French Wars And yet we have instanced but in the best times of dominion in comparison of which Councils Prelates and later times have been a meer hurricane In a word they that think that the mischiefs of superiour seats are greater than the benefits do appeal to all Church history whether they have not been the true and principal causes of the distractions of the Christian world and of the long division of the East and West and of many civil and grievous wars § 40. And to the objections they say I. As to Appeals and Government of Inferiors 1. That the last appeals have ever been made to General Councils And how they went when ever the Prince did but countenance errour as in the daies of Constantius and Valens many great Councils that were for the Arrians and in Theodosius Juniors time for the Eutychians c. is too sad to think on And is it not far more dangerous for many hundred in a Council to bear down a whole Empire or Kingdom and raise persecution and there be no appeal from them than for a poor Priest to put a man from the Sacrament in his own Parish Church How many Councils have been against Images in Churches and how many for them condemning one anothers acts What good will appeals do to such 2. In doctrinal cases the consent of many tends to concord But in cases of personal practice are they fit judges to appeal to that dwell many hundred miles off and know none of the persons suppose a poor man in England is put from the Communion by a Parish-Priest yea perhaps an hundred or many hundred in some parishes because he findeth some to be utterly ignorant some to be drunkards fornicators heretical c. If these appeal but to a Diocesan which dwelleth 20. miles from some 40 or 60 or 100 miles from others the remedy is worse than the disease For if the Priest must travel so far and bring his witnesses and plead the cause with men that never saw the party before where neighbourhood giveth a surer knowledge than any such examination of strangers can do and a strange Chancelor or Diocesan knoweth not which witnesses are most credible and all this while his Pastoral Charge perhaps many thousand souls must be neglected while the Minister is prosecuting these appealing sinners will not the evil of this be greater than the benefit But how much more if every sinner must appeal to a Patriarch many hundred miles off A sober mind will be ashamed to think of the process of such a suit If you say that it is not in the case of such sinners as these whereof every Parish abounds that you would have appeals at least not to Patriarchs so far off I answer 1. Then answer your own objection What remedy shall they have if the Bishop wrong them 2. What is the case than that you suppose such supraordinations of power necessary for If you say If Ministers themselves should be excommunicate It is answered That none but Bishops or other superior powers pretend authoritatively as Rectors to excommunicate Pastors Therefore this is nothing to them that are against all such superiority of Pastors Where none such are none such can excommunicate or be injurious And if there must be a higher Bishop to deliver men from the injuries of a lower who should deliver us from him who may injure Kingdoms Obj. But it is supposed that Patriarchs are wiser and better men than Metropolitans and those than Bishops and those than Priests And that a meer Priest is not to be trusted with the power of the Keys Ans 1. The power of the Keys of his particular Church is essential to his Office 2. They that will make Priests of raw lads and naughty fellows and then plead that such must not be trusted with the Office which they themselves ordained them to do condemn themselves by such allegations 3. The old Church Government was for every particular Church no more numerous than our Parishes to have a Bishop and Presbyters And these were thought sufficient to judge who was fit for their own Communion 4. Hierom was but a Priest c. And Macedonius Nestorius Dioseorus Timothy Elurus Peter Moggus Gregory Alex. Lucius Al. Joh. Al. Theodosius Al. Eulalius Antioch Euphronius Ant. Placitus Ant. Stephanus Ant. Leontius Ant. Eudoxius Ant. Euzoius Ant. all Hereticks were all Patriarchs and to reckon the enormities of the Roman High Priests is a needless work Is it to be supposed then that these were better than Priests Doth Christ say that it is as hard for a rich man to enter into Heaven as for a Camel to go through a needles eye and shall we that are Christians say that it is to be supposed that the rich clergie are better men than the poor When Greg. Nazianz. Saith that such great places use to make Bishops worse than they were before All history tells us what striving there was for such places When Euschius refused Antioch two Priests were presently at Constantines elbow to beg that place and he was fain to mention them though they were not chosen What a stir did Maximus make at Constantinople Egypt and with the Emperour to have got Gregories place at Constantinople And so with others And is it not a fleshly proud and wordly mind which is the work of the Devil which is the importunate seeker And must we needs appeal to such 3. But to come neerer what need is there of any such appeal or such a Government if 1. A Bishop with-his Presbyters be over every particular Church associated for personal Communion in holy doctrine worship and Conversation 2. And if these Churches associate for meer concord and mutual help and not for Governing Bishops 3. And if the Magistrate govern them all as he doth Philosophers Physicians c. For 1. If a Bishop of a particular Church deny one the Sacrament or excommunicate him he doth it justly or unjustly If justly the person must submit If unjustly he may be received by a neighbour Bishop who is not bound to reject those whom upon trial he findeth to have been wrongfully excommunicated All neighbour Churches must refuse those that are by any one excommunicated justly but not all that are wrongfully cast out Some say that he that doth excommunicate doth cast a man out of the whole Church and therefore no one else may receive him But unexplained words must not serve to confound truth Souls and Congregations Every Minister is a Minister in the Universal Church as every Physician and Schoolmaster is in and to the Kingdom indefinitely not universally but his work and power are commensurate his power being only to and for his work Therefore the Bishop or Pastor of one particular Church or Parish is bound to confine his ordinary labour to them though occasionally he may help others And accordingly his power is to use the Keys ordinarily for his own Church only as to the direct effect though extraordinarily he
