their Consciences Why do they not obey the present Secular Powers in all other things It is known the King consented to relax this And however this is little to them that go on the Ground of Divine or Ecclesiastical Right And if we must so plunge our selves into Enquiries after the Rights of Secular Governours before we can know whether to stand or set at the Sacrament we are all uncertain what to do in greater Matters for there are as apparent grounds for our uncertainty of five hundred years old and more which this is no place to dive into And it would be as unlawful on this ground to read any other Psalm or Chapter but what was of old appointed for the Day as to forbear kneeling at the Sacrament And perhaps on the Opponents grounds it would be still as sinful to restrain a Child or Servant from Dancing on the Lord's Day And if it be Ecclesiastical Authority that they stick at that must be derived from Christ and so Originally Divine or it is none And then not to wade so unseasonably into the main Controversie 1. Before they have proved their Legislative Authority 2. And that this Congregation is Iure Divino part of their Charge and under their Jurisdiction 3. And that they had power to contradict the Examples of Christ and his Apostles herein and the constant practice of the Primitive Church and the Canons of Councils even General Councils 4. And that their Canons are yet in force against all these I say before all this be well done we shall find that there must go more than a slight Supposition to the making good of their Cause According to their own Principles a lower Power cannot reverse the Acts of a higher But the General Councils Nice and Constantinople that forbad Kneeling on any Lord's Day was a higher Power than the English Convocation Ergo The English Convocation cannot Repeal its Acts. Though for my own part I think that neither of their Acts do need any Repeal to Null them to us in such Cases 5. Besides this if these Canons bind Conscience yet it is either by the Authority that Enacted them or by the Authority of the present Church-Governours that impose them If old Canons bind without or against the present Power then the same Canon that forbiddeth Kneeling bindeth and many an hundred more a great part of which are now made no Conscience of If it be the present Authority that is above the Ancient then 1. They that pretend to such Authority over this Congregation should produce and exercise it For if we know them not not receive any Commands from them we are capable of no Disobedience to them 2. And in the mean time We that are in the place must take it as our Charge or do the Work or for ought I know it will in most Places be undone For the Authority is for the Work 3. We use to take it for the great partiality at least of the Church of Rome that will be judged by none but the present Church that is themselves when we would be tried by the Scripture or the Ancient Church In a word I do not think that when Circumstances tending to Order and Decency are so mutable that God ever gave power to any Bishops to tie all Congregations and Ages to this or that Sacrament Gesture nor at all to make them so necessary as that Bodily Punishment or Excommunications should be inflicted on the Neglecters of them And I think that Calling which hath no better Work than this to do is not worth the regarding And here I should propound to the contrary-minded one Question Whether if a Bishop should command them to stand or sit they would do it Yea or if a Convocation commanded it If they say Yea then must they lay by all their Arguments from pretended irreverence to prove Sitting evil for I hope they would not be irreverent nor do evil at the command of a Bishop or Convocation And then let our Authority from Scripture Example and the Universal Church and a General Council and the present Secular Power and the late Assembly and Parliaments and the present Pastors or Presbyters of the Congregations I say let all this be set against the present Countermand of I know not who nor for what Reason as being not visible But if they say They would not obey the Bishops if they forbad them Kneeling then let them justifie us that obey them not when they command us to Kneel having so much as is expressed to the contrary Thus Sir I have first given you my Reasons about the Gesture it self And of putting it into each Persons hands I have thus much more to say 1. I know nothing to oblige me to it 2. Christ himself did otherwise as appeareth in Matth. 26. 26 27. For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 take ye eat ye drink ye all of it doth shew that it was given to them all in general and not to each man singly 3. And in this also Antiquity is on my side the contrary being much later More Reasons I have that I shall not now trouble you with To this I may well add That no Man can have any Rational pretence that I know of against the Receiving of the Sacrament upon such a General Delivery 1. Because the contrary was never yet pleaded necessary Iure Divino that I know of 2. And if it were a Sin it would be the Ministers Sin so to deliver it and not theirs who as they have not the Rule of his Actions so they shall not Answer for them Having thus told you my thoughts of the Matters in doubt I shall next tell you my purpose as to your Motion 1. I did never hitherto to my remembrance refuse to give the Sacrament to any one meerly because they would not take it Sitting or Standing nor did ever forbid or repel any on that account nor ever mean to do If any of my Charge shall take it Standing or Kneeling I shall not forbid them on any such account 2. If they further expect that I should put it into each Man's hands individually I may well expect the liberty of guiding my own Actions according to my own Conscience if I may not guide theirs It is enough that in such Cases they will refuse to be Ruled by me they should not also usurp the ruling of me but let us be equal and let me have my liberty as I am willing to let them have theirs and if I sin they are not guilty of it Nor have they any ground to refuse the Sacrament rather than so take it 3. Yet if any of my Pastoral Charge shall be unsatisfied if they will but hear my Reasons first and if those Reasons convince them not if they will profess that they think it a Sin against God for them to Receive the Sacrament unless it be put into their hands Kneeling and Ergo that they dare not in Conscience take it otherwise I do purpose to
omnes omnium Charitates inse complectitur Sir I have sent you my Answer written with a more legible hand and with some regard of ease to my self in transcribing with my very hearty love recommended and assured to you I commend you to the Grace and Blessing of Almighty God resting Your very respectful Friend Ra. Exon. Austie in Hartfordshire Iuly 21. 1655. Bishop Brownrigg ' s Answer about Government Prop. 1. YOur first Proposal is In every Parish where there are more Presbyters than one let one be the Chief and his Consent chiefly taken in the guidance of the Church Answ. 1. This Case is rarely to be found in the Parishes of England nor can there be a sufficient Maintenance for a Plurality of Presbyters in our Parochial Congregations yet if such be found it may be a good means to preserve Order and Peace that the ordering of Affairs which shall be referred to them be managed by him that hath the Praesecture of that Parish I wish that in those Churches which beside the Incumbent have had Lecturers this Rule had been observed Prop. 2. Let many such Churches be associated call it a Classis or what you will and let the fittest Man be their President as long as he is fit that is during life unless he deserve a removal Answ. 2. This Proposal looks like our Rural Deaneries or Choriepiscopal Order which hath been laid much aside but for the reducing of it and to make it profitable I wish that it may be bounded with fit Canons prescribing what they may do and with intimation from the Bishop and his Inspection and that such a Dean or President may be continued for Life that being a means to breed Experience if he do not deserve a removal Prop. 3. Let divers of these Classes meet once or twice a Year in a Provincial Assembly and let the fitâ—est Man in the Province be their standing President Answ. 3. This Course hath been by Law and Practice already used in our Church in the Archidiaconal Visitations and Synods which may be more quickened and actuated by sit Canons for their Direction what and who the President must be may be provided for by Canons and his Station continued and that Presbyters having Cure of Souls should not be accounted meer Preachers but Church-Guides and as they are already acknowledged Rectors of Churches Prop. 4. Let it be left to every Man's Conscience Whether the President be called by the Name of Bishop President Superintendent Moderator c. seeing that a Name is no meet Reason of a Breach c. Answ. 4. If by President you understand him that must moderate the Half-year or yearly Synods under the Inspection of the Diocesan as his Order may be newly framed so his Name may be newly imposed but that the Primitive Name of Bishop should be turned into a new Name is as you say no meet Reason for a Breach and we see Presbyters assume that Name to themselves and to put a new Name upon an old Institution is as Augustine speaks in the like Case Indoctis struere fallaciam doctis facere injuriam Prop. 5. Let no Man be forced to Express his Iudgment de Jure Whether the President have a Negative Voice in Ordination or Excommunication or whether he be distinct in Order or Degree seeing it is not the unanimous and right Belief of these things that is of Necessity for then they must have been in our Creed but the unanimous and right Practice but let them all agree that they will constantly joyn in these Classical and Provincial Assemblies and then only Ordain and that they will not Ordain but when the President is one unless in Case of flat Necessity which is never like to befall us if this may be takenâ— Answ. 5. If by President you understand the Diocesan then that the Bishop should be deprived of his Negative Voice in Ordination or Excommunication and so I conceive in other Censures and Acts of Government is to make him a meer Shadow without any Authority like our Scrutators in our University to propound Graces and collect Suffrages and pronounce Sentence Surely St. Paul invested Timothy and Titus with more Power and Authority both for Ordination and Censures but then to remedy the Inconveniencies of a wilful Negative it 's fit that an Appeal may be made to a Provincial Synod that may examine and if need be rectifie what was amiss in the Negative That Church Businesses were Ordered by the Concurrence of more Presbyters besides the Bishop in Cyprian's time was fit at that time when the Government of Church Affairs was Arbitrary and not Regulated by Law in which Case it was safest for the Bishop to have the Consent of others with him This is not our Case we have express Canons and Laws laid upon Bishops beyond which they cannot go and so may well be intrusted with the Execution of the Sentence of the Law the Sentence of the Judge being only Declarativa Executiva and if he transgress those Rules prefixed he is liable to Censure In our Church plurimum legi minimum Episcopo relinquitur as we see in Civil Matters one Justice of Peace hath the Power of Executing the Sentence of a Law or Statute but no Arbitrary Power granted to him That the Bishop be distinct from the Presbyter whether ordine or gradu is the Schoolmens Debate and I conceive may have such accord as may not ingender strife That Ordination be by the Assistance of Presbyters is already required in our Form of Ordination and if it be fixed to the Times of Synods it may be easily granted and sure that Blame that hath been laid upon our Bishops for Ordaining of insufficient Men is most what an undue Charge the Law of the Land hath set that lowness of sufficiency in Men to be ordained and instituted that if a Bishop refuseth to give Orders or Institution to a Man presented by the Patron he is punishable by the Judges As I have heard Archbishop Abbot was fined an Hundred pounds in case he did not admit a Clark so meanly qualified as the Law requires Some other Proposals are added in the End of your Letter Prop. 1. I Am satisfied that the Apostles have Successors in all those Works that are of standing Necessity and that Church Government is one of those Works and that it is improbable that Christ should settle one Species of Church Government in the Apostles Hands for an Age and then Change it for ever after and they that affirm such a change must prove it Answ. 6. Supposing what the Apostles did in ordering of Church Government to be in the Name and by the Authority of Christ this Assertion I conceive to be very true and it doth infer a Subordination of all Officers and Members of the Church to the Apostles and those that were their Successors Prop. 2. Whether the Apostles had a Power by Office to govern the LXX and the Presbyters as inferior Officers besides the
his Conscience to baptize any Child who is not thus offered to God by one of the Parents or by such a pro parent as taketh the Child for his own and undertaketh the Christian Education Be it also Enacted that no person shall be constrained against his Conscience to the use of the Cross in Baptism or of the Surplice nor any Minister to deny the Lord's Supper to any for not receiving it kneeling nor read any of the Apocrypha for Lessons nor to punish any Excommunication or Absolution against his Conscience but the Bishop or Chancellour who decreeth it shall cause such to publish it as are not dissatisfyed so to do or shall only affix it on the Church-Door Nor shall any Minister be constrained at Burial to speak only words importing the salvation of any person who within a year received not the Sacrament of Communion or was suspended from it according to the Rubrick or Canon and satisfyed not the Minister of his serious Repentance III. And whereas many persons having been ordained as Presbyters by Parochial Pastors in the times of Usurpation and Distraction hath occasioned many Difficulties for the present remedy hereof be it Enacted That all such persons as before this time have been ordained as Presbyters by Parochial Pastors only and are qualifyed for that Office as the Law requireth shall receive power to exercise it from a Bishop by a written Instrument which every Bishop in his Diocess is hereby impowered and required to Grant in these words and no other To A. B. of C. in the Country of D. Take thou Authority to exercise the Office of a Presbyter in any place and Congregation in the King's Dominions whereto thou shall be lawfully called And this practice sufficing for present Concord no one shall be put to declare his Judgment whether This or That which he before received shall be taken for his Ordination nor shall be urged to speak any words of such signification but each party shall be left to Judge as they see cause IV. And whereas the piety of Families and Godly Converse of Neighbours is a great means of preserving Religion and Sobriety in the World and lest the Act for suppressing seditious Conventicles should be mis-interpreted as injurious thereto be it declared that it is none of the meaning of the said Act to forbid any such Family Piety or Converse tho more then four Neighbours should be peaceably present at the Reading of the Scriptures or a Licensed Book the singing of a Psalm repeating of the publick Sermons or any such Exercise which neither the Laws nor Canons do forbid they being performed by such as joyn with the allowed Church-Assemblies and refuse not the Inspection of the Ministers of the Parish Especially where persons that cannot read are unable to do such things at home as by Can. 13. is enjoyned V. And whereas the form of the Oath and Declaration imposed on persons of Office and Trust in Corporations is unsatisfactory to many that are Loyal and peaceable that our Concord may extend to Corporations as well as Churches Be it Enacted That the taking of the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy and the Declaration against Religion and Disloyalty here before prescribed shall to all Ends and purposes suffice instead of the said Oath and Declaration VI. And whereas there are many peaceable Subjects who hold all the Essentials of the Christian Faith but conform not to so much as is required to the Established Ministry and Church-Communion Be it Enacted that All and only they who shall publickly take the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy before some Court of â—ustice or at the Open Sessions of the County where they live and that then and there Subscribe as followeth I. A. B. do unfeâ—gnedly stand to my Baptismal Covenant and do believe all the Articles of the Creeds called the Apostles the Nicene and Constantinopolitane and the truth of the holy Canonical Scriptures and do renounce all that 〈◊〉 contrary hereto shall be so far tolerated in the Excercise of their Religion as His Majesty with the advice of his Parliament or Council shall from time to time find consistent with the peace and safety of his Kingdoms VII And lest this Act for Concord should occasion Discord by emboldening unpeaceable and unruly or heretical men be it enacted that if any either in the allowed or the Tolerated Assemblies that shall pray or Preach Rebellion Sedition or against the Government or Liturgy of the Church or shall break the Peace by tumults or otherwise or stir up unchristian hatred and strife or shall preach against or otherwise oppose the Christan verities or any Article of the sacred Doctrine which they subscribe or any of the 39. Articles of Religion they shall be punished as by the Laws against such Offences is already provided I will here also Annex the Copies of some Petitions which I was put to draw up which never were presented I. The first was intended while the Parliament was sitting to have been offered but wise Parliament-Men thought it was better forbear it II. The second was thought fit for some Citizens to have offered but by the same Councel it was forborn III. The third was thus occasioned Sir Iohn Babor told Dr. Manton that the Scots being then suspected of some insurrection it was expected that we renewed the profession of our Loyalty to free us from all suspicion of Conspiracy with them We said that it seemed hard to us that we should fall under suspicion and no cause alledged We knew of no occasion that we had given But we were ready to profess our continued Loyalty but desired that we might with it open our just resentment of our Case They put me to draw it up but when it was read it was laid by none daring to plead our Cause so freely and signify any sense of our hard usage I. May it Please Your Majesty with the Lords and Commons Assembled in Parliament WHen the Common profession of resolved moderation had abated Men's fears of a Silencing Prelacy and the published Declarations of Nobilitie and Gentry against all dividing violence and revenge had helpt to unite the endeavours of Your Subjects which prospered for Your Majestie 's desired Restoration when God's wonderful providence had dissolved the Military Powers of Usurpers which hindered it and when Your welcome appearance Your Act of Oblivion Your Gracious Declaration about Ecclesiastical Affairs for which the House of Commons solemnly gave you thanks did seem to have done much to the Cure of our Divisions we had some hopes that our common revived Love and Concord would have tended to Your Majesty's and our common joy in the harmony strength and prosperity of Your Kingdoms and that we might among your inferiour Subjects have enjoyed our part in the common tranquility But the year 1662. dissolved those hopes fixing our old Difficulties and adding more which since then also have been much increased Beeing consecrated and vowed to the sacred Ministry we
Ordainer to do it where it will be needful to consider what is of Necessity to the Constitution of such Authority and what destroys it Before all which it would be necessary to know what the Ordainer's Work is and to what and how far his Power extends But this I am not now to meddle in That a Divine Ordination is of Necessity to the Ligitimation of our Calling in foro Dei I grant as also in foro Conscientiae Ministrantis That authoritative Ordination of Men is necessary Ordinis Gratiâ when it may be obtained and where God's Providence doth not make it naturally or morally impossible I also grant That Imposition of Hands with solemn Prayer is the most convenient manner and necessary for the Ordainer to use Necessitate Praecepti Medii ad bene esse Ordinationis I also grant That the Power of Ordaining is ordinarily only in the Hands of Christ's Ecclesiastical Ministers I acknowledge whether Bishops or Presbyters we now question not and that it is not divolved to any others but in Case of Necessity The Things then that I deny are that Imposition of Hands or present Prayer or the Presence of the Ordainer are of Necessity to our Office That the true just Authority of an Ecclesiastical Ordainer is of Necessity to the being of our Office And consequently that an uninterrupted Succession of Just Authoritative Ecclesiastical Ordination from the Apostles is of absolute necessity to the being of our Calling Nay that any Authoritative Human Ordination at all besides the Peoples meer Consent is of such absolute indispensable Necessity ad esse Officii all this I deny And my Opinion is that in Case of a failing of all Ecclesiastical Authoritative Ordination the Magistrates Ordination may suffice ad esse Officii And in case both fail the Peoples meer Acceptance Consent or Election may suffice supposing the Person meetly qualified And whether you will call this act of the People a Constitution or Ordination or not I am indifferent Certainly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 oft signifies the Constituting which is not an Act of Government or superior Authority But no Term hath so much need of Explication as the Word Office or Ministry which is the Terminus of Ordination An Office is a stated Power or Authority or Faculty with Duty of doing certain Works to certain Ends. The Ministerial Office of a Presbyter is to be differenced ab objecto a fine The Authority and the Duty in a lawful Officer go together Such a one only is in sensu primario proprio an Officer But he that is a Usurper or hath no lawful Call may yet both 1. Have all the Duty of that Office lying upon him and by his own Intrusion oblige himself to the Performance and yet want the true Authority for performing it seeing he came in without God's Call and there is no Power but of God 2. And he may have the Name of an Officer though given him but analogically or in sensu secundario ecclesiastico 3. And the Church may owe him that Respect and Observance due to a lawful Officer the Reason is because it is one thing to know who is a truly lawful Officer as in Matter of Membership I am bound to use many as true Christians even all that have the Profession of such who yet are not such So am I bound to take all those for lawful Officers that have the external Tokens of such seeing we cannot know any further though they be not such indeed 4. And all that Man 's Ministerial Actions are valid to the Church that doth her Duty in observing him and yet they are all null or unlawful and flat Sins to the Performer The Reason of the later is both because no Mna can lawfully do that which he hath no Authority given him for and because nemini ex proprio crimine debetur beneficium and Ergo his Usurpation cannot secure him The Reason of the former is because Duty and Benefit go together and therefore the Church that performeth but her Duty in taking those to be truly called Pastors that seem so to be having those Tokens which she is bound to judge by as probable must needs have the Benefit of his Ministry in their way of Duty for God requireth no Duty in vain As also because nemini debetur pâ—na ex aliena culpa qua talis est Now whether we shall dispute de necessitate ordinationis ad officium verum legitimum proprie primario sic dictum in foro Dei Or only as ad Officium analogicum secundario minus proprie in foro tantum ecclesiae sic dictum is to be considered How far your Sense will concur I know not but in respect of both these do I hold my former Negations Yet further before I either answer your Arguments or determine of the Sense of our Question it is very necessary that the end of our Enquiry be understood which in order must go before the means I take it for granted that you do not dispute this question as necessary to be determined in order to our Association before you can join with the present Ministry Or yet as necessary to the Determination of that further Question whether those are true Ministers that are not Ordained by Bishops and those true Organized Churches that have only such Ministers for if I thought this were your end 〈◊〉 would dispute many other Questions first before we came to this and try first whether you could prove that the Presbyterian Churches cannot produce a Succession of true Ordination on the same Grounds as the Episcopal for the main But I suppose your Ends are some other and in special those mentioned in your Paper I conjecture that I shall nearest approach your Sense if I state the Question thus Whether an Ordination by Ecclesiastical Men having just Authority thereto be in all Times and Cases since the Apostles of absolute Necessity to the very being of the Ministerial Office both coram Deo coram Ecclesiâ and consequently an uninterrupted Succession of such Ordination be of the same Necessity For if I should put the Question about Imposition of Hands or de modo aliquo ordinandi I know not but I might miss of your Sense on one Side and on the other if I should extend it to all Ordination whether by Magistrates or others Ad 1 um Your First Argument I suppose should be formed thus That which the English Bishops thought necessary to prove against the Papists that is necessary to be proved against them But the English Bishops thought it necessary against the Papists to prove the Non-interruption of their Succession in just Ordination Ergo Resp. 1. Concedo totum It was necessary to prove it against the Papists arguing ad Hominem because it is the way of fuller Conviction and Satisfaction when a Man can confute an Adversary on his own Grounds It will much shorten the Dispute when we shew them that though we should
for such as Age or Persecution hindered to come to the more solemn Meetings yet Churches then were no bigger in number of Persons than our Parishes now to grant the most And that they were Societies of Christians united for Personal Communion and not only for Communion by Meetings of Officers and Delegates in Synods as many Churches in Association be And I saw if once we go beyond the bounds of Personal Communion as the end of particular Churches in the Definition we may make a Church of a Nation or of ten Nations or what we please which shall have none of the Nature and Ends of the Primitive particular Churches Also I saw a commendable care of serious Holiness and Discipline in most of the Independant Churches And I found that some Episcopal Men as Bishop Usher himself did voluntarily profess his Judgment to me did hold that every Bishop was independant as to Synods and that Synods were not proper Governours of the particular Bishops but only for their Concord § 6. 5. And for the Anabaptists themselves though I have written and said so much against them as I found that most of them were Persons of Zeal in Religion so many of them were sober godly People and differed from others but in the Point of Infant Baptism or at most in the Points of Predestination and Free-will and Perseverance as the Iesuits differ from the Dominicans the Lutherans from the Calvinists and the Arminians from the Contra-Remonstrants And I found in all Antiquity that though Infant Baptism was held lawful by the Churchâ— yet some with Tertullian and Nazienzen thought it most convenient to make no haste and the rest left the time of Baptism to every ones liberty and forced none to be baptized Insomuch as not only Constantint Theudâ—sius and such other as were converted at Years of Discretion but Augustine and many such as were the Children of Christian Parents one or both did defer their Baptism much longer than I think they should have done So that in the Primitive Churchi some were Baptized in Infancy and some at ripe Age and some a little before their Death and none were forced but all left free and the only Penalty among men of their delay was that so long they were without the Priviledges of the Church and were numbred but with the Catechumens or Expectants § 7. 6. As to Doctrinal Differences also between Arminians and Anti-Arminians I soon perceived that it was hard to find a Man that discerned the true State of the several Controversies and that when unrevealed points uncertain to all were laid aside and the Controversies about Words were justly separated from the Controversies about things the Differences about things which remained were fewer and smaller than most of the Contenders perceived or would believe § 8. 7. Yea I found that our Doctrinal Controversies with the Papists themselves were very much darkned and seldom well stated and that in the Points of Merit Justification Assurance of Salvation Perseverance Grace Free-will and such others it was common to misunderstand one another and rare to meet with any that by just Distinction and Explication did well state the Controversies and bring them out of the Dark § 9. What I begin to write about any of these Doctrinal Differences in my Aphorisms Confession Apologie c. I will now pass by and the manifold Censures and Encounters which I had thereupon and the many Manuscripts of worthy Brethren animadverting upon my Aphorisms which I was privately put to answer Because it is not such Differences that now I am to speak of § 10. I perceived then that every Party beforementioned having some Truth or Good in which it was more eminent than the rest it was no impossible thing to separate all that from the Error and the Evil and that among all the Truths which they held either in Common or in Controversy there was no Contradiction And therefore that he that would procure the Welfare of the Church must do his best to promote all the Truth and Good which was held by every part and to leave out all their Errors and their Evil and not take up all that any Party had espoused as their own § 11. The things which I disliked as erroneous or evil in each Party were these 1. In the Erastians I disliked 1. That they made too light of the Power of the Ministry and Church and of Excommunication and did not distinguish sufficiently of a persuasive Power which is but private and is founded only in the Reason of the Speaker and a persuasive Power which is publick in an Officer of Christ which Camero well calleth Doctoral and is founded conjunctly in his Authority by God's Commission and his Arguments 2. That they made the Articles of the Holy Catholick Church and the Communion of Saints too insignificant by making Church Communion more common to the impenitent than Christ would have it and so dishonoured Christ by dishonouring his Church and making it too like to the Heathen World and breaking down the Hedge of Spiritual Discipline and laying it almost in common with the Wilderness 3. That they misunderstood and injured their Brethren supposing and affirming them to claim as from God a coercive Power over the Bodies or Purses of Men and so setting up Imperium in Imperio whereas all temperate Christians at least except Papists confess that the Church hath no Power of Force but only to manage God's Word unto Mens Conscienceâ—◠§ 12. In the Diocesane Party I utterly distiked 1. Their Extirpation of the true Discipline of Christ as we conceive by consequence though not intentionally not only as they omitted it and corrupted it but as their Principles and Church State had made it unpracticable and impossible while one Bishop with his Consitory had the sole Government of a thousand or many hundred Churches even over many thousands whose Faces they were never like to see not setting up any Parâ—chia Government under them But just as if the Archbishopsâ— or rather the Patriarchs in Câ—nstantiâ—â—'s days should have deposed all the Bishops in the Empire and have taken all their Charges upon themselves 2. That hereby they altered the Species of Churches and either would deâ— all particular Churches and have none but associated Diocesane Churches who hold the Communion by Delegates and not personally or else they would turn all the particular Parochial Churches into Christian Oratories and Schools while they gave their Pastors but a Teaching and Worshiping Power but not a Governing 3. That hereby they altered the ancient Species of Presbyters to whose Office the Spiritual Government of their proper Folks as truly belonged as the Power of preaching and worshipping God did 4. That they extinguished the ancient Species of Bishops which was in the times of Ignatius when every Church had one Altar and one Bishop and there were none but Itinerants or Archbishops that had many Churches 5. That they set up Courts that were more Secular
a sober Christian hath the least reason to scruple Communion in Will you have a Pastor that shall not speak in the Name of the People to God or will you call his Prayers his own which he puts up by Virtue of his Office according to God's Word Ad 17m. I think they cannot without Sacriledge make such Alienation except where God's Consent can be proved For Example if the Ministers of the Church have full as much means given as is fit for the Ends to which it is given and yet the People will give more and more to the Burden and ensnaring of the Church and the impoverishing or ruin of the Common-wealth here I think God consents not to accept that Gift and therefore it was but an Offer and not plenarily a Gift for want of Acceptance for he accepts not that which he prohibits Here therefore the Magistrate may restore this to its proper use But whether this were any of the Case of these Sacrilegious Alienations too lately made in this Land is a farther Question I apprehend a deep Guilt of Sacriledge upon some Ad 18m. The Particulars here mentioned must be distinctly considered 1. About Fasts and Feasts the Question as referring to the Obligation of the Laws of the Land is of the same Resolution as all other Questions respecting those Laws which being a Case more out of my way I shall not presume to determine without a clearer Call Only I must say that I see little Reason why those Men should think themselves bound in this who yet suppose themselves loose from many other Laws and who obey many of the Laws or Ordinances of the present Powers 2. I much fear that not only the Querist but many more are much ensnared in their Consciences by misunderstanding the Nature and use of Synods It 's one thing for an Assembly of Bishops to have a superior Governing Power directly over all particular Churches and Bishops and another thing for such an Assembly to have a Power of determining of things necessary for the Concord of the several Churches I never yet saw it proved that Synods are over Bishops in a direct Governing Order nor are called for such Ends but properly in ordine ad Unitatem and so oblige only more than single Bishops by Virtue of the General Precept of maintaining Unity and Concord This is the Opinion of the most learned Bishop and famous antiquary that I am acquainted with 3. And then when the end ceases the Obligation is at an End So that this can now be no Law of Unity with us 4. All human Laws die with the Legislator farther than the surviving Rulers shall continue them The Reason is drawn from the Nature of a Law which is to be jussum Majestatis in the Common wealth and every where to be a sign of the Rectors Will de debito vel constituendo vel confirmando Or his Authoritative Determination of what shall be due from us and to us Therefore no Rector no Law and the Law that is though made by the deceased Rector is not his Law but the present Rector's Law formally it being the signifier of his Will And it is his Will for the continuance of it that gives it a new Life In all this I speak of the whole Summa potestas that hath the absolute Legislative Power If therefore the Church Governors be dead that made these Laws and no sufficient Power succeeds them to continue these Laws and make them theirs then they are dead with their Authors 5. The present Pastors of the Church though but Presbyters are the true Guides of it while Bishops are absent and the true Guides conjunctly with the Bishops if they were present according to the Judgment of your own side Whoever is the sole existent governing Powerâ— may govern and must be obeyed in things Lawful Therefore you must for all your unproved Accusation of Schism obey them The Death or Deposition of the Bishops depriveth not the Presbyters of that Power which they had before 6. Former Church Governors have not Power to bind all that shall come after them where they were before free But their Followers are as free as they were 7. The Nature of Church Canons is to determine of Circumstances only for a present time place or occasion and not to be universal standing Laws to all Ages of the Church For if such Determinations had been fit God would have made them himself and they would have been contained in his perfect Word He gives not his Legislative Power to Synods or Bishops 8. Yet if your Conscience will needs persuade you to use those Ceremonies you have no ground to separate from all that will not be of your Opinion 9. For the Cross the Canons require only the Minister to use it and not you and if he do not that 's nothing to you 10. Have you impartially read what is written against the Lawfulness of it by Amesius's fresh Suit Bradshaw Parker and others If you have you may at least see this that it 's no fit matter to place the Churches Unity or Uniformity in and they that will make such Laws for Unity go beyond their Commission Church Governors are to determine the Circumstances pro loco tempore in particular which God hath in Word or Nature made necessary in genere and left to their Determination But when Men will presume beyond this to determine of things not indeed circumstantial or no way necessary in genere nor left to their Determination as to institute new standing Symbols in and with God's Symbols or Sacraments to be engaging Signs to engage us to Christ and to Work Grace on the Soul as the Word and Sacraments do that is by a moral Operation and then will needs make these the Cement of Unity this is it that hath been the Bane of Unity and Cause of Divions 11. Kneeling at the Sacrament is a Novelty introduced many hundred years after Christ and contrary to such Canons and Customs of the Church to which for Antiquiâ—y and Universality you owe much more respect than to the Canons of the late Bishops in England 12. If your General Rule hold that you stand bound by all Canons not repealed by equal Power you have a greater burden on your back than you are aware of which if you bore indeed you would know how little this usurped Legislative Power befriends the Church And among others you are bound not to kneel in the Church on any Lord's Day in Sacrament or Prayer Grotius de Imperio Sumpotest would teach much more Moderation in these Matters than I here perceive Ad Q. 19m. 1. It 's too much Self-conceitedness and Uncharitableness to pass so bold a Censure as your Supposition doth contain of the visible ruling Church being Schismatical and so Heretical Which is the ruling Church I know none in England besides Bishops that pretend to rule any but their own Provinces and but few that pretend Order to Regiment Perhaps when the
