not had more than one of such fixed Societies or Churches under him Or might have more stated members of his Church than were capable of Personal Communion and mutual assistance at due seasons in holy Doctrine Discipline and Worship Though we doubt not but as now there are many Chapels in some Parishes where the aged weak children and all in soul weather or by other hinderances may hear and pray and occasionally communicate whose proximity and relation to the Parish-Churches do make them capable of Personal Communion in due seasons with the whole Parish at least per vices in those Churches and in their conversation And as a single Congregation may prudently in persecution or foul weather meet oft-times in several houses so the great Church of Jerusalem though it cannot be proved a quarter so big as some of our Parishes might in those times when they had no Temples hold their publick Meetings oft at the same time in divers houses and yet be capable of Personal Communion as it is before described Sect. II. It is not inconsiderable to our confirmation that so worthy a man as Dr. Hamond doth over and over in his Dissertations against Blondell and in his Learned Annotations on the new Testament assert all the matter of fact which we are pleading for viz. That the word Presbyter and Pastor in the New Testament is ever taken for a Bishop That it belonged to the Bishops office to be the Preacher to his Church to visit all the Sick to take care of all the Poor and to take Charge of the Churches stock to administer the Sacrament c. And as he saith on Acts 11. 6. That although this Title of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elders have been also extended to a second order in the Church and is now only in use for them under the name of Presbyters yet in the Scripture-time it belonged principally if not alone to Bishops there being NO EVIDENCE that any of that second Order were then instituted though soon after before the writing of Ignatius's Epistles there were such instituted in all Churches Sect. XII By this it followeth that 1. the office of a subject Presbyter that was no Bishop was not in being that can be proved in Scripture-times 2. That no Bishop had more than one worshiping assembly at once For all Christians assembled for worship on the Lords dayes and their worship still included somewhat which none but a Minister of Christ might do and when there was no other Minister in being but Bishops and a Bishop can be but in one place at once a Bishop could have but one assembly Though for our parts we think that we have just reason to believe that Churches then had more Ministers than one when we read how Paul was put to restrain and regulate their publick officiating at Corinth 1 Cor. 14. Sect. XIII And it further confirmeth us that the said Doctor tells us that for ought he knoweth the most of the Church then were of his mind And Franciscus a sancta clara de Episcop tells us that this opinion came from Scotâ—â— And Petavius that Learned Jesuit was the man that brought it in in our times viz. That the Apostles placed only Bishops with Deacons in the Churches and that it is only these Bishops that are called Presbyters in Scripture So that the Matter of fact for the whole Scripture-times is granted us by all these learned men Sect. XIV It being the Divine Institution of the Office of this second Order of Presbyters which we are unsatisfied about and these Reverend men confessing that de facto they were not in being as can be proved by any evidence in Scripture-times and those times extending to about the hundredth or ninety ninth year after Christs Nativity when St. John wrote the Revelation we must confess that we know not how that Order or Office can be proved then to be of God's institution 1. As to the Efficient who should do it as the certain authorized Instruments of God 2. Or how it shall be certainly proved to us to be of God when Scripture telleth it not to us and what Records of it are infallible And whether such pretended proofs of Tradition as a supplement to Scripture be not that which the Papacy is built on and will not serve their turn as well as this Sect. XV. And whereas it is said that the Bishops made in Scripture-times had authority given them to make afterward that second Office or Order of Presbyters 1. We cannot but marvel then that in such great Churches as that at Jerusalem Ephesus Corinth c. they should never use their Power in all the Scripture-times And when they had so many Elders at Jerusalem so many Prophets and Teachers at Antioch and Corinth that Paul was fain to restrain their exercises and bid them prophesie but One by One and one said I am of Paul and another I am of Apollo c. there should yet in that age be none found meet for Bishops to ordain to this second sort of Presbyters as well asmen to make Deacons of 2. But we never yet saw the proof produced that indeed the Bishops had power given them to institute this other Species of Elders Sure it belonged to the Founders of the Churches Christ and his Apostles to institute the Species of Ecclesiastical Officers though the Bishops might make the Individuals afterwards And where is the proof that the Apostles did institute it If Ecclesiastical generation imitate natural the Bishops would beget but their like men beget men so Physicians make Physicians and so Bishops may beget Bishops But he that saith they could morally first beget this other Species must prove it Sect XVI When Presbyters were first distinct from Bishops we see no proof that it was as a distinct Office or Order in specie and not only as a distinct degree and priviledge of men in the same Office Nor hath the Church of Rome it self thought meet to determine this as de fide but suffereth its Doctors to hold the contrary Sect. XVII It much confirmeth us in our judgment that no mere Bishop then had more Churches than one as afore described when we find that Ignatius whose authority Dr. Hamond Dissert cont Blondel Laieth so much of the cause upon and whom Bishop Pierson hath lately so industriously vindicated doth expresly make ONE ALTAR and ONE BISHOP with the Presbyters and Deacons to be the note of a Church Unity and Individuation And that by one Altar is meant one Table of Communion or place where that Table stood is past doubt with the judicious and impartial Whence learned Mr. Joseph Mede doth argue as certain that then a Bishops Church was no other than such as usually communicated in one place Yea saith Ignatius the Bishop must take notice and account of each person even of Man-servants and Maids that they come to the Church And this was the Bishop of a Seat that after was Patriarchal Such Bishops we do