28. When able faithful Pastors are lawfully set over the Assemblies by just Election and Ordination if any will causelesly and without right silence them and command the people to desert them and to take others for their Pastors in their stead of whom they have no such knowledge as may encourage them to such a change we cannot defend this from the charge of Schism which puts a Congregation on so hard a means of Concord as to judge whether they are bound to that Pastor that was set over them as Christ appointed or must renounce him and take the other when they are Commanded So Cyprian in the case of Novatian sayes that he could be no Bishop because another was rightfull Bishop before XXXI 29. In England it belongeth 1. to the Patron to present 2. to the Bishop to ordain and institute and therefore to approve and invest 3. to the people jure divino to be free Consenters 4. and to the Magistrate to protect and to judge who shall be protected or tolerated under him If now these four parties be for four Ministers or for three or two several men and cannot agree in one the culpable dissenters will be the causes of the Schism XXXII 30. If a Church have more Presbyters than one and will be for one way of worship discipline or doctrine and another for another as at Frankford Dr. Cox Mr. Horn and others were for the Liturgie and others against it so that the people cannot possibly accord it is the culpable party which ever it be that must answer for the Schism So much of enumerated Schisms XXXIII On the Negative we suppose that none of these following are Schisms in a culpable sense 1. All are agreed that it is no Schism for the Christian Church to separate from the ancient Jewish or from the Infidel Heathen World XXXIV 2. All Protestants are agreed that it is no Schism to deny obedience to the Roman Pope nor to deny that communion with them which they will not have without obedience To separate from other Churches is to deny them meer Communion But to separate from the Roman as Papal is but to deny them subjection To deny any other Christian Church to be a true Church is Schismatical if they have the Essentials of a Church But to deny the Papal Church or Monarchy to be a true Church of Christ's institution is true just and necessary though they be Christians because we mean only the Papal Church form as it is an Universal Ecclesiastical Monarchy of the whole Christian world which no other Church but that doth claim XXXV 3. It is no Schism to deny Subjection to Pope Councils or Patriarchs of other Kingdomâ— or to any forein Power by what names or titles soever called XXXVI 4. It is no Schism to deny that Christ hath any such Visible Church on Earth as is one by Union with any Universal Head Personal or Collective besides himself XXXVII 5. It is no Schism to Preach and gather Churches and elect and ordain Pastors and Assemble for God's Worship against the Laws and will of Heathen Nahometan or Infidel Princes that forbid it For thus did the Christians for 300 years And if there be the same cause and need it is no more Schism to do it against the Laws and will of a Christian Prince Because 1. Christ's Laws are equally obligatory 2. Souls equally precious 3. The Gospel and Gods worship equally necessary 4. And his Christianity enableth him not to do more hurt than a Pagan may do but more good If therefore either out of Ungodly enmity to his own profession or for fear of displeasing his wicked or Insidel Subjects he should forbid Christian Churches he is not to be therein obeyed XXXVIII 6. If a Prince Heathen Infidel or Christian forbid Gods Commanded worship and any Commanded part of the Pastors office as in Papists Kingdoms Prayer in a known tongue and the Cup in the Lords Supper is forbidden and as they say all preaching save the reading of Liturgies and Homilies is forbidden in Moscovie and as the use of the Keyes is elsewhere forbidden It is no Schism to disobey such Laws what Prudence may pro hic nunc require of any single person we now determine not XXXIX 7. If any Prince would turn his Kingdom or a whole Province Diocess or County into One only Church and thereby overthrow all the first order of Churches of Christs institution which are associated for Personal present Communion allowing them no Pastors that have the power of the Keyes and all essential to their office though he should allow Parochial Oratories or Chappels which should be no true Churches but Parts of a Church It were no Schism to gather Churches within such a Church against the Laws of such a Prince Many write that there is but One Bishop in Abassia though some say that others have Episcopal power under him some that read the old Canons which confine Bishops to Cities and take not the word as then it was taken for any great Town or Corporation but for such priviledged Towns only as are called Cities in England hence gather that as the King may disfranchise Cities and reduce them to ten two or one in a Kingdom he may by consequence do so by Churches