Liturgy and Ceremonies we most humbly represent unto your Majesty 1. First For Church-Government that although upon just Reasons we do dissent from that Ecclesiastical Hierarchy or Prelacy disclaimed in the Covenant as it was stated and exercised in these Kingdoms yet we do not nor ever did renounce the true Ancient and Primitive Presidency as it was ballanced and managed by a due Commixtion of Presbyters therewith as a fit means to avoid Corruptions Partiality Tyranny and other Evils which may be incident to the Administration of one single Person Which kind of attempered Pesidency if it shall be your Majesty's grave Wisdom and gracious Moderation be in such a manner constituted as that the forementioned and other like Evils may be certainly prevented we shall humbly submit thereunto And in Order to an happy Accommodation in this weighty Business we desire humbly to offer unto your Majesty some of the Particulars which we conceive were amiss in the Episcopal Government as it was practised before the Year 1640. 1. The great Extent of the Bishops Diocess which was much too large for his own personal Inspection wherein he undertook a Pastoral Charge over the Souls of all those within his Bishoprick which must needs be granted to be too heavy a Burthen for any one Man's Shoulders The Pastoral Office being a Work of Personal Ministration and Trust and that of the highest Concernment to the Souls of the People for which they are to give an Account to Christ. 2. That by Reason of this Disability to discharge their Duty and Trust personally the Bishops did depute the Administration of much of their Trust even in matters of spiritual Cognizance to Commissaries Chancellors and Officials whereof some were Secular Persons and could not administer that Power which originally appertaineth to the Pastors of the Church 3. That those Bishops who affirm the Episcopal Office to be a distinct Order by Divine Right from that of the Presbyter did assume the sole Power of Ordination and Jurisdiction to themselves 4. That some of the Bishops exercised an Arbitrary Power as by sending forth their Books of Articles in their Visitations and therein unwarrantably enquiring into several things and swearing the Church-Wardens to present accordingly So also by many Innovations and Ceremonies imposed upon Ministers and People not required by Law and by suspending Ministers at their Pleasure For reforming of which Evils we humbly crave leave to offer unto your Majesty 1. The late most Reverend Primate of Ireland his Reduction of Episcopacy unto the Form of Synodical Government received in the ancient Church as a Ground-work towards an Accommodation and fraternal Agreement in this Point of Ecclesiastical Government Which we rather do not only in regard of his eminent Piety and singular Ability as in all other Parts of Learning so in that especially of the Antiquities of the Church but also because therein Expedienâ— are offered for healing these Grievances And in order to the same end we further humbly desire that the Suffragans or Corepiscopi mentioned in the Primate's Reduction may be chosen by the respective Synods and by that Election be sufficiently authorized to discharge their Trust. That the Associations may not be so large as to make the Discipline impossible or to take off the Ministers from the rest of their necessary Imployments That no Oaths or Promises of Obedience to the Bishops nor any unnecessary Subscriptions or Engagements be made necessary to Ordination Institution Induction Ministration Communion or Immunities of Ministers they being responsible for any Transgression of the Law And that no Bishops nor any Ecclesiastical Governors may at any time exercise their Government by their own private Will or Pleasure but only by such Rules Canons and Constitutions as shall be hereafter by Act of Parliament ratified and established and that sufficient Provision be made to secure both Ministers and People against the Evils of Arbitrary Government in the Church 2. Concerning the Liturgy 1. We are satisfied in our Judgments concerning the Lawfulness of a Liturgy or Form of publick Worship provided that it be for the matter agreeable unto the Word of God and fitly suited to the Nature of the several Ordinances and the necessity of the Church nether too tedious in the whole nor composed of too short Prayers unmeet Repetitions or Responsals nor too dissonant from the Liturgies of other Reformed Churches nor too rigorously imposed nor the Minister so confined thereunto but that he may also make use of those Gifts for Prayer and Exhortation which Christ hath given him for the Service and Edification of the Church 2. That inasmuch as the Book of Common Prayer hath in it many things that are justly offensive and need amendment hath been long discontinued and very many both Ministers and People Persons of Pious Loyal and Peaceable Minds are therein greatly dissatisfied whereupon if it be again imposed will inevitably follow sad Divisions and widening of the Breaches which your Majesty is now endeavouring to heal We do most humbly offer to your Majesty's Wisdom that for preventing so great Evil and for setling the Church in Unity and Peace some Learned Godly and Moderate Divines of both Perswasions indifferently chosen may be imployed to Compile such a Form as is before described as much as may be in Scripture words or at least to Revise and effectually Reform the old together with an Addition or Insertion of some other varying Forms in Scripture phrase to be used at the Minister's Choice of which Variety and Liberty there be Instances in the Book of Common Prayer 3. Concerning Ceremonies We humbly represent that we hold our selves obliged in every part of Divine Worship to do all things decently in order and to Edification and are willing therein to be determined by Authority in such things as being meerly Circumstantial are common to Humane Actions and Societies and are to be ordered by the Light of Nature and Christian Prudence according to the General Rules of the Word which are always to be observed And as to divers Ceremonies formerly retained in the Church of England We do in all Humility offer unto your Majesty these ensuing Considerations That the Worship of God is in it self perfect without having such Ceremonies affixed thereto That the Lord hath declared himself in the Matters that concern his Worship to be a Iealous God and this Worship of his is certainly then most pure and most agreeable to the Simplicity of the Gospel and to his holy and jealous Eyes when it hath least of Humane Admixtures in things of themselves confessedly unnecessary adjoyned and appropriated thereunto upon which account many faithful Servants of the Lord knowing his Word to be the perfect Rule of Faith and Worship by which they must judge of his Acceptance of their Services and must be themselves judged have been exceeding fearful of varying from his Will and of the danger of displeasing him by Additions or Detractions in such Duties wherein they must
suggest nor did we ever hear any just Reasons given for their diâ—ient from the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy or Prelacy as it was stated and established in this Kingdom Which we believe to be for the main the true ancient primitive Episcopacy and that to be more than a meer presidency of Order Neither do we find that the same was in any Time ballanced or managed by any Authoritative Commixtion of Presbyters therewith Though it hath been then and in all Times since usually exercised with the Assistance and Counsel of Presbyters in subordination to the Bishops § 8. And we cannot but wonder that the Administration of Government by one single Person should by them be affirmed to be so liable to Corruptions Partialities Tyrannies and other Evils that for the avoiding thereof it should be needful to have others joyned with him in the power of Government Which if applyed to the Civil State is a most dangerous Insinuation And we verily believe what Experience and the Constitutions of Kingdoms Armies and even private Families sufficiently confirmeth in all which the Government is administred by the Authority of one single Person although the Advice of others may be requisite also but without any share in the Government that the Government of many is not only most subject to all the aforesaid Evils and Inconveniencies but more likely also to breed and soment perpetual Factions both in Church and State than the Government by one is or can be And since no Government can certainly prevent all Evils that which is liable to the least and sewest is certainly to be preferred As to the four particular Instances of things amiss c. § 9. 1. We cannot grant that the Extent of any Diocess is so great but that the Bishop may well perform that wherein the proper Office and Duty of a Bishop doth consist which is not the personal Inspection of every Man's Soul under his Government which is the Work of every Parochial Minister in his Cure but the Pastoral Charge of overseeing directing and taking care that the Ministers and other Ecclesiastical Officers within his Diocess do their several respective Duties in their several Stations as they ought to do And if some Diocesses shall be thought of too large Extent the Bishops may have Suffragan Bishops to assist them as the Laws allow It being a great mistake that the Personal Inspection of the Bishop is in all places of his Diocess at all times necessary For by the same reason neither Princes nor Governours of Provinces nor Generals of Armies nor Mayors of great Cities nor Ministers of great Parishes could ever be able to discharge their Duties in their several Places and Charges § 10. 2. We confess the Bishops did as by the Law they were enabled depute part of the Administration of their Ecclesiastical Jurisdictions to Chancellors Commissaries and Officials as Men better skill'd in the Civil and Canon Laws But as for Matters of more Spiritual Concernment viz. the Sentences of Excommunication and Absolution with other Censures of the Church we conceive they belong properly to the Bishop to decree and pronounce either by himself where for the present he resideth or by some grave Ecclesiastical Person by him Surrogated for that purpose in such Places where he cannot be Personally present Wherein if many things have been done amiss for the time past or shall be seasonably conceived inconvenient for the future we shall be as willing to have the same Reformed and Remedied as any other Persons whatsoever § 11. 3. Whether a Bishop be a distinct Order from Presbyter or not or whether they have power of sole Ordination or no is not now the Question But we affirm that the Bishops of this Realm have constantly for ought we know or have heard to the contrary Ordained with the Assistance of Presbyters and the Imposition of their Hands together with the Bishops And we conceive it very fit that in the exercise of that part of their Jurisdiction which appertaineth to the Censures of the Church they should likewise have the Advice and Assistance of some Presbyters And for this purpose the Colledges of Deans and Chapters are thought to have been instituted that the Bishops in their several Diocess might have their Advice and Assistance in the Administration of their weighty Pastoral Charge § 12. 4. This last dependeth upon Matter of Fact Wherein if any Bishops have or shall do otherwise than according to Law they were and are to be answerable for the same And it is our desire as well as theirs that nothing may be done or imposed by the Bishop but according to the known Laws For Reforming of which Evils c. § 13. 1. The Primates Reduction though not published in his Life time was formed many years before his Death and shewed to some Persons ready to attest the same in the Year 1640. but it is not consistent with two other Discourses of the same Learned Primate viz. the one of the Original of Episcopacy and the other of the Original of Metropolitans both printed in the Year 1641. and written with great diligence and much variety of ancient Learning In neither of which is to be found any mention of the Reduction aforesaid Neither is there in either of them propounded any such Model of Church Government as in the said Reduction is contained Which doubtless would have been done had that Platform been according to his setled Judgment in those Matters In which Reduction there are sundry things as namely the Conforming of Suffragans to the number of Rural Deaneries which are apparently private Conceptions of his own accommodated at that time for the taking off some present from Animosities but wholly destitute of any Colour of Testimony or President from Antiquity nor is any such by him offered towards the proof thereof And it would be considered whether the Final Resolution of all Ecclesiastical Power and Jurisdiction into a National Synod where it seemeth to be placed in that Reduction without naming the King or without any dependance upon him or relation to him be not destructive of the King's Supremacy in causes Ecclesiastical It is observable nevertheless that even in the Reduction Archi-Episcopacy is acknowledged As for the super-added Particulars § 14. 1. The Appointment and Election of Suffragans is by the Law already vested in the King whose Power therein is by the Course here proposed taken away § 15. 2. What they mean by Associations in this place they explain not but we conceive it dangerous that any Association whatsoever is understood thereby should be made or entered into without the King's Authority § 16. 3. We do not take the Oaths Promises and Subscriptions by Law required of Ministers at their Ordination Institution c. to be unnecessary although they be responsible to the Laws if they do amiss it being thought requisite as well by such Cautions to prevent Offences as to punish Offenders afterwards Upon all which Consideration it is that
that seeing the greatning or the lessening of Episcopal Power is in your Majesty's Judgment but a Matter of Convenience the Lord will put it into your Heart to make such an Alteration in the alterable Points as the Satisfaction of the Consciences of sober Men and the Healing and Union of these Nations do require As to our Plea for Primitive Episcopacy the Offices and Ordinances of Christ must be still distinguished from the alterable Accidents Though we plead not for the Primitive Poverty Persecution or Restraints yet must we adhere to the Primitive Order and Worship and Administrations in the Substance as believing that the Circumstantiating of them is much committed unto Man but to institute the Ordinances and Offices is the high Prerogative of Christ the Universal King and Law-giver of the Church Concerning the Matter of your Majesty's Concessions as related to our Proposals 1. WE humbly renew our Petition to your Majesty for the effectual Security of those premised Necessaries which are the Matter of our chiefest Care and whereunto the Controverted Points subserve viz. 1. That private Exercises of Piety might be encouraged 2. That an able faithful Ministry may be kept up and the insufficient negligent scandalous and non-resident cast out 3. That a credible Profession of Faith and Obedience be pre-required of Communicants 4. That the Lord's Day be appropriated to Hâ—ly Exercises without unnecessary Divertisements 2. For Church-Government In this your Majesty's Declaration Parish Discipline is not sufficiently granted us Inferiour Synods with their Presidents are passed by and the Bishop which your Majesty declareth for is not Episcopus Praeses but Episcopus Princeps indued with sole Power both of Ordination and Iurisdiction For though it be said That the Bishop shall do nothing without the Advice of Presbyters yet their Consent is not made necessary but he might go contrary to the Counsel of them all And this Advice is not to be given by the Diocesan Synod or any chosen Representatives of the Clergy but by the Dean and Chapter and so many and such others as â—e please to call In all which there being nothing yielded us which is sufficient to the desired Accommodation and Union we humbly prosecute our Petition to your Majesty that the Primitive Presidency with the respective Synods described by the late Reverend Primate of Ireland may be the Form of Church-Government established among us At least in these Three needful Points 1. That the Pastors of the respective Parishes may be allowed not only publickly to Preach but personally to Catechize or otherwise Instruct the several Families admitting none to the Lord's Table that have not personally owned their Baptismal Covenant by a credible Profession of Faith and Obedience and to admonish and exhort the Scandalous in order to their Repentance to hear the Witnesses and the accused Party and to appoint fit Times and Places for these things and to deny such Persons the Communion of the Church in the Holy Eâ—charist that remain impenitent or that wilfully refuse to come to their Pastors to be instructed or to answer such probable Accusations and to continue such Exclusion of them till they have made a credible Profession of Repentance and then to receive them again to the Communion of the Church provided there be place for due Appeals to Superiour Power All this we beseech your Majesty to express under your Fifth Concession because it is to us of very great weight and the Rubrick is unsatisfactory to which we are referred 2. That all the Pastors of each Rural Deaneries having a stated President chosen by themselves if your Majesty please to grant them that liberty may meet once a Month and may receive Presentments of all such Persons as notwithstaning Suspension from Communion of the Church continue impenitent or unreformed and having further admonished them may proceed to the Sentence of Solemn Excommunication if after due patience they cannot prevail And may receive the Appeals of those that conceive themselves injuriously Suspended and may decide the Cause Or if this cannot be attained at least that the Pastors of each Rural Deanery with their President may have power to meet Monthly and receive all such Presentments and Appeals and judge whether they be fit to be transmitted to the Diocesan or not and to call before them and admonish the Offenders so presented Yet if Presentments against Magistrates and Ministers be reserved only to the Diocesan Synod and their Appeals immediately there put in we shall therein submit to your Majesty's pleasure 3. That a Diocesan Synod consisting of the Delegates of the several Rural Synods be called as often as need requireth and that without the Consent of the major part of them the Diocesan may not Ordain or Exercise any Spiritual Censures on any of the Ministers nor Excommunicate any of the People but by consent of the Synod or of the Pastors of the particular Parishes where they had Communion And that not only Chancellors but also Arch-deacons Commissaries and Officials as such may pass no Censures purely Spiritual But for the Exercise of Civil Government coercively by Mulcts or Corporal Penalties by Power derived from your Majesty as Supream over Persons and in things Ecclesiastical we presume not at all to interpose but shall submit to any that act by your Majesty's Commission Our Reasons for the first part of Discipline viz. in particular Parishes are these IT is necessary to the Honour of the Christian Profession to the integrity of Worship to the destruction of Impiety and Vice to the Preservation of the Sound the raising them that are Fallen the comforting of the Penitent the strengthning of the Weak the Purity Order Strength and Beauty of our Churches the Vanity of Believers and the Pleasing of Christ who hath required it by his Laws And withal it is agreeable to the ancient Canons and Practice of the Churches and is consented to by our Reverend Brethren and so is no Matter of Controversie now between us Yet is not the Rubrick satisfactory which we are referred to 1. Because it leaves the People at their liberty whether they will let us know of their intention to Communicate till the Night or Morning before and alloweth us then only to admonish them when in great Parishes it is impossible for want of time 2. Because it doth allow us to deny the Sacrament to those only that maliciously refuse Reconciliation with their Neighbourâ—s and only admonish other scandalous Sinners to sorbear Though the Canons forbid us to deliver them the Sacrament The Reasons why we insist on the second Proposal are these It being agreed on between us That the younger less discreet sort of Ministers are unfit to pass the Sentence of Excommunication without Advice and Moderation by others and every Church is not like to be provided with grave discreet judicious Guides the necessity of these frequent lesser Synods for such Moderation and Advice and Guidance will appear by these two general Evidences 1.
the Lay-Judge And if he have power as a Presbyter why do the Bishop appropriate it to themselves If one that is no Bishop may exercise it when a Bishop bids him then is it not a thing appropriate to the Bishop's Office Besides these there are Arch-Deacons who by themselves or their Officials hold some kind of Inferiour Court which dealeth in lesser Matters Some Diocesses have one Arch-Deacon some two some few three or four The Bishops should go visit once a year and the Arch-Deacon oftner When they visit they go to some chief Town in the County and call all the Ministers to meet them where they hear a Sermon and Dine together usually They yearly compile a Book of Articles which Churchwardens are sworn to enquire after and to present the Names of the Offenders accordingly to the Bishop's Court. In brief this is the Frame of our Diocesan Government To which I only add That Fees and Money for Commutation of Penance are much of their Officers Maintenance and that such as they Excommunicate in most Cases are by a Writ De Excommunicato Capiendo to be laid in the Jail till upon their Repentance they have made their Peace and are absolved § 313. Having told you what our Government is let me tell you what the Execution of it is The Books of Articles are fitted somewhat to the Canon by those Bishops that are most moderate and cauâ—elous and therefore by the English Canons they may be known some of them usually are against Drunkards and Fornicators but the main bent of them is against those that wear not the Surplice that Baptize without the Cross that omit the Common Prayer that refuse to Baptize any Infant or that deliver the Lord's Supper to any that kneel not in receiving it or that so receive it without kneeling that stand noâ— up at the Gospel that bow not at the Name Iesus though they may sit when the same words are read in the Chapter and are not required to how at the Name Christ God c. Also about the Repair of the Church the Surplice the Books that none piss up to the Church-wall c. with many such things It is a rare thing for the Churchwardens to present any except Nonconformists that use not Ceremonies c. Swearers Drunkards and Whoremongers are seldom presented lest Neighbours be displeased but Puritans have some one or other that is more eager in looking after them When any Scandalous Person is presented he hath no other Spiritual Conviction or Exhoration to Repentance tending to Convert his Soul than at any Civil Court But telling them that he is Sorry and paying his Fees or Commutation Money he comes home But when Conscientious Nonconformists are before them whose Consciences will not let them say that they are Sorry vizâ— for praying or exhorting others in their Houses for giving the Sacrament to them that stand or sit c. they are usually Excommunicated I have been in most parts of England and in Fifty years time I never saw one do Penance or confess his Sin in publick for any Scandalous Crime nor ever heard but of two in the Country where I lived that stood in a White sheet for Adultery except in the space when Bishops were down and then I have heard many that have penitently confessed their Sin and begged the Prayers of the Congregation and been prayed for In a word their Courts are meerly as Civil Courts for Terrour but not at all to convince Men of Sin and bring them to Repentance and Salvation further than such Terrour is â—it to do it And note here That the Discipline of the Church is not to be judged of by the King's Declaration concerning Ecclesiastical Affairs which was never executed before it was void in these respects Nor yet by some of our Reformers or Chroniclers who tell you how it was exercised quickly after the Reformation in King Edward's or Queen Elizabeth's days As Hollingshead e. g. who telleth you of many Suffragans and of the Piety and Diligence of their Courts and of Exercises called Prophesying held up at the Arch-Deacons Visitations against the Subverters of which he thundereth But as it is in England at this day and hath been this Sixty or Seventy years by-past § 314. Now concerning this Diocesan Frame of Government the Non-Subscribers called Puritans by many do judge that it is sinful and contrary to the Word of God both in the Constitution and in the Administration of it And they lay upon it these heavy Charges the least of which if proved is of intolerable weight § 315. 1. They say That quantum in se it destroyeth the Pastoral Office which is of Divine Institution and was known in the Primitive Church for it doth deprive the Presbyters of the third essential part of their Office for it is clear in Scripture that Christ appointed no Presbyters that were not subservient to him in all the three parts of his Office as Prophet Priest and King to stand between the People and him in Teaching Worshipping and Governing And though the Actual Exercise of any one part may be Suspended without the Destruction of the Office yet to the Office it self which is nothing but Power and Obiligation to exercise one part is as essential as the other so then they say that That which destroyeth an essential part of the Pastors or Presbyters Office destroyeth the Office as instituted by Christ But the Diocesan state of Government destroyeth c. Ergo The Major will not be denied The Minor hath two parts 1. That governing Power and Obligation over the Flock is essential to the Office of a Pastor or Presbyter as instituted by Christ. Which they prove thus 1. The very Name of Presbyter and Pastor denoteth the Governing Power and was then used in that sence as Dr. Hâ—mmond hath well proved 2. There is no such thing found in all the New Testament as a Presbyter that had not the Power of Governing his Flock as well as Teaching it He that can find it let him Dr. Hammond hath gone over all the Texts in proving it 3. The Church long after knew no such Presbyters as had not the Spiritual Government of the Flock 4. The Papists confess that they have the Power of the Keys in foro interiori to this day which is the Spiritual Government 2. The second part of the Minor That the Diocesan Form denieth this Governing Power to the Presbyters appeareth 1. By their own Confessions â— 2. By the Actual Constitution disabling them and placing the Power elsewhere 3. By the instance of the â—orementioned Particulars and many more They have not the power of judging who shall be taken into their Churhes as Members by Baptism or Confirmed or who shall Communicate or who is to be publickly Admonished Censured Excommunicated Absolved buried as a Brother dying in Christ c. no nor what Chapter to read in the Church nor what Garment to wear nor what words of Prayer
which the People cannot know nor are bound to search after The words of the Vow it self are in our several Places and Callings we shall endeavour And this was the expressed work and end And this was not doing any thing against Law If a discontented Person now should say that the Parliaments End in the Act of Uniformity and that against Conventicles was Persecution and the Suppression of Religion and therefore they are not to be obeyed how would this hold while Uniformity and Peace are the published Ends and the rest are either uncertain or impertinent to us 2. Whether indeed the Imposers Ends were ill is a Controversie fit to be touched by it self They thought such a Change of Church-Government was a good End And for doing it against Law they put not that into the Swearers part in this Clause and proâ—essed the contrary themselves But if they did themselves purpose to do that against to Law which others swear to do in their Places and Calling that is according to Law are those others therefore not obliged to do what they vowed to do according to Law because the Imposers intended to do their part against Law 3. I suppose all the King's Party who took the Oath at their Composition had no ill end in it and are they not then to interpret it by their own Ends as it is their Personal Vow 4. If we reach Men that the bad Ends of the Imposers do disoblige Men from performing Vows materially good take heed left it follow that it will disoblige them much more from obeying Commands and Laws materially good And then every Subject will take himself to be disobliged who is but confident that Persecution Oppression c. were his Rulers Ends. What if a Man for evil Ends command me to obey the King or to worship God or to give to the Poor Or make me swear to do all this Doth not my Vow oblige me because he had evil Ends that drove me to it Nay if I had my self vowed to do all these for some evil end though it is certain that I must not do it to that end yet whether the change of my End does disoblige me also from my Vow as to the Matter is a difficult question which I think Casuists commonly resolve in the Negative But if any Man did mistake their Design and had good Ends himself while theirs were bad yea and the End commanded him were good the Case is much plainer 5. Who can say that the King had an ill End in taking it Or that his Place and Calling did not impower him to do that which in a Subject would have been illegal and that he may not lawfully endeavour accordingly And whereas it is said That the very War it self expounded their meaning who imposed it they being then in Arms against the King It is answered by the Non-Subscribers 1. That they openly professed to take up Arms only against Delinquent Subjects according to Law 2. That their misapplication made not good words to be bad to others 3. That if they make me swear to do it in my Place and Calling I am not obliged to expound this to be out of my Place and Calling because they go out of their Place and Calling And whereas it is said That the Bishops were part of the Parliament and so of the Civil Government â— It is answered 1. That the Parliament declared that they were no Constitutive Essential Unchangeable Part without whom the Acts of both Houses were invalid They were but part of the Lords House where they might be over-voted 2. The Scruple of the Non-Subscribers is not at all whether they are obliged to endeavour to dispossess them of their Baronies or Places in Parliament which is in the power of the King to give them but only about their Ecclesiastical Power and Government as here formed And if it could be proved that the Covenant intended both the Ejection of them from their Church Power and their Places in Parliament it followeth not that it obligeth not to the lawful act because it obligeth not to the unlawfulâ— 3. Nor can it easily be proved unlawful for the King and Parliament either to make a separation of these Powers or to take both from them and so set up the Primitive sort of Bishops either with or without any Civil Authority Abbots had once also a place in Parliament and yet they are now taken down it is supposed not unlawfully The King himself doth lawfully make Members of both Houses by making Earls and Barons and by giving Corporations power to choose Burgesses who before had none And as the new making of these so the excluding of some Members may be without any change in the Form of Civil Government Certainly many Fathers and Canons are against the Civil Government of the Clergy § 372. 2. The second objection is That the Authority of the Imposers was null as to that Act Answ. That is a distinct Controversie which here I shall pass by But granting it to be so no more will follow but that the People were not bound by any Command of theirs to take it But a Vow that is taken in my Closet without any Man's imposition or knowledge may be obligatory or one that a Robber forceth me to by the High-way The nullity of the Obligâ—â—on to take it is all that followeth the nullity of their Authority which will not infer the nullity of the Obligation to keep it for it maketh it but equal to a Vow which is made of a private Will without any Command of Authority at all § 373. 3. The third Reason which most nearly toucheth the Controversie is That the Matter vowed to extirpate Prelacy was unlawful both as against the Laws of God and of the Land Answ. If this be proved no doubt but the Obligation is void and of no effect But 1. It is before proved to be far from being against the Law of God to alter this Prelacy by warrantable means And also that it is not against the Law of the Land for Subjects modeâ—â—y to petition or Parliament Men to speak or the King and Parliament to change which are the Actions which belong to their Places and Callings And if it had been expresly part of the matter of that Vow to do this by unlawful means the question is Whether this can disoblige the Swearer from the lawful part adjoying which is to do it in their Places and Callings Whatever other matter is this matter is not yet proved to be unlawful § 374. Object But Episcopacy is Jure Divino and the Covenant mentioneth the extarpatien of Prelacy which is of the same Species with the other Episcopacy And therefore it is to be understood as to the extirpation of all Episcopacy and so not obligatory Answ. 1. It is before proved that our Prelacy is not of Divine Right but against it 2. And that it differeth even specically from the Primitive Episcopacy 3. But that 's nothing to the