gently with them and adjudged Communion to them And the Africans pretended to no authority over them but by Counsell told them of Gods own Law which no man had power to invalidate They charge the people as heinous sinners if they forsake not a wicked unmeet Bishop or Pastor what Libellaticks were I supposed the reader to know viz such as to save their lives in persecution had permitted another to put their names by subscription to a false profession that favoured idolatry or infidelity Obj. 1. But Cyprian and the African Councils were mistaken in the point of Rebaptizing those baptized by Hereticks and so they might be here Ans 1. The Council of Nice decreed the rebaptizing of those that were baptized by some Hereticks though not by all And if the Africans did not confine the word to such they erred only in not sufficiently distinguishing of Hereticks 2. If we are excused from receiving the testimony of such Fathers and Councils as had any Errour or as great an Errour as that you may see what will follow 3. We do not citâ— Cyprian and the African Council as infallible nor as having more Governing power over us than the present Rulers but as being to us I say to us of more credit and authority in telling us what is jure devino than those Bishops or others that now condemn us as Schismaticks 4. Câ—pâ—â—an and the African Councill were not forbidden for this judgment of theirs to Preach Christs Gospel nor cast out of the Churches noâ— sent to Goals nor called and used as Rogues and Schismaticks and farr worse then drunkards adulterers yea or the atheists and infidels among us Nor were the people that obeyed their Councill so used But tâ—e names of these holy men are venerable to this day Obj. 2. There were then no Christian Magistrates and therefore the peoples power must be used in their stead Ans Church power was the same before and after The Lawes of Christ concerning it altered not The Pastors were then the Guides of the people by divine right And the power of the Keyes was no less forcible or effectual as used by the Bishops and Presbyters than when the power of the sword was added to them if not much more And the peoples power of choosing and refusing Bishops continued many hundred years after Magistrates were Christians confirmed even by Popes and Councills Obj. 3. This would cast all into confusion and there would be no Church Government if the people be Judges when a Minister is bad and then maâ— full him down or forsake him and choose another Answ This is after further answered I now only say 1. The people may not touch his Person by violence nor deprive him of his benefice or temple nor yet degrade him As they that change their Physician or Lawyer do no such thing but simply choose one that they can trust No man will win more by my salvation than I shall nor would suffer more than I by it if I were damned Who is more than I concerned what becometh of my soul Am I not to have more care of it than of my estate or health of body Who can easily believe those men that send us to goales and ruin us for trusting our soules with such Guides as to the best of our understandings we think meetest or at least for avoiding such as we cannot so farr trust and then tell us that they do it because they love our souls better than we love our selves and therefore will not trust them to our choice 2. what confusion doth it cause that every man now chooseth his owne Tutor in philosophy his own master his own Lawyer and physician and every woman at age her own husband 3. Doth not the Church of England as is said allow every man his choice when no man is forbidden to forsake any Bishop or Pastor and choose another by removing his habitation when he pleases So that all this is but about Parish bounds which is confessed to be of humane alterable constitution And how ordinarily do many Gentlemen of the Church of England go from their own Parishes in London 4. You may see by Philip Nyes printed papers and Mr. Tombs his that even those called Independents and some Anabaptists are for hearing such Parish-Teachers as their Rulers shall appoint so they may but commit the Pastoral care of their souls to such as they can better trust and have Sacraments and special Church Communion free 5. what great confusion doth it breed in London that the French and Dutch Churches thus differ from the rest and have their proper modes and Government Yea or that the Nonconformists by the favour of his Majesties Licenses had their choice and several meetings Let not envy and animosity seign greater confusion than there is and the matter will appear much otherwise than it is represented even that the discords and confusions were incomparably less on that occasion than they were under the Bishops in the better times of the Churches even from An. 400 to 600 of which more in due place 6. They that will condemn all that hath inconveniences shall condemn all things in this world But the Greatest must be noted and avoided first Shall the people have any judgment of discerning or not If yea the bounds of it must be shewed and not the thing denyed as if it must bring in all confusion If Usurpers claim the Crown the Subjects must judge which is their true King and must defend his right Will you say If the people be Judges they may set up Usurpers and put down the King They are but discerners of that which is before their duty They have no right to erre nor to alter the Law or right But if it be otherwise they are to be ruled as brutes And so must not judge so much as whom they must obey Is there any Christian that dare say that Bishops or Princes are in all things to be obeyed lest the people be made Judges And so that under Heathen Mahometan Papist Heretical Rulers they must be all of their Religion as to the external professing and practising part None dare for shame say so save an Infidel Is not this a greater confusion or michief than that which is now disputed against Therefore the bounds must be set on both sides which are not difficult to discern As the people have property in their limbs children and liberties and acquisitions antecedently to humane Government which is to order these and not to destroy them so have all men greater interest in the safety of their own souls which no man can take from them no nor is it in their just power to put it into the hands of others from themselves If Hereticks blind guides oâ—â—faithless men or insufficient be made Pastors of the Flocks and all men commanded to hear no better nor trust the Pastoral Conduct of their souls into any wiser or safer hands Satan will be more gratified by it than by the
