Fathers Throne 26. In preparation for this some Ministers now silenced had trcated with some Gentlemen firm to the King and with Bishop Usher Bishop Browrig Dr. Hammond and others who all encouraged them though some much more than others by prosessing moderate healing principles and intentionsâ— And in London and several
to set a Bishop in every Market Town or to take the use of the Keys from Laymen or to take down Archdeacons Officials Commissaries Surrogates c Whether all Reformation be out of the power of the King or not to be desired by the people 2. Whether that which is Lawful may not be done by the Law makers and be endeavoured by speech in Parliament or by petition by the people Especially if the King Command it 3. Whether men be not bound by a Vow to that which is Lawful much more to that Which is antecedently a duty 3. The Conformists are here disagreed among themselves some say that the Vow Bindeth not because it was unlawfully imposed But otherâ— better say that this proveth no more but that the Imposers could not bind me to take it by any authority of theirs And that if I had taken it in secret without imposition I had been bound by it Els no private Vow should bind Some say that it binds not because it was sinfully taken But others truly say that if Oaths bind not wherever men take them sinfully no wicked man should ever be bound by Oaths or Vows because they usually make them sinfully by an ill end and intention wrong motives or ill principles or manner Or at least a bad man might choose whether ever he will be obliged But all good casuists agree that if the matter be lawful the unlawful taking hinders not the obligation A man that is Baptized with ill motives or intentions is yet obliged by his Baptismal Vow Some say that it binds not because the matter it self is unlawful But it s granted that it bindeth to no unlawful matter Others therefore truly say that he that Voweth six things whereof three are sinful is not disobliged by the conjunction of these from the other three that are Lawful Els a Knave may keep himself disobliged as to all Vows by putting in some unlawful thing Some say that it binds not because we were antecedently bound to all that is good by other bonds and therefore not by this But others truly say that this is a most intollerable reason and would nullifie our Baptismal Vow and all our sacramental Vows renewed and all Covenants that ever man can make to God of any duty For Gods own Laws first bind us to every duty But for all that our own Vows Covenants and promises secondarily bind us also And a man may have many obligations to one duty Yea indeed the Covenanters ordinarily profess that they think not that a man should Vow any thing to God but what God first hath made his duty And they are against the Papists for making Religions and duties to themselves which God never made And therefore they profess that if some things in the Covenant were not their duty before they would not think that they are bound to it now And they profess that if they had never taken that Vow they had been bound to all that by it they are bound to And therefore condemning that Vow doth no whit secure the Government of the Church e. g. Lay Chancellours use of the Keys or the destruction of discipline from their Lawful endeavours to alter it And they profess that seeing the King hath power to command them Lawful things if they had Vowed any thing meerly Indifferent it would not have bound them against the Kings Commands Because it is not in subjects power by Vows to withdraw themselves from their obedience to authority Some say that the Proclamation of King Charles the first against the Covenant null'd the obligation But others truly say 1. That it could null no more than the Imposition to take it and not the obligation when it 's taken in necessary things 2. That this is nothing to all them that took it afterward and that when Charles II. had though injuriously been drawn to declare for it Some say that it binds not because men took it unwillingly But others truly say 1. that this would leave it in the power of a bad man to nullifie all Vows and contracts by saying that he did them unwillingly 2. That man hath fâ—ee will and cannot be compelled And a Vow of a thing Lawful to save ones life bindeth Men must rather die than lie 3. This would teach Subjects to say that they take all Oaths of Alegiance to the King unwillingly and therefore are not bound 4. It s true that no man that forceth another injuriously to a promise can claim to himself any right from that which was not free but procured by his own injurious violence or fraud But God wrongeth none and a Vow to God bindeth though procured by sinful force by men Some say that It was only a League and Covenant with men and not a Vow and therefore ceaseth câ—ssante occasione and by the consent of Parliamentâ— c. Ans There is no place for the belief of this objection to any that knoweth a Vow otherwise than by the name Indeed an Oath that is but an appeal to God that I will faithfully perform my Covenant with a man obligeth me not when that man hath discharged me from any obligation to him But this in question was primarily a promise or Covenant made to God which is a Vow and a League and Covenant of men with one another that they will perform it as is notorious to any man that readeth it with common understanding II. The second thing questioned about that Vow and the main is whether every Minister must or may become the judge of all other mens Consciences and obligations in three Kingdoms even of many thousands whom they never saw nor heard