the thing to avoid Errour but yet I think that none should stick much at this because it is but de Nomine and afterwards you seem to leave a true Governing Power not only in the Presbyters but in the Pastors and Elders of the Parish-Churches 7. Seeing your Moderators are truly Bishops as described and others also if the Parishes be true Churches why is Ordination appropriated to the Bishops so called Do you intend that he shall do it by Consent of his Synod or a Presbytery or by his own Power alone 2. Is he to suspend depose and excommunicate by himself alone as this General seems to intimate or only in and by Consent of his Synod or Presbytery 3. The same also I ask as to his Transplanting Ministers as he sees useful for if he may do all this himself ad libitum it may discourage a Man from meddling with the Ministery when after all his Study and Labour it is at the Bishop's pleasure whether he shall Preach or be Suspended For though you after say for what Faults he shall be Suspended yet that signifieth nothing if the Bishop be Judge Of Appeals as a dear Remedy and doubtful Men will be diffident And Transplanting may undo a Minister at the Bishop's Pleasure And I doubt the absolute Deprival of the People of their Power of Consent or Dissent in this and other Cases of Title to their proper Pastors will be found 1. contrary to the nature of the Pastoral Work 2. to the Scripture 3. and to all Antiquity and practice of the Catholick Church for many Hundred Years 15. If it had been said that none but such Bishops shall have power to pronounce the Major Excommunication or that which is now called Excommunication in Scotland to which Horning c. is annexed it would have less founded to the contradiction of Antiquity c. For Suspension from the Communion which you allow to particular Churches and Presbyteries is called by many the minor Excommunication and by some a Temporary Conditional Excommunication and by others as Sir Wil. Morrice is written against as an unlawful thing 'till some just Excommunication precede 22. Might but the Moderator with his Presbytery by consent Ordain it would more satisfie 24. In Transplanting both Moderators and Pastors should not either their own Consent or the Presbytery's or People's be made necessary 31. The words of the Formula of Ordination will be material as to honest Men's reception or refusal of the Office 32. The Office of a Pastor as instituted in Scripture is not only to Baptize and celebrate the Sacrament of Communion but also to Judge by the power of the Keys whom to Baptize and to whom to give the Sacrament of Communion that is in Subordination to Christ's Prophetical Preistly and Kingly Office to be his Minister in Office 1. To teach the People 2. To go before them in Worship 3. To guide them by the Keys of Discipline And he is no true Minister that wanteth any one of these Powers however he may be hindered from the Exercise 33. At least 1. Necessity ad finem 2. Scripture 3. And the Catholick Antiquity should be so far regarded as to make the People's Consent necessary though not their Election at least when they do not by unreasonable Denial forfeit this Priviledge 35. If this be a limitation of Can. 7. it s well A. 3. viz. Supposing there be a tolerable Pastor there and no notorious necessity for some Parishes may have no Pastor some worse than none and some with us as many in London-Parishes Stepney Giles Cripplegate Sepulchres Martins c. have more Souls than ten Men can Teach and Over-see who must not therefore be forsaken and given up to Satan what-ever we suffer for endeavouring their Salvation 47. A Bishop if he please may thus causlesly keep most Ministers in his Diocess from Preaching the Gospel for the most part of their Lives I had rather be punished as a Rogue at a Whipping Post before I am fully heard and judged than have innocent Souls deprived of the usual means of their Salvation under pretence of Punishing me At least let no Suspension be valid longer than the place is competently supplied by another 48. Will no Mulcts or Stripes satisfie the Law without Silencing Men and forbidding them to endeavour Men's Salvation before their Crimes are proved such as render them uncapable of that work 49. But hath the Synod or Presbytery a Negative Voice in his punishment or not 50. For Treason and Murder there is reason for it but if every Man must be deposed from the Ministry that did ever Curse Swear or had any scandalous Vice from his Child-hood before his Ordination or Conversion I doubt the number left will be too small 53. The old Canons distinguished Some Crimes left so great a blot as made Men uncapable others did not so If such a War should break out as between the Emperor Henry IV. c. and the Pope or between the Houses of York and Lancaster the prevailing Party will force the Ministers to own him and if the other Party after prevail their Crime will be called Treason and all the Churches left desolate and the Peoples Souls forsaken by the Ministers perpetual incapacity and the King 's pardoning Power much restrained 54. Why should it be left to the Bishop's Will whether he will restore such a Penitent or not 56. Peaceable Men will consent that no Ministers should be permitted to Preach or Talk Seditiously against even those Rules of Government which they do not approve But this Penalty is so high and severe that few worthy Ministers will think their Station secure but will prepare for Banishment For 1. These Rules are many 2. And Derogatory is a large Word and will extend far 3. And there are few worthy Ministers that have no Drunkards Fornicators c. for their Enemies to accuse them E. g. if I lived in Scotland and should but read Blondel de jure Plebis in regimine Ecclesiastico and say it is sound Doctrine and this in Discourse at my own Table I might be thus troubled and banished it being derogatory to that part of the King's Rules as here exprest which deprive the People of all power of Consent c. Is it not enough that this Paper of Canons be so far equalled with God's Word yea with the very Articles of our Faith as that the open Oppugners of them have the same Penalty as open Hereticks who of old were after a first and second Admonition to be avoided And surely I think even that this is too much and yet I would have turbulent Preaching against the Government or Endeavours openly to subvert it restrained But methinks after the first and second Admonition a competent Mulct might do that sufficiently till Men go so far as to be turbulent Incendiaries 63. Shall the Presbytery have a Negative Voice in the Ordination or be Cyphers 66. It is well that the Elders Consent is
am sure if not all quiet in their Habitations even in the Kings Quarters not so much as taking the Covenant so that I know not how you can except against them as casting out the Bishops What tell you them of other Mens Actions could they help it what if it be in a time when Bishops were so Ejected when you cannot prove them guilty of it 4. The Covenant it self doth not reject all Bishops but only such as stood in England and so concatenated to Chancellors Deans c. and with such an Explication Mr. Coleman gave it to the House of Lords If therefore you could prove that the Associated Ministers have taken the Covenant which you have not done yet that proves not that they were the Ejectors of the Bishops 6. There is no Bishop that we know of over this Diocese 7. You cannot prove that those that were Ordained by meer Presbyters might have had Episcopal Ordination of which more anon 8. It is not the Regularity of the Ordination that we desire you to acknowledge but only its being so that it is not a nullity So that you may see how unfaithfully you stated the case which is rather this Whether when the Bishop of this Diocess is dead and the rest taken down by the Reigning Power and we know not where to have Episcopal Ordination or at least without the great suffering of the Bishops on whom the present Powers will inflict so great a penalty if they Ordain if in this case any be Ordained by meer Presbyters are we bound to judge them no Ministers yea and to refuse Associating with others for their sakes Whether our Church doors must be shut up and Gods publick Worship thrown away till the Rulers will permit and the Presbyters and People admit Bishops again and Ministers and Churches all be null yea I do no find you prove that our Agreement requires any such acknowledgment as your self intimateth of which next Except Sect. 3. Mr. Baxter himself I name for one a Principal of this Association and protesting it one end of this Association that they may be acknowledged for true Presbyters and Pastors of their Churches by all who enter into this Agreement vid. p. 14. and the two last lines and p. 15. for eight lines also p. 14. Reas. 11. and Reas. 12. p. 47. mid and p. 49. fin Reply to Sect. 3. For my self I think you have more against me than any other Man in your Association But yet 1. you have not proved that I had not Episcopal Ordination which indeed I had 2. Nor that I consented to the removal of their Calling If I did so yet till you can know it you have no just ground for your alienation 3. If I did consent yet that nulleth not my former Call 4. You know not if I did whether I repent or not 5. No man must be rejected for a fault supposed without a just Tryal in all Equity you should hear me speak for my self I have publickly offered satisfaction to any that are offended with me 6. What if I only were faulty would that warrant you to separate from all the rest for my sake 7. But what do you alledge against me That I would have an acknowledgment that we are true Presbyters and Pastors A heinous Crime that I will not yield to have Gods Church among us unchurched by the Papists and his Worship cast aside for want of true Ministers 8. But what are all these Words of mine to the Agreement Those are but mine own Thoughts which none are desired to consent to You should have produced somewhat from our Articles of Concord and not from my Words Except to Sect. 4. Do they take in your acknowledged Grounds of all parts Episcopal and all who would have us acknowledge them Presbyters ordained in this Church without Bishops not by necessity as in the Churches wherein no Protestant Bishop could be had unless their Christian Charity can take Countenance to say that none of our Bishops were Protestants and that then they must have had no Ordination at all or Ordination by Papists requiring of them the Acknowledging the Popes Ecclesiastial Supremacy which was the confessed Case of those Protestants beyond Seas from whence they would fain borrow a Cloak for their Fact but the Covering is too short though they argue while the World endures there is a vast difference betwixt necessity and voluntary Engaging by Covenant and relinquishing casting off and laying by true Catholick Protestant Bishops Reply to Sect. 4. Yes Sir I am confident I take in the Grounds of the Episcopal Protestants But I dare not say yours for I do not know you nor are you able to manifest the contrary 1. Necessity may justify some things that else were unjustifiable and the absence of such Necessity may prove them sinful But if Presbyters may justly ordain in case of necessity then you will hardly prove our Ordination null for want of that Necessity though you should prove it irregular It seems you think that Lay Men may baptize in case of necessity if so you may prove it sinful but hardly null where Necessity is not 2. It is an incredible Assertion against the Sun that all those Protestants beyond Sea had such a Necessity and could not have Protestant Bishops Put out Mens Eyes and then tell them this Were the Low Countries so far from England that they could not possibly have borrowed a Bishop to Ordain Was not Bishop Carleton at the Synod of Dort with them why did not that Synod desire this Curtesy It is said he protested for Bishops in the open Synod and that he took their Silence for Consent and also that some after told him that they would have them if they could as if Silence were any Sign of Consent against their own established Discipline Who knows not that their loathness to displease King Iames of whom they had then so much need might well cause them to keep Silence about that which was not the Business of the Assembly as long as they held their present Government and if some said they would have Bishops if they could it is plain it was but few for if most had been willing what hindered them If you say the Civil Powers I answer 1. The Ecclesiasticks so taught them and desired the Presbyterian Government of them 2. They might have run the hazard of a Persecution as well as we and the civil Rulers of this Nation are as much at least against it as theirs So some gather from Moulin's Word to Bishop Andrews and some few other Mens that the French Churches would fain have Bishops as also they are said to have offered Obedience to the Papist Bishops if they would turn Protestants when as it is known they are against Bishops and if any particular Persons are for it it is against the Establishment of their Churches Perhaps they might think their Form of Government not of such Moment as to reject Episcopacy if it might come
enjoy what Success is such a Dispute like to have either with the People or with the Adversary will they not tell us our Church is invisible especially when these few Bishops are dead Except to Sect. 6. 2. Whether in this Worcestershire Association whosoever will enter into it doth not therein oblige himself to acknowledge that Presbyters while there remain alive fourteen or thirteen or twelve Catholick Protestant Bishops may proceed to publick Excommunications and Absolutions in foro Ecclesiastico without asking those Bishops Consent allowance or taking any notice of them See Resolution 12 13 14 15. and the Scope of the whole Book Reply to Sect. 6. To your second Question I answer The Term Excommunication we use not This Term is used to signify sometimes a delivering up to Satan and casting out of the Catholick Church sometimes only a Ministerial Declaration that such a Person should be avoided by the People acquainting them with their Duty and requiring them to perform it sometimes it signifies the Peoples actual Avoidance In the former Sense we have let it alone and that which you call your Excommunicatio Major we meddle not with much less do we usurp a compelling Power for the Execution The other we know to be consistent with the Principles of Episcopal Protestants if not also with Papists yea even when there is a Bishop resident in the Diocess it being but part of our teaching and guiding Office as Presbyters of that Congregation but I have said enough of this in my Explications already 2. But what if there be twelve latent Bishops in England when for my part I I hear not of above two or three have they Power not only to ordain but also to govern other Diocesses which have no Bishops Yea must they needs govern them 1. Woe then to the Churches of England that must live under such Guilt devoid of all Government 2. Woe to the Sinners themselves that must be left without Christ's Remedy 3. Woe to particular Christians that must live in the continual Breach of God's known Law that saith with such go not to eat c. for want of a Bishop to Execute it 4. Woe to the few Bishops that be for it all the Authority be in them then the Duty and Charge of executing it is only on them and then they are bound to Impossibilities one Bishop must Excommunicate all the Offenders in a great part of the Land when he is not sufficient to the hundredth part of the Work Then when all the Bishops in England are dead save one or two they are the sole Pastors of England and all Discipline must be cast away for want of their Sufficiency Then it seems the Death of one Bishop or two or three doth actually devolve their Charge to another and who knoweth which other This is new Canon Not only Protestant Bishops but some Papists confess that when a Bishop is dead the Government remains in the Presbyters till another be chosen sure they that govern the People at least with him whilst he is living as is confessed need not look on it as an alien supereminent transcendent Work when he is dead Bishop Bromhall against Mil. p. 127. gives People a Judgment of Discretion and Pastors a Judgment of Direction and to the chief Pastors a Judgment of Jurisdiction You may go well allow us by a Judgment of Direction to tell the People that they should avoid Communion with an open wicked Man even while a Bishop is over us Selden de Syne c. 8 9 10. and will tell you another Tale of the way of Antiquity in Excommunication and Absolution than you do hear But of this enough in the Books Except to Sect. 7. 3. Doth not he oblige himself also to acknowledge that not only Presbyters incommuni governing but one single one of them may proceed to Excommunicatiand Absolution in foro Ecclesiastico Reply to Sect. 7. Your third Question I answer by a Denial There is no such Obligation The Declaration of the Peoples Duty to avoid such an one is by one so is every Sermon so is your Episcopal Excommunication Doth not one and that a Presbyter declare or publish it But for advising and determining of it we have tyed our selves not to do it alone though for mine own private Opinion I doubt not easily to prove that one single Bishop or Pastor hath the Power of the Keys and may do all that we agree to do Except to Sect. 8. 4. That not only one single Presbyter but one whose Ordination was never by any Bishop to be Presbyter where also Bishops were that might have been sought unto hath that Power also of Excommunication c. Reply to Sect. 8. Your fourth is answered in the rest if his Ordination have only in the Judgment of Episcopal Protestants yea of some Papists an Irregularity but not a Nullity then he hath Power to do so much as we agree on Your Exception is as much against his other Ministrations Except to Sect. 9. I speak only of the Essence of their Association not insisting on what Mr. Baxter declares to the World that in some Cases the People not satisfied with the Bishops or Presbyters Ordination may accept or take a Man of themselves without any Ordination by Bishops or Presbyters to be their Pastor and Presbyter with Power of Excommunication and Absolution in himself alone without the People see p. 83. Reply to Sect. 9. That this may be done in some Cases I have lately disputed it with a learned Man of your Party and convinced him And methinks Nature should teach you if you were unordained but qualified by Gifts cast among the Indians that you should not let them perish for want of that publick constant teaching which is Ministerial or of Sacraments and Discipline only for want of Ordination that the Substance of Duty should not be thrown by for want of that Order which was instituted for its Preservation and not for its Destruction You dare scarce openly and plainly deny that Necessity warrants the Presbyters of the Reformed Churches to ordain And I doubt you allow it them then on no other grounds then what would warrant this that I am now pleading for Except to Sect. 10. And for any Votum or desire of Bishops Protest Bishops if they might have them or access unto them which was so oft the publick avowed Desire of the chiefest Reformers and Protestants beyond Sea much unlike the Spirit of our Presbyterians see what Mr. Baxter gives us to know p. 85. where comparing our present Bishops with a Leader in an Army he faith Nay it is hard trusting that Man again that hath betrayed us and the Church ibid. These have so apparently falsified their Trust that if we were fully resolved for Bishops yet we cannot submit to them for Ordination or Jurisdiction and then he proves it by Canon he thinks that the Presbyters now should not submit to the present Bishops by Canon Concilii Rbegien ut
is necessary absolutely to the Being of the Ministerial Calling I doubt not but all the unhappy Consequences will be unavoidable which you mention concerning the Churches of all the West But whether it be you or I that is to be blamed for those Consequences it is not your Word only that must determine and I am willing to try by weight of Reasons Except to Sect. 13. And now for the Proof of all this the whole weight is laid by this Book 1. Upon an Argument a comparatis If they the Protestants beyond Seas are lawful Pastors and Presbyters whose Necessity and Plea of Necessity publickly to have been made by those these our new Presbyterians cannot deny then our new ordained ones by Presbyters are Presbyters also though they want all such Pretence all colour of Necessity for themselves were the first Authors of it to those that ejected them which yet did not bring a Necessity neither which we all know If Necessity be pleaded to be above Ecclesiastical Laws as sometimes it hath dispensed even with divine positive Laws themselves then they pro imperio will be above them by their own Magisterial 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and by Consequence if they will take this to themselves that whatsoever is lawful to others upon necessity is and shall be lawful to themselves without Necessity they may in the next place Pope-like take to themselves to dispense with divine positive Laws also because necessity has sometimes dispensed with them Reply to Sect. 13. 1. You may as well say we dare not say the Sun Shineth as that we dare not deny the Protestant Churches to have been without Bishops to this day through necessity against their Wills when in almost all of them the full Power Civil and Ecclesiastical is supposed to be among themselves though I deny not but some particular Persons among them would fain have Bishops yet I think very few in comparison of those that were willing to be rid of them when they were received here 2. You boldly affirm without Proof that the Ministers of this County who were not ordained by Bishops were Ejectors of them or Authors of the Necessity 3. I shewed you before we have more Necessity than you mention and besides a Necessity whereof we are not guilty there may be a culpable Necessity which yet may free our calling from a nullity though not our selves from Sin What if God should permit all the Churches of Ethiopia or the Greeks to deny the Ius Divinum of Episcopacy which is possible as well as to permit the Reformed Churches to do i◠aud so to set up Ordination by meer Presbyters while I speak to you on your own Grounds I suppose this to be their Error and so their Sin yet would you presently unchurch them all and rather have God's Worship forborn as to the Publick There be many among us who are against Diocesan Bishops who give us good testimony of a sincere Heart impartial studying of the Point with as much self-denial and earnest Prayer for God's Direction as any Episcopal Man that ever I knew and yet remain against Episcopacy This kind of Necessity may sure free their Calling from the Charge of Nullity which needs not this Plea though it could not free them from the Charge of Error Except to Sect. 14. Instead of answering one Word to Ignatius God's Holy Saint and Martyr his renowned Epistles which he knew lately vindicated or to all the ancient Fathers avowing in terminis the jus divinum of Bishops above Presbyters and the Bishops sole Power of ordaining or producing any to the contrary he fills up his Books with Citations of modern Mens Writings which they all wrote charitably for the Patronage of those poor afflicted Protestants who had no Bishops because they could have none So that as well his Authorities as his Reasons are all drawn a loco comparatorum arguing weakly from the Priviledge of necessity to their licentiousness with or without Necessity which is one continued Sophism Reply to Sect. 14. 1. Though Ignatius were both a Saint and Holy yet I know not what call I had in those Papers to meddle with him Unless I must needs dispute the point of Episcopacy which I did disclaim 2. As I would not undervalue the late Vindicacation of Ignatius so I would not have you so far overvalue it as to think it should so easily and potently prevail 1. With all those that see not any Cogency in the Arguments or sufficiency in the Answers to the contrary Objections 2. Or with hose that will take Scripture only for the Test of this Cause 3. Or with those that are confident that you can never prove that Ignatius speaks of Diocesan Bishops but only of the Bishops of particular Churches 3. Your talk of all the Ancient Fathers avowing in terminis the Bishops sole Power of ordaining doth but discredit the rest of your Words You suppose us utter Strangers both to those Fathers and the English Bishops who maintain that Presbyters must be their Coadjutors in Ordination 4. What if I should grant that all the Fathers would have Bishops to have the sole Power of Ordaining ordinarily and for Order Sake And that it is a Sin of Disorder where unnecessarily it is done otherwise that 's nothing to the Question that I had in hand which is whether such Ordination by Presbyters be not only irregular but null and whether an uninterrupted Succession be necessary to our Office 5. I plainly perceive here again that you are loath to speak out your Mind but you seem to dissent from these charitable Maintainers of the Protestants Why else do you set Ignatius and the ancient Fathers as the Party that I should have respected instead of these if you did not think that the Fathers and these Men were contrary 6. My Business was to prove that according to the Principles of the Protestant Bishops in England our Ordination was not null eo Nomine because without a Bishop now I am blamed for proving this by Modern Writers and not Fathers If you will disclaim the Modern Protestant Bishops do not pretend to be of their Party but speak plainly If I fill up my Book with such Citations then I hope I was not deficient in bringing the Testimonies of the Protestant Episcopal Divines and yet many more I could cite to that end 7. To that of the Protestants Necessity enough is said till your Words are canonical or your Proof stronger I do not think but there are some Protestant Bishops so called at least in France and Holland now that went out of Britain and Ireland why cannot they ordain them Bishops in their extream Necessity Why did the angry Bishops so revile poor Calvin Beza the Churches of Geneva Scotland and many others for casting out Bishops and setting up Presbytery if all were done on a justifiable Necessity But enough of this Except to Sect. 15. But that these Authors cited by him may be authentical all the
say that God will make their Acts as useful to the honest Receiver as if the Ordainer had done it by just Authority and another to say that such an Ordainer had Authority because his Incapacity was not known or judged that is because it was not then known that he had none 2. Moreover if the Catholick Churches Acceptation and Reputation which you mention would serve turn then 1. It were well worth the knowing what you mean by the Catholick Church do you mean the whole or only a Part If the whole then few Ministers or Bishops must be so accepted for who is known to all Christians in the World If a Part then what Part must it be what if one Part repute him a true Minister or Bishop and the other a false or none which is very common If you say it is the People over whom he is Pastor then nothing more common then for them to be divided in their Judgments If you say it is the greater part then we shall be at utter Uncertainties for our Succession as little knowing what the greater part of the People thought of our Predecessors if you mean the Superior Bishops then a Metropolitan it seems is the Catholick Church when a Bishop is to be judged of and it is like a Patriarch for a Metropolitan and the Pope for him But as 1. We know not how these judged of our Predecessors 2. So we little believe that these Mens Judgments can make a Man to be a Bishop that is none or make him have a Power which else he had not this is worse than the Doctrine which hangs the Efficacy of the Sacraments on the Priests Intention It 's like the Faith of some that think to make a Falsehood become true by believing it true 3. And you know it is the Pope whose Succession we are questioning and which is the Catholick Church that must accept and repute him a true Pope If the Council of Basil were the Catholick Church then you know how Eugenius was reputed and then where is our Succession I doubt not but true Christians that are not guilty of the Nullity of the Ordination nor knew it may have the Benefit and Blessing of such a Man's Administrations and they may be valid to the Receiver But that is on another ground which I have lately manifessed to another in debating this Cause and not that the Administrator had any true Ministerial Authority from God Again I refer you to my Answer to Bellarmine and others in those Papers Except to Sect. 18. V.G. Put case one not baptized thought to have been baptized had per ignorantiam facti been promoted to be Bishop Archibishop or Patriarch yet so long as the Church knew it not nor himself perhaps but did accept him bona Fide though ipso Facto had it been known such had been uncapable of Episcopal Order yet being so accepted by the Catholick Church Ordinations done by him were not null nor did he interrupt the Succession but latente omni defectu baptismi he was a true Bishop though after his Death by any Writing they had come to discover it for the Church as all Judicatures rightly proceeds secundum allegata probata the same I say of secret Symony V. S. But on the other side to speak now to the Presbyterian Case Reply to Sect. 18. Nay then put Case the Man were not Ordained and the Church took him to be Ordained you say the Church must proceed secundum allegata probata doth not this give up your Cause and yield all that I plead for which is that an authoritative Ordination and so an uninterrupted Succession is not simply and absolutely necessary to the being of the Ministry For you confess your Churches Reputation may serve without it By the way take head least you either make the People to be none of the Catholick Church or at least you give a Power to the People to make Ministers Bishops and Popes by their bare Thoughts without Ordination or so much as Election But then you will remember that if Reputation without just Ordination may serve turn I know not but those among us may be Ministers whom you disclaim For the Pastors and People of all the Protestant Churches in Europe except your selves here do take such for Ministers so far as it is possible by Writings Professions and Practices to know their Minds and I hope they are as good a part of the Catholick Church as the Pope and his Consistory are If Reputation then will make Pastors without Ordination we may have as good a Plea as those you plead for For the case of Symony you mention see what I cited out of Dr. Hammond and you know sure that many Canons make Ordinations null and the Office null ipso Facto whether ever the Party be questioned in Judgment or not such Canons and Laws are equal to Sentences A Case also may be known that is never questioned and Judged who could question the Sodomitical unclean murderous Popes though it was commonly known I take it for granted therefore that the Knowledge degraded them without a Judgment according to your own Words here unless one part of them contradict the other Except to Sect. 19. The same ancient Church which did make void and annul constantly all Ordinations made by meer Presbyters whether they Schismatically arrogated to themselves to be Bishops and were not nor so reputed by the Church or otherwise upon any Pretention whatsoever for at that time no necessity could be with any Colour nor was pretended Reply to Sect. 19. 1. But is it the Judgment of the Ancient Church that will serve to degrade or null a Minister of this Age If so then all your former Arguing is in the Dust For though your Popes had none to Judge them Wicked and Uncapable then yet the ancient Church before them did make void and null the Office and Ordinations of such as they If it must be a present Power that must do it we have not yet been called to any Judicature about it 2. Your Parenthesis seems to intimate that if the Presbyters be but Reputed Bishops by the Church then their Ordinations are not null All 's well on our side then except you only or the Romanists be the whole Western Church For not only Pastors and People here do take Presbyters to be Bishops having Power of Ordination but so do the rest of the Reformed Churches or at least most of them They think that the primitive Bishop was the Bishop of one particular Church and not of a Diocess or many Churches 3. You talk of necessity again but you would not say that necessity would have excused them then if there had been such though it seems you would be thought to judge of the Reformed Churches as the Protestant Bishops do or else hide your Judgment in part Except to Sect. 20. These Three Fallacies are the Summ of all his Arguments rather popular Calumnies for want of Argument
This is like the Man that swears he never swore in his Life you blame me with charging you with what you contend for 2. But you do with as little Candor as verity say that in the next Page it is those same Men that I speak of when I purposely and plainly call these Gentlemen of the Episcopal Protestant Party as distinct from the Cassandrian Papists and as helping us in the Discovery of the Danger But I perceive it is your Desire to make Men believe that I took them for all one But a good Cause needs to such a way of Defenceâ— Did you think that the learned Doctor to whom you wrote would believe you who had my Book at hand and could see that your Words were false And is it not strange that upon such a dishonest Foundation you can build such a triumphant Exclamation as follows See how Uncharitableness betrays and accuses it self c. Exception to Sect. 27. Pag. 50. n. 4. If these that I dispute with will shew themselves openly to be Papists and plead that Women or Lay-Men may baptize in case of Necessity c. See see his Magisterial canting crying out Popery upon whatever likes him not Doth he know whom he here condemns for Papists Yes he doth for he tells us pag. 81. that the 38th Canon Elibertint Concilii and he tells us right decrees that in case of necessity a Lay Man may baptize well an ancient Catholick Council held under the primitive pure Times whilst Persecution yet exercised the Church more ancient than the Council of Nice and whereof Magnus Osius Confessor was a part is peacht of Popery too together with us Enough of this I might add much more All this within the compass of twenty Leaves from pag. 45. to 85. Reply to Sect 27. All this but a meer Mistake whether willing or unwilling I never took this Point alone enough to denominate a Man a Papist but because it is a Point wherein the Papists generally hold one way and the Protestants another I take it to be a 〈◊〉 Discovery which side the forementioned Persons are of I durst not say that the Error of Purgatory or praying for the Dead or praying to Saints no â— nor Transubstantiation alone is sufficient to denominate a Man a Papist But yet I think if a Man would degrade our Ministers and unchurch our Churches and all the Reformed Churches that have not Bishops and maintain the Romish Ordination and Church and yet saythe is not a Papist your Addition of one of these would further the Discovery I am not ignorant that Tertullian and others speak of Lay Mens Baptizing in case of necessity but not for Women though Pamelius would pervert Tertullian's Words for that End Except to Sect. 28. To give you a Taste when he quotes Fathers as he quoted above the 80th Canon Apostotical to eject our Bishops So also when he would prove that the ancient Church held it lawful for Ministers to impose Hands for the confirming of Parties haptised pag. 58. for Proof of what he saith he pretends to but Two Authors viz. Ambrose in Ephes. 4. and Augustin quoest ex vet novo Testam mixt both certainly spurious Pieces and the latter the Work of an Heretick Reply to Sect. 28. You go the farther the worse I quoted Bishop Downame as one of the Episcopal Protestants to shew that it is their Judgment that Ministers ordained without Bishops may be true Ministers Now because the Bishop brings these two Testimonies on the by about Confirmation and Reconciliation of Penitents you do in my Judgment not well 1. Feign me to be the Speaker of those Words and the Alledger of those Authors when it was a Bishop and his Words go cited because a Bishop 2. You make me to do it in order to prove the Power of Ministers to impose Hands on the Confirmed and Reconciled when even Bishop Downame brought in that and these Testimonies thereto but as subservient to the others But perhaps I left you some occasion of this mistake to charge me with the Words of the Bishop No none at all I enclosed his Words with this Mark and after I wrote so far Bishop Downame that there might be no place for such an Oversight But where you talk of but two Authors for this I thought you had known how easy it is to bring more For if it be the Ceremony of Imposing Hands that you would deny to the Presbyters it was so far from being denied theâ—â— anciently that even the English Bishops allowed it them in Ordination which is the greater If you mena the Power of Confirming and Reconciling it 's known the Bishops might delegate Presbyters to it and the Corepiscopi used it yea Presbyters I think in some Cases And for Reconciliation Bishop Usher tells you in the Words I cited that even Deacons used it or had it Yet is not the Testimony of those Authors contemptible that ascribed to Ambrose is taken by Erasmus to be Remigius or Anselme by Maldonate to be Remigius by Brugensis and Bellarmine to be Hillarius Diaconus And well might Downame alledge them against the Papists when Bellarmine the Rhemists Alan and others so esteem them and quote them as Ambrose when it serves their turns And for the Book of Quest. in vet nov Test. 1. The Papists citing it Bellarmine Harding Turrian Eckius Cope Rhemists c. Downame might well cite it ad Hominem yea ad Rem it being matter of Fact that he speaks to and the Author so ancient that Hierome seems to take notice of him Except to Sect. 29. In all this you see I have not disputed the Case with him but only discovered to you his manner for that he himself professes he is resolved in this Book to forbear the Dispute p. 79. princip pag. 77. he would give us to understand that he hath much more behind that he can say by way of Argument for this is only crying out Popery Popish c. for Presbyters Power of Governing Excommunicating ordaining without a Bishop Let him be intreated to do it and lay aside his poor kind of calumniating his Adversary and deal Christianly by Arguments only and he shall soon be answered I believe For the present he may know his Papers prevail not but only provoke those he writes against Reply to Sect. 29. It 's strange that to call a Papist a Papist should be accounted Calumniation I profess to speak of none but Cassandrian Papists I name none They that are not such have no reason to say that I calumniate them when I professedly accept and and honour and seek Reconciliation with them They that are such methinks should not be ashamed of it It 's an ill Religion which a Man must be asham'd of and an ill Profession that is ashamed of a true Religion 2. That my Papers prevail not but provoke is no wonder 1. The Papists I expected to provoke by discovering their Designs and attempted not