that have Bishops which if it be spoken but of Episcopi Episcoporum we resist not But if of Episcopi Gregis of the first Order of Churches called Particular we suppose that out of such a Kingdom-Church Provincial or Diocesan-Church it is no Schism to gather particular Parochial Churches though forbidden And the same reason will prove that if in a lesser circuit the same things be done though in a lower degree viz were it but three four or ten particular Churches of the largest size capable of Personal Communions turned into one which is capable only of distant Communion per alios it is lawful to gather particular Churches out of that larger sort of Church If the Bishop of Rome Alexandria Antioch Cesarea Heraclea Carthage c. should have put down the Bishops of ten twenty an hundred or many hundred Churches about them and set up only Oratories and Catechists in their stead making them all but part of their own Churches it would have been lawful to have gathered Churches in their Churches For God never made them proper Judges whether Christ should have Churches according to his laws nor whether God should be worshipped and souls be saved or his own nstitutions of Churches be observed XL. 8. If Bishops would ordain Presbyters by limiting words restraining them from any Essential or Integral Part of the Office or Power as instituted by Christ and yet profess that they ordain them to the Office which Christ hath instituted it is no Schism for those Presbyters afterward to claim and execute in season all the power which by Christ's institution belongeth to their Office though against the Bishops Wills Because the Bishops are not the Authors or Donors of
favos Marcionitae Ecclesias saith Tertullian XLIV 12. If any persons shall pretend to have the power of Governing the Churches and Inferior Pastors as their Bishops who are obtruded on those Churches without the Election or consent of the people or Inferior Pastors and these Bishops shall by Lawes or mandates forbid such Assembling Preaching or Worship as otherwise would be Lawful and a duty It is no Schism to disobey such Laws or mandates as such Nor do such disobey their Pastors they being truly no Bishops of theirs till they do consent however in some cases the advantages of some imposed persons may make it an act of Prudence and so a duty to consent as is aforesaid It was no Schism for the people of Antioch Alexandria Cesarea Constantinople c to refuse Ecclesiastical obedience to the ill Bishops set over them by the Emperour to whom they did not consent But the Schism was theirs who complied with the imposed Usurpers Here it must be noted that Church history hath constrained all that understand it to confess both Papists Greeks and Protestants that the ordination of Bishops and Presbyters was in the power of the Bishops and the Election in the power of the people not only the first 300 years under heathen Emperours but for many hundred years after under Christian Emperours and Princes 2. That this was taken for their right given them by God To cite more proofs for this would expose us to the readers censure as unnecessary tediousness Many Papists largely prove it As doth David Blondel beyond exception de jure plebis in regimine Ecclesiastico with more 3. That yet we here plead not for the necessity of so much as the peoples election as it signifieth the first nomination of the person but only for the necessity of consent either explicitly or implicitly exprest If the senior Pastors have the first nomination or if it be the Magistrate or Patrons as with us we quarrel not against it if the flock do but consent Parents may Chuse Husbands and Wives for their Children but they are not such at all till mutual consent XLV 13. The consent of a few of the Church is not the consent of the Church Nor is it Schism for the Major part to differ from their choice or determinations as such In Government the will of the Sovereign is the publick will But in contracts and consent of a Community where Unity is the thing intended and voting the means the Major part is denominatively the society unless they have made others their trustees or delegates in Electing Consenting themselves to what they do such societies are not denominated from the Minor or a small part as contradistinct from the rest If a Diocess have a thousand or 600 or 300 Parish Pastors and a hundred thousand or a million of people or 50000 or 20000 as you will suppose and if only a dozen or twenty Presbyters and a thousand people or none chuse the Bishop this is not the Election or consent of the Diocesan Church Nor is it Schism for 20000 to go against the votes of 2000. XLVI 14. If Bishops that have no better a foundation of their relative power over that particular flock shall impose inferior Pastors or Presbyters on the parish-Parish-Churches command the peoples acceptance obedience the people are not bound to accept and obey them by any authority that is in that command as such Nor is it Schism to disobey it no more than it is treason to reject the Usurper of a Kingdom XLVII 15. whilest such obtruded Parish Pastors have no consent of the flock explicite or implicite that Parish is no Parish Church in the proper Political Organized sense as we now speak of a Church as constituted by the Governing and Governed parts For that which wanteth an essential part wanteth the Essence And therefore it is no Schism to pronounce it no such Church and to deny it the Communion proper to such a Church Though yet as the word Church doth signifie an ungoverned Society in potentia proxima to receive Government they may be improperly called a Church as they are in a vacancy XLVIII 16. If they that make a Diocess the lowest proper Church which hath a Bishop and none under him and a Parish to be but a part of the Diocesan Church and no proper Church of it self as