of and that so far as to absolve or justifie them from all obligations by that Vow to endeavour any Church reformation 2. It is here supposed 1. That though men ought to take an Oath in the sence of a Lawful Governour so far as they know it yet that they are not bound beyond the plain meaning of the words to the sense of Usurpers Therefore they know not but the King and Lords c. might take the same words in another meaning than the obtruders did intend e. g to reform according to Gods Word and the example of the best reformed Churches might signifie to them an opposition to Presbytery 2 That if men mistake the sence of the Imposers they are bound to keep an Oath in the Lawful sence in which they took it And then how knoweth every Minister in what sense every man in the three Kingdoms took it And how is he able to say that no one man of them all is obliged by it to endeavour a lawful and necessary reformation 3. And as to the former Argument that men were forced to it many of the Old Parliament are yet living and many others that then forced others to it and were not forced to it themselves 4 And if the present Parliament-men could upon what compulsion soever Vow to reform e. g. scandalous Ministers Swearing
Drunkenness Popery c. and then would command all Ministers on pain of silencing to subscribe that no man is bound to perform that Vow this would not do them any service but involve each Subscriber in the guilt of a multitudes perfidiousness SECT XIII V. The Fifth Part of Conformity 1. THE The Fifth Part of Conformity is the Subscribing of the said Declaration and taking the Oxford Oath as it concerneth Civil Government viz. It is not lawful on any pretence whatsoever to take Arms against the King and that I do abhor that traiterous position of taking Arms by his authority against his person or against those that are commissioned by him in pursuance of that Commission 2. Here the Question is not of the first Clause of taking Arms against the King but only of the last against those that are commissioned by him the Ministers being mostly ignorant of Law and not knowing what is called a Commission and what seal maketh it such For as they are satisfied that no true Legal Commission of the King may be resisted so while the unexpounded words have no limitation or exception they dare not think that a Lord Chancellour or Keeper hath power at his pleasure to depose the King by sealing Commissions to any to seize on his Forts Garrisons Magazines Treasure Navies or Guards nor yet to destroy the Kingdoms Cities Laws and Judgments and seize at pleasure on all mens estates or lives And they dare not swear or subscribe that which the generality of Learned men Heathens Papists and Protestants Politicians Lawyers and Divines are commonly against it being too great presuming on their own wits to say or swear that almost all the world are in the wrong even men in their own profession and that yet they are wiser than all these An Oath therefore being to be taken understandingly their not understanding this causeth their refusal and it pleaseth not the Law givers to explain it to them 3. But though this be a very important business we are so unwilling to meddle with matters of our Rulers Power as being less pertinent to our function and the late debates in the House of Lords as some body hath published them have said so much in this case that we think it best to say no more of it SECT XIV VI. The Sixth Part of Conformity or Obedience consequently required of Ministers 1. THE Sixth part of Obedience required of us consequently is that till we can do all aforesaid We must desert our former flocks though they desire us to continue our care of them and that we give over our preaching the Gospel of salvation to any but our families or four more and that no man not ordained by Diocesans administer the Lords Supper c. 2. The question is not whether we should give up the Temples and Tythes and all publick Maintenance when ever it is required of us Though St. Ambrose would not obey the Emperour Valentinian in giving up one Temple which he could spare to the Arrians yet the Nonconformists are of another judgment and think them all in the Magistrates power But it is the Office Relation and Work that they dare not renounce or cease from without a better discharge 3. Yet they judge that where truly there is no necessity of their labours or they should do more hurt than good by Preaching it is their duty when forbidden to forbear But not because any will say we are Judges and it is so when notoriously it is not so 4. But this requireth a larger disquisition than we may here stay to make SECT XV. VII The Seventh Part of required Obedience 1. THE Seventh Part of the Obedience required of us is that we come not within five miles of any City or Corporation which sendeth Burgesses to Parliament or to any other place whatever where we have ever preached since the Act of Oblivion except on the Rode or summoned 2. Many Ministers have their friends houses and all that they have in those forbidden places 3. The greatest places being most populous have most need of Preachers many souls being more precious than few and the publick Teachers that have many thousands needing more help than they that have but little charges 4. Few Ministers are rich enough to be able to sell their houses and goods at loss when perhaps none will take them and to take houses in other Countries 5. A great part of the Land is seated so neer Corporations that it is hard to find a place that is above five miles off them And some Ministers have Preached about in so