fully authorized to ordain if they were but ordained by such who neither were Heretical or Impious For the Authority or Power of Ordination I conceive doth not come to any Bishop by Vertue drawn from his Predecessor in sede but by Vertue derived from him who laid Hands upon him at his Consecration For Example that you may understand my meaning suppose Dr. Winneffe the late Bishop of Lincoln was consecrated by the Imposition of the Bishop of Worcestor's Hand I conceive it is unreasonable to affirm that this Doctor received his Episcopal Orders rather from Dr. Williams his Predecessor in the Chair at Lincoln than from the Bishop of Worcester who is supposed to lay Hands upon him at his Consecration Or if the Question be whether he was a lawful Bishop that gave him Orders I conceive that it is equally unreasonable that we should go and inquire rather after Dr. Williams his Authority who was his Predecessor in sede than after the Bishop of Worcester who was or is supposed in the â—aâ—e to be his Consecrator Or if Iohn Williams who was his Predecessor should have de facto proved an Arrian or a Conjurer while he sat in the Diocesan Chair aâ— Lincoln I think it is every whit as unreasonable to affirm that therefore Dr. Winneffe who succeeded him in that Seat should lose his Episcopal Authority when as his Consecrator can have no such thing fastened upon him In like manner though Liberius was an Arrian while he sat in the Pontifical Chair at Rome yet if that Bishop whoever he was and look you to that who consecrated Pope Clement were Orthodox and so forward till we come to the Apostles his Authority was good enough though one or more of his Predecessors in sede were Heretical If you shall say that the Case is not alike betwixt the Succession of Popes and other Bishops I ask where 's the difference If you say that the difference is in this that the Pope claims not his Authority from his Consecrator but from his Predecessor I answer That it is very probable that he doth do so But let him and the Popish Doctors therefore see how they can quit their Hands of this Interruption For our parts we conceive we need not be engaged in this Controversy It is enough for us to reply to this asserted Difference That the Question is not what they lay claim to but what they ought de jure to lay claim to If you say That de jure they do challenge their Authority from their Predecessors I expect that you must prove it before I will promise you that I will believe it But if you say that the Difference is only this That they do de facio claim their Authority after another manner than other Bishops then I rejoyn that it doth not follow that they have their Authority after another manner than other Bishops because they say they have If therefore the facultas Ordinandi doth not come from the Bishop's Predecessor in sede but from the Bishop who is the Consecrator Then Sir you must prove that some of those Bishops who Consecrated Pope Clement e're the Succession reach the Apostles were Hereticks It little avails to prove that some of his Predecessors in Cathedre was such at least to me who are unwilling to be thought a Protestant But then Thirdly Suppose we should grant this which we likewise never intend how will you make it appear that our Bishops in Hen. VIII Time had their Authority from the then incumbing Pope If you say they went over to him for Imposition of Hands that 's improbable if you say he came over to them that 's intollerable if you say that he did delegate his Authority to some of our English Bishops or sent a Deputy or Nuncio authorized to those Ends I answer that it may be true that he did so But then the Question will again be whether our English Bishops had not full Authority to have done all this without his Knowledge or whether rather an Expectation of a Commission from him were not a Fruit of the Error of those times holding him to be the universal Bishop If it was though it be Argumentum ad hominem and will again I think press fore upon the Papists who assert the same yet it doth nothing trouble us who assert no such Universality I ask therefore must we acknowledge the Pope to be universal Bishop or must we not if we must why do we not If we must not why should any Man urge that Practice in his own Defence which he himself judgeth to be erroneous I speak plainlier if the Bishops in Hen. VIII Time had their Authority from the Pope then this must be pretended I think upon others Grounds either because the Bishops had indeed no Power to Ordain without his Commission or because they thought they had none or because they could not exercise that Power which they both had and knew they had without his leave If you say they had indeed no Power to Ordain without his Commission I say that you are more than a Cassandrian Papist If you say they had no Power because they judged they had none I deny the Consequence and expect you should prove it Or 3. If you say they had their Authority from him because they could not exercise it without his leave I shall only propound this Case in answer to you Suppose General Cromwell should put in so between you and the Exercise of your Ministry that without his leave you should not preach or administer the Sacraments would you say if you had leave from him that you derived your Authority from him because the external Exercise of your Authority depends upon his Leave I think you would not Well Sir I shall now only rehearse what I expect you should prove And the first thing that is expected is this That Heresy or Impiety doth evacuate Holy Orders 2. That the Power of Ordination is derived from the Predecessor in sede 3. That some of Pope Clement's Consecrators e're his Line reach the Apostles were heretical or impious 4. You must prove that the Bishops in Hen. VIII Time did not only judge that they had dependance upon the Pope for Authority but that indeed they had no Authority but what they derived from him If you can indeed make good all this then I shall confess that the Interruption of Succession is made good also But till then I shall 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Yet in the mean time shall be a very great Admirer of your Worth and Lover of your Industry M. Iohnson Wamborn Dec. 8. 1653. For my Reverend and very Worthy Friend Mr. Baxter Minister of the Word at Kidderminster These Mr. Iohnson's Fifth Letter to Mr. Baxter SIR THE Question as I remember was stated between us thus Whether an infallible Knowledge that our Ordainers have full Authority to ordain be necessary to make us have true Peace of Conscience in the Exercise of our Ministry To which Question
be sinful and hazarding our Souls c. We should never have stuck at Conformity to them And it is no small Number of Sins so heiâ—ous which we suppose since imposed that we dare not so much as name them least we displease you and make you say that we render the Conformists such heinous Sinners But I will alledge your Authority when any of us are next blamed for discovering the â—einous Sinfulness of Conformity as we yet believe it would be to us If you say that the Licensers would licence our Writings if we did it with Sobriety 1. You know that the Canon and Law is against it 2. I shall then in Justice challenge you to make it good and here promise you an account of my Nonconformtiy whenever you will procure it licensed 6. And which way got you so strong a Faith as to be past doubt that did we discover any sinfulness it would by Authority have been taken away Make this true yet after neer Two Thousand Ministers have been neer Sixteen Years ejected and silenced and many killed by Imprisonment and the People of the Land divided and distracted by the training Engines and you shall have the Honour of being the greatest healer of our Breaches that ever rose in the Days of my Remembrance But if it be not true III. The Third Passage is p. 69 70. throughout These are great things to be spoken so boldly 1. Do you suppose your Reader one that never read Church-History What Work the Bishops made for Arrianism for Nestorianism for the Eutychians and Aâ—â—phalites against Nazianzen Chrysostom c. for the Monothelites about the tria Capitula for Images against Emperors and Kings setting up the Pope and decreed the Deposition of all Princes that obey him not and making Loyalty to be Heresis Henriciana How the River Oronte at Antioch hath been coloured with the Blood and the Graves of the Monks and People that fought it out in the Streets for the several Bishops what work they made at the first Council at Constance the first and the second of Ephesus the Council at Calcedon and many another How many Ages they were and yet are the Army of the Pope to subdue Princes and Nations Truth and Justice and set up the Evil that now reigneth in the Christian World How even against the Popes Will they made the best King and Emperor Ludovicus Pius as a Pennance resign his Crown and Scepter on the Altar to a Rebel Son and sent him to Prison He that ever read but Baronius Binnius or other Episcopal History will pity you can you name one Presbyter for very many Bishops that have been the Heads or Fomenters of Heresie Schism or Rebellion and yet Presbyters were more in Number than Bishops Innumerable Bishops saith Binnius were in the Monothelite Council under â—hilipicuâ— Of all things that ever befel the Christian Church I scarce know any thing comparable in Shame and Mischievous Effects to the horrid perfideousness Contention Schism and Pride of Bishops Cursing one Year by Hundreds all that were of one Opinion and another Year all that were of the contrary as the times and Interest and Emperor changed And if Arius or Novatus Aerius and Donatus which are all you name were the Beginners of any Schism how many hundred Bishops were the Promoters of them all save that of Aerius against themselves And is it any honour to Episcopacy that Arius and Aerius an Arian were not Bishops when they were said to be Seekers of Bishopricks and to divide because they could not obtain them Sure they were Prelatical Presbyters what honour were it to Episcopacy that you are no Bishop if all these and such things were vended by you in hope of a Bishoprick or some Preferment I will never whilst I breathe trust a Presbyter that sets himself to get Preferment no more than I will trust a But did you know or did you not that as for Novatus and Novatian one of them was an ill-chosen Bishop of Rome and the other a Promoter of his Prelacy and that as for Donatus there were two of them one of them a Bishop and that the Donatists Schism was meerly and basely Prelatical even whether their Bishop or Cecilianus should carry it and that their Re-baptizing and Re-ordaining and Schism was because they took none to have power that had it not from their Bishop as being their right like our Re-ordainers And are these Instances to prove what you assert Were it not for entring upon an unpleasing and unprofitable Task I would ask you 1. Who that Iuncto of Presbyters was that dethroned the King was it they that petitioned and protested against it 2. Whether it was not an Episcopal Parliament forty to one if not an hundred that began the War against the King 3. Whether the General and Commanders of the Army twenty to one were not Conformists 4. Whether the Major Generals in the Countries were not almost all Episcopal Conformists The Earl of Stamford was over your Country 5. Whether the Admiral and Sea-Captains were not almost all Episcopal Conformists As Heylin distinguisheth them of Archbishop Abbots mind disliking Arminianism Monopolies c. 6. Whether the Archbishop of York were not the Parliaments Major General 7. Whether the Episcopal Gentry did not more of them take the Engagement and many Episcopal Ministers than the Presbyterians 8. Whether if this Parliament which made the Acts of Uniformity and Conventicles should quarrel with the King it would prove them to be Presbyterians and Nonconformists 9. Whether the Presbyterian Ministers of London and Lancashire did not write more against the Regicides and Usurpers and declare against them than all the Conformists or as much And the Long Parliament was forced and most of them cast out before the King could be destroyed And when they were restored it made way for his Restoration And Sir Thomas Allen Lord Mayor and the City of Londons inviting General Monk from the Rump into the City and joyning with him was the very Day that turned the Scales for the King But all these are Matters fitter for your better Consideration than our Debate I rest Your Servant Rich. Baxter Iuly 26. 1678. To Mr. Long of Exeter Numb VI. A Resolution of this Case What 's to be done when the Law of the Land commands Persons to go to their Parish-Church and Parents require to go to private Meetings Quest. THE Law of the Land commandeth me to go to the Publick Churches the Canon commandeth me to go to my own Parish-Church and not to another Parish Both forbid me to go to Conventicles and silenced Preachers My Father and Mother forbid me to go to the Publick Churches and command me to go constantly to a silenced Minister in Meetings forbidden by the Law But specially not to go to my Parish Priest saying he is an insufficient and drunken Railer but to a Neighbour Parish if I will not obey their first Command Am I now bound to obey my Parents
the Ruler of all Persons all Families all Pastors and Churches all Physicians School-masters c. that is to see all these do their own duty but not to take their Work from them upon himself not to take all Men from Self-government of their Tongues Passions Actions not to take on him the part of Parents Pastors c. And no Prince's Laws will acquit a Man before God from his Duty in any of these Relations while he is in them VI. God hath much conjoyned Interest and Duty No Man is so much concerned whether I be saved or damned as I am my self And therefore my own Choice and Self-government is first and chiefly to be used for the saving of my own Soul without which no Man else can save me Therefore I am more concerned than any Magistrate is to the Counsel and Conduct of what Pastor I commit my Soul and I have the nearest and first power in the Choice There is great Controversie in the World Whether Subjects have a Propriety in their Estates which is not at the will of Princes And it is commonly affirmed That Propriety is anticedent to Regiment which is but to order it for common good and not to destroy it But I had rather quit my Claim to Propriety in all my Worldly Estate than of my Salvation or the necessary means thereto If the Law commanded me but to use a Physician that I thought unskilful in my Disease and his Medicines pernicious I would choose a better if I could though the King and Laws forbad me and I would refuse the obtruded Physician and his Medicine so I would do if they commanded me to marry an utterly unsuitable Wife And I should judge that as these matters are more my Interest than theirs so they belong to my Self-governing power and not to their Civil Government And next my self while I am young my Parents being naturally indued with stronger love to me than Magistrates are the Choice in such Cases more belongeth to their power than to the Magistrates VII Accordingly it was for Seven hundred if not a Thousand years the currant Judgment of the Christian Churches that a Bishop must be set over a particular Church by the Election or Consent of all the Clergy and all the People and that he was no justly called Bishop that came not in by the common consent of the Flock This is not only proved in the ancientest Writers even Clemens ad Corinth and others commonly but by many Canons and even the Popes Decretals for many hundred years and the contrary is an undoubted Innovation VIII It is certain that neither Civil nor Ecclesiastical Rulers have their Power for destruction but for edification 2 Cor. 10. 8. and 13. 10. Rom. 13. 1 2 3 4. Even Parents that give life and being to their Children are justly destroyed if they destroy them It is no singularity of Mr. Humphrey that hath lately written That Laws against the Common Good bind not in Conscience to Obedience It is the Judgment of the greatest Casuists Greg. Sayrus Fragosus c. in whom you may see many others The terminus entereth the definition of relations It is not Authority Ius regendi which is not for the Ends of Government the Common Good The Magistrate may order the preaching of the Gospel and other means of Salvation but not forbid them and destroy them If he do this it is not by Authority received from God as Bishop Bilson afore-cited often sheweth and Bishop Andrews in Torturâ Torti I have more power from God to use needful means of my own Salvation than any Man hath to forbid me the using of them IX It is not another Man's saying That much preaching or praying is not needful to me that will make or prove it so or ex use me from it And there is so vast a difference between a found skilful and experienced sively Teacher and one that is ignorant heretical a meer artist dead or dull that readeth a Cento as a Boy saith his Lesson that no Man can make it my Duty to commit the Pastoral Care of my Soul to the latter when the former may be had without a greater hurt than the benefit will compensate Nor will other Mens Crosses Opinions or Appetite herein suffice to satisfie me against my Sense Reason and my own and other Mens Experience X. Yet a tolerable lâ—ss must be born rather than publick Order violated And seeing our Laws and Church-Canons allow any Man when he will to change his Bishop or Pastor or Congregation if he will but change his Dwelling the losses of this must rather be born than any greater real detriment to our Souls or to the Publick Good But Wives Children and some others cannot remove their Habitations XI An Infant or Child in minority in his Parents House as he is not to be supposed to understand the Laws so caeteris paribus he seemeth to me to be more obliged to hear the Teacher that his Parents choose for him than one that is chosen by the Magistrates As in his Diet and the choice of a Physician when he is sick so here The Magistrate is an Officer of Power Wisdom and Love but principally of Power The Pastor is an Officer of Power Wisdom and Love but eminenty of Wisdom The Parent is an Officer of Power Wisdom and Love but eminently of Love And the works of Love to his Children eminently belong to his Care and Government XII Yet when Children have the true use of Reason to discern what God and Man command them they must obey neither Parents not Princes against God XIII In the circa sacra or Circumstantials of Religion so much as should be commonly agreed on by all or most Churches for the Common Good the Prince by the Counsel of the Pastors is the Judge of and is to be obeyed before the Bishops unless he leave it only to the Pastors own Consent and then their Consent in Synods must be much regarded of which Grotius de Imperio Sum. Potest hath written excellently notwithstanding Bishop Brumhalls discommendation But in the Circumstances that are not to be universally agreed on but belong to the Pastoral Office to vary pro re natâ the present officiating Pastor is the Judge and to be followed XIV Rules are to be obeyed in all lawful things belonging to their Office to command but all lawful things belong not to their Office Whether I shall eat once or twice a day or once in two days what Meat I shall eat and how much what Hoâ—se I shall ride on what Wife I shall marry what Physician or Teacher I shall trust and what Medicine I shall take c. belongeth more to my self as is said XV. Intolerable Ministers justly forbidden to preach are bound to obey and the People forbidden to hear them should forbear But it no more follows that the Case is the same to all others than that a true Man may be hang'd because a Thief may If we
Church the bowing to Altars the Book for Sports on Sundays the Casting out of Ministers the troubling of the People by the High-Commission Court the Pilloring and Cutting off Mens Ears Mr. Burtons Mr. Prins and Dr. Bastwicks for speaking against the Bishops the putting down Lectures and Afternoon Sermons and Expositions on the Lord's Days with such other things which they thought of greater weight than Ship-money But because these later agreed with the former in the Vindication of the Peoples Propriety and Liberties the former did the easilier concur with them against the Proceedings of the Bishops and High Commission Court And as soon as their Inclination was known to the People all Countreys sent in their Complaints and Petitions It was presently known how many Ministers Bishop Wren and others of them had suspended and silenced how many thousand Families had been driven to flie into Holland and how many thousand into New-England Scarce a Minister had been Silenced that was alive but it was put into a Petition Mr. Peter Smart of Durham and Dr. Layton a Scotch Physician who wrote a Book called Sion's Plea against the Prelates were released out of their long Imprisonment Mr. Burton Mr. Prin and Dr. Bastwick who as is said had been pillored and their Ears cut off and they sent into a supposed perpetual Imprisonment into the distant Castles of Gernsey Iersey and Carnarvon were all set free and Damages voted them for their wrong And when they came back to London they were met out of the City by abundance of the Citizens with such Acclamations as could not but seem a great Affront to the King and be much displeasing to him The Lord Keeper Finch and Secretary Windebank fled beyond Sea and saved themselves The guilty Judges were deeply accused and some of them imprisoned for the Cause of Ship-money But the great Displeasure was against the Lord Deputy Wentworth and Archbishop Laud Both these were sent to the Tower and a Charge drawn up against them and managed presently against the Lord Deputy by the ablest Lawyers and Gentlemen of the House This held them work a considerable time The King was exceeding unwilling to consent unto his death and therefore used all his skill to have drawn off the Parliament from so hot a Prosecution of him And now began the first Breach among themselves For the Lord Falkland the Lord Digby and divers other able Men were for the sparing of his Life and gratifying the King and not putting him on a thing so much displeasing to him The rest said If after the Attempt of Subverting the Fundamental Laws and Liberties no one Man shall suffer Death it will encourage others hereafter to the like The Londoners petitioned for Iustice And too great numbers of Apprentices and others being imboldened by the Proceedings of the Parliament and not fore-knowing what a Fire the Sparks of their temerity would kindle did too triumphingly and disorderly urge the Parliament crying Iustice Iustice. And it is not unlikely that some of the Parliament-men did encourage them to this as thinking that some backward Members would be quickned by Popular Applause And withal to work on the Members also by disgrace some insolent Painter did seditiously draw the Pictures of the chief of them that were for saving the Lord Deputy and called them the Straffordians he being Earl of Strafford and hang'd them with their Heels upward on the Exchange Though it cannot be expected that in so great a City there should be no Persons so indiscreet as to commit such disorderly Actions as these yet no sober Men should countenance them or take part with them whatever ends might be pretended or intended The King called these Tumults the Parliament called them the Cities Petitioning Those that connived at them were glad to see the People of their mind in the main and thought it would do much to facilitate their Work and hold the looser Members to their Cause For though the House was unanimous enough in condemning Ship-money and the Et caetera Oath and the Bishops Innovations c. yet it was long doubtful which side would have the major Vote in the matter of the Earl of Strafford's Death and such other Acts as were most highly displeasing to the King But disorderly means do generally bring forth more Disorders and seldom attain any good end for which they are used § 28. The Parliament also had procured the King to consent to several Acts which were of great importance and emboldened the People by confirming their Authority As an Act against the High Commission Court and Church-mens Secular or Civil Power and an Act that this Parliament should not be dissolved till its own Consent alledging that the dissolving of Parliaments emboldened Delinquents and that Debts and Disorders were so great that they could not be overcome by them in a little time Also an Act for Triennial Parliaments And the People being confident that all these were signed by the King full sore against his will and that he abhorred what was done did think that the Parliament which had constrained him to this much could carry it still in what they pleased and so grew much more regardful of the Parliament and sided with them not only for their Cause and their own Interest but also as supposing them the stronger side which the Vulgar are still apt to follow § 29. But to return to my own matters This Parliament among other parts of their Reformation resolved to reform the corrupted Clergy and appointed a Committee to receive Petitions and Complaints against them which was no sooner understood but multitudes in all Countreys came up with Petitions against their Ministers The King and Parliament were not yet divided but concurred and so no partaking in their Differences was any part of the Accusation of these Ministers till long after when the Wars had given the occasion and then that also came into their Articles but before it was only matter of Insufficiency false Doctrine illegal Innovations or Scandal that was brought in against them Mr. Iohn White being the Chair-man of the Committee for Scandalous Ministers as it was called published in print one Century first of Scandalous Ministers with their Names Places and the Articles proved against them where so much ignorance insufficiency drunkenness filthiness c. was charged on them that many moderate men could have wished that their Nakedness had been rather hid and not exposed to the Worlds derision and that they had remembred that the Papists did stand by and would make sport of it Another Century also was after published Among all these Complainers the Town of Kederminster in Worcestershire drew up a Petition against their Ministers The Vicar of the place they Articled against as one that was utterly insufficient for the Ministry presented by a Papist unlearned preached but once a quarter which was so weakly as exposed him to laughter and perswaded them that he understood not the very Substantial Articles of
for them it might have emboldned their Enemies against them and that if the permitting of Petitioners to crowd to them too boldly and speak too unmannerly can be called the raising of a War when they fought with none but were assaulted themselves then the calling up of the Army from the North was much more so and so they were not the Beginners Or had they been the Beginners it had been lawful being but to bring Delinquents to Justice as the Sheriff himself may in Obedience to a Court of Justice But the Irish Flames which threatned them were kindled before all these 3. To the third they said that the Parliament are Subjects limitedly and not simply as the King is not an absolute but a limited King viz. limited by the Laws and Constitutions of the Government they are Subjects to him according to Law but not subject to Arbitrary Government against Law Their Propriety is excepted in their Subjection and they have certain Liberties which are not subject to the Will of the King And also they said That as the Sheriff is a Subject and a Court of Justice Subjects and yet may resist the King's Letters even under the Broad-Seal and his Messengers or armed Men that act illegally because the Law which hath his Authority and the Parliament's enable them so to do so also may the Parliament which is his highest Court of Justice And they said that as they have a part in the Legislative Power they have part in the Summa Potesâ—â—as and so far are not Subjects And they said that the bare Title of Supreme is no Argument against the Constitution of a Kingdom though it be expressed in an Oath For the King is stiled the Supreme Governor of France and yet the Oath of Supremacy doth not bind us to believe that no French Man may lawfully â—ear Arms against him 4. They say to the fourth That they wholly grant it that though Religion may be the end of a lawful War yet not of a Rebellion nor may any Reformations be performed by any Actions which belong not to the Places and Callings of the Performers But where the means are Lawful Religion and Reformation are lawful Ends. 5. To the fifth they said That they agree with all good Christians and Protestants that true Authority may not be resisted by any Subject But all Protestants or most agree with them that a limited Governor which hath not Authority to do what he lists may perform an Act of Will which is no Act of Authority and that the Parliament was the highest Judicature and that it was Rebellion in them that resisted the Parliament in their legal prosecution of Delinquents and Defence of the Land and themselves and that Paul Rom. 13. determineth not at all whether the Emperors or the Senate was the higher Power and that the Resisters of the Parliament are the condemned Breakers of that Order and Command 6. To the sixth they said that they Charge nothing on the King but what their Eyes behold viz. That he hath forsaken his Parliament and raiseth Arms against them and protecteth Delinquents And this they mention but as Matter of Fact for the culpability they charge upon his evil Counsellors and Instruments For the King being no Subject is liable to no Accusations in any of his 〈…〉 Irish the Papist and those guilty Persons who would ruine all to 〈…〉 Justice whom they accuse and not the King And whateve◠〈…〉 King 's Declarations say Ship-money hath been imposed the Judges have been 〈◊〉 the German Horse were to have been brought in the Northern Army 〈◊〉 have been brought up against the Parliament the House was invaded and 〈◊〉 Members demanded a Guard was set upon them and their Destruction 〈◊〉 Enemies was powerfully endeavoured 7. 〈◊〉 the seventh they said That for the supreme legislative Authority to defend 〈◊〉 and the Land and for the King's Courts of Justice to prosecute Delinâ—◠〈◊〉 though against the King's Will is no dishonour to the Protestant Religion 〈◊〉 any thing like the Papists Doctrine and Practices of Rebellion nor any Justification of them If it were then the very Constitution of our ancient Government or Kingdom would it self be a dishonour to our Religion 8. To the last they say That Patience is our Duty so far as we are called to Sufferings and God is â—o be trusted in the way which he hath appointed us But if the Irish Rebels had foretold the Parliament and Justices of their Insurrection and then exhorted them to Patience and Non-resistance and trusting God or if a Thief that would rob us to exhort us to be patient and not resist he doth but exhort us to be guilty of his Sin 〈◊〉 Protestants Patience was that which pleased the Irish or if a King must be brought in as a Party the French Mens Patience in the Parisian Massacre pleased Charles IX and the Executioners And if in all Countries the Protestants would let the Papists cut their Throats and die in the Honour of Patience it would satisfie those bloody Adversaries who had rather we died in such Honour than lived without it But if such Patience would be a poor Excuse for a Father that sought not to preserve his Children much less for the Paliament that stand still while Papists and Delinquents subvert both Church and State These were their Answers to their Accusers in those Points § 54. The Sum of those Reasons which satisfied many that adhered to the Parliament were these which I will but briefly name 1. As to the Danger of the State the Matters of Fact did make it seem undeniable to them Ship-money they judged not of according to the Sum but they thoughtâ— Propriety was thereby destroyed and Parliaments cast aside and made unnecessary And they saw that this Parliament was called upon the Scots and then called Discontented Lords importunity after many Parliaments had been dissolved in displeasure and after they had been long forborn And the calling up of the Northern Army and the demanding of the Members made Multitudes think that the ruine of the Parliament was the great Design and their ungrateful beginning and proceedings made this seem credible so that I met with few of that sort that doubted of it But above all the Two hundred thousand kill'd in Ireland affrighted the Parliament and all the Land And whereas it is said that the King hated that as well as they They answered that though he did his hating it would neither make all those alive again nor preserve England from their threatned Assault as long as Men of the like malignity were protected and could not be kept out of Arms nor brought to Justice 2. The End of the War did much prevail with them For they thought that to master and destroy the Parliament was to leave the People hopeless as to any Security of their Propriety or Liberties or any Remedy against meer Will For there is no other Power that may relieve them And if Parliaments