were cut out by the King's command and they spake freely by miracle after they were cut out as is testified by Aeneas Gaze◠and by Victor Uticensis who saw and spake with and heard the persons when this miracle was wrought upon them and by Procopius XXIV It will be objected that Constantius Valeus Gensericus Hunnericus c were Arrians and the later conquering Usurpers Answ 1. Even Heathen Emperours and Kings are our Governours though they want due aptitude to their duty as also do many wicked Christian Princes And we owe them obedience when their Laws or Mandates are not against the Laws of God We must not say as Bellarmine that Christians should not tolerate such Princes and that the ancient Christians suffered for want of Power to resist 2. Let the Emperours called Arrians be made no worse than they were Some were for Concord and Toleration of both Parties and so are more suspected than proved to be Arrians And Arrians themselves though unexcusably erroneous were not like the Socinians that utterly deny Christ's Deity They subscribed to all the Nicene Creed save the the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They would say that Christ was Light of Light very God of very God begotten not made c. They thought that as the Sun-beams or Light are its immediate emanation but not its substance as commonly Philosophers say they are not how true we say not so Christ was an immediate emanation from the Father before and above Angels by whom all things else were made And how dangerously Justin and most of the ancientest Doctors before the Nicene Council speak hereabout and how certainly Eusebius and other great Bishops were Arrians and how lamentably the Council at Ariminum endeavoured an uniting Reconciliation by laying by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And even old Osius by their cruelty yielded to them as Liberius subscribed to them we need not send any men to Philostorgius nor Sondius for proof it being so largely proved by D◠Petavius de Trinitate who fully citeth their dangerous words And if the heterodoxies of the Prince shall be made the reason of the Subjects disobeying him in a matter lawful in it self as some that we speak to now suppose we shall hardly know where to stop nor what bounds to set the Subjects when they are made Judges of the Princes Errours and what examination of cognisance of it they must have 3. Constantine that banished Athanasius who kept in while he could against the Emperours will is not proved an Arrian Nor Valentinian who commanded Ambrose not to cease Prenching himself nor to forsake his Church nor to subscribe to Arrianism but only to tolerate the Arrians to meet in one spare Church which was in Millan as an act of moderation But Ambrose resolutely disobeyed the Emperour we justifie not the manner because he thought that God's Law made it his office as Bishop so to do 4. And as to Gensericus and Hunnericus's Usurpation it was then ordinary with the Bishops even of Rome to submit to men that had no better title and alas how few of many of the old Roman Emperours had any better at least at first XXV We doubt not at all but that Kings are the Governours of Bishops and Churches by coercive power as truly as of Physicians or other Professions And though they have no Authority to abrogate or suspend the Laws of Christ yet they have a Power of Legislation under Christ as Corporations for By-laws have under them which power is only about those things which God hath left to their determination and not either above Christ against Christ or in coordination with Christ but only in such subordination to him and to his Laws XXVI How far Rulers have power or not to command things indifferent and how far things scandalous and evil by accident some of us have opened already distinctly and need not here repeat XXVII And we have there shewed that as they may regulate Physicians by General and Cautionary Laws but not overthrow their Calling on that pretence by prescribing to the Physician all the Medicines which he shall use to this or that Patient at this or that time c. so they may make such General and Cautionary Laws circa sacra 1. As shall drive Bishops and Pastors on to do their certain duties 2. And as shall duely restrain them from sin and doing hurt 3. And they may punish them by the sword or force for such crimes as deserve that punishment And a King of England may depose or put to death a traiterous Bishop Priest or Deacon as lawfully as Solomon deposed Abiathar XXVIII And as we have there said we suppose that there are some circumstances of the Ministers work which it belongeth to his own office to determine of and are a true part of his Ministerial works But there are others which it is meet should be universally determined of for the Concord of all the Churches in a Kingdom These the Pastors and Churches by consent may agree in without a Law it Kings leave it to them And Kings by the advise of such as best understand Church Cases may well by their own Laws make such determinations As for instance in what Scripture Translations what Versions and Metres of Psalms the Churches shall agree Much more may they determine of the Publick Maintenance of Ministers and the Temples and such other extrinsick accidents XXIX Princes and Rulers may forbid Atheists Infidels Hereticks and Malignant opposers of necessary truth and godlyness and all that preach rebellion and sedition that propagate such wicked Doctrine and may punish them if they do it And may hinder the incorrigible and all that provedly or notoriously are such whose Preaching will do more hurt to men than good from exercising the Ministry or Preaching in their jurisdiction or Dominions For such have not any power from Christ so to Preach but serve the Enemy of Christ and man XXX Princes and Rulers may for order sake distribute their Christian Kingdoms into Parishes which shall be the ordinary bounds of particular Churches And such distribution is very congruous to the Ends of the Ministry and Churches and conduceth to orderly settlement and peace And experience hath shewed us that such Parish Churches where the Pastors are faithfull and fit may live as Christians should do to their mutuall comfort in Piety Love and Peace And such Parish-order we desire XXXI But no Rulers may hence conclude 1. that Parishes are distributed by God immediately or that he hath commanded such a distribution as a thing of absolute necessity to a Church But the Generall Rules of order and Edification do ordinarily in Christian Kingdomes require it 2 Nor may any make a Parish as such to be a Church and all to be Church members that are in the Parish as such for Atheists Infidels Hereticks Impenitent Rebels may live in the Parish and many that consent not to be members of that or any Church And not