having no Episcopus Gregis shall accuse those as separating from the Church who separate not from the Bishop and keep to any Parish in the Diocess they contradict themselves Though such forsake many Presbyters and Parishes XLIX 17. If Princes or Prelates shall unjustly silence or depose so great a number of faithful Pastors or Preachers as shall leave people destitute of a necessary Preaching and Pastoral help it is no Schism but a great duty for such Ministers to preach and pastorally guide such people otherwise by the same reason one man might put down Christianity in an Empire at his pleasure or dissolve the Churches L. If it be said that it 's true if he put down all but not if he silence but a minor part We answer that the reason is the same to those to whom the Ministry is necessary if he put down Ministers to them The supply of the Churches e. g. in one City of a Kingdom is no supply to the other Cities And if a Parish have 10000 or 30000 or 50000 or 60000 souls it s no supply to all the rest if 3000 of these have the benefit of a Preacher and Pastor The same power which may deny a Pastor to ten parts of a Parish may deny him to the eleventh part that is to all So if competent Pastors be set over half the Parishes in a Kingdom and the other half hath incompetent men or if nine parts of a Kingdom were competently supplied and but the tenth part had not such to whom the people may lawfully commit the Pastoral Care of their souls it is no Schism but a duty for those that are destitute to get the best supply they can and it is no Schism but a duty for faithful Ministers though forbidden by superiours to perform their Office to such people that desire it Their General Ordination with the peoples Necessity and Consent added to God's General Commands to all his Ministers to be faithful and diligent are a sufficient obliging Call to such Ministration without the will of prohibiting Superiours yea against it For 1. Else it were at the will of a man whether souls shall be saved or damned for how shall they believe unless they hear and how shall they hear without a Preacher and whether Christ shall have a Church and God be publickly worshiped or not 2. Our Ordination consecrateth us to our Office during life And it is Sacriledge and Covenant-breaking with God to cast it off and alienate our selves 3. God hath described the Office and the Work in his Word and charged his servants to give the children their bread in due
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
only in worse lands but in Ireland and in England as part of Lancashire the far greatest part of the Parishioners are Papists who renounce the Protestant Churches in some places XXXII Neither dwelling in the Parish nor the Law of the Land makes any Christian a member of that Parish Church without or before his own consent But proximity is part of his extrinsick aptitude and the law of man or command of his Prince may make it his duty to consent and thereby to become a member when greater Reasons mollify not that obligation XXXIII Parish Bounds and such other humane distributions for conveniency may be altered by men and they bind not against any of Christs own Laws and predeterminations nor when any changes turn them against the good ends for which they are made of which more afterward when we speak of separation XXXIIII And about these humane Church-Laws the general Case must be well considered how far they are obligatory to conscience and in what cases they cease to bind Sayrus Fragoso and other the most Learned and Moderate Casuists of the Papists ordinarily conclude that Humane Laws bind not when they are not for the Common good We had rather say that when they are notoriously against the Laws of Christ or against the Common good or are made by usurpation without authority thereto they bind not to formal obedience in that particular though sometime other reasons especially the honour of our Rulers may bind us to material obedience when the matter is indifferent and though still our subjection and loyalty must be maintained But of this before and more largely by one of us Christian directory Part. 4. Chap. 3. Tit. 3. c. The Council of Toletum 1355 decreed that their decrees shall bind none ad culpam but only ad poenam see Bin. Inoc. 6th Sect. XXXV Kings and Magistrates should see that their Kingdoms be well provided of publick Preachers and Catechists to convert Infidels and Impious men where there are such and to prepare such for Baptisme and Church priviledges and Communion as are not yet Baptized but are Catechumens And they may by due means compel the ignorant to hear and learn what Christianity is though not to become Christians for that is impossible nor to prosess that which is not true nor to take Church-Priviledges to which they have no right and of which at present they are uncapable But they may grant those rewards and civil Priviledges to Christians and Churches for their encouragement which they are not bound to give to others and which may make a moving difference without unrighteous constraint XXXVI Christ and his Apostles having as is aforesaid settled the Right of Ordination on the Senior Pastors or Bishops and the Right of Consenting in the People and this continued long even under Christian Emperours Princes or Patrons may not deprive either party of their Right but preserving such Rights they may 1. Offer meet Pastors to the Ordainers and Consenters to be accepted when there is just cause for their interposition 2. They may hinder both Ordainers and People from introducing intollerable men 3. They may when a Peoples Ignorance Faction or Wilfulness maketh them refuse all that are truly fit for them urge them to accept the best and may possess such of the Temples and Publick Maintenance and make it consequently to become the Peoples duty to consent as is