were so used before what would they be said they if by such a War they should be conquered And they thought that the ruine of the State and of Men's Propriety was such an End as no means could be lawfully used for and that the Preservation of the Kingdom was such an End as would make lawful any necessary means which God himself had not forbidden 3. And then as to Authority they thought that the Legislative Power is the chiefest part of Soveraignty and that the Parliament having a part in the Legislative Power had so far inherently a Power to defend it which no Law can suppose them to give away And as the Peoples Representatives they supposed themselves much Intrusted to secure their reserved Liberties which the Law giveth not the King any Authority to take away 4. And they supposed that Government being that Publick Work which upholdeth the Common Peace it is to be done by Publick Instruments andâ— Means and that the Kings Laws are his Instruments of Government and also his Publick Courts and Officers And that the Subjects cannot know so well whether private Commands or Commissions be real or counterfeit nor are so much bound to take notice of them And that the Judgments and Executions of the Courts of Justice being the Effect of Laws which King and Parliament have made are of greater Authority than contrary Commissions or Commands from the King alone 5. It much confirmed them because all confessed That the Sheriffs of Counties must raise the posse Comitatus for the Execution of some Decrees of Courts of Justice though the King forbid it or grant a Commission to any to hinder it And that the foresaid Statute of Edw. 3. maketh even the King's Letters under the Broad Seal to be void when they would hinder Justice 6. And they pleaded the Law of Nature which is greater than Positive Laws That no Nation is bound to destroy it self The Militia being nothing but the Peoples own Sword they say they are not bound to destroy themselves with it nor can any Law be so interpreted And whereas it was said That the King sought not to destroy the Parliament but to bring some among them to punishment they said that it belongeth to the Parliament to judge its Members and that if on pretence of punishing offending Members the King may come and fetch away or demand those that displease him Parliaments and Liberties and all Security of them is gone 7. The King's Answer to the Nineteen Propositions greatly confirmed many when they saw the King himself declaring to them That the Legislative Power was in Kings Lords and Commons and that the Government was mixt and was not Arbitrary which they thought it must needs be if his Commissions were of greater power than his Laws and Courts and if no resistance might be made against any that executed an illegal Commission 8. It most prevailed with many that the Parliament professed not to fight against either the Person or Authority of the King though against his Will but that their War was only against Subjects They said that some Subjects were Delinquents that fled from Justice against whom they might raise Arms offensively and other Subjects took Arms against the Parliament and against these they made a Defensive War But all of them were Subjects and not Kings And the King's Will or Commission is not enough to save all Subjects from punishment when his Law is against it nor to authorize them to destroy the Parliament and their Country 9. They were much emboldened because this Parliament was continued by Law till it should dissolve it self And therefore some said the King's Presence is virtually with them he being a part of the Parliament and others said that no War could be lawful which was for their dissolution or ruine or to deprive them of their Liberty and that the defence of them was lawful whom the Law continued 10. They alledged King Iames who they said of any Man did most endeavour to advance his Prerogative and yet in his printed Treatise for Monarchy confesseth That a King cannot lawfully make a War against the Body of his Kingdom but only against an offending Faction Therefore say they not against the Representative Body till it be proved that by perfidiousness they have forfeited the Virtue and Honour of their Representation 11. They alledged Barclay Grotius and other Defenders of Monarchy especially that passage of Grotius de Iure Belli where he saith That if several Persons have a part in the Summa Potestas of which he maketh Legislation a chief Act each part hath naturally the power of defending its own Interest in the Soveraignty against the other part if thâ—â— invade it And addeth over boldly That if in such a War they conquer the conquâ—red party loseth to them his share And saith That this is so true that it holdeth though the Law expresly say that one of the Parties shall have the power of the Militia it being to be understood that he shall have it against Forreign Enemies and Delinquents and not against the other part 12. It much confirmed them to find the most Learned Episcopal Divines speak so high for the Legislative Power of Parliaments as Tho. Hooker doth Eccles. Pol. lib. 1. for the Eighth Book which saith more than the Parliament ever said was not then published And for resistance in several Cases as Bishop Bilson doth even in that Treatise wherein he so strongly defendeth Obedience and which he dedicated to Queen Elizabeth And to find how far they defend the French Dutch and German Protestants Wars 13. They said that the Carnal respect of Men for personal Interests hath made all the stream of most Mens Words and Writings go on the Prince's side but Tyanny is a Mischief as well as Disobedience and that which all Ages and most Nations have grievously smarted by and they that befriend it are guilty of the Sin and of the Ruines which it procureth It keepeth out Christianity from five parts of the World It corrupteth it and keepeth out the Protestant Truth in most of the sixth part The Eastern and the Western Churches suffer under it to the perdition of millions of Souls If Bodily Sufferings were all the matter were nothing but it is Mens Souls and the Interest of the Gospel which is the Sacrifice to their Wills 14. Lastly This greatly confirmed many that the Matter being a Controversie whether the Disobedience and Resistance of King or Parliament is now the Rebellion and Sin the simple People are not wiser than the States-men that differ about it How then should they better quiet their Judgments than in the Judgment of the Parliament who are the Trustees of the People and the chief Court and Council of the King and have so many Lawyers and Wife men among them and are so greatly interessed in the common Good themselves If it were but the Question Which is the King 's Governing Will which the People must obey And a
Soldier saith It is my Commission and the High Court of Parliament saith It is the Law declared in a Court of Justice a Parliament seemeth to be the properest Judge As in Controversies of Physick who is to be believed before the Colledge of Physicians Or in Controversies of Religion who before a General Council If the House of York and Lancaster â—ight for the Crown and both Command the Subjects Arms. the poor Peasants are not able to judge of their Titles And if a Parliament shall not judge for them who shall These were the Reasons which caused Men to adhere to the Parliament in this War § 55. For my own part I freely confess that I was not judicious enough in Politicks and Law to decide this Controversie which so many Lawyers and Wise men differed in And I freely confess that being astonished at the Irish Massacre and perswaded fully both of the Parliaments good endeavours for Reformation and of their real danger my Judgment of the main Cause much swayed my Judgment in the Matter of the Wars and the Arguments à fine à natureâ necessitate which common Wits are capable of discerning did too far incline my Judgment in the Cause of the War before I well understood the Arguments from our particular Laws And the Consideration of the Quality of the Parties that sided for each Cause in the Countries did greatly work with me and more than it should have done And I verily thought that if that which a Judge in Court saith sententially is Law must go for Law to the Subject as to the Decision of that Cause though the King send his Broad Seal against it then that which the Parliament saith is Law is Law to the Subjects about the Dangers of the Common-wealth whatever it be in it self and that if the King's Broad-Seal cannot prevail against the Judge much less against their Judgment I make no doubt but both Parties were to blame as it commonly falleth out in most Wars and Contentions and I will not be he that shall Justifie either of them I doubt not but the Headiness and Rashness of the younger unexperienced sort of religious People made many Parliament Men and Ministers overgo themselves to keep pace with those hot Spurs no doubt but much Indiscretion appeared and worse than Indiscretion in the tumultuous Petitioners and much Sin was committed in the dishonouring of the King and provocation of him and in the uncivil Language against the Bishops and Liturgie of the Church But these things came principally from the Sectarian separating Spirit which blew the Coals among foolish Apprentices And as the Sectaries increased so did this Insolence increase I have my self been in London when they have on the Lord's Days stood at the Church Doors while the Common Prayer was reading saying We must stay till he is out of his Pottage And such unchristian Scorns and Jests did please young inconsiderate Wits that knew not what Spirit they were of nor whither such unwarrantate things did tend Learned Mr. Iohn Ball though a Nonconformist discerned the stirrings of this insolent Sectarian Spirit betimes and fell a writing against it even then when some were crying out of Persecution and others were tender of such little Differences One or two in the House and five or six Ministers that came from Holland and a few that were scattered in the City which were the Brownists Relicts did drive on others according to their own dividing Principles and sowed the Seeds which afterward spread over all the Land though then there were very few of them in the Countreys even next to none As Bishop Hall speaks against the justifying of the Bishops so do I against justifying the Parliament Ministers or City I believe many unjustifiable things were done but I think that few Men among them all were the Doers or Instigaters of it But I then thought that whosoever was faulty the Peoples Liberties and Safety could not be forfeited And I thought that all the Subjects were not guilty of all the Faults of King or Parliament when they defended them Yea that if both their Causes had been bad as against each other yet that the Subjects should adhere to that Party which most secured the welfare of the Nation and might defend the Land under their Conduct without owning all their Cause And herein I confess I was then so zealous that I thought it a great Sin for Men that were able to defend their Country to be Neuters And I have been tempted since to think that I was a more competent Judge upon the Place when all things were before our eyes than I am in the review of those Days and Actions so many Years after when Distance disadvantageth the Apprehension A Writer against Cromwel's Decimation recanting his great Adherence to the Parliament in that War yet so abhorreth Neutrality that he likeneth him rather to a Dog than a Man that could stand by when his Country was in such a case But I confess for my part I have not such censorious Thoughts of those that then were Neuters as formerly I have had For he that either thinketh both sides raised an unlawful War or that could not tell which if either was in the right might well be excused if he defended neither I was always satisfied 1. That the Dividers of the King and Parliament were the Traitors whoever they were and that the Division tended to the Dissolution of the Government 2. And that the Authority and Person of the King were inviolable out of the reach of just Accusation Judgment or Execution by Law as having no Superiour and so no Judge 3. I favoured the Parliaments Cause as they professed 1. To bring Delinquents to a Legal Trial 2. And to preserve the Person and Government of the King by a Conjunction with his Parliament But Matters that Warrs and Blood are any way concerned in are so great and tenderly to be handled that I profess to the World that I dare not I will not justifie any thing that others or I my self have done of any such consequence But though I never hurt the Person of any Man yet I resolve to pray daily and earnestly to God that he will reveal to me whatever I have done amiss and not suffer me through Ignorance to be impenitent and would forgive me both my known and unknown Sins and cleanse this Land from the Guilt of Blood § 56. Having inserted this much of the Case of History of those Times I now proceed to the Relation of the Passages of my own Life beginning where I left When I was at Kidderminster the Parliament made an Order for all the People to take a Protestation to defend the King's Person Honour and Authority the Power and Priviledges of Parliaments the Liberties of the Subject and the Protestant Religion against the common Enemy meaning the Papists the Irish Massacre and Threatnings occasioning this Protestation I obeyed them in joyning with the Magistrate in offering
or to turn to something else which though there be some reason for it I feel cometh from a want of Zeal for the Truth and from an impatient Temper of Mind I am ready to think that People should quickly understand all in a few words and if they cannot lazily to despair of them and leave them to themselves And I the more know that it is sinful in me because it is partly so in other things even about the Faults of my Servants or other Inferiours if three or four times warning do no good on them I am much tempted to despair of them and turn them away and leave them to themselves I mention all these Distempers that my Faults may be a warning to others to take heed as they call on my self for Repentance and Watchfulness O Lord for the Merits and Sacrifice and Intercession of Christ be merciful to me a Sinner and forgive my known and unknown Sins THE LIFE OF THE REVEREND Mr. Richard Baxter LIB I. PART II. § 1. IN the Time of the late unhappy Wars in these Kingdoms the Controversies about Church Government were in most Mens mouths and made the greatest Noise being hotly agitated by States-men and Divines by Words and Writings which made it necessary to me to set my self to the most serious study of those Points The result of which was this confident and setled Judgment that of the four contending Parties the Erastian Episcopal Presbyterian and Independant each one had some Truths in peculiar which the other overlookt or took little notice of and each one had their proper Mistakes which gave advantage to their Adversaries though all of them had so much truth in common among them as would have made these Kingdoms happy if it had been unanimously and soberly reduced to practice by prudent and charitable Men. § 2. 1. The Erastians I thought were thus far in the right in asserting more fully than others the Magistrates Power in Matters of Religion that all Coercive Power by Mulcts or Force is only in their hands which is the full sence of our Oath of Supremacy and that no such Power belongeth to the Pastors or People of the Church and that thus as Dr. Ludov. Molinaeâ—â— pleadeth there should not be any Imperium in Imperio or any Coercive Power challenged by Pope Prelate Presbytery or any but by the Magistrate alone that the Pastoral Power is only Perswasive or exercised on Volunteers yet not private such as belongeth to every Man to perswade that hath a perswading Facultyâ— but Publick and Authoritative by Divine appointment And not only to perswade by Sermons or general Speeches but by particular oversight of their particular Flocks much like the Authority of Plato or Zenâ— in his School or a Master in any Academy of Volunteers or of a Physician in his Hospital supposing these were Officers of God's Institution who could as the ground of their perswasitantâ— produce his Commission or Command for what they said and did But though the Diocesans and the Presbyterians of Scotland who had Laws to enable them opposed this Doctrine or the Party at least yet I perceived that indeed it was but on the ground of their Civil Advantages as the Magistrate had impowered by them by his Laws which the Erastians did not contradict except some few of the higher 〈◊〉 sort who pleaded as the Papists for somewhat more which yet they could not themselves tell what to make of But the generality of each Party indeed owned this Doctrine and I could speak with no sober Judicious Prelatist Presbyterian or Independant but confessed that no Secular or Forcing Power belonged to any Pastors of the Church as such and unless the Magistrates authorized them as his Officers they could not touch mens Bodies or Estates but the Conscience alone which can be of none but of Assenters § 3. 2. The Episcopal Party seemed to have reason on their side in 〈◊〉 that in the Primitive Church there were some Apostles Evangelists and others who were general unfixed Officers of the Church not tyed to any particular Chaâ—ge and had some Superiority some of them â—â—over-fixed Bishops or Pastors And though the extraordinary Parts of the Apostles Office ceased with them I saw no proof of the Cessation of any ordinary part of their Office such as Church Government is confessed to be All the doubt that I saw in this was Whether the Apostles themselves were constituted Governours of other Pastors or only over-ruled them by the Eminency of their Gifts and Priviledge of Infallibility For it seemed to me unmeet to affirm without proof that Christ setled a Form of Government in his Church to endure only for one Age and changed it for a New one when that Age was ended And as to fixed Bishops of particular Churches that were Superiours in degree to Presbyters though I saw nothing at all in Scripture for them which was any whit cogent yet I saw that the Reception of them in all the Churches was so timely even in the days of one of the Apostles in some Churches and so general that I thought it a most improbable thing that if it had been contrary to the Apostles mind we should never read that they themselves or any one of their Disciples that conversed with them no nor any Christian or Heretick in the World should once speak or write a word against it till long after it was generally setled in the Curches This therefore I resolved never to oppose § 4. 3. And as for the Presbyterians I found that the Office of Preaching Presbyters was allowed by all that deserve the Name of Christians and that this Office did participate subserviently to Christ of the Prophetical or Teaching the Priestly or worshipping and the Governing Power and that both Scripture Antiquity and the perswasive Nature of Church Government clearly shew that all Presbyters were Church Governours as well as Church Teachers and that to deny this was to destroy the Office and to endeavour to destroy the Churches And I saw in Scripture Antiquity and Reason that the Association of Pastors and Churches for Agreement and their Synods in Cases of Necessity are a plain duty and that their ordinary stated Synods are usually very convenient And I saw that in England the Persons which were called Presbyterians were emiment for Learning Sobriety and Piety and the Pastors so called were they that went through the Work of the Ministry in diligent serious preaching to the People and edifying Mens Souls and keeping up Religion in the Land § 5. 4. And for the Independants I saw that most of them were Zealous and very many Learned discreet and godly Men and fit to be very serviceable in the Church And I found in the search of Scripture and Antiquity that in the beginning a Governed Church and a stated worshipping Church were all one and not two several things And that though there might be other byâ—Meetings in places like our Chappels or private Houses
without grand Sacriledge and Prophaneness although by Corruption of Persons and Times they have been either superstitiously abused or too prophanely employed but rather to reduce them to their primitive Use and Donation 18. Whether the ancient Fasting Days of the Week and Festivals of the Church setled both by Provincial Synods in the Year 1562. and 1640. and confirmed by the then Regal Power and also by several Statutes and Laws ought not by all persons in Conscience to be still observed until they be abrogated by the like Powers again or how far the Liberty of Conscience therein may be used in observing or not observing them the like for the usage of the Cross in Baptism and the humble posture of Kneeling at the receiving of the blessed Sacrament of the Lord's Supper 19. Which way of security and peace of Conscience may a quiet Christian order and dispose himself his Wife Children and Family in his Duty and Service towards God and enjoy the right use and benefit of the Sacraments and other holy Duties as long as that part of the Catholick Church wherein he lives is under persecution and the visible Ruling Church therein is faln Schismatical if not in many particulare Heretical April 20th 1655. May 14th 1655. An Answer to the foregoing Questions sent to Sir R. Clare Ad Quest. 1m. EIther that Conscience owneth the right Religion and Discipline only or the right with some tolerable accidental Errours or a wrong Religion and Discipline in the Substance The first the Magistrate must not only tolerate but promote The second he must tolerate rather than do worse by suppressing it The third he must suppress by all lawful means and tolerate when he cannot help it without a greater Evil. I suppose no Judicious Man will expect an exact Solution of so Comprehensive a Question in few words And I find not that a large Discussion is now expected from me There are four or five Sheets of my Manuscripts in some hands abroad on this Point which may do more towards a satisfactory Solution than these few words Ad 2m. Either the tender Conscience is in the right or in the wrong If in the wrong the Magistrates Liberty will not make a Sin to be no Sin but the Party is bound by God to rectifie his Judgment and thereby his Practice If in the right it is a strange Question Whether a Man may obey God that hath the Magistrates leave till he be enforced by Mens violence Doth any doubt of it Ad 3m. Matter of Government depending only on Fact is a Contradiction Seeing Government consisteth in a Right and the Exercise of it I am not able therefore to understand this Question Yet if this may afford any help toward the Solution I affirm That the general and perpetual practice of the Church from Age to Age of a thing not forbidden by the Word of God will warrant our imitation I say of a thing not forbidden because it hath been the general and perpetual practice of the Church to Sin by vain Thoughts Words imperfect Duties c. wherein our imitation is not warrantable The general and perpetual practice includeth the Apostles and that Age. But what is meant by Evidencing the Right of a thing that dependeth only of Fact or by Evidencing the Truth and Certainty of a Fact by general and perpetual practice which is to prove idem per idem I will not presume that I understand Ad 4m. I know not what Bishops you mean A Congregational Bishop overseeing the People is undoubtedly lawful so is a Congregational Bishop being President of a Presbytery which is over that Congregation Where many Congregational Officers are associated I do not think that a President for a time or during his fitness standing and fixed is unlawful The like I may say of a President of many of those Associations again associated as in a Province or Diocess And I believe it were a very easie work for wise godly moderate men to agree about his Power And I would not seem so censorious as to proclaim that England wanteth such further than the actual want of such Agreement or just endeavours thereto doth proclaim it I am satisfied also that the Apostles themselves have de jure Successors in all that part of their work which is to be perpetuated or continued till now though not in their extraordinary Endowments and Priviledges But if the sence of your Question be Whether one Man may be the standing chief Governour of many particular Churches with their Officers having either sole power of Ordination and Jurisdiction as some would have or a Negative Voice in both as others it would seem great arrogancy in me to be the confident Determiner of such a Question which so wise learned godly sober Men have said so much of on both sides already Ad 5m. 1. He that knows how short Church History is in these Matters for the first Age after the Apostles at least and hath read impartially what Gersom Bucerus Parker Blondellus Salmasius Altare Damascen have said on one side and Saravia Downham Dr. Hammond c. on the other would sure never expect that I should presume to pass any confident Sentence in the Point And it 's like he would be somewhat moderate himself 2. I say as before I know not what you mean by Bishops I am confident that the Church was not of many Hundred years after Christ governed as ours was lately in England by a Diocesan Bishop and a Chancellor excluding almost all the Presbyters 3. Why do you say Since the Apostles days when you before spoke of the General and perpetual practice of the Church Ad 6m. The word National Church admits of divers sences As it was usually understood in England I think there was none for divers hundred years after Christ either governed by Bishops or without them They that will look after the most encouraging Presidents must look higher than National Churches Ad 7m. The Question seems not to mean any particular truly-schismatical Party of Ministers but the generality that live not under the Bishops and so I answer negatively waiting for the Accusers proof Ad 8m. 1. I know not what the Oath of Canonical Obedience is therefore cannot give a full Answer I know multitudes of Ministers ordained by Bishops that never took any such Oath 2. The Powers that violently took down the Bishops were the Secular Powers None else could use violence And it were a strange Oath for a Man to swear that he would never obey the Secular Powers if they took down the Bishops when the Holy Ghost would have us obey Heathen Persecutors 3. If it were so great a Sin to obey those Powers I conceive it must be so to the Laity as well as the Ministry And I knew but few of the Episcopal Gentry or others called to it that did refuse to take the Engagement to be true and faithful to that Power when the Presbyters here accused durst not take it
4. Most Presbyters that I know do perform all Ecclesiastical Matters upon supposition of a Divine Direction and not upon the Command of Humane Powers Ad 9m. The Ordination of meer Presbyters is not null and the Presbyters so ordained now in England are true Presbyters as I am ready to maintain But wait for the Accuser's proof of the nullity Ad 10m. 1. This calls me to decide the Controversie about the late Wars which I find not either necessary or convenient for me to undertake 2. The like I must say of deciding the Legality of Inductions and Admissions 3. If a worthy Man be cast out had you rather that God's Worship were neglected and the People perished for lack of Teaching then any other Man should be set over them though one that had no hand in casting him out Must the People needs have him or none as long as he lives Was it so when Bishops were cast out heretofore by Emperours or Councils I think may take the Guidance of a destitute People so I hinder not a worthy Man from recovering his Right 4. I never desired that any should be Excluded but the Unworthy the Insufficient or Scandalous or grosly Negligent And I know but too few of the Ejected that are not such And this Question doth modestly pass over their Case or else I should have said somewhat more to the Matter Ad 11m. 1. It is a necessary Christian Duty to see that we do not the least Evil for our own safety And all God's Ordinances must be maintained as far as we can But as I before disclaimed the Arrogance of determining the Controversie about our Diocesan Episcopacy so I think not every Legal Right of the Church which it hath by Man's Law nor every thing in our Liturgy to be worthy so stiff a maintenance as to the loss of Life nor the loss of Peace Nor did the late King think so who would have let go so much But I think that they that did this carnally for Self-interest and Ends did grievously sin whether the thing it self were good or bad especially if they went against their Consciences 2. I think there is no unlawful Prayers or Service now offered to God in the Church ordinarily where I have had opportunity to know it And I think we pray for the same things in the main as we were wont to do and offer God the same Service And that Mr. Ball and others against the Separatists have sufficiently proved that it is no part of the Worship but an Accident of it-self indifferent that I use These Words or Those a Book or no Book a Form premeditated or not And no Separatist hath yet well answered them Ad 12m. Such as you described you can hardly know and therefore not knowingly scruple their Communion for a Man's ends and knowledge are out of your sight You can hardly tell who did this against Knowledge and Conscience carnally for Self interest But if you mean it of your ordinary Ministers and Congregations I am past doubt that you are Schismatical if not worse you avoid the Assemblies and Ordinances mentioned upon such Accusations and Suppositions And I shall much easier prove this than you will make good your Separation Ad 13m. Permitting you to suppose Orthodox and Episcoparian to be the same at present you may easily know that the Episcopal are not all of a Mind but differ I think much more among themselves than the moderate Episcopal and Presbyterians differ some maintaining that the Ordination of meer Presbyters is not null with divers the like things which the novel sort doth disclaim The old Episcopal Protestant may not only take a Cure of Souls now without any Contradiction to his Principles but may comfortably Associate with the peaceable Ministry of the Land and may not conscionably avoid it The Novel sort before mentioned ought to rectifie their mistakes and so to take up their duty but as they are I see not how they can do it in consistency with their Principles unless under the Jurisdiction of a Bishop Ad 14m. For the Point of the legality of the Liturgy you call me to determine Cases in Law which I find my self unfit for And for the Directory its Nature is according to its Name not to impose Words or Matter nor bind by human Authority but to direct Men how to understand God's Word concerning the Ordering of his Worship Now either it directeth us right or wrong If wrong we must not follow such Directions If right it 's no unlawful disturbance of the Churches Peace to obey God's Word upon their Direction Circumstances wherein some place most of their Government they very little meddle with And indeed I know but few that do much in the order of Worship eo Nomine because it is so in the Directory but because they think it most agreeable to God's Word or most tending to Concord as things now stand Would you have us avoid any Scripture or orderly Course meerly because it is expressed in the Directory And think you those are Ways of Peace Ad 15m. I think on the Credit of others that the Jewish Church had a Liturgy I am sure they had Forms of Praises and Prayer in some Cases I know Christ taught his Disciples the Lord's Prayer I will not determine whether as a Directory for Matter and Order or whether as a Form of Words to be used or when or how oft used I conjecture you regard the Judgment of Grotius who saith in Matt. 6. 9. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In hunc Sensum Non enim praecipit Christus verba recitari quod nec legimus Apostolos fecisse quanquam id quoque fieri cum fructu potest sed materiam precum hinc promere i.e. Pray thus that is to this Sense For Christ doth not command the saying of the Words nor do we read that the Apostles did it though that also may profitably be done but hence to fetch the Matter of Prayer You know the Directory adviseth the use of the Words And how it was that Iohn taught his Disciples to pray I cannot tell nor will herein pretend my self wiser than I am The Example of the Primitive Church is never the more imitable for the Cessation of Persecution and its Example before is most to be regarded that being purest that is next the Fountain We are sure that the Church long used extemporate Prayers and its probable betimes some Forms withal I think they are strangely Dark and addicted to Extreams that think either that no Forms are lawful or that only prescribed or premiditated Forms are lawful And if you will condemn all publick extemporate Prayers you will err as grosly as they that will have no other Ad 16m. I know no necessity of any Godfather or Godmother beside the Parents unless you will call those so that in case of their necessary Absence are their Delegates Nor do I know that ordinarily among us any Dictates or Prayers are used that
Removal 3. Let divers of these Classes meet once or twice a year in a Provincial Assembly and let the fittest Man in the Province be their standing President Hitherto there is no Concession on the Presbyterian side but that the President pro tempore be turned to a standing President nor any on the Episcopal side but that most necessary one that every Presbyter be acknowledged a Church Guide and not a meer Preacher 4. Let it be left to each Man's Conscience whether the President be called by the Name of Bishop President Superintendent Moderator c. seeing a Name is no meet Reason of a Breach 5. Let no Man be forced to express his Judgment de Iure whether the President have a Negative Voice in Ordination or Excommunication nor whether he be distinct in order or only in degree seeing it is not the unonimous and right belief concerning these things that is of Necessity for then they must have been in our Creed but the unanimous and right practice But let all agree that they will joyn in these Classical and Provincial Assemblies and then only Ordain and that they will not Ordain but when the President is one unless in case of flat necessity which is never like to befal us if this way be taken My Question now is Whether the godly moderate Episcopal and Presbyterian Divines on supposition that they can at present come no nearer to each other may not and ought not thus far to close and thus live in Christian Love and Unity seeing that we are bound to Concord in Practice so far as we agree in Judgment and seeing that if any nearer Closure be yet necessary in such United Bodies and Amicable Associations Assemblies and Correspondencies its most likely to be attained this way and indeed no other that I can as yet discern These Terms I once propounded to one most Reverend Prelate now near you who told me That with moderate Men they might suffice for an Union If you are of the same Judgment I should have the stronger hopes and if you are not I shall the sooner let them fall Were your leisure such as to admit of further trouble I would crave a word for the Resolution of my own Judgment in these Points 1. I am satisfied that the Apostles have Successors in all those Works that are of standing Necessity and that Church-Government is one of those Works and that its improbable that Christ should settle one Species of Church-Government in the Apostles Hands for an Age and then change it for ever after and that they that affirm such a Change must prove it and this Argument sticks close But then I would crave one of your strongest Arguments to prove though I know that the Presbyterians grant it that indeed the Apostles had a power by Office to Govern the Seventy or the Presbyters as inferiour Officers besides the power that they had by the meer interest of their Gifts and priviledge of being Eye-witnesses of the Works of Christ and Ear-witnesses of his Word 2. If the Apostles Examples will prove the Right of an unfixed Ambulatory Episcopacy yet I would see how it appears that ever they were fixed to particular Churches or ever any of them had a distinct and limited Diocess where the rest had not Charge as well as they 3. I am satisfied that very early after the Apostles the common Government of each Church was by a Bishop and Presbytery but I can yet see no Evidence that this Church for 150 or 200 Years was any more than one Congregation like one of our Parishes for number of People which was Congregate in a City and from the Circumjacent Villages as our Independant or Anabaptist Churches now are while the Multitude were Infidels I would therefore crave one clear Proof that the first fixed Bishops ruled any more standing Congregations having ordinary Assemblies and Communion in the Lord's Supper than one only And whether the multiplying of Believers did not make a real Change of the former Species of Government while the Bishop of the City took on him the Government of many Particular Churches who had but one before and when Bishops should have been multiplied as fast as Churches were and as Presbyters were Some Passages in the eldest Writers incline me to these Thoughts of which if they be wrong your Correction will be most acceptable May I crave if not your Solution of all these Doubts yet at least your Advice in the first Case of Practice and your Pardon of my Boldness I shall under great Obligations remain A humble Reverencer of your great Abilities and Dignity Rich. Baxter Kiderminster in Worcestershire June 8. 1655. If you return any thing Mr. Underhill at the Anchor and Bible in Paul's Church-yard will convey it me To the very Reverend and much Honoured Dr. Brownrigg Bishop of Exeter These Whereto the Bishop made this short Reply Worthy Sir I Have received your kind and â—â—â—â—teous Letter the Evidence of your very pioâ—â— and peaceable Spirit which I heartily desire may be a Provocation to others to lead them into the ways of Peace Sir Your Esteem of me and of my Abilities is the Errour of your Love and of those that have represented me to you in too great a Character quod non humiliter tantùm sed veraciter dico only I shall desire to be serviceable to God and his Church in what I am able Your Letter came to my hands at the time of my removal from Highgate into the Country here I have continued many Months suffering the trouble and pain of the Stone which which hath put me into a long and tedious Course of Physick Now I am upon my Iourney homewards from whence God willing I will write to you being truly sensible of your Religious Endeavours for so good a Work as the Composing of those woful Rents made in this Church The God of Truth and Peace guide us into the Ways of Truth and Peace to whose Grace and Blessing I do heartily recommend you resting SIR Your very respectful Friend who embraceth your Love and returns his to you very heartily Ra. Exon. Highgate July 3. 1655. And not long after I received this Answer Worthy Sir I Am indebted to you for an Answer to your Inquiries which I received from you It should have been more speedy but in truth I brought from London my crasie and ill-affected Body which since my coming home hath bred me much pain of the Stone and taken up my time in suffering those Distempers and using the Remedies prescribed to me I have now sent you my Thoughts which I doubt not but you will receive as candidly as I impart them to you The Age is quarrelsome but I apprehend you as one of a peaceable Spirit aiming only at the Settlement of our unhappy Distractions The God of Peace compose all our hearts to Peace and make the Rents of our Church to be the Matter of our chief Compassion Charitas Ecclesiae