many places that it is hard to find a place within their reach above five miles from the places which they have preached in And in such places it is rare to find empty houses and Landlords that will let them on terms which they are capable of so hard to them is this confinement 6. They think that men can no more disoblige them from preaching to many in Cities and Corporations than to four or five in Villages seeing the Churches of old were planted most in Cities and Christ saith not forsake all the souls in Cities if they bid you but When you are persecucuted in one City fly to another 7. Though we live not to eat we must eat to live and when Ministers that have nothing are like to beg or famish among strangers in poor Villages and bigger places do more call for help and will allow them bread they think it no sin to eat bread any more than to give bread to others that are in want 8. The former Laws send them when they are in beggery to be kept by the Parishes where they last lived and this Law forbids them to come within five miles of them SECT XVI The Adjuncts and other Matters agreed on which affright the Nonconformists I. AS there are some sins far greater and more terrible to conscience than others so aggravating Adjuncts oft make them such And these here seem very frightful We are not now charging any others with sin nor proving the unlawfulness of what we fear but expressing the Matter of Fact agreed on which doth affright us I. Both sides agree that it is a great aggravation of sin to be done by a Minister of Christ a person consecrated to holy work to preach truth and holiness and serve at the Altar For our Doctrine will be the less regarded and men will be tempted to follow our bad example who are bound to be to them patterns of purity and obedience to God And Christian and Protestant Religion is most injured by Ministers sins II. It is agreed that our Ministorial sins which we do as if they were part of our Office in the publick Assemblies have a special aggravation differing from mens secret personal crimes III. It is agreed that Lying and Perjury are sins of so heinous a nature as that they tend to overthrow humane trust and converse and all Societies and deprive Princes of part of the security due
Ministers usually to be as full as will consist with the peoples hearing the voice which in many places will not reach to a great part of the Congregation we find such Preachers whether Conformable or Nonconformable every where almost crouded after which shews that it is not meer faction that moveth the hearers and that worthy men have no cause of discouragement And if none of either side be valued much above their worth for the bare Office sake we cannot help it nor would it be helped if there were no Nonconformists Some of us well remembring the time 1632. till 1640. when we were troubled or threatned also for going out of our own Parishes to hear worthy able men that were very conformable XXXV It is very ordinary with Gentlemen and others that are zealous for the present Church State in London to go from their own Parishes though the Canon be against it so that it is not sure the breach of the Canon that they stick at XXXVI We shall never disswade men from making the strictest Laws to punish any Nonconformist that shall be proved guilty of Sedition Disloyalty Drunkenness Fornication Swearing and any other immorality but we know of none of them that was silenced ejected or punished on any such account Nay if they Preach against their Church Government Liturgy or Ceremonies we must expect that they should be restrained Our earnest desire is that the Magistrate would keep up Peace and Order in the Church that Popish Clergy men may not think that it belongeth to them alone to do it XXXVII Whereas there is a sort of ignorant or ill meaning men that still say we know not what the Nonconformists would have and why will they not tell us what would satisfie them While we offer to beg on our Knees for leave to do it we humbly intreat them to weary men awake no more with that canting 1. As long as the Kings Declaration about Ecclesiastical affairs is visible 2. And as long as our Reply and our Reformed additions to the Liturgy and our Petition for Peace which respected the old Conformity remain unanswered by those to whom in 1660 we did present them 3. And till we are once called or allowed to speak for our selves against the new conformity a favour which the justice of old Romane Heathens yea and splenetick Jews did grant to all that were accused before they punished them but since Popery prevailed in the world is become a thing among them not to be expected 4. And as long as men know that Bishop Wilkins and Dr. Burton appointed by the Lord Keeper Bridgman to treat with some of us of the terms of Union saying it was His Majesties Pleasure did come to a full agreement with us in terminis which was drawn up into the form of an Act by no worse a man than that PILLAR OF JUSTICE the excellent Judge Hale and the Parliament presently Voted that no such Act should be brought in and offered Dear Brethren God is the father of Lights and with him is no darkness Men may be mocked but God is not mocked If the day that will bring works of darkness to light and finally clear the Innocent be not the object of certain faith and hope let our cause be bad and let us as fools be judged such as have forsaken our best hopes But that it is otherwise we believe and therefore appeal to a righteous God from an unrighteous world XXXVIII What harm our Preaching the doctrine of salvation can do to the Bishops or people of the