only in worse lands but in Ireland and in England as part of Lancashire the far greatest part of the Parishioners are Papists who renounce the Protestant Churches in some places XXXII Neither dwelling in the Parish nor the Law of the Land makes any Christian a member of that Parish Church without or before his own consent But proximity is part of his extrinsick aptitude and the law of man or command of his Prince may make it his duty to consent and thereby to become a member when greater Reasons mollify not that obligation XXXIII Parish Bounds and such other humane distributions for conveniency may be altered by men and they bind not against any of Christs own Laws and predeterminations nor when any changes turn them against the good ends for which they are made of which more afterward when we speak of separation XXXIIII And about these humane Church-Laws the general Case must be well considered how far they are obligatory to conscience and in what cases they cease to bind Sayrus Fragoso and other the most Learned and Moderate Casuists of the Papists ordinarily conclude that Humane Laws bind not when they are not for the Common good We had rather say that when they are notoriously against the Laws of Christ or against the Common good or are made by usurpation without authority thereto they bind not to formal obedience in that particular though sometime other reasons especially the honour of our Rulers may bind us to material obedience when the matter is indifferent and though still our subjection and loyalty must be maintained But of this before and more largely by one of us Christian directory Part. 4. Chap. 3. Tit. 3. c. The Council of Toletum 1355 decreed that their decrees shall bind none ad culpam but only ad poenam see Bin. Inoc. 6th Sect. XXXV Kings and Magistrates should see that their Kingdoms be well provided of publick Preachers and Catechists to convert Infidels and Impious men where there are such and to prepare such for Baptisme and Church priviledges and Communion as are not yet Baptized but are Catechumens And they may by due means compel the ignorant to hear and learn what Christianity is though not to become Christians for that is impossible nor to prosess that which is not true nor to take Church-Priviledges to which they have no right and of which at present they are uncapable But they may grant those rewards and civil Priviledges to Christians and Churches for their encouragement which they are not bound to give to others and which may make a moving difference without unrighteous constraint XXXVI Christ and his Apostles having as is aforesaid settled the Right of Ordination on the Senior Pastors or Bishops and the Right of Consenting in the People and this continued long even under Christian Emperours Princes or Patrons may not deprive either party of their Right but preserving such Rights they may 1. Offer meet Pastors to the Ordainers and Consenters to be accepted when there is just cause for their interposition 2. They may hinder both Ordainers and People from introducing intollerable men 3. They may when a Peoples Ignorance Faction or Wilfulness maketh them refuse all that are truly fit for them urge them to accept the best and may possess such of the Temples and Publick Maintenance and make it consequently to become the Peoples duty to consent as is aforesaid so also when they are divided XXXVII Princes ought to be Preservers of Peace and Charity among the Churches and to hinder Preachers from unrighteous and uncharitable reviling each other and their unpeaceable controversies and contentions XXXVIII Christ himself hath instituted the Baptismal Covenant to be the Title of Visible Members of his Church and the Symbol by which they shall be notified And he hath commanded all the baptized as Christians to Love each other as themselves and though weak in the faith to receive one another as Christ receiveth us but not to doubtful disputations and so far as they have obtained to walk by the same rule of Love and Peace and not to despise or judge each other for tolerable differences much less to hate revile or destroy each other and it seemed good to the Holy Ghost and the Apostles to lay no greater burden on the Churches even of the Ceremonies which God had once commanded but Necessary things Act. 15. 28. And these terms of Church-Union and Concord which Christ hath made no mortal man hath power to abrogate All things therefore of inferiour nature though Verities and Good must be no otherwise imposed by Rulers than as may stand with these universal Laws of Christ which are the true way to prevent Church-Schisms XXXIX Princes by their Laws or Pastors by consent where Princes leave it to them may so associate many particular Churches for orderly correspondencie and concord and appoint such times and places for Synods and such orders in them as are agreable to Gods aforesaid generall Laws of doing all in Love to Edification and in order And how far if Rulers should miss this generall Rule they are yet to be obeyed we have opened elsewhere XL. As we have there also said that Princes may make their own Officers to execute their Magistratical Power circa sacra which we acknowledge in our King in our Oath of Supremacy and if such be called Eclesiastical and their Courts and Laws so called also that ambiguous name doth not intimate them to be of the same species as Christs ordained Ecclesiastical Ministers or as his Churches and Laws are so now we add that if Princes shall authorize any particular Bishops or Pastors to excercise any such visiting conventing ordering moderating admonishing or governing power as it belongeth to the Prince to give not contrary to Christs Laws or the duties by him commanded and priviledges by him granted to particular Churches we judge that Subjects should obey all such even for conscience sake However our consideration of Christs decision of his disciples controversie who should be the greatest and our certain knowledge how necessary Love and Lowliness and how pernicious wrath and Lordly-Pride are in those that must win souls to Christ and imitate him in bearing not making the cross together with the sad history of the Churches distractions and corruption by Clergy-Pride and Worldliness lamented by Nazianzene Basil Hilary Pictavus Socrates Sozomen Isidore Pelusiot Bernard and multitudes more yea by some Popes themselves these and other reasons we say doe make us wish that the Clergy had never been trusted with the sword or any degree of forcing power or secular pomp yet if Princes judge otherwise we must obediently submit to all their Officers XLI It seemeth by the phrase of His Maiesties Declaration about Ecclesiastical affairs 1660 in which after consultation with his Reverend Bishops the Pastoral way of Perswasion reproofs and admonitions are granted to the Presbyters that a distinction is intended between this Pastoral and the Prelatical Government And we
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