Power that they had by the meer Interest of their Gifts and Priviledge of being Eye Witnesses of the Works of Christ and Ear Witnesses of his Words Answ. 7. The extraordinary Gifts of the Apostles and the Priviledge of being Eye and Ear Witnesses to Christ were Abilities which they had for the infallible Discharge of their Function but they were not the Ground of their Power and Authority to govern the Church That the Seventy and so other Presbyters were inferior to the Apostles and under their Government doth appear to me though at their first sending by Christ they were immediately subject to Christ the Apostles not being then established in the Government of the Church but when Christ authorised his Apostles with the Power of Government Potestas Clavium was committed to them only not to the Seventy and so we must conceive that the Colledge of Apostles were invested with the Government of the Church and the Seventy not having the Keys committed to them were under the Authority of the Apostles and so were Presbyters to the Apostles Successors Prop. 3. If the Apostles Example will prove the right of an unfixed ambulatory Episcopacy yet I would see how it appears that ever they were fixed to particular Charges or ever any of them had a distinct and limited Diocess where the rest had not Charge as well as they Answ. 8. I conceive the Apostles as Apostles had an unlimited and as you call it an unfixed ambulatory Episcopacy being sent into the whole World and not by Christ's Institution confined to any one fixed Seat but yet that hinders not but that by Consent and Agreement among themselves they might have a Distribution of their several Circuits as it is seen in the Agreement between St. Peter and St. Paul which as it did not exclude their original Power over all Churches so it did accommodate them to a more opportune Discharge of their Function and accordingly they setled their Successors in those Places not committing to them an universal Jurisdiction which was a Personal Priviledge of their Apostleship Prop. 4. I am satisfied that very early after the Apostles the common Government of each Church was by a Bishop and Presbytery but yet I can see no Evidence that this Church for 150 or 200 Years was any more than one Congregation like one of our Parishes for Number of People which was congregated in a City and from the circumjacent Villages as our Independant or Anabaptist Churches now are while the Multitude were Infidels I would therefore crave any clear Proof that the first fixed Bishops ruled any more standing Congregations having ordinarily Assemblies and Communion in the Lord's Supper than one only and whether the multiplying of Believers did not make a real Change of the former Species of Government while the Bishop of the City took on him the Government of many particular Churches who had but one before and whether Bishops should not have been multiplied as fast as Churches were and Presbyters were Answ. 9. That the Government of the Churches was not only Vicatim but Regionatim appears by those Deputies and Successors which the Apostles constituted in particular Titus is authorised to ordain and govern not one Parish but the many Churches in Crete That those primitive Bishops did employ their ordinary Function of Preaching and adminstring the Sacrament in their City of Residence may well be granted which hinders not but that they might have Inspection into the circumjacent Villages for ordaining of Presbyters and other Administrations of Government and what needed a Colledge of Presbyters residing in the City with the Bishop if they were not sent out by him to officiate in those Villages adjacent as the Number of Believers required not did the multiplying of Believers in the adjacent places require several Bishops in several Congregations independent on the City Bishop but the ordinary Discharge of those Places was committed to them in Subordination to the City-Bishop and Presbyters there assembled as occasion required In this Case it fared with the Church as in Philosophy they say it is in the matter of Nutrition and Augmentation where the form is not multiplied but only extended ad novam materiam These Answers not changing my Judgment I made the following Notes upon them Ad 1. Every Church Primae magnitudinis speciei should be as great and no greater than is capable of PERSONAL Communion as our greater Parishes and every such Church had of old a Bishop One Altar and one Bishop was Ignatius's Note of one Church and such a one may maintain divers Ministers and the Rich should not burden the Church for maintenance but help freely Ad 2. This is a President of a Synod of Bishops Ad 3. I thank you for granting Presbyters to be Church-Rectors Ad 4. If he be but a President he is but a Bishop Primi Ordinis of one Church as the rest But if he be the stated Rector of many Churches he is really an Archbishop Ad 5. This was written when our Diocesane Frame was taken down to reconcile them that were for and them that were against such Bishops pro tempore If you take liberty to cast off the Example of Cyprian's times on pretence that the Case is altered by the Kings Laws then you will never know where to rest while Laws are alterable Qu. Whether the Practice of the Church till Cyprian's time be not a probable Notice to us what was the Apostolical instituted Government If not why use you the Argument of Antiquity for Episcopacy If yea Qu. Whether Rulers may alter the Apostolick Institution and the Office and work of Presbyters may be changed on pretence that now Bishops can do it without them He that ever tryed true Discipline will find one Parish big enough for one Man's or divers Mens right Performance of it and Six hundred or a Thousand Parishes too many Alas do you think it Lawful to ordain insufficient unmeet Men if the Law of the Land so command you what then are Christ's Laws for Ad. 6. Here I granted you the major of your grand Argument for Episcopacy Ad 7. The Apostles Superiority of Power I deny not but that the Power of the Keys was given to the Apostles only I deny If Christ immediately gave it to no other yet by his Spirit he did and by the Church-Law which he left to be the Instrument of continued conveyance and Title by which the Apostles were to invest others with that Power which the Schoolmen ordinarily acknowledge to belong to Presbyters as such who may use them to the People Ad 8. 1. De facto it is no where proved truly that the Twelve or Thirteen Apostles did by consent limit their Provinces But contrarily that they Officiated together at Ierusalem and Peter if at Rome as some think he was and Paul in the same Diocess at Rome c. and Paul and Iohn at Ephesus and Timothy also as is said 2. If they had this had been
by Laws 6. If there be Bishops in the Church sure they must have the superintendent Care and so Power over the whole Flock Presbyters and People yet so that for the Exercise of it they intrust to the Rector of each Parish with what shall be found necessary for the Souls of the People in daily Administration 7. I cannot think it meet that the 39 Articles which are the Hedge between us and the Papacy should be removed and Articles in bare Scriptureâ—terms substituted in their room unless by this means the Papacy receding also an universal Peace might be hoped which is a thing beyond our Prospect That no more Articles be added to clog our Communion is very reasonable That any of these established are excepted against by those in Relation to whom we now consider is more than I have heard 8. For the not removing any Minister but upon weighty Cause and not punishing Offenders by other than Ecclesiastical Censures leaving the rest to the Civil Magistrate I see no matter of Debate between us R. B.'s Reply THE Strictures returned instead of Abatements for Accommodation refer almost all the Matters in Difference to the Civil Magistrate We know that whoever is in possession of the Magistracy will be the Judge of his own Actions and give us Laws according to his Judgment Our Motion is not for Divines to do any of the Magistrates Work But when Magistrates against Episcopacy are up we would have Divines endeavour in their places to draw them from injuring the Brethren that are for Episcopacy And when Magistrates that are for Episcopacy are up we would have Divines endeavour in their places to draw them from injuring the Brethren that cannot comply with it any nearer than on the fore-expressed Terms And that the Party that is still under might not be look upon and used as a Sect and Division might not be cherished among us we much rather desire an Accommodation than a Toleration that we may be but one Bodyâ— and stick together whatever Changes come To this end we first desire that our Rule for Doctrine Discipline and Worship be such as may serve for an Universal Concord and next that we may be secured from Encroachments on our just Liberty and such Impositions besides or above the Rule as we know will cause Divisions and Persecutions That which we desire to these Ends from the Divines to whom we offer our Proposals is that they will express their own Desire that so much may be granted by the Magistrate as they find meet to be granted and agreeing on the fittest Terms among themselves will profess and promise their faithful Endeavours in their Places and Capacities to procure the Concession and Approbation of these Terms from the Magistrate And this any single person may to prepare for a further Communication consider of and consent unto viz. to improve his Interest to these Ends. Now to the Particulars 1. We desire that you will profess your Judgment and promise your just Endeavours in your place that no Laws may be made or continued that are contrary to these Christian Duties and I know of none such existent And then we consent that all Persons be responsible for their Miscarriages 2. This is the chief of our Desires that you will profess your desire and promise your endeavour in your place that the power mentioned in the eighth Article may by Law be granted to the Rectors of each Parish we suppose that their Office is of Divine Institution and therefore that Magistrates may not change it what is by Law established the Possessors of the Government will still be Judges of Did we believe that the Pastors of particular Churches are not of Divine Institution unchangeable by Man or that Diocesan Bishops could exercise Christ's Discipline over so many hundred Parishes so that it would not certainly be cast out by their undertaking it we would not have insisted on this Article but yield that Rectorsâ— shall never Rule 3. We might hope that the Ceremonies might be left indifferent and so there might be no Divisions about them As we find it now by Experience in our Assemblies in the singing of Psalms the Gesture is left indifferent and there is no trouble about it So in many places the Sacrament Gesture is left indifferent and one kneeleth and another standeth and another sitteth and there is no disturbance about it but Custom having taken off their Prejudice they have the Charity to bear with one another And some Congregations sing one Version of the Psalms and some another and though Uniformity in that be much more desirable than in a Cross or Surplice or Kneeling at Receiving the Eucharist yet there is no disturbance among us about it And when our Unity is not laid upon our Uniformity in these unnecessary things we shall not be necessitated to persecute one another about them nor to make Sects by our Toleration of Dissenters And doubtless if your Toleration be of all that profess Tenderness of Conscience in these Points you will find such abundance of godly Men avoid your Ceremonies and accept of your Toleration that you will think your selves necessitated to persecute them as dishonouring you and discouraging Uniformity by their dissent But if you tolerate some and not others that can lay the same claim to it your partiality will quickly break all into pieces We are certain that leaving these unnecessary things at liberty to be used only by those that will is the way to Unity But if this cannot be attained we shall be glad of a Toleration in our Publick Charges 4. The Patron 's Right of Nomination may be preserved though the Communicants have their Consent preserved without which none is to be obtruded on them Though in case of unreasonable refusal of fit men much means may be used by Church-Officers and Magistrates to bring them to consent But how can People be governed in the Worship of God and in a Holy Life by any Pastor without their own consent 5. The multiplying of Bishops is in our Account the making Discipline become possible that else is not to any purpose And though our own Judgment be that every Parish that is great should have a Bishop and Presbytery yet we yield to you for Concord and Peace that there be a Bishop and Presbytery in every City that is Corporation or Market-Town and these as is expressed in the Articles to have one in every County or Diocess to whom they shall be responsible We desire only the profession of your Consent to this Change and promise of your promoting it in your place by just means that so our Differences may be ended But if this cannot be granted and no particular Pastors tolerated to exercise Discipline in their own Parishes but all must be done by the Bishop and his Court we must take it as equipollent to this Conclusion Discipline shall be cast out of the Churches And then we have no hopes of the healing of our
Judgment of the most Learned even of those Churches that have not retained them Every National Church being supposed to be the best and most proper Judge what is fittest for themselves to appoint in order to Decency and Edification without prescribing to other Churches § 24. That the Ceremonies have been Matter of Contention in this or any other Church was not either from the Nature of the Thing enjoyned or the enjoyning of the same by lawful Authority but partly from the weakness of some Men's Judgments unable to search into the Reason of Things and partly from the unsubduedness of some Mens Spirits more apt to contend than willing to submit their private Opinions to the Publick Judgment of the Church § 25. Of those that were obnoxious to the Law very few in comparison have been deprived and none of them for ought we know but such as after admonition and long forbearance finally refused to do what not only the Laws required to be done but themselves also formerly had solemnly and as they prosessed willingly promised to do § 26. We do not see with what Conscience any Man could leave the Exercise of his Ministry in his peculiar Charge for not submitting to lawful Authority in the using of such things as were in his own Judgment no more than inexpedient only And it is certainly a great mistake at the least to call the submitting to Authority in such things a bringing the Conscience under the power of them § 27. The Separation that hath been made from the Church was from the tâ—king a Scandal where none was given The Church having fully declared her sence touching the Ceremonies imposed as Things not in their Nature necessary but indifferent But was chiefly occasioned by the Practice and defended from the Principles of those that refused Conformity to the Law the just Rule and Measure of the Churches Unity § 28. The Nature of Things being declared to be mutable sheweth that they may therefore be changed as they that are in Authority shall see it expedient but it is no proof at all that it is therefore expedient that it should be actually changed Yet it 's a sufficient Caution against the Opinion or Objection rather of their being held by the Imposers either necessary or Substantials of Worship Besides this Argument if it were of any force would infer an expediency of the often changing even of good Laws whereas the Change of Laws although liable to some Inconveniencies without great and evident necessity hath been by Wise men ever accounted a thing not only Imprudent but of evil and sometimes pernicious Consequence § 29. We fully agree with them in the acknowledgment of the King's Supremacy but we leave it to his Majesty's Prudence and Goodness to consider whether for the avoiding of the offence of some of his weak Subjects he be any way obliged to Repeal the Established Laws the Repealing whereof would be probably dissatisfactory to many more and those so far as we are able to judge no less considerable a part of his Subjects Nor do we conceive his Majesty by the Apostle's either Doctrine or Example obliged to any farther Condescention to particular Persons than may be subservient to the general and main Ends of Publick Government The Lord hath entrusted Governours to provide not only thà t Things necessary in God's Worship be duly performed but also that things advisedly enjoyned though not otherways necessary should be orderly and duly observed The too great neglect whereof would so cut the Sinews of Authority that it would become first infirm and then contemptible As we are no way against such tender and religious Compassion in Things of this Nature as his Majesty's Piety and Wisdom shall think fit to extend so we cannot think that the Satisfaction of some private Persons is to be laid in the Balance against the Publick Peace and Uniformity of the Church Concerning particular Ceremonies § 30. It being most convenient that in the Act of receiving the Lord's Supper one and the same Gesture should be uniformly used by all the Members of this Church and Kneeling having been formerly enjoined and used therein as a Gesture of greatest Reverence and Devotion and so most agreeable to that Holy Service And Holy-days of human Institution having been observed by the People of God in the Old-Testament and by our blessed Saviour himself in the Gospel and by all the Churches of Christ in Primitive and following times as apt means to preserve the Memorials of the chief Mysteries of the Christian Religion And such Holy-days being also fit times for the honest Recreation of Servants Labourers and the meaner sort of People For these Reasons and the great Satisfaction of far the greatest part of the People we humbly desire as a thing in our Judgment very expedient that they may both be still continued in the Church § 31. As for the other Three Ceremonies viz. the Surplice Cross after Baptism and bowing at the Name of Jesus although we find not here any sufficient Reason alledged why they should be utterly abolished Nevertheless how far forth in regard of tender Consciences a Liberty may be thought fit to be indulged to any his Majesty according to his great Wisdom and Goodness is best able to judge § 32. But why they that confess that in the Judgment of all the things here mentioned are not to be valued with the Peace of the Church should yet after they are established by Law disturb the Peace of the Church about them we understand not § 33. We heartily desire that no Innovations should be brought into the Church or Ceremonies which have no foundation in the Laws of the Land imposed to the disturbance of the Peace thereof But that all Men would use that Liberty that is allowed them in things indifferent according to the Rules of Christian Prudence Charity and Moderation § 34. We are so far from believing that his Majesty's Condescending to these Demands will take away not only Differences but the Roots and Causes of them that we are confident it will prove the Seminary of new Differences both by giving dissatisfaction to those that are well pleased with what is already established who are much the greater part of his Majesty's Subjects and by encouraging unquiet Spirits when these things shall be granted to make further Demands There being no assurance by them given what will content all Dissenters than which nothing is more necessary for the setling of a firm Peace in the Church A Defence of our Proposals to his Majesty for Agreement in Matters of Religion Concerning the Preamble § 1. WE are not insensible of the great Danger of the Church through the Doctrinal Errours of many of those with whom we are at difference also about the Points of Government and Worship now before us But yet we chose to say of the Party that we are agreed in Doctrinals because they subscribe the same Holy Scriptures and Articles of Religion and Books
passion or prejudice give us such a further assistance towards a perfect Union of Affections as well as Submission to Authority as is necessary And we are the rather induced to take this upon us by finding upon the full Conference we have had with the Learned Men of several Perswasions that the Mischiefs under which both the Church and State do at present suffer do not result from any formed Doctrine or Conclusion which either Party maintains or avows but from the Passion and Appetite and Interest of particular Persons who contract greater Prejudice to each other from those Affections than would naturally arise from their Opinions and those Distempers must be in some degree allayed before the Meeting in a Synod can be attended with better Success than their Meeting in other places and their Discourses in Pulpits have hitherto been and till all thoughts of Victory are laid aside the humble and necessary Thoughts for the vindication of Truth cannot be enough entertained We must for the Honour of all those of either Perswasion with whom we have conferred declare That the Professions and Desires of all for the Advancement of Piety and true Godliness are the same their Professions of Zeal for the Peace of the Church the same of Affection and Duty to us the same They all approve Episcopacy They all approve a Set-From of Liturgy And they disapprove and dislike the Sin of Sacriledge and the Alienation of the Revenue of the Church And if upon these excellent Foundations in Submission to which there is such a Harmony of Affections any Super-structures should be raised to the shaking those Foundations and to the contracting and lessening the blessed Gift of Charity which is a Vital part of Christian Religion we shall think our self very unfortunate and even suspect that we are defective in that Administration of Government with which God hath intrusted us We need not profess the high Affection and Esteem we have for the Church of England as it is established by Law the Reverence to which hath supported us with Gods Blessing against many Temptations Nor do we think that Reverence in the least degree diminished by our Condescensions not peremptorily to insist upon some Particulars of Ceremony which however introduced by the Piety and Devotion and Order of former Times may not be so agreeable to the present but may even lessen that Piety and Devotion for the improvement whereof they might happily be first introduced and consequently may well be dispensed with And we hope this Charitable compliance of ours will dispose the Minds of all Men to a chearful Submission to that Authority the preservation whereof is so necessary for the Unity and Peace of the Church and that they will acknowledge the Support of the Episcopal Authority to be the best Support of Religion by being the best means to contain the Minds of Men within the Rules of Government And they who would restrain the Exercise of that holy Function within the Rules which were observed in the Primitive Times must remember and consider that the Ecclesiastical Power being in those blessed Times always subordinate and subject to the Civil it was likewise proportioned to such an Extent of Jurisdiction as was agreeable to that And as the Sanctity and Simplicity and Resignation of that Age did then refer many things to the Bishops which the Policy of succeeding Ages would not admit at least did otherwise provide for so it can be no Reproach to Primitive Episcopacy if where there have been great Alterations in the Civil Government from what was then there have been likewise some Difference and Alteration in the Ecclesiastical the Essence and Foundation being still preserved And upon this Ground without out taking upon us to Censure the Government of the Church in other Countries where the Government of the State is different from what it is here or enlarging our self upon the Reasons why whilst there was an Imagination of Erecting a Democratical Government here in the State they should not be willing to continue an Aristocratical Government in the Church it shall suffice to say That since by the wonderful Blessing of God the Hearts of this whole Nation are returned to an Obedience to Monarchique Government in the State it must be very reasonable to Support that Government in the Church which is established by Law and which with the Monarchy hath flourished through so many Ages and which is in truth as ancient in this Island as the Christian Monarchy thereof and which hath always in some respects or degrees been enlarged or restrained as hath been thought most conducing to the Peace and Happiness of the Kingdom and therefore we have not the least doubt but the present Bishops will think the present Concessions now made by us to allay the present Distempers very just and reasonable and will very chearfully Conform themselves thereunto 1. We do in the first place declare That as the present Bishops are known to be Men of Great and Exemplary Piety in their Lives which they have manifested in their notorious and unexampled Sufferings during these late Distempers and of great and known Sufficiency of Learning so we shall take special Care by the Assistance of God to prefer no Men to that Office and Charge but Men of Learning Vertue and Piety who may be themselves the best Examples to those who are to be Governed by them and we shall expect and provide the best we can that the Bishops be frequent Preachers and that they do very often preach themselves in some Church of their Diocess except they be hindered by Sickness or other bodily Infirmities or some other justifiable occasion which shall not be thought justifiable if it be frequent 2. If any Diocess shall be thought of too large an Extent we will appoint Suffragan Bishops for their Assistance 3. No Bishop shall Ordain or Exercise any part of Jurisdiction which appertains to the Censures of the Church without the Advice of the Presbyters and no Chancellour shall exercise any Act of Spiritual Jurisdiction 4. As the Dean and Chapters are the most proper Council and Assistants of the Bishop both in Ordination and for the other Offices mentioned before so we shall take care that those Preferments be given to the most Learned and Pious Presbyters of the Diocess that thereby they may be always at hand and ready to advise and assist the Bishop And moreover That some other of the most Learned Pious and Discreet Presbyters of the same Diocess as namely the Rural Deans or others or so many of either as shall be thought fit and are nearest be called by the Bishop to be present and assistant together with those of the Chapter at all Ordinations and at all other Solemn and Important Actions in the Exercise of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction especially wherein any of the Ministers are concerned And our Will is that the great Work of Ordination be constantly and solemnly performed by the Bishop in the
that Christ should have no one Witness that would ever scruple or contradict them either among the Orthodox or the Hereticks as far as any Records of Antiquity do make known § 300. 7. The seventh Controversie is about their own practice in Administrations and Church Discipline And 1. that they must Ministerially deny the Sacrament of Baptism to all Children whose Parents will not have them use the Cross they say that it is the Church that refuseth them by Law and not they who are by the Law disabled from receiving them 2. The same they say of their refusing to give the Lord's Supper to any that will not kneel in the Reception of it They say that it is better to Administer the Sacraments to some than to none at all which they must do if they refuse not them that kneel not 3. And for the giving of the Sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper to the unworthy for all are forced to use them they say that the Infants of all in the Church have right to Baptism at least for their Ancestor's sake and for the Godfathers and Godmothers or the Churches sake And for the Lord's Supper they have power to put away all that are proved impenitent in notorious Scandal § 301. Having told you what the Conformists say for themselves as faithfully as will stand with brevity before I proceed I think it best to set down here the words 1. Of the Covenant 2. Of the Subscription and Declaration 3. Of the Oath of Canonical Obedience before your Eyes that while the Subject of the Controversie is before you the Controversie it self may be the better understood And I suppose the Reader to have all the Books before him to which we are required to Assen◠〈…〉 The Solemn League and Covenant WE Noblemen Barons Knights Gentlemen Citizens â—â—â—gesses Ministers of the Gospel and Commous of all 〈◊〉 in the Kingdoms of Scotland â—England and Ireland by the Pâ—â—vidence of God living under one King and being of one Reformed Religion having before our Eyes the Glory of God and the Advancement of the Kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Iesus Christ the Honour and Happiness of the King's Majesty and his Posterity and the true Publick Liberty Safety and Peace of the Kingdoms wherein every ones private Condition is included And calling to mind the trâ—atherous and bloody Piots Conspiracies Attempts and Practises of the Enemies of God against the true Religion and Professors thereof in places especially in these three Kingdoms ever since the Reformation of Religion and how much their Rage Power and Presumption are of late and at this time increased and exercised whereof the deplorable Estate of the Church and Kingdom of Ireland the distressed Estate of the Church and Kingdom of England and the dangerous Estate of the Church and Kingdom of Scotland are present and publick Cestimonies We have now at last after other means of Supplication Remonstrance Protestations and Sufferings for the preservation of our selves and our Religion from utter Ruine and Destruction according to the Commendable Practice of these kingdoms in former times and the Example of God's People in other Nations after mature Deliberation resolved and determined to enter into a Mutual and Solemn League and Covenant Wherein we all Subscribe and each one of us for himself with our Hands lifted up to the most high God â—o swear 1. THat we shall sincerely really and constantly through the Grace of God endeavour in our several Places and Callings the Preservation of the Reformed Religion in the Church of Scotland in Doctrine Worship Discipline and Government against our Common Enemies The Reformation of Religion in the Kingdoms of England and Ireland in Doctrine Worship Discipline and Government according to the Word of God and the Example of the best Reformed Churches And shall endeavour to bring the Churches of God in the three Kingdoms to the nearest Conjunction and Uniformity in Religion Confession of Faith Form of Church Government Directory for Worship and Catechizing That we and our Posterity after us may as Brethren live in Faith and Love the Lord may delight to dwell in the midst of us 2. That we shall in like manner without respect of Persons endeavour the Extirpation of Popery Prelacy that is Church-Government by Archbishops Bishops their Chancellors and Commistaties Deans Deans and Chapters Arch-deacons and all other Ecclesiastical Officers depending on that Hierachy Superstition Heresie Schism Prophaneness and whatsoever shall be found to be contrary to sound Doctrine and the power of Godliness lest we partake in other mens sins and thereby be in danger to receive of their plagues And that the Lord may be one and his Name one in the three Kingdoms 3. We shall with the same sincerity reality and constancy in our several Uocations endeavour with our Estates and Lives mutually to preserve the Rights and Priviledges of the Parliaments and the Liberties of the Kingdoms and to preserve and defend the King's Majesties Person and Authority in the preservation and defence of the true Religion and Liberties of the Kingdoms That the world may bear witness with our Consciences of our Loyalty and that we have no thoughts or intentions to diminish his Majesties just Power and Greatness 4. We shall also with all faithfulness endeavour the discovery of all such as have been or shall be Incendiaries Malignants or evil Instruments by hindring the Reformation of Religion dividing the King from his People or one of the Kingdoms from another or making any faction or Parties amongst the People contrary to this League and Covenant That they may be brought to publick Trial and receive Condign Punishment as the degree of their Offences shall require or deserve or the Supream Iudicatories of both Kingdoms respectively or others having power from them for that effect shall â—udge convenient 5. And whereas the happiness of a blessed Peace between these Kingdoms denied in former times to our Progenitors is by the good Providence of God granted unto us and hath been latlely concluded and setled by both Parliaments We shall each one of us according to our place and interest endeavour that they may remain conjoyned in a firm Peace and Union to all Posterity and that Iustice may be done upon the wilful Opposers thereof in manner expressed in the precedent Article 6. We shall also according to our Places and Callings in this common Cause of Religion Liberty and Peace of the Kingdoms assist and defend all those that enter into this League and Covenant in the maintaining and pursuing thereof And shall not suffer our selves directly or indirectly by whatsoever Combination Perswasion or Terrour to be divided and withdrawn from this blessed Union and Conjunction whether to make defection to the contrary part or to give our selves to a detestable indifferency or neutrality in this Cause which so much concerneth the Glory of God the Good of the Kingdoms and Honour of the King But shall all the days of our