aforesaid so also when they are divided XXXVII Princes ought to be Preservers of Peace and Charity among the Churches and to hinder Preachers from unrighteous and uncharitable reviling each other and their unpeaceable controversies and contentions XXXVIII Christ himself hath instituted the Baptismal Covenant to be the Title of Visible Members of his Church and the Symbol by which they shall be notified And he hath commanded all the baptized as Christians to Love each other as themselves and though weak in the faith to receive one another as Christ receiveth us but not to doubtful disputations and so far as they have obtained to walk by the same rule of Love and Peace and not to despise or judge each other for tolerable differences much less to hate revile or destroy each other and it seemed good to the Holy Ghost and the Apostles to lay no greater burden on the Churches even of the Ceremonies which God had once commanded but Necessary things Act. 15. 28. And these terms of Church-Union and Concord which Christ hath made no mortal man hath power to abrogate All things therefore of inferiour nature though Verities and Good must be no otherwise imposed by Rulers than as may stand with these universal Laws of Christ which are the true way to prevent Church-Schisms XXXIX Princes by their Laws or Pastors by consent where Princes leave it to them may so associate many particular Churches for orderly correspondencie and concord and appoint such times and places for Synods and such orders in them as are agreable to Gods aforesaid generall Laws of doing all in Love to Edification and in order And how far if Rulers should miss this generall Rule they are yet to be obeyed we have opened elsewhere XL. As we have there also said that Princes may make their own Officers to execute their Magistratical Power circa sacra which we acknowledge in our King in our Oath of Supremacy and if such be called Eclesiastical and their Courts and Laws so called also that ambiguous name doth not intimate them to be of the same species as Christs ordained Ecclesiastical Ministers or as his Churches and Laws are so now we add that if Princes shall authorize any particular Bishops or Pastors to excercise any such visiting conventing ordering moderating admonishing or governing power as it belongeth to the Prince to give not contrary to Christs Laws or the duties by him commanded and priviledges by him granted to particular Churches we judge that Subjects should obey all such even for conscience sake However our consideration of Christs decision of his disciples controversie who should be the greatest and our certain knowledge how necessary Love and Lowliness and how pernicious wrath and Lordly-Pride are in those that must win souls to Christ and imitate him in bearing not making the cross together with the sad history of the Churches distractions and corruption by Clergy-Pride and Worldliness lamented by Nazianzene Basil Hilary Pictavus Socrates Sozomen Isidore Pelusiot Bernard and multitudes more yea by some Popes themselves these and other reasons we say doe make us wish that the Clergy had never been trusted with the sword or any degree of forcing power or secular pomp yet if Princes judge otherwise we must obediently submit to all their Officers XLI It seemeth by the phrase of His Maiesties Declaration about Ecclesiastical affairs 1660 in which after consultation with his Reverend Bishops the Pastoral way of Perswasion reproofs and admonitions are granted to the Presbyters that a distinction is intended between this Pastoral and the Prelatical Government And we
differ from them because they prefer some other Teacher before them and say somewhat against their opinions or ways do condemn themselves while they cry down Schismaticks and seem not to know what manner of spirit they are of The Wisdom from above is first pure and then peaceable and gentle and easie to be entreated full of mercy and good fruits without partiality and hypocrisie and the fruit of righteousness is sowen in peace by peace-makers But if there be envying and strife it is infernal wisdom earthly sensual and devilish introducing confusion and every evil work whether it be found in Factions Contentions Antichurches and Hereticks or in those that can bear with no Dissenters nor receive them that are weak in the faith but make things unnecessary and their own conceits and wills the measure of mens liberties and their censures He that would pursue all as Rebels in a Kingdom who interpret not every Law alike would more divide the Kingdom than all mens different expositions now do LVII We do with sorrow confess that the discords of the people about chusing their Bishops hath been a great scandal to Infidels and a great dishonour to the Church and hath caused many lamentable Schisms not only under Christian Emperours but Heathen But it hath been greatest about the greatest Prelates especially the Bishops of Rome Alexandria Constantinople Aâ—â—ioch c. since Dâ—masus got that seat by Conquest in the Church a multitude of Schisms have fallen out even when Princes challenged the choice A long time two at once sometimes three and once five or six Popes living that were and had been Popes The Schism of the Donatists was so caused by Bishop set up against Bishop so was that of the Iâ—anites at Constantinople and of Dioscorus at Alexandria and many more But it must be noted 1. That the Electing Bishops-Priests and Magistrates have occasioned these Schisms as much if not far more than the Electing people have done 2. That yet Princes for many hundred years after Constantines time did not think it meet to prevent such Schisms by depriving the People or Presbyters of their Electing-power much less of Consent 3. That the Cure must not be by altering Christ's institution and the Churches practice continued 600 if not 