prophesied to be Christian Nations never were distinct Christian Kingdoms but parts of the Empire nor had a National Church or Head being but parts of such a Church Nay when Rome got the National Primacy it had not such a Priestly Governing Soveraignty as the Jews High-Priest had § 25. Though there was no Christian King for three hundred years unless he of Edessa or Lucius of England of whom we have little certainty but it 's like that both were subjects to others yet if a Supream Church-Power had been necessary the Apostles would have before erected it which they never did For even Rome pretendeth to be by them made the Ruler of the whole world and not a meer National Head which Constantinople claimed but not as of Apostolical institution § 27. The question whether the Jews had they believed should have continued their High-Priest and Church Policy is vain as to our purpose 1. It being certain to Christ that they would be dissolved by unbelief And 2. he having setled another way and changed theirs 3. And if their Priesthood and Law except as it typified spiritual things had stood yet it would not have bound the Gentile Christians in other Nations § 28. When Emperours became Christians they did not set up the Jewish Policy nor thought themselves bound to it no nor any setled Priestly Supremacy for National Government For Councils were called but on rare accidents by the Emperours themselves and to decide particular cases about Heresies And the Pope had but the first voice in such Councils § 29. But if every Nation must have the Jewish Policy then the whole Empire must then have one High Priest and then the Pope hath a fair pretence to his claim of a Divine Institution as the Church Soveraign of the whole Empire which it 's like was then seven parts in eight of the whole Christian world at least unless Abassia were then generally Christians as now But then his power would change with the Empire and fall when it falleth § 30. III. But if the question be only whether a National Priestly Soveraignty be lawful or whether God's general Rules for Concord Order Edification do bind the Churches prudentially to erect such a form To this they sayas followeth 1. We will first lay hold on certainties and not prefer uncertainties before them We are sure that such a power of Apostles and Pastors as is before mentioned was established and that the junior Pastors were as Sons to the seniors ordained by them Whether the power of Ordaining and Governing Ministers was by Apostolical Establishment appropriated to men of a superiour degree in the sacred Ministry seemeth to us very dark 2. We are past doubt that all particular Churches by Apostolical order had Bishops and that a Church was as Hierom saith Plebs Episcopo adunata and as Ignatius the Unity of every Church was notified by this that to every Church there was one Altar and one Bishop at that time and as Cyprian Ubi Episcopus ibi Ecclesia 3. And we are satisfied that every Presbyter is Episcopus Gregis whoever claim to be Episcopi Episcoporum which the Carthage Council in Cyprian renounced 4. And we are satisfied that no Church-superiours have authority to destroy the particular Church form Ministry Doctrine Worship or Discipline which were setled by the Holy Ghost in the Apostles And that the priviledges and duties of these single particular Churches being plainest and surest in Scripture they must be continued whatever Canons or Commands of any superiour Priests should be against them 5. Nor can they force any man to sin 6. Nor have any Priests a forcing power by the sword or violence but only the power of the Word and Keys that is of taking in or putting out of the Church where they have power and binding men over on just cause to the judgment of God The power that they have is from Christ and for him and not against him and for the Churches edisication and not destruction and what is pretended contrary to this is none They cannot dispense with the Laws of God but preach and execute them 7. And these things being thus secured though in our doubts we dare not swear or subscribe that National Patriarchal Provincial or Metropolitical Powers are of God's institution yet we resolve to live in all Christian peaceableness and submission when such are over us § 31. And we must profess that when we find how anciently and commonly one Presbyter in each Church was peculiarly called the Bishop without whom there was no ordinary ordinations and against whom in matters of his power none was to resist and also how generally the Churches in the Roman Empire conformed themselves to an imitation of the civil power as to their limits in all the official part being all subject to the Emperour who set up no Ecclesiastical Peer we are not so singular or void of reverence to those Churches as not by such notices to be much the more inclined to the aforesaid submission and peaceableness under such a power nor are we so bold or rash as to reproach it or condemn the Churches and excellent persons that have practised it §32 Nay we have already said that securing the state worship doctrine and true discipline of the inferiour particular Parish Churches there are some of us that much incline to think that Archbishops that is Bishops that have some oversight of many Churches with their Pastors are Lawful successours of the Apostles in the ordinary part of their work And such of us have long ago said that the Episcopal Government of the Bohemian Waldenses described by Commenius and Lascitius is most agreable to our judgment of any that we know excercised Therefore that which we humbly offered for our concord in England at His Majesties Restauration was Archbishop Ushers form of the Primitive Church Government not attempting any diminution of the Power wealth or honour of the Diocesanes or Archbishops but only a restauration of the Presbyters to their proper Office-work and some tolerable discipline to the particular Parish Churches §33 But we must ever much difference so much of Church order and Government as God himself hath instituted and is purely divine and unchangeable from those accidentals which men ordain though according to Gods general Rules For these are often various and mutable and are means to the former and never to be used against them And of these accidentals of Government we say as they that say no such form is fixed by God Concord order decency and edification are alwaies necessary But oft times it may be indifferent whether concord order and decency be expressed by this accidental way or that And that which is most congruous for order decency edification and concord in one Countrey Church or time may be incongruous in another Therefore if the question be but how far the giving one Bishop or Pastor power over others or making disparity of Cities in conformity to