Land while they may punish us for any word that we speak amiss And why we should not rather speak openly where men may bear witness of our errours than in secret where men are tempted to too much boldness And what but a spirit of envy or a carnal interest cross to the interest of Christ and mens salvation should grudge at such Preaching while we are responsible for all that we say or do amiss we cannot tell XXXIX Nor can we tell if our not swearing or not entering into the Bishops National Covenant be as great a crime as our penalties import why no other mulct or penalty will serve turn to expiate such crimes but our ceasing to preach the Gospel of Salvation while we are willing to do it under the strictest Laws of Peace and Order XL. It is visible that the Parish-Churches of those Ministers caeteris paribus are fullest of Auditors who are most willing that the Nonconformists help them in due time and place and desire to live with them in Love and Concord For all that have the spirit of holy love and peace do love those that have the same spirit And such serious holy Conformists as Bolton Whately Fenner Preston Sibbs Stoughton Gouge and such other were formerly as much crouded after as Nonconformists But it is those that Preach against holy Love and Concord and wrangle with the most Religious sort whom they should encourage whose Congregations are thinest usually through the tepidity of their followers and the distaste of others XLI When we read in the Council of Calced the Egyptian Bishops crying so long miseremini miserimini lying prostrate on the earth even when they could say Non dissentimus and beging of their fellow Bishops for their lives and consciences and their Brethren crying against all Away with them They are Hereticks while they professed the same Faith while the men that with such out-crys were condemning those of their own confession had newly cryed Omnes peccavimus for condemning Flavianus and the Truth and saying that they did it for fear and owned that Eutychianism which yet these Egyptian Bishops now disowned it mindeth us that even Bishops had need to be remembred that while the wheel is turning the upper side should not tempt men to forget what side will be uppermost shortly and for ever Additions more particularly of National Churches §1 THere are some worthy persons who plead more specially for National Churches as of Divine Institution whose Doctrine calls us to a special consideration of it But though some of us have oft desired it we have not hitherto obtained any satisfaction what they mean by A National Church or any true definition which they agree in Some of them deride us for doubting and asking the question and some answer it to the increase of our doubt §2 It must be presupposed that we speak not of a meer Community that hath no Pastors but strictly of a Society called by some Political by others Organized constituted of Pastors and People mutually related which is the ordinary sense of the word Church And we must premise what being commonly agreed on is none of our doubt or question §3 The question is not whether any or all Nations and Kingdoms should be Christians and so be the Kingdoms of Christ That 's past doubt 2. Nor is it whether in such Kingdoms the King be the Head as to the power of the sword that is
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-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
Ecclesiastical Laws as the Surplice the sign of the Cross at the sacred Font kneeling in receiving the Sacrament and such like which yet by some light prejudice he thought were superstitious and Popish The question is What obligation there is in this case I say 1. Such an Oath cannot be taken during such errour without grievous sin For he sinneth grievously that sinneth against his conscience though erroneous For when the Judgment of the Intellect is every ones nearest Rule of action the will if it follow not that judgment failing from its Rule must needs be carried into sin It 's a common saying He that doth against his conscience buildeth to Hell Verily he that sweareth what he thinketh unlawful would swear if it were indeed unlawful that becometh unlawful to him that is lawful to another as the Apostle judgeth Rom. 14. 14 2. I say such an Oath doth not bind Because an Oath cannot take away a former obligation nor induce another obligation contrary to it But that Oath which is taken against the dictate of conscience had a former obligation arising from that dictate For the dictate of conscience whether right or erroneous alwaies obligeth at least not to act against it But a following Oath cannot remove that obligation but is it self invalid and loseth its obliging force 3. But if the swearer after better taught do see and correct his errour the Oath which bound him not before beginneth then to bind him P. 77. Other Cases there are of things by Accident unlawful by reason of ill effects of the thing it self as it may be a hinderer of a greater good or a cause at least an occasion of evil The fourth Case is when the thing sworn seemeth unlawful as hindering the effect of some antecedent good as of a Vow or Promise made before As if one that had before-hand bound himself to some work of Piety or Charity after take an Oath that hindereth the fulfilling of the former Vow As if one that vowed to give half his gain weekly to the poor shall after swear to give it all to the war This case hath no difficulty I plainly answer such an Oath is neither lawful nor obligatory because that the former obligation whencesoever contracted whether by Covenant or by Vow or by bare Promise or by meer Office or Duty remaineth valid and puts a bar to every following contrary act Read Prael 4. § 11 12 13 14 15. what he saith for the obligation 1. Of spontaneous Oaths 2. Of Oaths caused by fraud 3. Or by fear extorted 4. Even of Oaths to Robbers P. 110. 