is dangerous for Men to go against the concurrent Judgments of Casuists yea of their own Casuists in the Case of Vows And they know not how to save Subscription from the enmity of the determinations of Dr. Sanderson and all other ordinary Casuists And these are the general Reasons of their fear § 361. But I shall hear tell you what they grant about the obligation of the Covenant 1. They assert that it can bind no Man to any thing that is sinful 2. No nor to any thing that may hereafter be sinful nor from any thing that may be a Duty when it cometh to be such though it were neither Sin nor Duty at the making of the Vow 3. That it bindeth no Man therefore against Obedience to the King though the thing be in it self indifferent and was not commanded by the King when they vowed For if a Man might prevent the Commands of Prince or Parents by his own Vows he might free himself from his Obedience The Command of God to obey Kings and Rulers is antecedent to our Vows and above our Vows and cannot be evacuated or avoided by them Therefore if there be any indifferent thing in the Covenant I will obey the King if he command or forbid it contrary to the Covenant 4. That we take our selves bound by the Covenant to nothing but what is our Duty if there were not such Covenant Not that a Vow doth not bind a Man to things before indifferent We confess it doth But because this Vow included and intended nothing meerly indifferent For it is the Judgment of Protestants and so both of the Framers and the Takers of it that the use of a Vow is not to make new Dutus to our selves which God never made but to bind us to that which God had made our Duty before Else it is a taking of the Name of God in vain All the doubt therefore is but whether it be a secondary Obligation to that which God had before obliged us to So that there is no one Action materially whose doing or not doing we take to depend upon the Covenant's obligation primarily or alone nor do we imagine any thing to be our Duty which would not be so if the Covenant had never had a being 5. That if the Covenanters did then suppose that they were bound to defend and obey the Parliament in that War and to bring a contrary Party to punishment yet now there can be no place for any such Imagination because the Parliament is not in being the War and Difference of Parties is ended Cessante materia câ—ssat obligatio cessantibus personis rerum statu It is now past doubt that we are bound to obey the King and that there is none to stand in competition for our Obedience so that as a League with those persons it ceaseth with the persons 6. That if we had been allowed but to Subscribe That there is no Obligation to endeavour unlawfully or by any unlawful means We had not scrupled so disclaiming any Obligation as on our selves or any other Subjects Thus far there is no Controversie among us about the Covenant § 362. I come now to the Non-Subscribers particular Scruples which are such as these 1. They say That all Men confessing that an Oath or Vow is obligatory they must see good proof that this particular Vow is not so before they can exempt it from the common force of Vows But such proof they have never seen from Mr. Fullwood Mr. Sâ—â—â—man Dr. Gauden or any that hath attempted it and on whom it is incumbent but rather admire that Men of so great Judgment and Tenderness of Conscience should ever be satisfied with such halting Arguments which they had long ago more fully confuted if the Law had not forbidden them They herein argue as the Bishops in another Case Uncertainties must give place to Certainties caeteris paribus But they are certain in general that Vows are obligatory if materially lawful and they are uncertain that this Vow it materially unlawful and so not obligatory Ergo they dare not say that no Man is obliged by it § 363. 2. They say That all the World confesseth that a Vow obligeth 〈◊〉 necessariâ to that which is antecedently a Duty but they propound it to consideration whether all these things following which are in the Covenant are certainly no Duties antecedently 1. To endeavour in our several Places and Callings the preservation of the Reformed Religion 2. The Reformation of Worship Discipline and Church-Government according to the Word of God in England 3. To bring the Churches of God in the three Kingdoms to the nearest conjunction and uniformity in Religion 4. To endeavour the extirpation of not Episcopacy but Prelacy that is Church-Government by Archbishops Bishops their Chancellours Commissaries c. that is the fore described Frame Whether that Frame be so blameless as to be allowable I leave to their Judgments who have weighed what is before said 5. The Extirpation of Popery 6. To endeavour the Extirpation of Superstition 7. And of Heresie 8. And of Prophaneness 9. And of whatsoever shall be found contrary to sound Doctrine and the Power of Godliness 10. To endeavour with our Estates and Lives to defend the King's Majesty's Person and Authority in the preservation and defence of the true Religion and Liberties of the Kingdoms and not to diminish his Majesty's just Power and Greatness 11. To be humbled for our own sins and the sins of the Kingdoms 12. To amend our Lives and each one to go before another in the Example of a real Reformation If all these be not Duties let the question be Whether any one of them be a Duty And then Whether that which is antecedently a Duty by Divine Obligation be not further so by Self-obligation when it is vowed with an Oath Or whether a Vow bind not to a Duty But this is but by the by about the sence of the Imposers of Subscription exprest in the Corporation Act. But it is only the 〈◊〉 of Church Government which the present Controversie is about And if all that was said against our Prelacy on the first Controversie prove it a Duty to endeavour an alteration of the Church-Government then the Controversie is at an end § 364. 3. They say That all Men confess that an Oath and Vow is obligatory in a lawful matter though it were not antecedently necessary But whether in their Places and Callings to endeavour an alteration of the Church-Government be not lawful is the question Here 1. let it be observed what the matter of the Vow is 2. Who be the Persons whose Obligations are in question 1. The matter of the Vow was not to extirpate Episcopacy in general nor the Primitive Episcopacy in particular but only the fore described English Diocesan Prelacy in Specie which I prove beyond all denial 1. Because that which was not in being in England could not be extirpated out of England But it was
In the best sence which hath Evidence of Truth Charity requireth us to take all the words of others But the question is first Which is the true sence and not which is the best And if it can be proved that another is either certainly or probably the true meaning of any words we must not feign a better sence because it is better In the Case in hand the Law-makers have plainly declared their own sence by their Speeches and Votes and deliberate plain Expressions and by another Act for Corporations If I might take all Oaths and Statutes in the best sence which possibly those words may be used to express than I could take almost any Oath in the World and disobey any Law in the World under pretence of obeying it and tell any Lie under the pretence of telling Truth and Jesuitical Equivocation would be but the common Duty of the Charitable But Charity is not blind nor will it prove a fit Cover for a Lie He that knoweth the Parliament and is but willing to know their sence may know the mistakes of this pretended Charity And especially Laws and Oaths are to be taken in the sence which is plainest in the words § 391. Besides all that is already said I shall end this Subject with this question on the Non-subscribers part Whether an Oath doth not bind Men in the sence of the Takers though they be bound to take it in the sence of the Imposers if they know it As if I had been commanded to swear Allegiance to the King and he that commandeth it should mean Cromwell or some Usurper and I thought he had meant my rightful King Am I not bound hereby to the King indeed And if so Query further Whether any Man so well know the sence of every Man and Woman in England Scotland and Ireland as to be able to say that it was so bad that they are not obliged to it And in what Age it was that all Ministers were forbidden to Preach the Gospel of Christ till they knew the Hearts of all the People in three Kingdoms so far as to justifie them before God from the Obligations of such Vows and Oaths § 392. And though I heartily wish that the Prelates would have been intreated to have chosen another course of proceeding with their Brethren and not have tempted any to Repinings or Complaints for endeavouring which I lost their love yet I would admonish all my Brethren to take heed of aggravating this Difference so far as to bring the present Ministry into Contempt and hinder the Efficacy of their Labours I did my best to have prevailed beforehand that we might not have had any occasion of Divisions but if we must needs be divided that it might have been upon some lower Points than the Obligation of Oaths and Vows It had been better for the Prelates that the Non-subscribers had seemed to be scrupulous Persons that refused only some tolerable Ceremonies than that the fear of so great a Crime as justifying three Kingdoms from the Bond of an Oath and the guilt of Perjury should be the occasion of their Ejection and the Matter of this Publick Controversie But seeing this could not by us be prevented let us not be so partial as to wrong the Church by making them odious to justifie our selves It was sad when the Names of Formalists and Puritans and afterwards of Malignants and Rebels and Cavaliers and Roundheads distinguished the divided Parties But it is now grown worse when they are called PER-fidious jured secutors and PURITANS For the most odious Names do most potently tend to the extinguishing of Charity and the increase of the Difference between them § 393. III. The next Controversie is Political That it is not lawful on any pretence whatsoever to take up Arms against the King or as is after said against any Commissionated by him In this the Lawyers are divided yea and Parliament themselves one Parliament saying one thing and another another thing And the poor ejected Ministers of England are commonly so little studied in the Law that in these Controversies they must say as they are bidden or say nothing And they think it hard that when Lawyers and Parliaments cannot agree every poor ignorant Preacher must be forced to decide the Controversie and say and subscribe which of them is in the right upon pain of being cast out of their Office and silenced which they think as hard as if they were required to decide a Controversie between Navigators or Pope Zachary and Boniface's Case about the Antipodes or else be silenced We are ready to Subscribe That King Charles the Second is our lawful King and that we owe him Obedience in all his lawful Commands and that we are bound to defend his Person Dignity Authority and Honour with our Lives and Estates against all his Enemies and that neither Parliaments nor any other at home or abroad have any power to judge or hurt his Person or depose him or diminish any of his Power and that it is not lawful on any pretence whatsoever to conspire against him or â—stir up the People to Sedition or to take up Arms against either his Authority or his Person or against any lawfully Commissioned by him or any at all Commissioned by him except he himself by a contrary Commission or by his Law do enable us or not forbid us or when the Law of Nature doth oblige us In all these Cases we are ready to Subscribe And one would think this much might procure our Peace But that which is scrupled by the Non-subscribers is as followeth The words on any pretence whatsoever studiously put into a Form of Declaration by a Parliament are so universal as to allow no Latitudinarian Evasions or Limitations or Exceptions by any Man that is sincere and plain-hearted and doth not Equivocate with God and his Governours Now 1. Though the King's Authority or Person may not be resisted by Arms they are not certain that his Will may not in any Case be resisted 2. Though none Authorized that is Legally Commissioned by him may be resisted yet they are not certain that all that are Commissioned by him are Authorized or Legally Commissioned 3. Either this Declaration requireth us to suppose that the King never will Commission any illegally or else that though he do yet such may on no pretence whatsoever be resisted by Arms. If the former be the sence then either it is because no King will do it or only because no King of England will do it The former all Historians Politicians Lawyers and Divines are against And the latter hath no Evidence of Certainty to us But yet if that had been the sence we should have consented that on supposition the King commission Men legally they are not to be resisted But this no Man will say is to be supposed as an Event certainly and universally future But if the worst that is possible might be supposed possible then in these several Cases
as that the Bishop of the lowest degree instead of ruling one Church with the Presbyters ruleth many hundred Churches by Lay-Chancellors who use the Keys of Excommunication and Absolution c. And they take it for an Act of Rebellion against God if they should Swear never to do the Duty which he commandeth and so great a Duty as Church-Reformation in so great a Matter If it were but never to pray or never to amend a fault in themselves they durst not Swear it 12. This Oath seemeth to be the same in Sence with the Et caetora Oath in the Canons of 1640. That we will never consent to an alteration of the Government by Arch-Bishops Bishops Deans c. And one Parliament voted down that and laid a heavy charge upon it which no Parliament since hath taken off 13. As the National Vow and Covenant seemeth a great Snare to hinder the Union of the Church among us in that it layeth our Union on an exclusion of Prelacy and so excludeth all those learned worthy Men from our Union who cannot consent to that Exclusion so the laying of the Kingdoms and Churches Union upon the English Prelacy and Church-Government so as to exclude all that cannot consent to it doth seem as sure an Engine of Division We think that if our Union be centered but in Christ the King of all and in the King as his Officer and our Soveraign under him it may be easie and sure But if we must all unite in the English Frame of Prelacy we must never Unite § 15. Those that take the Oath do as those that Subscribe resolve that they will understand it in a lawful Sense be it true or false and so to take it in that Sense To which end they say that nullum iniquum est in Lege praesumendum and that all publick Impositions must be taken in the best Sense that the Words will bear And by force and stretching what words may not be well interpreted But the Nonconformists go on other grounds and think that about Oaths Men must deal plainly and sincerely and neither stretch their Consciences nor the Words nor interpret universal Terms particularly but according to the true meaning of the Law-givers as far as they can understand it and where they cannot according to the proper and usual signification of the Words And the Parliament themselves tell us That this is the true Rule of interpreting their Words Beyond which therefore we dare not stretch them § 16. And therefore 14. They dare not take the Oath because if it be not to be taken in the proper or ordinary Sense of the Words then they are sure that they cannot understand it for it doth not please the Parliament to expound it And Oaths must be taken in Truth Judgment and Righteousness and not ignoranatly when we know that we understand them not § 17. The Lawyers even the honestest are commonly for a more stretching Exposition And those that speak out say That an illegal Commission is none at all But we our selves go further than this would leads us for we judge That even an illegally commissioned Person is not to be resisted by Arms except in such Cases as the Law of Nature or the King himself by his Laws or by a contrary Commission alloweth us to resist him But if Commissions should be contradictory to each other or to the Law we know not what to Swear in such a case § 18. But because much of the Case may be seen in these following Questions which upon the coming out of that Act I put to an able worthy and sincere Friend with his Answers to them I will here Insert them viz. Serjeant Fountain Queries upon the Oxford Oath We presuppose it commonly resolved by Casuists in Theology from the Law of Nature and Scripture 1. That Perjury is a Sin and so great a Sin as tendeth to the ruin of the Peace of Kingdoms the Life of Kings and the Safety of Mens Souls and to make Men unfit for Humane Society Trust or Converse till it be repented of 2. That he that Sweareth contrary to his Iudgment is Perjured though the thing prove true 3. That we must take an Oath in the Imposer's Sense as near as we can know it if he be our Lawful Governour 4. That an Oath is to be taken sensu strictiore and in the Sense of the Rulers Imposing it if that be known if not by the Words interpreted according to the common use of Men of that Profession about that subject And Vniversals are not to be interpreted as Particulars nor must we limit them and distinguish without very good proof 5. That where the Sense is doubtful we are first to ask which is the probable Sense before we ask which is is the best and charitablest Sense and must not take them in the best Sense when another is more probable to be the true Sense Because it is the Truth and not the Goodness which the Vnderstanding first considereth Otherwise any Oath almost imaginable might be taken there being few Words so bad which are not so ambiguous as to bear a good Sense by a forced Interpretation And Subjects must not cheat their Rulers by seeming to do what they do not 6. But when both Senses are equally doubtful we ought in Charity to take the best 7. If after all Means faithfully used to know our Rulers Sense our own Vnderstandings much more incline to think one to be their meaning than the other we must not go against our Vnderstandings 8. That we are to suppose our Rulers fallible and that it 's possible their decrees may be contrary to the Law of God but not to suspect them without plain cause These things supposed we humbly crave the Resolution of these Questions about the present Oath and the Law Qu. 1. Whether upon any pretence whatsoever refer not to any Commissionated by him as well as to the King himself 2. Whether not lawful extendeth only to the Law of the Land or also to the Law of God in Nature 3. Whether I Swear that it is not lawful do not express my peremptory certain Determination and be not more than I Swear that in my Opinion it is not lawful 4. What is the Traytorous Position here meant for here is only a Subject without a Praedicate which is no Position at all and is capable of various Praedicates 5. If the King by Act of Parliament commit the Trust of his Navy Garrison or Militia to one durante vita and should Commissionate another by force to eject him whether both have not the King's Authority or which 6. If the Sheriff raise the Posse Commitatus to suppress a Riot or to execute the Decrees of the Courts of Justice and fight with any Commissioned to resist him and shall keep up that Power while the Commissioned Persons keep up theirs which of them is to be judged by the Subjects to have the King's Authority 7. If a Parliament or a
while these envious Preachers cryed out against our Preaching and perswaded men how fully we were maintained they laboured for Laws to increase their setled maintenance and some of them in my hearing Preached how miscrable a case the Clergy were in were they left to the people's kindness and bounty And yet proclaim our fulness who are left to the kindness of those few who also pay fully their Tythes to the Parish Ministers who these Envyers say are but the smaller and poorer sort in the Land which comparatively is true though by this time I think the far greatest part are grown into dislike with the present Prelates who yet cleave to their Church And if their noble rich and numerous followers would leave them in want were they left to their Charity it seems they take their Church to consist of men much more covetous and less Religious and liberal than our few poor men § 261. The Lord's day before the Parliament was dissolved one of these Prelatists Preached to them to perswade them that we are obstinate and not to be tolerated nor cured by any means but Vengeance urging them to set Fire to the Fagot and teach us by Scourges or Scorpions and open our eyes with Gall. Yet none of these men will procure us leave to publish or offer to Authority the Reasons of our Non-conformity But this is not the first proof that a carnal worldly proud ungodly Clergie who never were serious in their own professed belief nor felt the power of what they Preach have been in most Ages of the Church its greatest plague and the greatest hinderers of Holiness and Concord by making their formalities and Ceremonies the test of Holiness and their Worldly Interest and Domination the only cement of Concord And O how much hath Satan done against Christ's Kingdom in the World by setting up Pastors and Rulers over the Churches to fight against Christ in his own name and livery and to destroy piety and peace by a pretence of promoting them § 262. This foresaid Preacher brings to my remembrance a Silenced Minister who heard the Sermon Mr. Iohn Humphrey a man not strait and factious in Doctrin Government or Worship as his Books shew for the middle way about Election Justification c. and his former Writings for giving the Lord's Supper to the Ungodly to convert them and his own Reordination and writing for Reordination The former Sessions of Parliamen he printed a sheet for Concord by restoring some silenced Ministers and tolerating others for which he was Imprisoned as was Dr. Ludovicus Molinaeus M. D. Son to old Peter for writing his Patronus against the Prelatists but delivered by the Common Act of Pardon And this Session the said Mr. Humphrey again printed another sheet and put it into the hands of many Parliament men which though slighted and frustrate by the Prorogation of the House yet I think hath so much reason in it that I shall here annex it though it speak not at all to the righteousness of our Cause and the Reasons of our Non-conformity that the Reader may see upon what Terms we stood But the truth is when we were once contrived into the Parliament's Inquisition and persecution it was resolved that we should be saved by the King or not at all and that Parliaments and Laws should be our Tormenters and not our Deliverers any more Mr. Iohn Humphrey's Papers given to the Parliament-Men Comprehension with Indulgence Nihil est jam dictum quod non fuit dictum prius Terence IT hath pleased his Majesty by several gracious Overtures to commend a Union of his Protestant Subject to the consideration of a Parliament A design full of all Princely Wisdom Honesty and Goodness In this Atchievement there is a double Interest I apprehend to be distinguished and weighed that of Religion it self and that of the Nation The advance of Religion doth consist much in the Unity of its Professors both in Opinion and Practice to be of one Mind and one Heart and one way in Discipline and Worship so far as may be according to the Scriptures The advance of the Nation does lie in the freedom and flourishing of Trade and uniting the whole Body in the common Benefit and dependence on the Government The one of these bespeaks an Established Order and Accommodation the other bespeaks Indulgence Liberty of Conscience or to eration For while People are in danger about Religion we dare not launch out into Trade say they but we must keep our Moneys being we know not into what straits we shall be driven and when in reference to their Party they are held under severity it is easie for those who are designing Heads to mould them into Wrath and Faction which without that occasion will melt and dissolve it self into bare Dissent of Opinion peaceably rejoycing under the Enjoyment of Protection The King we know is concerned as Supreme Governour and as a Christian Protestant Governour As he is King he is to seek the welfare of the Nation as he is a Christian the Flourishing of Religion and the Protestant Religion particularly is his Interest as this Kingdom doth lie in Ballance he being the chief Party with its Neighbour Nations The Judgment now of some is for a Comprehending Act which may take in those who are for our Parochial Churches that severity then might be used for reclaiming all whosoever separate from them The Judgment of some others is for a free and equal Act of Grace to all indifferently the Papists with most excepted whether separatists or others abhorring Comprehension as more dangerous to them upon that Account mentioned than all the Acts that have passed Neither of these Judge up to the full interest of the King and Kingdom as is proposed It becomes not the Presbyterian if his Principles will admit him to own our Parochial Churches and enjoy a Living to be willing to have his Brethren the Independents given up to Persecution And it becomes not the Separatist if he may but enjoy his Conscience to Repine or envy at the Presbyterian for reaping any further Emolument seeing both of them supposing the later may do so have as much at the bottom as can be in their Capacities desired of either It is an Act therefore of a mixt Complexion providing both Comprehension and Indulgence for the different Parties must serve our Purpose And to this end as we may humbly hope there is a Bill at present in the House A Bill for the ease of the Protestant Dissenter in the business of Religion Which that upon this present Prorogation it may be cast into this Model I must present the same yet in a little farther Explication There are two sorts we all know of the Protestant Dissenters one that own the Established Ministry and our Parish Congregations and are in Capacity of Union upon that account desiring it heartily upon condescension to them in some small matters The other that own not our Churches and so are
grant the Necessity of such Succession yet we need not grant the Nullity of our Calling 2. I deny that the English Bishops much less the Church of England did ever judge it necessary any farther than ad Hominem 1. Because it is apparent that they do ordinarily in their Writings speak against the Papists supposed Necessity of Ordination as I instanced out of some of them in my Book It is known to be a Point wherein the Protestants have commonly opposed the Papists 2. It is known to be but the later declining Generation of Bishops such at Montague Laud and their Confederates most in King Charles his Days very few in King Iames's and scarce any at all in Queen Elizabeth's that do join with the Papists in pleading the Necessity of Succession Even such Men as were as zealous against Queen Elizabeth's Episcopal Protestants as against the Papists at least many of them 3. The rest do expresly mention Succession and confute the Fâ—ble of the Nag's-Head Ordination in Cheapside to prove the Papists Slanderers So much to your Minor 3. If that will not serve I deny your Major All is not necessary that they thought necessary Protestants pretend not to Infallability in Controversals Many more perhaps ten to one at least of the English Clergy held it not necessary unless as aforesaid Ad 2 um Your second Argument hath all the Strength in it or rather shew of Strength â— first we must needs distinguish of your Terms Mediately and Immediately A Constitution may be said to be from Christ mediately either in Respect to a mediating Person or to some mediating Sign only Also it may be said to be mediante persona 1. when the Person is the cause totalâ—â— subordinata constituendi as having himself received the Power from God and being as from himself to convey it unto Man 2. Or when the Person is but Causa per accidens 3. Or when he is only Causa sive qua non vel quatenus impedementa â—emovit vel quatenus ejus Actiones sunt conditiones necessarie And so I answer 1. Immediately in the first absolute Sense excludendo personâ—â— res no Man ever had any Right communicated or Duty imposed on him by God unless perhaps the immediate Impress or supernatural Revelation of the Holy Ghost to some Peophet or Apostle might be said to do this Moses himself had the Ten Commandments written in Stone which were signa mediantia Those that heard God speak if any immediately without Angelical Interposition did receive God's Commands mediante verborum signo So did the Apostles that which they had from the Mouth of Christ. 2. God is so absolutely the Fountain of all Power that no Man can either have or give any Power but derivatively from him and by his Commission Man being no farther the Efficient of Power than he is so constituted of God the general way of his giving it must be by the Signification of God's Will and so far as that can be sufficiently discovered there needs no more to the Conveyance of Power Whether Men be properly efficient Causes of Church Power at all is a very hard Question especially as to those over whom they have no superior governing Power As Spalatensis hath taken great pains to prove that Kings or other Sovereigns of the Common-wealth have their Commission and Power immediately from God though the People sometimes may choose the Man for the Power was not given to the People first and then they give it the King but God lets them name the Man on whom he will immediately confer it so possibly may it be in Ordination of Church-Officers Three ways do Men mediate in the Nomination of the Person 1. When they have Authority of Regiment over others and explenitudine potestatis do convey efficiently to inferior Officers the Power that these have Thus doth the supream Rector of the Commonwealth to his Officers and Ergo they are caled the Kings Officers and he hath the choice of the very Species as well as of the individual Officers Now this way of mediating is not always if at all necessary or possible in the Church for the Papists themselves confess that the Pope is Ordained or authorized without this way of Efficiency for none have a Papal Power to convey to him His Ordination cannot be Actus Superioris And the Council of Trent could not agree whether it were not the Case of all Bishops to hold their Office immediately from Christ though under the Pope or whether they had their Power immediately from the Pope as the prime Seat on Earth of all Church Power who is to convey their Parts to others How the Spanish Bishops held up their Cause is known And it was the old Doctrine of the Church that all Bishops were equal and had no Power one over another but all held their Power directly from Christ as Cyprian told them in the Council of Carthage Add to this that the true old Apostolical Episcopacy was in each particular Church and not over many Churches together I speak of fixed Bishops till the matter becoming too big to be capable of the old Form Corruptio unius fuit generatio alterius and they that upon the increase of Christians should have helpt the Swarm into a new Hive did through natural Ambition of ruling over many retaine divers Churches under their Charge and then ceased to be of the Primitive sort of Bishops Non eadem fuit res non munus idem etiamsi idem nomen retinerent So that truly our Parish Ministers who are sole or chief Pastors of that Church are the old sort of Bishops for as Ambrose and after him Grotius argues qui ante se alterum non habebat Episcopus er at That is in eadem Ecclesia qui superiorem non habet So that not only all Diocesan Bishops but also all Parochial Bishops are Ordained per pares and so not by a governing Communication of Power which is that second way of Ordination when men that are of equal Authority have the Nomination of the Person Now whether or no he that ordaineth an Inferior as a Deacon or any other do convey Authority by a proper Efficiency as having that first in himself which he doth Convey yet in the Ordination of Equals it seems not to be so for they have no Government over the particular Persons whom they Ordain or Churches to whom they Ordain them nor could they themselves exercise that governing Power over that other Congregation which they appoint another to so that they seem to be but Causae Morales or sine quibus non as he that sets the Wood to the Fire is of its burning or as he that openeth you the Door is of your bringing any thing into the House So that if you will call the Ordainer of an Inferior causam equivocam and the Ordainer of an Equal causam univocam yet it is but as they morally and improperly cause The Third way of Mediating in the
Power to perform it so go together that God never calleth Man to Duty but he gives him this sort of Power that is Authority for the very Command to do the Work doth give Authority to do it Man may oblige himself without a Call and so have no Authority but whosoever is required of God to do it hath eo Nomine Authority to do it And the Office of the Ministry is but the Duty and Authority of performing the Works of the Ministry Moreover the Power is for the Work 's sake and not the Work for the Powers sake as the End So that if I prove once that the Duty is required of unordained Men I do thereby prove that the Power is given them Now that that Duty is required appears thus The greatest Works of Mercy to Mens Souls and of glorifying God are such as Men are obliged to by the Law of Nature if they have Ability and Opportunity and there be a Necessity But the Works of the Ministry are the greatest Works of Mercy to Mens Souls and Glory to God Ergo The Minor is proved by the Parts The Publick Preaching of the Lord Jesus to a Heathen People as the Jesuits have long been doing in the Indies and the Discipling Men to Christ and baptizing them is the greatest Work of Mercy imaginable Whereto add the teaching them to observe all things whatsoever Christ hath commanded and it makes up the whole absolutely necessary in all its Parts 1. The Greatness appears in that Men cannot be saved ordinarily without it It is to save Men from Everlasting Torments and help them to Everlasting Glory 2. It is that which Christ himself did yea made his Office to seek and to save that which was lost 3. It is that which he ordained the Ministry for yea giveth us his Gifts for yea upholds all things for and makes other Mercies subordinate to And that it is as conducible to that Honour that he will have by the Gospel and Mens Salvation is as clear For the Major Note that I suppose Ability and Opportunity for else they cannot be obliged Also I suppose Necessity that is that there be not Ordained Men Authoritatively enough competently to do it And then that it must be done without such Ordination rather than not at all is so plain in the Law of Nature that it needs no Proof To do good to our Power especially in so great Necessities and weighty Cases is a Principle in Nature that he who is a Man doth find in himself A Fortiore it 's proved that in lesser Cases we are bound to do thus much more in these so great If a Man be like to perish through Hunger or Nakedness he that is no Taylor must make him Cloaths if he can and he that is no Baker must make him Bread Or if a Man come into a Country infected with the Plague or other Epidemical Disease which he hath Skill in Curing he is a Murderer if he will not do it though he be no Physician while there is no Physician there that can Every Man that is able is a lawful Physician in case of desperate Necessity If these Instances serve not we may go higher In case of an unexpected Onslaught of the Enemy when the Commanders are asleep every Souldier may do his Office In case a General be slain in the Field or a Collonel or a Captain the next Officer may take his Place yea a common Souldier may do it in Necessity Or if the Commander turn Traytor the next Officer may take his Place and command the Souldiers against him Salus populi suprema lex esto is God's own Law And Salus Ecclesiae suprema Lex esto is no less his and unchangable as to all Church-Works still looking at his Glory herein as the highest absolutely He that should say I would cure these Sick Men but that I am not in Office a Physician â— or I would do this or that Work to save the City or the Army but it is not my Office or I have no Commission were not excusable Yet far more than he that would say I would Preach Christ to these People and Baptize them and acquaint them with his Laws to save them from Damnation but that I am not Ordained Durst you warrant that Man from being condemned for his Neglect Nay durst you encourage him to neglect it Nay durst you adventure to neglect it your self What should the People in New-England do if there were not Ministers among the Indians If there were Protestants cast into China and had the Opportunity as the Jesuits have what should they do To forbear the Ministerial Work till they had a lawful Ordination were no less than Soul-murder It would in probability never be had for if they travail'd for it to those parts of the World where it might be had there were no great probability of their Return If you say they may teach and baptize as private Men I answer If they do but what private Men here are allowed do viz. to Teach but privately and occasionally it would be still unnatural bloody Soul-murder To speak the Doctrine of Redemption to two or three in a House when they might speak to Multitudes and to teach now and then occasionally when they might do it ordinarily is cruel destroying of the most And to Baptize is no private Man's Work If you would have them Teach both publickly and ordinarily and Baptize then you would have them be Ministers under the Name of Private Men yea to do the Work of Apostles or Evangelists Certainly the Law of Nature is God's Law and Evangelical Ceremonies and points of meer Order do give Place to it as well as either Mosaical or Secular God hath as streightly commanded Obedience to Secular Power as to Ecclesiastical If therefore Matter of Order in Secular Things must stoop to Matters of Substance and Necessity and the Law of Corporations to the Law of Nature so it must do here The Gospel Crosseth not nor obliterateth Natural Principles And to love our Neighbours as our self and do him good especially to the Everlasting Saving of his Soul are too deep in Nature to be questioned or to stoop to a Point of meer Order If you say That the same God that requires us to do it doth require that we do it in his order and way I answer No doubt of it where that Order may be observed But where it cannot God's way revealed to Nature is to do it without as hath been shewed And Scripture seconds Nature in this Christ tells us That this is the second great Commandment Thou shalt love thy Neighbour as thy self and on this with the Love of God hang all the Law and the Prophets To do good to our utmost Power is a Charge laid on all Psal. 34. 14. and 37. 27. Gal. 6. 10. Eccl. 9. 10. As every Man hath received the Gift so must he as a good Steward of God's manifold Grace administer it 1 Pet. 4.