the state be prudently to be chosen we only say so that Gods establishment be not violated whatever we might think best we presume not herein to give Laws to the Lawgivers nor to obtrude our Counsel uncalled on our superiours much less seditiously to oppose their Lawful institutions § 34. But to those that think that Gods foresaid General Laws of order concord edification do make such a policy ordinarily necessary in the Churches as imitateth the Jews or the civil form of Government we humbly offer to their consideration 1. If so then it would have been the matter of an Vniversal Law with its due exceptions And then Christ the only Vniversal Lawgiver would have made it For if he have not made all necessary Vniversal Laws his Laws are imperfect And then there should be some other Vniversal Lawgiver to supply that defect But there is no other upon earth whether Pope or Council 2. It is contrary to the nature of undetermined circumstances to be alwaies the same and so to be fit matter of such Vniversal or fixed Laws The cases will vary and then so will the duty 3. There will be great diversity of the interest and ingeny of the Judges of the case in several Countries and ages And therefore though some think the said imitation of the civil state alwaies best vet others will not § 35. But if such a settlement were certainly best let it be remembred 1. That the Jews had not under the chief High-Priest one in every City or Tribe like Diocesane Bishops 2. That their Synagogues had discipline within themselves ever where there was but a Village of ten persons there was a Presbyter that had the power of judging offenders § 36. What man doth prudently set up man may prudently alter as there is cause Greg. Nazianzen earnestly wisheth that there were no difference of Place or seats among the Pastors of the Church And therefore he neither thought their Government of each other to be of Divine right nor of prudential necessity or use Else he would have been against it And the whole Greek Church did and still doth take the seats of preeminence to be but of mans appointment or else they would never have changed them and set Constantinople so high as they did And the Council of Calcedon expresly determineth that Rome was by the fathers made the chief seat because it was the seat of the Emperour which was mutable § 37. The Councils in those daies were about Popes or Patriarchs and could depose them And yet it is most evident to any man considerately reading such history that all the Councils called before Christian Emperours gave them more power and conjoyned their authority did meet only for acts of Agreement and not of Regiment over each other Many such synods are mentioned by Eusebius And the Right Reverend Arch-bishop Usher declared his judgment so in general that Councils had but an agreeing power and not a Regent power over the particular Bishops Yet these two things must be supposed 1. That the Pastors in a synod are still Rectors of their slocks and their Canons to them may be more authoritative than a single Pastors words 2. That Gods Law bindeth us to keep love and concord and the Agreements of Councils may determine of the matter in alterable points and so even absent and present Bishops may concordiae gratiâ be obliged by Gods Law to keep such canons as are made for concord and so they may be the matter of our duty But seeing the Church for 300 years judged Councils to have no proper Governing power over particular Pastors and Bishops or Patriarchs singly had ever less power than Councils it followeth that then a Churches Government of disparity and supraordinate Bishops like the civil or like the Jews was not then taken to be of divine right nor then of any right at all § 38. And as to the doubt whether it began after 300 years to be a prudential duty or at least most desirable when we hear what is said on both sides we think it not easie to judge either how much in such a case Christ hath left to humane prudence nor which way the scales of prudence herein will ordinarily turn On one side it is said 1. That it is absurd that there should be no appeals for injured persons to a superiour power 2. And that the dissensions of the Church else will be remediless and all will be broken into heresies and sects 3. And that Apostolical men of a higher rank than meer Presbyters will else have no convenient opportunity to excercise their Governing power if it be not tyed to fixed seats § 39. On the other side they plead 1. That it is safer for the Church to have Religion in the power of many Bishops or Pastors than that one High Priest or Patriarch should have power to corrupt it or silence the faithful preachers or persecute the people when ever he proveth a bad man Yea they say it must be rare if he be not bad seeing it is certain that the most proud and worldly men which are the worst will be the most earnest seekers of rich and honourable places and he that seeketh will usually find 2. They say Christ directly forbad this to his Apostles Luk. 22. That which they strove for was it that he forbad them But that which they strove for was who should be the chief or greatest and not who should tyrannize 3. They say that all Church history assureth us that there have been more Schisms and scandalous contentions about the great superiour Bishopricks far than any of the rest It is a doleful thing to read the history of the Churches of Alexandria Antioch Constantinople and Rome Gregory Nazianzen giveth it as the reason why the contention at Cesarea was so lamentable because it was so high an Archbishoprick The whole Christian world hath been scandalized torn and distracted by the strife of Bishops of and for the highest seats Their famous General Councils which we justly honour for their function and that which they did well were shamefully militant even the first and most honoured Council at Nice was with great difficulty kept in Peace by the personal presence wisdom and authority of Constantine preaching peace to the preachers of peace burning their libels of mutual accusation silencing their contentious wranglings and constreining them to accord Nazianzens descriptions of the ignorance and insolence and naughtiness of the Clergy Orat 1. and of the shameful state of the Bishops Orat. 32. must make the readers heart to grieve The people he describeth as contentious at Constantinople yet as endued with the Love of God though their zeal wanted knowledge pag 528. But the Courtiers as whether true to the Emperours he knew not but for the greatest part perfidious to God And the Bishops as fitting on adverse thrones and feeding adverse opposite flocks drawn by them into factions like the clefts that Earthquakes make and the pestilent
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
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