3. He that taketh an Oath imposed by one that had no just authority but not otherwise vicious is bound to perform what he swore Read p. 175 c. what he saith at large against equivocation stretching reservations as opening the door to all lying and perjury and frustrating the end of Oaths P. 195. Of the latitude and extent of an Oath How far the senso is to be measured by the scope As when the Cause of the Oath was particular but the words are general e. g. The Popes Usurpation was the Cause of the Oath of the Kings Supremacy But the words of the Oath so assert the Kings Supremacy as exclude all others as well as the Pope from exercising supreme Power in this Kingdom Answ Such an Oath obligeth as to the words themselves in their utmost latitude The Reason is because the intention of the Law though made on a particular occasion is general to hinder all incommodities of the same kind for the future As Lawyers fetch not the sense of Laws from the Proem but from the body of the Statute so we must judge of the just interpretation of an Oath not by the promised recognition or other preface but by the body of the Oath it self P. 208. He is alwaies perjured that intendeth not what he promised but he is not alwaies perjured that performeth not what he promised The bond being dissolved P. 227. Vows made to God as a party cannot be relaxed by man though men may give away their own If you swear for the sake of another as to his honour obedience profit or other good the Oath bindeth not unless he for whom you swear take it as acceptable and firm P. 242. Concl. 4. It is a grievous sin to impose an Oath unduly on another As 1. An Oath not stablished by Law or Custom c. 2. An Oath that is repugnant or in the sense that the words hold forth in the common use of speaking seemeth repugnant to any Oath by him formerly lawfully taken 3. They that constrain men to swear to a thing unlawful as against our duty to God or our Superiours or the Laws of the Kingdom or against good manners or that which is otherwise dishonest and may not be kept 4. He who imposeth an Oath of ambiguous sense or any way captious to ensnare the conscience life liberty or fortune of his neighbour 5. He that without necessity by fear compelleth or by Authority impelleth or by counsel example fraud or other artifice or reason induceth another to swear who he knoweth will swear against the judgment of his conscience I would all men in great power would remember how filthy a character Jeroboam branded his own conscience fame and name with that made Israel to sin and how greatly they provoke God's great wrath against themselves that abuse their power to other mens ruine which God gave them for edification and not for destruction P. 243. Concl. 5. An offered Oath is not to be taken with a reluctant or doubting conscience 1. Because what is not of faith is sin 2. Because we must swear in judgment which he doth not that sweareth against his consciences Judgment 3. Because this is done for some temporal commodity or to avoid some loss or obtain some gain or to get some mans favour or such like But how unworthy of a Christian is it to set God behind the World Heaven behind Earth the Soul behind the Body eternal joy behind temporal gain the hope of the life to come behind present ease inward peace behind outward 4. Because he that so sweareth evidently exposeth himself to the danger of Perjury a most heinous sin For he that for hope or fear of any temporal commodity or discommodity can be induced to swear that which he ought not it is scarce credible but he may by the like hope or fear be drawn from doing what he swore And PERJURY was by the very heathens accounted one of those most heinous sins which they believed would bring the wrath of the Gods not only on the guilty but on their posterity yea on whole nations much more is it to be feared of us who worship that one true God who hath solemnly professed that he will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain Lest while which way ever we look we see such a great and luxuriant crop of Oaths and
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
perish Dead Images of all good things is but the last and most effectual means of destroying the life and real good Dead shews and Images of good are Hypocrisie sincerity is reality seriousness and life We take our Baptism to be our Christening or the summe of the Christian Religion And it is but for men to do that seriously at Age which they did in Infancy by others authorized or others for them which is the Conversion which we daily preach And it grieveth us to see what multitudes when aged never seriously think either what they did or received in their Infancy and how many hate such a life as they have vowed and yet think that they stand to their Baptismal Covenant And till the Pastors of the Church make a serious work of it to bring all their Parishes to a serious understanding and consideration of their Baptism and a serious owning it and renewing of that Covenant we cannot hope that the people will be serious Christians or that men will not think that serious Anabaptists are better than Hypocrites that contemn their Baptism SECT II. The Second Part of the Matter of Conformity THE First Part de facto being contained in the Canonical Subscription and the Declaration hath