10. The Manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal 1 Cor. 12. 7. All Members of the Body must have the same care one of another verse 25. And if one Member suffer the rest must suffer with it verse 26. and Ergo do their best to relieve them Every good Man is a publick Good bonum quo communius eo melius God's Gifts are so many Talents that must be accounted for Matth. 25. and he that hath best improved them for his Lord will havè the most comfortable Reckoning These Generals tying Men to do all the Good they can doth tye them that have Abilitiès and Opportunities for the Ministry to use them where there is need and that in Order as being ordained thereto where it may be had and out of Order where it may not and there is necessity even as Paul bids Timothy Preach out of Season you will acknowledge that they that have Abilitiés where the Church is in necessity may and must seek a right way to use them and so seeks an Ordination into the Ministry 1 Tim. ◠1 2. He that desireth the Office of a Bishop desireth a good Work But God as he gives no Gifts in vain so he sets Man upon no vain Endeavours Those therefore that are bound to seek to be Ministers are not bound to vain Endeavours and therefore there is a possibility of Succeeding But there is very oft no possibility of Authoritative Ecclesiastical Ordination Ergo There must be a possibility of succeeding some other way for nemo tenetur ad impossibile God's Gifts of Light are not to be put under a Bushel While I live where my Pains may be spared and others enough may competently supply my Room I will do nothing disorderly nor without Authority from Man so far as belongs to them to convey it and if they that have Power silence me I will be silent But if I live where there is a visible Necessity of my Labours I will by God's Help rather preach without Authority yea though I were silenced than forbear as knowing that Men have their Power to Edification and not to Destruction and I will rather venture to answer before God to the Charge of doing Good and saving Souls to Christ without Imposition of Hands or Human Appointment than the Charge of hiding my Talent as a slothful evil Servant and of letting Men go to Hell and reject Christ for want of a Commission from Man to hinder them for I know that He that converteth a Sinner from the Error of his way hath saved his Soul from death and covered a multitude of Sins Iam. 5. 20. 6. Christ himself hath taught us in Scripture so to interrupt his Laws as that Ceremonials and meer Positives do give way to natural Morals and Substantials and that when two Duties come together and cannot both be performed the greater must be chosen and therefore it is so in our present Case 1. Even under the Law this is oft manifested to instance but in one Circumcision it self which was so far necessary as to be called God's Covenant and he that neglected it was to be cut off from the People yet in the Wilderness for forty Years together is dispensed with and gives place to greater natural Duties 2. Much more under the Gospel when God placeth less in Externals as choosing such Worshippers as will worship him in Spirit and in Truth Christ often healeth on the Sabbath Day and tells them it is lawful to do Good viz. necessary Good on that Day He tells them that David when he was Hungry and they that were with him did eat the Shew-bread which was not lawful viz. without such Necessity for him to eat but only for the Priests And that the Priests in the Temple do break the Sabbath and are blameless and therefore justifies his Disciples for rubbing the Eares of Corn. If the Prophet Isaiab under the Law could tell them that This was the Fast which the Lord hath chosen to loose the Bands of Wickedness to undoe the heavy Burdens and to let the Oppressed go Free and to break every Yoke Is. 58. 6 7. And the Holy Ghost saith I will not reprove thee for thy Sacrifices or thy Burnt Offerings to have been continually before me Psal. 50. 8. How much more under the Gospel would God have Externals and Modals stoop to the Substance He that tells us there is Joy among the Angels in Heaven over one Sinner that repenteth would not have that Office that calleth them to Repentance laid by nor Men forbear the Works of it for want of a Man rightly ordained himself to say Goe There is some great Moment in that Lesson which Christ calls the Pharises so emphatically to learn Mat. 9. 13. But go ye now and learn what that meaneth I will have Mercy and not Sacrifice Nor is Christ very forward to satisfie their Demand By what Authority dost thou these things Mat. 21. 24 27. Nay he flatly refused 7. An Ordained Minister may have sufficient cause to give over his Calling without the Will of the Ordainer or any in his place therefore he may have sufficient Cause to assume it without the Will of an Ordainer The Antecedent is doubtless Nay it may be his Duty to give over as if the People do generally reject him or if he be called to an Employment where he may be certainly more serviceable or is fitter for or when there are many abler to supply his Place if he remove c. For the Consequence perhaps you will say It follows not because all must concur to a Man's Call to the Work But one thing wanting may call him from it But I answer The Strength of the Consequence is here in that as clear a Call at least is necessary to take a Man off a Course of Duty in so needful an Employment as to put him on And therefore let us suppose a Parity in other Respects and look only at that one Reason The Good of the Church It is certain that if I knew I were a great Wrong to the Church by my Continuance as by keeping out one far better or the like I were bound to give over though without the Ordainers Consent or against it if it cannot be had Therefore it follows that if my exercising that Office be undoubtedly Consideratis considerandis to the great Good of the Church I may do it without an Ordainer if Ordination cannot be had It is the Onus and Labor that is the first and chief thing considerable in the Ministry and the Honos and Power is but in order to that 8. If Secular Power may be derived from God at least so far as to oblige the Subjects to Obedience and to give them the Benefits of that Power and this without any regular authoritative Conveyance from Man then so may Ecclesiastical Power also But the Antecedent is true Ergo The Antecedent is proved 1. In that Scripture commands us to obey such
separated to God's Service those of the Sons of Asaph and of Heman and of Ieduthun who should prophesie with Harps c. 1 Chron. 25. 1 6. They were for the Service of the House of God according to the King's Order so 1 Chron. 16. 4. so did Solomon 2 Chron. 8. 14 15. The Magistrates Power in Church Matters was no Ceremony or Temporary Thing 13. When any Officers of the Temple were discovered to have no just Title and thereupon were put out yet none of their Actions while they were in Place were censured null Ergo if now any be discovered to have no just Title his former Actions are not to be judged null The Reason of the Consequence lyeth in the Equality of the Case The Antecedent is proved from Ezra 2. 62. Neb. 7. 64 65. They sought their Register among those that were reckoned by Genealogy but they were not found therefore were they as polluted put from the Priest hood So Neh. 13. 29 30. And therefore the Ordination done before such Ejection is not null And that the individual Person to receive this Power may be determined of in case of necessity without an Ecclesiastical Authoritative Determination may further appear thus 1. If the individual Person may be determined of ordinarily or sometimes by the Peoples Election to be presented to the Ministers for their Ordination or Confirmation then may the individual Person be determined of by the People to be presented to God immediately for his Ordination in case there be no Ordainers to be had But the Antecedent is true Ergo the Antecedent is proved 1. From the Apostles Instruction to the Church of Ierusalem Act. 6. 3. Choose you or look you out seven Men of honest Report full of the Holy Ghost and Wisdom whom we may appoint over this Business They describe the Men and leave them to nominate them that were such And if the Church can do this to present to the Apostles then it seems they are competent Discerners of Such If the Apostles had said We do appoint and authorize the seven Men whom you shall choose so that they be such and such Men the Ordination had been as valid on Supposition of such an Election as it was when it followed the Election And if the Apostles might have so done no doubt God may so do by his Law For he doth the same viz. describe the Persons and confer the Power particularly and on an Individuum vagum and sometimes quasi signatum and if popular Election can make it an Individuum determinatum then all is done 2. And the Church hath continued this Custom so far that Councils decreed Ordinations invalid without Elections of the People yea if they were but afrighted and over-awed and did it not freely Insomuch that Cyprian faith Plebs maximam habet potestatem vel dignos Sacerdotas elegendi vel indig nos recusandi Till the bloody bout in the choice of Damasus it is known that the Peoples Election was the principle Determiner of the individual Person or at least did much in it For the Consequence the Reason of it lyes here in that Scripture may apparently suffice for all except the Nomination of the Individual as you seem to intimate in laying the stress of all your Argument upon this that it meddles with no Individuum of these times The Law gives Authority to that individual Person that is justly nominated or determined of But a right qualified Man chosen only by the People in case there be no Ordainer is justly determinated of or nominated Ergo The Law gives Authority to such Where note that the Law needs no other Condition to the actuating of its Conveyance but only the Determination of the recipient Person Then note that regularly Officers and People are to join in this Determination of the Person The People sometime being in electing and the Officers conclusively determine and sometimes the Officers begin and the People after consent but both must concur and all that both can do is to determine of the Man whom God by his Law shall authorize though the very determination it self as by the Officers is an Act of Authority Now whenever two Parties are made Con-causes or are to concur in such Determinations when one Party faileth the Power and Duty is solely in the other At least it is hence apparent that there is a possible way left for the determining of Individuums in this Age. 2. If the Law do so far describe the Persons to receive Power as that a Bishop can nominate the Persons by the Light of that Description then it doth so far describe the Persons as that others may nominate them by the Light of that Description But the Antecedent is true Ergo The Antecedent you will own or else farewell all Episcopal Ordination The Consequence is plain in that others may be able to see that which a Bishop can see and in necessity at least may do it This therefore wholly answers your Argument against the Law being a sufficient Medium eo nomine because it meddles not with Individuums for it meddles with none of the Individuals which Bishops determine of and yet it is the Law that conveys the Power when the Bishop hath determined of the Person to receive it as Spalatensis hath largely proved of Kings Law is God's Instrument of conveying Right and imposing Duty though Men may be the Media Applicationis The Law is to be conceived as in this Form I do authorize the Persons that shall be justly determined of according to this Description And because Ministerial Determinations are the ordinary regular way with the Peoples Consent it is q. d. Ordinarily I do authorize the Persons whom Ecclesiastical Power shall determine of according to this Description So that it is God by his Law that gives the Power As when a Corporation is to choose their Bailiff or Major it is the Law or Charter that is the immediate Instrument of effective Conveyance of the Power though the Choosers are the Media Applicationis and perhaps some capital Burgesses may have the chief Power in choosing him ordinarily 3. If the People may per Iudicium Discretionis discern whether a Bishop have ordained them one agreeable to the Scripture Description then may they also discern whether a Man be agreeable to it though unordained But the antecedent is true Ergo Were not the People to judge of this then they must receive any Heretick or Infidel without Tryal if ordained their Bishop But that is not true Though the Officers contradict it yet the People of themselves are bound to reject a Heretick Bishop 1. It is a general Precept A Man that is a Heretick avoid and with such no not to eat If a Bishop ordain over this Church a common unreformed Drunkard Rayler c. The Holy Ghost bids us not to eat i. e. have Communion with him 2. Cyprian determines it that Plebâ— obsequens praeceptis Dominicis Deum metuens a Peccatore praeposito
Conformists and Nonconformists The Episcopal Conformists are of Two Sorts some lately sprung up that follow Archbishop Laud and Dr. Hammond hold that there are no Political Churches lower than Diocesan because there are no Bishops under them and so that the Parish-Churches are no Churches properly but part of Churches nor the Incumbants true Bishops but Curates under Bishops nor the Foreigners true Ministers or Churches that have no Diocesan Bishops This Party called themselves the Church of England 1658 1659. When we knew but of Four or Five Bishops left alive who Dr. Hammond said with that Party of the Clergy were of his Mind And these seemed uppermost in 1660 and 1661. and were the men whom I disputed with in my Treatise of Episcopacy The other Episcopal Conformists are they that follow the Reformers and hold the Doctrine of the Scripture as only sufficient to Salvation and as explicatory of it the Thirty Nine Articles the Homilies Liturgy Book of Ordination Apology c. These take the Parish-Pastors for true Rectors and the Parish-Churches for true Churches but subordinate to the Diocesans and to be ruled by them But the Laws have imposed on them some Declarations and Subscriptions which they think they may put a good Sense on though by stretching the Words from their usual Signification The Bishops and Deans are chosen by the King indeed and by the Prebends in shew The Incumbant are chosen by Patrons ordained by Diocesans with Presbyters and accepted by Consent of the Communicants of the Parish The Episcopal Government is managed partly by the Bishops and partly by Lay-Civilians and Surrogates The Episcopal Nonconformists are for true Parish-Churches and Ministers reformed without swearing promising declaring or subscribing to any but sure clear necessary things desiring that the Scripture may be their Canons disowning all persecuting Canons taking the capable in each Parish for the Communicant and Church and the rest for Hearers and Catechized Persons desiring that the Magistrate be Judge whom he will maintain approve and tolerate and the Ordainers Judges whom they will ordain and the People be free Consenters to whose Pastoral Care they will trust their Souls desiring that every Presbyter be an Overseer of the Flock and every Church that hath many Elders have one Incumbent President for Unity and Order and that Godly Diocesans may without the Sword or Force have the Oversight of many Ministers and Churches and all these be confederate and under the Government of a Christian King but under no Foreign Jurisdiction though in as much Concord as is possible with all the Christian World And they would have the Keys of Excommunication and Absolution taken out of the Hands of Lay-Men Chancellors or Lay Brethren and the Diocesans to judge in the Synods of the Presbyters in Cases above Parochial Power That this was the Judgment of the Nonconformists that treated for Peace in 1660. and 1661. is to be seen in their printed Proposals in which they desired Archbishop Usher's Model of the Primitive Episcopacy joined with the Synods of Presbyters II. The Presbyterians are for Parish-Churches as aforesaid guided by Elders some teaching and some only ruling and these under Synods of the like Class without Diocesan or Parochial Superiors and all under a National Assembly of the same as the Supreme Church Power III. The Independants are for every Congregation to have all Church Power in it self without any superior Church-Government over them whether Bishops or Synods yet owning Synods for voluntary Concord Of these some are against local Communion with the aforesaid Churches and for avoiding them by Separation some as if they were no Churches and had no true Ministers some for Forms of Prayer some for faulty Communicants some for Episcopal Ordination and some for subscibing and some for all these and many other pretended Reasons But some Independants are for occasional Communion with the other Churches and some also for stated Communion in the Parish-Churches for which you may read Mr. Tomes's the chief of the Anabaptists in a full Treatise and Dr. Thomas Goodwin on the first of the Ephesians earnest against Separation as the old Nonconformists were Now which of all these should you join with I affirm that all these except the Separatists are parts of the Church of England as it is truly essentiated by a Christian Magistracy and confederate Christian particular Churches All are not equally sound and pure but all are parts of the Church of England Liturgies and Ceremonies and Canons and Chancellors are not essential to it as a Church or Christian Kingdom But it is now a Medly less concordant than is desirable but you are not put upon any such Disputes whether you will call the present Church of England Roman as denominated from the King that is the Head or whether you will say that King and Parliament conjunct are that Head and so it is yet Protestant because the Laws are so or whether you will denominate it materially Protestant because the Clergy and Flocks are so your Doubt is only what Congregation to join with I answer That which all your Circumstances set together make it most convenient to the publick good and your own Though I hold not Ministerial Conformity lawful I take Lay-Communion in any of these except the Separatists to be lawful to some Persons whose case maketh it fittest But I judge it unlawful for you to confine your Communion to any one of them so as to refuse occasional Communion with all save them 1. The Parish-Churches have the Advantage of Authority Order and Confederacy and the Protestant Interest is chiefly cast upon them therefore I will not separate from Lay-Communion with them though they need much Reformation 2. You must not go against your Father's Will no nor divide the Family without necessity The same I say of your Husband when you are married 3. The Nonconforming Episcopal and Presbyterians have not such Churches as they desire but only temporarily keep Meetings like to Chappels as Assistants to others till Parishes are reformed 4. I think it a stated sinful Schism to fix as a Member of such a Church and Pastor as is of the Principles of the Writing which you shewed me I. Because they grievously slander the Parish-Churches and Ministers as none and their Worship and Government as far worse than it is II. Because they Renounce local Communion with almost all the Body or Church of Christ on Earth by renouncing it on a Reason common to almost all III. Because they separate from such Churches as Christ and his Apostles joined with and so seem to condemn Christ and his Apostles as Sinners Christ ordinarily joined with the Iews Church in Synagogues and Temple-Offices when the High-Priest bought the Place of Heathens and the Priests Pharisees and Rulers were wicked Persecutors and the Sadduces Hereticks or worse he sent Iudas as an Apostle when he knew him to be a Theif or a Devil The Apostles neither separated nor allowed Separation from
and Men cannot be Pastors against their wills and the will of their Diocesans That I contradict my Treatise of Episcopacy in denying this With more like this To which I say I. If the Parish Congregation were but part of a Church you might joyn with it as a part as well as with part of an Independent Church And they that can hear a Lay-man with the Separatists might hear the Ministers thereâ— II. Whether I contradict my self or not is nothing to your Cause and Conscience I undertook not when I wrote that none should wilfully or ignorantly misunderstand me The formal Notion of a National Church is nothing but a Christian Kingdom The Matter is Christian Rulers and Subjects and as ordered Confederate particular Churches England hath been such for many Ages Here from the Reformation they owned the Sovereign Power as the Head of the Political National Church as Christ is of the Universal under him They owned Parish-Churches under Diocesans and true Ministers therein Their Books shew their Judgment their Articles Apology Homelies Liturgy Ordination Canons c. These Books are still owned by the Church But at last a new sort of Bishops rose up that would have made the Parish Churches to be no proper Churches but like Chappels under the Diocesan These called themselves the Church of England when there were but about four or five Bishops left alive who Dr. Hammond said were of his mind Some such domineered afterward and would have set up that way but never prevailed either to retract the Churches Books and Laws nor to get the major part of the Clergy to own them Now all the vain question here is Which of these two Parties shall be called The Church of England Neither of them alone They are two disagreeing parts of it I argued against the last professing not to do it against the first which your Counseller would take no notice of And what 's all this to you If you will not be of the National or Diocesan Church you may be of a Parish Church III. I proved that if all the Bishops and Parliament had said The Parish Ministers are no true Pastors this would not have made them none though they might be guilty of deposing them as far as they could no more than it would make the Nonconforming Ministers and Churches to be none Because we all take the Office as instituted by Christ and Men to be but investing Servants to him having no power to alter it And as in the Marriage the Husband shall have power over the Wife though he that marry them say Nay so shall an ordained Elder be a true Pastor though the Ordainer say Nay IV. I proved that the old Church Books and Doctrine are in force still by Law and the Kingdom and Church are sworn or bound not to endeavour any alteration in the Government of the Church Therefore not to put down the Parish Ministry and Churches Therefore this is the Sence of the Church of England though not of the new Faction that usurped that Name V. Though a Man cannot be a Pastor against his will yet he may be one without his knowledge if by Errour he think he is none For he may consent to all the Office while he thinks it is not all and denieth the Name If a Man think that a Deacon may do all essential to a Pastor and so that he is but a Deacon he is nevertheless a Pastor if he consented to the Work Many thousands are Christians that think they are not and do truly consent to Christianity while they think they do not And why may it not be so also to the Ministry VI. But our Case needeth none of these Reasons For where there is all that is essential to true Pastors and Churches there are true Pastors and Churches But by God's great mercy in many thousand Parishes in England there is all that is essential to true Pastors and Churches Therefore they are such When you will call me to dispute it with any Denier I will fully prove to you That there is great need of Reformation 1. That the Church of England as it is a Christian Kingdom containing Confederate Churches under a Christian King and Laws is that very Form that Christ offered to settle in Iudea and did settle by Constantine 2. That if the Diocesans be good Men and lawfully chosen as they are meer Successours of Timothy and Titus and others that had the oversight of many Churches and Pastors by the Word they are righter than the Opposers 3. That the Incumbents of the Parish-Churches have a valid Ordination by such Bishops and Presbyters righter than the Dividers 4. That many thousands of such Pastors are Men of competent Abilities and many of greater Ministerial Abilities than most of us Nonconformists yea that no known Nation under Heaven hath in so small a compass so many able Ministers as England And that to deny it and separate is great ingratitude towards God 5. That Parish Bounds are a laudable Distribution of Churches the capable Members being Communicants and the rest Catechumens 6. That the ordinary Communicants in multitudes of Parishes are Membrs that have all that is essential to Church-Membership 7. That the Pastors have power from God for all their Work and Mens denial even the Ordainers nullifieth not that Power when they are in general ordained Presbyters 8. That by the Law of the Land they have all Power essential to Pastors They may keep from Communion all that are not Confirmed and there have owned their Baptismal Covenant or are ready and desirous so to do and therefore may try their readiness This is required by the Liturgy And they may deny the Sacrament to all that live in scandalous Sin And they must prosecute such to the Bishops Courts The Law calleth them Rectors Rulers and they own themselves for such And even the Canons that are their worst restraints do own the same and so do the rest of the Church-Books and Laws that they all subscribe to and promise not to alter Ask them whether they take not themselves for true Pastors if you would know whether they consent to be such 9. Though some late Innovators that called themselves The Church of England would as far as they could have nullified in some part the Parish Ministry and Churches and the Canons themselves do sinfully limit the Exercise of their Power the Cause of our Calamities yet this nullifieth not the Office and Churches the Essential Power being setled both by God's Laws and the Churches and the restraint of Exercise nulleth not the Power 10. That to Exclude any from Communion that are Baptized and at Age have owned their Christianity and are not proved by sufficient witnesses to have nullified that Profession by Apostasie Heresie or a wicked or scandalous Life is Church Tyranny and Injustice of which all are guilty that do it or desire it 11. That if this Discipline be neglected by the Ministers sinful Sloth or by the
made capable of holding the Parish places we cannot hitherto agree It was propounded at the Meeting this Afternoon as an Expedient to issue this business that considering that Patrons of Parish Livings claim a Right of Presentation the People of Election the Magistrate of approbation and the Eldership of Churches or Churches themselves by them and Power of Mission and Ordination And that since the Magistrate hath been still wont to betrust his Claim of Approbation in the Hands of Presbyters of one kind or other and Presbyters of all Perswasions hold themselves obliged to further the propagation of the Gospel abroad and claim a share in sending Preachers for that end I say these Things considered and to satisfie all Claims and yet to make a competent Provision for the spreading of the Gospel in all the Parishes it was proposed 1. That the Magistrate might be desired to betrust his Claim of Approbation in the Hands of a convenient Number of Presbyters of the three denominations indifferently in several places of the Common-wealth that none might be bound up by the Power being ingrossed by one or two Parties 2. That no Person presented by a Patron or chosen by the People should officiate as a publick Preacher in any Parish without an Instrument of Approbation first obtained under the Hand and Seal of at least three or more of the Presbyters aforesaid 3. That such an Instrument obtained should invest the Preacher with power to receive such Maintenance as is or shall be settled by the State or raised by voluntary Contribution of the People But alas it was thought by some that to interess the Magistrate in such a Claim will not be found in the Scriptures and to have a Hand in the investing of a Preacher with power to sue for Tithes whether it were known whether he would so use it or no is a thing not to be indured And I doubt the Party that propounded this Expedient is like to be looked shie on by his Brethren the Anabaptists for his labour as fit rather to be ranked among the Presbyterians as hath been hinted to him The business of Maintenance was moved by the Presbyterians again and again to be laid aside they would trust the Providence of God with that and that something might be resolved on about the Magistrates Approbation in which we might agree without which it was not thought probable to procure so much as opportunity of a fixed abode to preach in most places nor if there could would the Churches be able to supply the want of the Magistrates Countenance or Power in procuring Maintenance I may not enlarge to acquaint you what was offered on the by for the Magistrates Power the Dispute of it hath hitherto been declined only something was hinted That if Christ is King of Nations as well as of Saints then those that rule the Nations for him are as such charged with the care of his Interest and so with his Ministers as those in special by whom it is to be promoted There were some pretty large Concessions at last made by some of the Anabaptists who I confess were not so steady in their Debate as would have been wished unless it were in too much shieness of granting too much And the unhappiness is that some not leastly crochical among the Anabaptists nor most peaceable do interess themselves most in the management of this Treaty Indeed this Meeting was almost brought to a period this Night without any good Conclusion but my Lord Goff as some call him and some others did earnestly move that that wherein they had agreed might be improved for common benefit and which was agreed to that three or four of each Perswasion should meet privately to see what could further be done and that there should be no further Publick Meetings till they were in a readiness to call them I must acknowledge to you that I am many times sadly affected to hear and see the strange Confusions that swarm in this City about things both Civil and Divine and the height and confidence of many is wonderful that I am ready to wish with him for the wings of a Dove to flee into the Wilderness to be at rest And truly by several hints which I have picked up I cannot but expect the acting of some further force to some Alteration or other and what will be the end of these things It will become such as have any true sence of the Interest of Religion to be incouraging and stirring up one another to stand together and to bear up against the several Assaults which on every hand almost are made against it that if it be possible to prevent that no Man take our Crown Sir I was desired several Weeks since by Mr. Iackson Author of The Serious Word to send you a couple of his Books against the Quakers that you might see I think how Orthodox he is and far from Jesuitism I have now performed his desire by the hand of Mr. Pearsall by whom also I have sent you Mr. Rogers and Needham's piece and a Copy of my Retraction which I must thankfully acknowledge was helped on much by your hand and therefore if any good redound by his Publication you are like to have a large share in the reward You will Sir I hope excuse my prolixness I shall now put you to no further trouble but beg your Prayers for Wisdom how to carry it towards those that at least at first will be somewhat provoked against me for attempting the raising of the Wall of Separation though I have done it with as much moderation and care to prevent offence as I well knew how and have very much Peace and Satisfaction in my own Spirit in what I have done SIR I am entirely yours Will. Allen. Sept. 30. 1659. To the Reverend and his worthy good Friend Mr. Richard Baxter Minister of the Gospel in Kidderminster SIR SInce I saw you I have perused Mr. Rutherford's Piece upon the Covenant which ministers yet further occasion as I apprehend to second my former motion to you of handing the Doctrine of the Covenants in a more distinct manner then hath been done by any I have yet met withal For if that which is proper to each Covenant were handled apart by it self and the appropriate design end and use of each of them respectively were but plainly set forth so far as the Scripture will guide therein I cannot but think it would be of as great use as any one thing you can undertake and it is not my opinion alone For want of which it hath happened that Men have interwoven and confounded one Covenant with another and great Mistakes have thereby been committed by many in stating the Terms of the New Covenant and the true Notion of Justification by Faith and through such Mistakes a great part of the Apostles Epistles have been obscured instead of being expounded As for instance Whereas there may be a sixfold opposition easily observed in the
Guilt of the Division caused by it But when they are Imposed we may do that which in it self is lawful without any consent to the Imposition at all Yea and that which as imposed tendeth to Division may upon supposition that it will be and is imposed be practised sometimes as the way to Unity and to avoid Division § 310. 7. Lastly it is said That the Necessity which is pretended for this Conformity is none at all For 1. As to a Necessity of Communion with the Church Catholick it requireth not Personal Local Communion with each particular Congregation but that at a distance we own them so far as they are to be owned 2. And for the Escaping of Punishment from Men there is no necessity of it nor yet of our Personal Liberty to preach the Gospel when we cannot do it upon lawful Terms But to this the moderate Nonconformists say That 1. our Catholick Communion requireth that we in Judgment or Practice separate from no Church of Christ which forceth us not to sin but hold Communion with them as we have a Call and Opportunity And that we must not separate from one upon a Cause that is common to almost all 2. That though there be no Necessity of our escaping Persecution nor any absolute Necessity of our Personal Preaching yet there is of this last an ordinate Hypothetical Necessity laid upon us by God himself and wo to us if we preach not when we may So that you see that these general Reasons which some Nonconformists extend to all the moderate allow only as Seconds against those things which first are proved unlawful § 311. I. For the particular Controversie about Diocesans 1. Some of the Nonconformists are against all Bishops as distinct from Presbyters by any other than a Temporary Presidency or Moderatorship But the most of them of my Acquaintance are for the lawfulness of some stated Episcopacy that is that there be fixed Presidents or Bishops in every particular Church they take to be lawful as of Humane Constitution and Ecclesiastical Custom contrary to no Law of God 2. That there be more general Overseers of many of these Bishops and Churches as the Apostles were though without their extraordinary Call and Priviledges they think also lawful if not in some fort of Divine Institution 1. Because Church-Government being an ordinary standing work in that the Apostles were to have Successors 2. Because they think it incredible if the Apostles had been against particular Primitive Episcopacy that no Church or Person would have been found on Record to have born witness against it till it had been so universally received by all the Churches But they are all agreed that the English Diocesan Frame of Government and so the Popish Prelacy is unlawful and of dangerous tendency in the Churches And that this Controversie may be understood the English Frame must here be opened § 312. There are in England two Archbishops and under one of them four Bishops and under the other One and twenty Bishops In all Five and twenty Bishops with Two Archbishops Every Bishop hath a Cathedral Church which is no Parish Church nor hath any People appropriated to it as Parishioners But a Dean with a Chapter of Prebends or Canons are the Preachers to it and Governours of I know not whom In some Bishopricks are Three hundred some Four hundred some Five hundred some One thousand some Twelve hundred Parishes and some more In the greatest Parishes of London are about Threescore thousand Souls as Martyns Stepney Giles Cripplegate in others about Thirty thousand as Giles's in the Fields Sepulchres in others about Twenty thousand and in the lesser Parishes fewer Usually the greater Country Parishes in Market Towns have about Four thousand or Three thousand or Two thousand Souls and the ordinary Rural Parishes about One thousand in the bigger sort and Two hundred or Three hundred in the lesser some more and some less In these Parishes the Ministers who have watched over them and of late times instructed and catechised every Family and Person young and old apart in many places do find that the number of those that are ignorant of the Person and Office of Christ and the Essentials of Christianity and of all Religion and of those that are ordinary Drunkards Whoremongers Prophane Swearers Cursers Railers or otherwise notoriously Scandalous or Ungodly is not small For the Government of these besides preaching to them and exhorting them and giving them the Sacraments the Parish Minister hath no power He hath no power of judging whole Children he shall baptize but must refuse none though the Parents be professed Heathens or Infidels if Godfathers and Godmothers bring them to be baptized who yet never adopt them nor meddle more as Owners of them with their Education and perhaps know not what Baptism or Christianity is themselves They have no power to judge what Persons of their Parish shall be confirmed or admitted into the number of Adult Communicants so that all their Flocks are imposed on them They have no more power than any private Man to admonish the Scandalous before Witness or to admonish them before the Church or pray for their Repentance by Name or to judge who is to be cast out of the Communion of the Church or to be Absolved nor to deny the Sacrament to any unless for a particular time when he is just going to Administer it he see any there that are notoriously guilty and he take them then aside and they will not so much as say We will do better And it is uncertain whether he may Suspend any of these but the Malicious that will not be reconciled So that the Ministers may read Prayers and Preach and may read an Excommunication or Absolution when it is sent them and may if they please joyn with the Churchwarden as Informers to present some Men to the Bishops Court but Church-Government is denied them The Government then of all these Churches and Exercise of Holy Discipline belongeth to the Bishops in Title but the Bishops do and must Exercise it in their Courts or Consistories In every Diocess there is one of these Courts where the Ordinary Judge is the Bishop's Chancellour a Lay-man and a Civil Lawyer though in many Cases the Bishop may fit himself if he please The Court hath also a Register and Proctors to plead Mens Causes as Counsellers in Civil Courts And they have some Fellows called Apparators who are their Messengers for Citation besides the Churchwardens Presentments who bring them in Custom This Court is to hear all considerable Causes and determine them by Excommunications or Absolutions and to send their Excommunications or Absolutions written to the Parish Priest who is to read them But pro forma when the Lay-Chancellour hath resolved who shall be Excommunicated they have a Clergy-Presbyter present to speak the Sentence in the Court who yet hath no power but of meer Pronunciation but is a Ceremony to put off the Odium from
necessary it will uncontroulably follow that they are therefore no Ministers of Christ because they have not been set a part by such who at length took their Authority from Christ's own Hands If you say that there is a necessity of a Dispensation in case of a general Apostacy although the dispensing with Ordination in such Extremity doth furnish Sectaries with a Foundation to build their Schisms upon I answer 1. That we suppose that which yet never fell out nor ever is likely to fall out There was never yet such a general Apostacy but Christ kept some Church Officers in being who might from Age to Age continue the Propagation of the Ministerial Office to his Church Nay it is admirably worth our Consideration that when God stirred up the drouzy World to depart from Rome's Superstitions and Idolatries he then bowed the Hearts of some of the Church-Officers to go along with them who might be instrumental for the conveighing of the Ministerial Office to the next Generation and took away the Subject of this over anxious Enquiry what must we do if all apostarize what God did then we may probably hope he will always do in the like Exigency But if you should be importunate and demand still what must be done in such a general Apostacy I answer I cannot tell either what Impiery or Absurdity would follow if I should affirm that in such an extraordinary Dispensation of Providence the faithful might safely wait for some extraordinary Revelation of God's Mind what they should do in such an unknown unpresidented Case And if this be to turn Seeker I confess I something incline to it and should much more if I thought it could indubitably be proved that the Succession hath been interrupted IV. My Fourth Argument is this We ought therefore to contend for an uninterrupted Succession because if the Succession be interrupted then that Person who immediately comes into the Ministry after the Interruption must come into it without Imposition of Hands and so if he without Imposition of Hands be still a lawful Minister then it will follow that Imposition of Hands is a matter rather of Convenience than of Necessity But Imposition of Hands is essential to Ordination I know there are some Schoolmen that contend against this But this is a Question not subjected to any Man's way of reasoning a Naturâ Resâ— For if Christ hath declared that it is his Mind any Ordinance shall be performed after such or such a Maner it is too much Confidence for any Man to say or go about to prove that such an Ordinance may be performed as well another Way or after another Manner when as the Fitness of the Manner of doing to the thing done is not founded in Naturâ Rei but in bene placito instituentis Forasmuch therefore as Christ hath revealed to his Church that it is his Mind or Will that his Churches Officers should be set a part by Imposition of Hands it doth therefore follow that Imposition of Hands is necessary and essential to their Separation If you ask me how I know that it was Christ's Will and Mind that Imposition of Hands should be used in the Ordination of Ministers I answer first That if you expect I should shew an express Command for it I acknowledge there is none Or any implicite Command I acknowledge I know none But rejoin with all that the Mind and Will of Christ may be otherwise made known Those Scriptures where Imposition of Hands is spoken of commented upon by the Universal Practice of the Church of Christ from the first Age until this wild exorbitant last Century seem to me a most clear Evidence what the Will of Christ is in that Particular and will still appear so till you shew me a better way how to discover the Mind of Christ in such Cases as these at this Distance If you expect that I should prove that it hath been the constant universal Practice of the Church of God I shall likewise do that when I know that it is required and all the rest in the Argument granted And now Sir if this Interruption of Succession being yielded doth necessarily cast out some of the Essentials in Ordination if it strengthens the Hands of Intruders if it hinders us from having our Authority from Christ if our learned Country-men have taken so much Pains to clear up an Uninterruption then I think it follows that it is a Matter worth the pleading for Which is the only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of this Paper M. Iohnson Mr. Baxter's Reply to Mr. Johnson against the absolute Necessity of Ordination and of an uninterrupted Succession thereof from the Apostles to the Being of the Ministerial Office Brother I Return you this Answer to yours but on this Condition that before you make any Reply to it you perform the other Parts of your undertaken Task or at least the two last for I think it a far safer way in such Cases as this to argue a non facto ad non institutum the Church hath not had such an uninterrupted Succession Ergo God hath not made it absolutely necessary than from a supposed Institution to an answerable Event God hath made it absolutely necessary Ergo the Church hath enjoined it because it is incomparably more easy to discern the Matter of such publick Fact than to discern the meaning of those Texts which will be alledged by each Party in these controverted circumstantial Points And you know we must argue a notiore ad mâ—â—us notam and not contrarily I could wish the Question had been exactly stated by joint Consent to avoid tedious Explications and Excursions We must first distinguish the Succession of Office and Succession of Ordination to that Office Our Question is not directly of the former for even the Usurper succeedeth in the Office as a Usurper and it is part of our Controversy whether the later Succession of Ordination be of flat Necessity to the former Succession in Office It being then the Necessity of an uninterrupted Succession of Ordination that we enquire after it must be known what we mean by Ordination 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Word commonly used is but Constituo Ordination in General then is any Constitution of a Man in the Office of the Ministry Here we must distinguish between the Constitution it self and the Modum Constituendi It's one thing to ask whether Ordination be necessary and another whether Imposition of Hands or present Fasting and Prayer be necessary yea or the Presence of the Person Ordaining seeing a Man may be Ordained Constituted or authorised per literas absentis and not only per manus vel verba praesentis whether this Mode be as meet as any we now question not Also it s one thing to ask whether God's Ordination be necessary and another whether Man's be necessary Also it is one thing to enquire of the Necessity of the Fact of Ordaining and another of the Necessity of a just Authority in the