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-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
is it denyed but that as Father Son and Holy Ghost do enter into Covenant with us as Christians in our baptism so do they with Ministers as such in their ordination-covenant But such a Relation to the Holy Ghost as the Ministers future helper in his work cannot well be supposed to be all that is meant by the words Receive the Holy Ghost both Scripture and common use taking them in another sense XXV This Oath in the Consecration of Bishops is to be taken by every Bishop In the name of God Amen I. N. Chosen Bishop of the Church and See of N. do profess and promise all due reverence and obedience to the Arch Bishop and to the Metropolitical Church of N. and to their successours so help me God through Jesus Christ 2. It is not pretended that any such Oaths of obedience were instituted by Christ or his Apostles or were used in the Churches for many hundred years nor till the Papacy was rising which was furthered by such Oaths 3. They that suppose Bishops to be successours of the Apostles cannot make them subjects to any other Ecclesiastical Rulers without asserting that the Apostles were Governours over one another which we find not that they do 4. It was many hundred years before Arch-Bishops had any Governing power over Bishops or exacted any obedience from them being not Episcopi Episcoporum as the Carthage Fathers in Cyprian professed But were only such as had the first seats and voices in the Synods 5. The question therefore is whether such Oaths as necessary to a Bishops consecration be to be Approved and consented to XXVI An Oath of Canonical obedience also is put upon all that are made Priests and Deacons And Priests at their ordination must make this Covenant that they will reverently obey their Ordinary and other chief Ministers unto whom is committed the charge and Government over them 2. The ordinary is not only the Bishop but also the Chancellour Officials Surrogates Comissaries Arch-Deacons and all that are Judges ' in the Ecclesiastical Courts 3. to obey them that are thus de facto set over us is no less than to obey them in the excercise of that power which is given them as so set over us 4. The doubt is whether they that take any of them to be Usurpers of an Ecclesiastical power which indeed they have not and can prove it to be so should swear or Covenant obedience to them as such e. g. It is commonly confessed by the Conformists that the true power of the Keys of excommunication and Absolution is appropriated by Christ to the Clergy And yet our Chancellours being lay men do decretively excercise that power The question is may we swear or Covenant to obey them 5. And seeing Christ never gave one Presbyter the Government of others as Archdeacons Surrogates Officials c. whether all the rest may swear obedience to them or Approve of and consent to the use of such Oaths And divers Councils have condemned it as a dangerous practice for Bishops to tle subject Presbyters to them by Oaths XXVII Ministers that live among the people have greatest advantage to know the penitent from the impenitent 2. But it is the foresaid lay Chancellours who usually know nothing of them but by reports that excommunicate and absolve them And the Parish-Minister must as a cryer readeth a proclamation or sentence of a Judge openly read these excommunications and absolutions 3. These excommunications must pass according to the Canons against all that shall affirm that there is any thing in the book of Common-Prayer râ—pugnant to the Scripture or any of the 39 Articles â—rroneous or any of the Rites and Ceremonies such as he may not with a good conscience subscribe to or that the Government by Arch-Bishops Bishops Deans Arch-Deacons and the rest that bear Office in the Church of England is repugnant to the word of God or that any thing in the form and manner of making consecrating Bishops Priests or Deacons is repugnant to the word of God c. 4. The present doubt is whether a Minister who knoweth such of his Parish to be godly peaceable men whom the Chancellour decretively excommunicateth may both openly read and declare such excommunications and also swear or Covenant so to do in obedience to the Ordinary And whether when he knoweth that a wicked impenitent man is absolved he may pronounce such absolutions XXVIII The Oath of Canonical obedience seemeth to mean obedience according to the Canons And he that Covenanteth to obey his ordinary must be supposed to mean no less than According to the Canon Laws by which he is known to govern and as Government thereby is excercised 2. And if so then there are more things in the Canons and present Government which the Nonconformists dare not swear or Covenant to obey besides those already named than we will now stand to enumerate XXIX The Rubrick saith that the Minister who repelleth any from the Sacrament shall be obliged to give an account of the same to the Ordinary within 14 daies after at the furthest 2. If all that by gross ignorance Atheism Infidelity Sadducism Heresie Schism Drunkenness Whoredom Stealing Malice c. are uncapable of the Communion be presented to the Ordinary within 14 daies no charity that is guided by knowledge of the common state of the people can think that in London Diocess there would be fewer than many score thousands presented at once And in other Diocesses many score hundreds at least 3. Some Ministers dwell a hundred Miles or neer from the Bishops And the Bishops are divers of them so much at London or abroad as that it cannot be expected that all these must be presented to the Bishop himself but to the Chancellours court as is usual 4. The Chancellours Court is so far from most Ministers in the Land and the prosecuting so many when proof is demanded will be so chargeable and take up so much time as that it will undo many poor Ministers that have scarce enough to maintain their families and it will take up the time which they should use in the necessary labours for their flocks 5. The Chancellour is a lay man to whom they must be presented And the issue will be but a lay mans excommunicating them if obstinate or absolving them Which is not justified by the Bishops themselves 6. At the said Chancellours court things are managed as at a civil judicature There is not that endeavour to convince sinners by Scripture and to draw them to true Repentance by humbling evidence intreaties and prayers for them as should be for the saving of a soul from sin But the charges of the court fees and the fears of a prison after excommunication maketh it an unacceptable and as unlikely means to convert men as the stocks 7. Therefore for a minister to present all his Parishioners to such courts whom he is bound to deny the Sacrament to were but to make him seem their greatest