been opened The Second Part is the case of Reordination Either they that require Episcopal Ordination for all that were otherwise ordained when Bishops were put out do intend it a second Ordination or not If yea then it is a thing condemned by the ancient Churches by the Canons called the Apostles c. and by Gregory M. and others likened to Anabaptistry If not then they take such mens former Ordination to be null and consequently no Ministers to be true Ministers that are so ordained and not by Diocesans and consequently all such Churches to be no true Churches while they take the Roman Ordination to be valid To speak of the consequences of this as to the nullity of Baptizings and Consecration of the Lords Supper c. and of the taking of God's name in vain in the Office if it prove evil would be to go further than the Matter of Fact SECT XI The Third Part of Conformity THE Third Part of Conformity is the Subscribing against the obligation from the Vow To endeavour any change or alteration of Government in the Church with the Oxford Oath That we will never endeavour any alteration and the Articles for our Prelacy and the Ordination-promise and Oath of Canonical Obedience before-mentioned as to this point together 2. Even those Nonconformists that are for the lawfulness yea the need and desirableness of Bishops and Archbishops have so much against this Subscription as that to avoid prolixity we will forbear reciting the particulars any further than to tell you that while a thousand or many hundred Parish-Churches are all without any particular appropriate Bishops great Towns and Villages when in Ignatius's daies the Unity of each Church was known by having One Altar and One Bishop with the Presbyters and Deacons And Jerom defineth a Church to be Plebs unita Episcopo and consequently they are without the Discipline and Pastoral oversight of such Bishops and while all these Parishes are in the old sense become No Churches for ubi Episcopus ibi Ecclesia but only Parts of a Diocesan Church And while the old form of Churches Presbyters and Bishops is thus changed And while one Bishop hath now more work of Discipline besides Confirming and all his other work than an hundred of the ablest and best men can do and so such Discipline is necessarily undone And while the Case is as if the Bishop of Carthage had put down six hundred neighbour-Bishops and become the sole Bishop of all their Churches or as if all the Schools in a Diocess have but one Governing School-master who had power to judge what Scholar to receive or to refuse And while the Keys are to be exercised by Lay-men these will be unsatisfying things 3. The Conformists are not agreed of the meaning of these Subscriptions and Oaths some think that they covenant only to submit to them though they dislike them But others think that it is also to approve the Government Some think that it is only Bishops that they are bound to But others say that the word Ordinary certainly signifieth more than Bishops even Lay-Chancellours And that the forâ—cited Canon expresly nameth many others even with an catera the rest that bear Office And any alteration must needs mean more as any alteration in State sure extâ—nleth to more than not endeavouring to change Monarchy or the King himself Some say that by nâ—t endeavouring is mâ—ant only not unlawfully endeavouring but not that all endeavours are forbidden viz. not petitioning speaking when called c. Others say that if exceptions had been allowed the Law makers would have made us know it and not have spoken universally And that if you expound it of unlawful endeavours you leave all men at liberty to judge what is unlawful and all Schismaticks will take the Oath or Subscription because they hold their endeavours to extirpate Prelacy to be lawful Some say that one may endeavour in his place and calling to take the Church-Keys out of the hands of Lay-Chancellours notwithstanding this Subscription and Oath But others more ingenuously say that the very actual Government or Keys being in the hands of Lay-Chancellours if it bind us not against endeavouring to change these it binds us to nothing that can be understood And that if Subjects thus take liberty after Universal Oaths and Promises to make such exceptions they reproach the Law-makers as if in such tremendous things as these they knew not how to put their Laws in words intelligible and of common sense And they relax all such sacred bonds Some say that in not endeavouring is excepted unless the King commission or command us But others say that if the Law-givers would have had such exceptions they had wit enough to have put them in And that if you leave it to men to except from universals you cannot tell them where to stop And that the use of the Oath and Subscription is that the Church-Government be taken for unalterable SECT XII The Fourth Part of Conformity IV. THE Fourth Part of Conformity is the Subscription against the obligation of the Oath called the Solemn Vow and Covenant Corporations are constituted by Declaring that there is no obligation from it to any one without exception But Ministers must only subscribe that there is no obligation on me or on any other person from the Oath to endeavour any change or alteration of Government in the Church 2. It is none of the Controversie here 1. Whether that vow was lawfully imposed or contrived 2. Nor whether it were lawfuly taken 3. Nor whether part of the matter was unlawful But supposing all these unlawful 1. Whether all alteration of Church Government be unlawful whether it be not in the power of the King and Parliament