800 years and with most or many to this day nor by overthrowing the very Constitution of Churches and the Law of Nature it self nor by introducing a greater evil as it would be to teach all people to receive all and only such Pastors as Princes every where shall set over them and all Ministers of Christ to cease their Office when men forbid it them LVIII Obj. 4. But if Ministers themselves must be judges whether a Magistrate do justly silence them then none will take themselves to be silenced justly and so all Hereticks will Preach on It is the Rulers that must judge Ans 1. when we hear and read how the Papists deceive the ignorant by repeating the question who must be the judge it grieveth us to find some Protestants so unskilful in answering it when the answer is so easy that when opened we hope few â—â—ber Protestants differ in it Judgement is Publik or Private Publik Judgement is either Antecedent by a Lawgiver judging what shall be commanded and made the subjects duty or consequent by a Judge so strictly called Judging of Titles and Crimes in order to punishment according to law Private Judgement is either by Arbitrators or private Censurers or by every mans Conscience discerning and judging what is his duty and what is sin 1. The Sovereign of the World is the only Judge by Legislation what shall be the duty of all mankind by the Law which he maketh to bind high and low which none may alter or suspend 2. And he is the only fountain of Power to his Creatures 3. And he is the only final absolute infallible judge 2. The Sovereigns of Kingdoms and Common wealths and masters in their families are judges antecedently what shall be their Subjects duty by their Laws subservient to Gods And they and their Officers receiving power from them are the Judges Consequently by Decision who shall be punished as Criminal and who not and who shall be protected in his propriety or estate by the sword of Iustice 3. The true Bishops or Pastors of the Church are Guides to the people according to Christs Laws in the matters of their Office and decisive Iudges who shall be taken in or put out of Communion in the respective Churches 4. Every mans Conscience is that Private discerning Judge of his own Duty and sin Of Arbitrators or Censurers we need not speak This all of us are agreed in And the question who shall Judge is still urged by some as if they thought that some man or men must needs in all cases of Religion be taken for such Absolute Judges that what ever they Judge all subjects must obey it And on this pernicious supposition is built the Popes pretended Infallibility because they think that religion is fallible that is Gods Law if the judge that is an ignorant man or men be fallible But all Protestants at least are agreed that all men are Gods subjects and that all humane Power of Legislation Judgement and execution is limited and that no man may judge against God or his Laws And that men should know Gods Laws and justifie them and judge by them and condemn all that is against them But no man hath power to condemn or contradict Gods Law it self No man hath power to judge that there is no God no Life to come no Christ or that one word of God is false or to forbid one thing which God commandeth or command one thing which God forbiddeth no man hath power to judge that souls shall be deprived of such needful Teaching and Sacraments and publick worshiping of God as God hath provided and commanded them to use Nor to forbid Christs faithful Ministers causelesly to Preach his word and worship him in the Churches and administer his Sacraments Nor causelesly to silence or punish them for so doing Therefore in this case our consciences would not be bound though still we profess that Gods Law bindeth us not to rebel or take up arms against their injuries but patiently to bear them and pray for our persecutors LIX Obj. You say that Rulers may not causelesly silence or punish such But still they are judges whether there be cause Ans They are so For it is about their proper work But they are Judges subject to God to whom they shall answer it if they disobey him And the subjects are pâ—ivate discerning Judges whether the Laws of men contradict Gods Laws so far as concerneth their obeying or not obeying them We must still repeat that the esse is before the scire and the Being of the case and Truth before the judging of it either the Preacher deserveth Silencing or not before you come to judge the case If he ought to be silent
Covenant 1. By this Oath and this Declaration the Government and Trust of all the Cities and Corporations of England are constituted or qualified 2. Part of this Vow and Covenant is against Popery superstition and profaneness and all that is against sound doctrine and Godlyness that we will Repent of our sins unfeignedly and amend our lives c which the Nonconformists take to be Lawful and Necessary things 3. Thousands of people lived in the Kings Garrisons or Quarters and thousands were then unborn or Children who never took this Vow or Covenant nor ever heard or read it or know what is in it 4. The Parliament that imposed it on others took it voluntarily themselves as did many thousand more 5. Many thousands took it that never saw the faces of each other nor know in what sense or with what mind all others took it The sense being doubtful all took it not in on sense And many thought themselves not bound to take it in the imposers sence where the words might bear another And so its like thought the Royal party of the Nobility and Gentry who took it at their composition 6. It was a Vow to God as well as a Covenant with men as the words shew 7. The Controversie is not 1. Whether it was Lawfully Imposed 2. Or whether it was Lawfully Taken 3. Or whether it bind as a League 4. Nor whether it bind to any unlawful thing which all renounce But 5. Whether