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
eos quale antea nunquam contigerat Aegypti Thraces Palestini Episcopi Dioscorum sequebantur Orientales Ponticis Asiani Sanctae Memoriae Flavianum Quod Schisma Permansit usque ad obitum Theodosii Principis But when Martian was made Emperour all was undon again that went for Heresie which before went for the right belief Dioscorus was banished Proterius was chosen and how chosen saith Liberatus c. 14. ut cum omnium civium volunt ate eligerint ordinandum Episcopum sacris ob hoc literis praecedentibus ad Theodorum tunâ— Augustalem collecti sunt ergo Nobiles Civitatis ut eum qui esset vita sermone Pontificatu dignus eligerint Hoc enim Imperialibus sanctionibus jubebatur N. B. Yet all this quieted not the people because Dioscâ—rus was still by the most taken for their true Bishop so that Proterius was fain to live under the guard of Souldiers among them Timothy Aelurus and Peter Moggus keeping separate Congregations would not communicate with Proterius and no sooner did they hear of Martians death but the people in tumult murdered Proterius in the Church mangled him cast out and burnt his carcass and scattered his ashes in the wind and made Timothy Aelurus their Bishop And thenceforward Alexandria had two Bishops And both sides petitioning the new Emperour Leo to be for them he commanded upon examination his General to cast out Timothy alium decreto populi qui Synodum Calced vindicaret inthronizare This Stâ—la the Captain performeth and another Timothy Salophaciolus is chosen But when after Leo's death Basiliscus usurped the Empire against Zeno this Timothy is cast out again and the other restored and other Bisops changed accordingly in opposition to the Council of Calcedon And no sooner was Zeno restored but all was returned back again and Aelurus poisoned himself to escape worse Yet did his Party make Peter Moggus their Bishop and the Emperour commanded Anthimius to cast him out and set up Timothy Saloph again But while the Emperours chose who should have the Publick Authority and Temples they left the people to joyn in the choice and the Dissenters kept up their own Bishops and Schism And thus the matter went on uncured And very ordinarily it was the Pulcheria's Theodora's Eudoxia's and such other women the Empresses that by Historians are said to dispose of these matters and make such Patriarchs and Bishops And these courses still increased Schisms Of the Joannites at Constantinople we spake before What a calamitous Schism was that at Alexandria between the Party that held Christ's body incorruptible called by the other the Phantasiastae and those that held it corruptible called the corrupticolae one part taking Gaianus for the Bishop and the other Theodosius and the secular power setting up one the Soldiers and the city sought it out abundance on both sides being slain and yet the Soldiers had the worst and Theophilus was forced away In Justinians time when Paulus an Orthodox man was made Patriarch he could not hold his seat without such plots as occasioned Rhodo the Augustalis to murder Psoius the Deacon which cost Rhodo and Arsenius their lives and Paulus his contemptuous deposition by the Emperours justice Should we but run over the history of other great Churches especially Rome Constantinople Antioch Ephesus Cesaâ—ea alas how sadly would it shew that neither Emperours nor synods assuming the power did end such Schismes but increase them where the Bishopricks were so great as to seem a very desirable prey But where they were small and poorâ— there was far greater peace and quietness though the people commonly had their choice and every where their consent was judged necessary the proofs of which might fill a Volume See in Synodo Romano quarto sub Symmacho in Binnio Vol. 2. p. 288. c. the claim of Odoacer that no Bishop of Rome should be made without the consent of the King of Italy And the Bishops speeches against it Even in the daies of Gregor 1. Rom. You may see how things went by the constant tradition of the Church Epist 22. in Bin. Vol. 2. p. 759. recitat natalem Salonitanae Ecclesiae scatrem coepiscopum nostrum obâ—â—sse discurrens in partibus istis sama vulgavit Qâ—od si verum esti experientia tua omâ—i instantia omnique solicitudine CLERUM POPULUM ejusdem Civitatis admonere festinet quatenus uno consensu ad ordinandum sibi debeant eligere Sacerdotem factoque in personam quae suerit clecta decreto ad nos transmittere studebis ut cum nostro consensu sicut priscis suit temporibus ordinetur Illud prae omnibus tibi curae sit ut in hac electione nec datio quibusque modis interveniat praemiorum nec quarumlibet personarum patrocinia convalescant nam si quorundam patrocinio fuerit quisquam Electus Volunt atibus eorâ—m cum fuerit ordinatus obedire reverentia exigente compellitur Talem ergo te admonente personam debent eligere quae nullius incongruae voluntati deserviat sed vita moribus decorata tanto ordine digna valeat inveniri And at the Council Paris 3. in the daies of Pope John 3. and K. Childebert when Kings were forbidden to make Bishops it was ordained Can. 8. that Nullus civibus invitis ordinetur Episcopus nisi quem Populi Clericorum electio plenissima quasierit voluntate non principis imperio And the Bishops are forbidden to receive him into their number who is made by Kings At the Council of Calcedon Act. 12. it was determined that neither of the two Bishops of Ephesus Bassianus or Stephanus could be Bishops because not duly elected but a third to be chosen See also for the peoples unanimous Election of their Bishop Greg. 1. Epist 65. in Bin. Vol. 2. p. 890. We need not bid the Learned enquire whether Gregory Naeoces Basil Ambrose Martin Damasus and so of the rest ordinarily were Bishops without the consent of the people over whom they were placed And though sometimes the peoples choice have many hundred years only after Christs time but not in the Primitive Church been restrained so was not their consenting voice denied I have translated and adjoyned the Epistle of Cyprian and an Africane Council with him where were then the best ordered Churches in the World as farr as I can learn in which they counsel the Churches of Basilides and Martial to forsake them because they were Libellatiks in persecution proving from Scripture that uncapable persons cannot be Pastors and that such scandalous sinners and bad men were uncapable persons forma non recipitur in matcriam indispositam charging it upon their consciences as from Gods word shewing them that els they will be Guilty of their sins because the chief power is in the people both of chusing the worthy and forsaking the unworthy And yet these two Bishops lived beyond the Seas in another Country and the Bishops of their own Country and the Bishop of Rome had dealt more