as a Vow made to God it bind to things necessary as against Schism Profaneness Popery to Repent c. to which men were before bound by other obligations Nor whether they that took it not be bound by it to repent c. but whether no one person in the three Kingdoms who took it be so bound And that since the Scots drew his Majesty to seem to own it which we judge they did unlawfully II. All Parents who will have their Children baptized must submit them to the sign of the Cross as it is after described And so must all that are to be baptized at age submit themselves to it III. All persons that have Children to be baptized must conform as followeth 1. They must procure three persons to be Godfathers and Godmother who must personally present the Child to be baptized and must promise and Vow to God in the Childs name the duties of the Covenant and must in the name of the Child say that he renounceth the Devil and all his works the vain pomp and glory of the world c and that he stedfastly believeth all the articles of faith that he will he baptized and that he will obediently keep Gods holy will and Commandments c. Not that they believe consent c but that he the Child doth believe desire c. And it is not a meer promise for the future I will believe and renounce c. but a profession for the present time I do believe stedfastly and I do renounce And in the Catechism it is said that Repentance whereby they forsake sin and faith whereby they stedfastly believe c are required of persons to be baptized and not only that have been baptized And yet that Infants that cannot do this are to be baptized because they promise them by their sureties and it is not said because they profess to do them at present by their sureties 2. The Child is baptized upon the undertaking of these persons as sponsors or Covenanters whose parts and duties are thus expressed To see that this Infant be taught so soon as he shall be able to learn what a solemn Vow promise and profession he hath here made by you and that he may know these things the better ye shall call upon him to hear sermons and chiefly ye shall provide that he may learn the Creed the Lords prayer and the ten Commandements in the vulgar tongue and all other things which a Christian ought to know and believe to his souls health and that this Child may be brought up to lead a Godly and a Christian life 3. The Conformists here are not agreed themselves what that subjective individual Faith renuâ—ciation and desire are which the Infant at present PROFESSETH by his sureties It is not that the Infant doth actually believe himself for the Catechism confesseth that he doth not Nor is there any probability that he doth unless by miracle unknown And if it be any ones faith else that the Infant then Professeth which is Imputatively his own it is not agreed whose faith that is or must be whether the Godfathers or the Churches and what Churches whether that Congregations or the Diocesan Churches or the National Churches or the Universal Church or whether it must be the Parents Adopters or Owners of the Child 4. Though the Godfathers be not by words to promise their Parts yet standing purposely there as undertakers of it and hearing the Minister expresly tell them what their PART and DUTY is their coming and standing in that relation is a plain signification of consent and rendereth them obliged Covenanters or Sponsors 5. These sponsors are not obliged to profess that the Child is theirs by Adoption or any propriety And so far is any such adopting or owning from their purposes that we never in all our lives knew any Godfather or Godmother as such not having before taken the Child as theirs on other reasons that ever became a sponsor with such a signified intent 6. In most Country Parishes that we have known a great part of the Communicants seem Ignorant themselves of what is to be undertaken for the baptized as we judge by our tryal where we have lived and the credible report of other Pastors And too many notoriously live themselves in a course of life contrary to what is to be undertaken for the Child 7. In all our lives we never knew one person that undertook this Office of Godfather or Godmother who beforehand gave the Parents any credible promise or signification that they had any purpose at all to perform what the Church Chargeth on them and they there undertake as their parts and duties 8. Nor did we ever know one in all our lives that as a Godfather or Godmother did perform it viz. To see themselves that the Child be taught his Câ—venant as soon as he is able to learn and to provide that he be taught all before recited his Creed c. and all things which a Christian ought to know and believe to his souls health and that he bâ—virâ—uoâ—sly brought up to lead a godly and a Christian life But they leave them to the Parents 9. No man can compel another to be Godfather or Godmother 10. All such undertakers that we have known have been of some of these following sorts 1. Either gâ—orant persons that knew not or careless that considered not what they did 2. Or persons that mistâ—â—k the sense of the Church and thought that they were but the representers of the Parents and that what
a Christian Civil Governour of a Christian People that are his Subjects We daily pray that the Kingdoms of the world may all be Christian and we believe that their Kings are the Governours by the sword of all the Clergy as well as others 3. Nor is the question whether Kings may call all their Kingdoms into a holy Covenant with God by lawful means giving them an example first themselves 4. Nor do we contend about an Equivocal Name whether a Christian Kingdom as such may be called a National Church 5. No nor whether a Christian Nation governed by a Heathen or Mahometan King may be called a Christian Church or Kingdom or a Protestant Nation ruled by a Papist King is to be called a Protestant Kingdom or Church for this is but about bare names 6. Nor do we question whether a Christian King may make such accidental disparity between the Pastors as we have before described 7. Nor yet whether the Pastors of one Kingdom may associate and hold Synods for Unity and Counsel and be named a National Church as they are such Associations obliged to Concord §4 But our doubts are these 1. Whether it be in it self specially instituted by God that every Kingdom or Nation of Christians shall have One summam Potestatem essentialiter Ecclesiasticam or one Priest-Head whether a single person or an Aristocracy or a Common Synod as a constitutive part of the National Church 2. Whether this Priest-Head whether High-Priest or Council stand in subordination to the King as part of the same formal Church as a General or a Vicerov that maketh not a distinct Kingdom though he may make a distinct subordinate Society as an Army City c or is he Head of a coordinate different species so as that the same Kingdom shall be two Policies formally viz. a Christian Kingdom or Royal Church and a Priestly Church each being supream in their proper species and both made coordinate by Christ and so they are formally two Churches National About the Jews the Controversie is made by Dissenters e. g. Galaspie Coleman Selden c. exceeding difficult 3. Whether the very Jewish Church Policy be established by Christ for the Christian Church or be repealed 4 Whether the said Ecclesiastical Head must be One as the High Priest or an Aristocracy of many or a Synod of the whole Clergy or whether it be left indifferent which 5. Or whether God hath ordained such a National Church-form only by the general Command of doing all things in Order and Unity and to Edification 6. Which is the Priestly-Head or highest Governour of the Church of England which is a constitutive part as a King in a Kingdom 7. Who is it that chooseth or authorizeth the National Priestly Head that we may know when we have a lawful Chief Pastor and when an Usurper 8. Whether the King or he is to be obeyed in Circumstances or matters Ecclesiastical if they differ and make contrary Laws Without the solution of these questions the name of a National Church will not be understood nor of any practical importance Our own thoughts of them are as followeth § 5. It is certain that the Mosaical Law made for the Jews peculiar republick as such is abrogate not only the Ceremonial part but all All that was not then made for all the world is ceased 1. Because the Common-wealth is ceased for which it was made 2. The Holy Ghost expresly and frequently determineth it so even of that Law that was written in stone as such 2 Cor. 3. 7 8 9 10 11. Heb. 7. 12. 19. Gal. 4. 21 o. 3. 24. The natural part and that which was instituted positively long before for perpetuity were both of them God's Laws before Moses's time and as such obliged other Nations and so do still The matter written in stone except some few mutable particulars as the seventh day Sabbath c. is such as we are still obliged to 1. By Nature 2. By Christ But not as it was part of the Jews peculiar Mosaical Law Much less doth it bind all the world to its Policy § 6. If the Jewish Law either as such or as stablished by Christ for his Kingdom did bind all the world to this day then it would bind them to their Civil Policy as much at least as to their Ecclesiastical But few Christians think that it binds them to their Civil Policy For if it did then 1. All Nations that have varied from it to this day have sinned 2. No diversity of Governments could be lawful 3. Then it would perplex men to be sure whether it be the old Mosaical form by Judges or the later Regal form that bindeth 4. Then such a Civil Council or Sanhedrim as was appointed the Jews would be a Divine Establishment and not variable at the will of Kings or People Many other things would follow which Kings would not easily believe § 7. There may be much more said for the continuance of the Jews civil Policy than for their Ecclesiastical For there is much more forbidden of the latter than of the former Though all nations be not bound to their civil policie they may set it up if they please They are not prohibited For Christ hath not made new Laws for civil states as such But he hath made new Church Laws and thereby altered yea prohibited much of the old § 8. We know no more reason why the Jewish form should bind us than that which was before the Jews and particularily Melchezedeks who was a King and Priest God owned both and commandeth us neither at least as in conformity to them § 9. The Holy Ghost saith expresly Heb. 7. 11. 12. That perfection was not by the Levitical Priesthood and that the Priesthood being changed there is made of necessity a change of the Law which is called the Law of a carnal Cammandment verse 16. and that there is a disanulling of the Commandement going before for the weakness and unprofitableness of it for the Law made nothing perfect v. 18 19. the Covenant or Law being not faultless a new one doth succeed it v. 7. 8. 9. 10. The first Tabernacle is not standing which had their ordinances of divine service and a worldly sanctuary Heb. 9 1. 8. 11. He taketh away the first Law and Priesthood that he may establish the second Heb. 10. 8 9 11. 16. 17 c. § 10. Whilest it is agreed on that the essentials of the work or office of the Jewish Priests is ceased as Heb. 7. and 8 9 and 10 shew and their Title by birth and the appropriation to one Tribe c. it followeth that the Jewish Priesthood is ceased But yet we confess that Christ if he had pleased might have setled a High Priest and Council like theirs in every nation for his own work But if the old form bind us not we are left only to enquire what new one is setled by Christ and whether he have done so or not § 11.