Pastors with the publick Ministers and lived in Love and Communion with them The People were not by the new Law cast out with the Ministers Most of the people in the 2000 Parishes of the ejected and almost all in the other 7000 who before communicated or were caâ—able of it continuing the Parish Communion And so are Churches if they were so before XVIII The generality of the former Protestant Bishops and Clergy took the Parish Rectors to be true Pastors of the Parish Churcheâ— as Bishop Usher proved them The Church of England is confessed to be of this mind before the Wars It is not certain that Arch-Bishop Laud thought otherwise If he did Heyâ—n names but five that joyned with him in his main cause of whom Mountague if not more were for the contrary cause in this point XIX They then took a Curate to be a Pastor and to have all that is essential to the Presbyters Office And to be a Presbyter and no Pastor is a Contradiâ—tion in the sense of Protestants and Papists except what is said for Lay-Eâ—ders In France they call all their Parish-Pastors Curates the word sigâ—ifieth the Curam animarum XX. No Law since 166â— hath changed any essentials of the Parish-Pastors Oâ—â—nce and so none hath nulled it from what it was in 1640. They that affirm the contrary must prove it The Law before subjected Parish-Pastors to Diocesans It imposed the Oath of Canonical Obedience and a promise of the same in Ordination It was the same to the Ecclesiastical Courts as now If any pretend to such singular skill in Law as to say that there was no Law for the Book of Ordination which made the ordained to Covenant to obey their Ordinaries nor any Law for the Canons I hope he will have more reason than to lay the controversie about Separation on his odd conceit when all the People in England have in the days of the four last Soveraigns been forced to submit to these as Legal and no such pretender could at any time deliver them Books have been written and Pleas used against submitting to the Courts that declared not that they held their Authority from the King but the Judges still over-ruled it against them And they that profest to hold it from the King did many if not most mean but the Liberty of publick exercising it as the Ministry is held under him or the adjunct Cogent Power or the Circa sacra XXI The Law enableth the Parish-Minister to receive into the Church by Baptism tho under canonical Prescripts which Dissenters much dislike and to Catechize Youth and certifie their fiâ—ness for Confirmation before they Communicate It bindeth them to reject all from Communion who are not confirmed or at least are not ready and desirous of it it tells us who is to be taken for ready Those that have learnt the Catechism and solemnly own their Baptismal Covenant The Pastor hereby hath Power to try all the unconfirmed whether they are thus ready or not The Canon requireth him to deny Communion to all that live in any scandalous Sin The Law and Canon bid him to instruct the Congregation to lead them in publick Worship and in the Name of Christ to Reprove Admonish Comfort Administer the Lord Supper Visit the Sick with Instruction and Prayers All which with the aforesaid Power of judging who shall be Communicants is full as much as is Essential to a Parish-Pastor Solemnly to pronounce them Excommunicate beside refusing Communion is not Essential If it were they have Power to do it after the Bishops Sentence If it were Essential to do it as ungoverned or finally or without appeal then Apostolick yea and Magistrates Government would null the Pastors Office XXII The altering some words in Ordination and putting out the name Pastors from most places in the Litturgy where they were applied to Parish-Ministers is no change at all of the Office much less of its essence It takes no Power from them which they had But it was done by the interest of some men who thought that Presbyters who swore the three Kingdoms against Bishops had taken too much upon them and in opposition they endeavoured to keep them under and so would diminish their pretences for Parity But this changeth not the Species of the Office And it s known who these men were And tho some of them are of Opinion that Diocesan Bishops only may regularly confer Ordination and exercise Jurisdiction over the Clergy and that meer Presbyter Ordination with us is null 1. These same men had a chief hand in debating and wording the Kings Declarations October 1661. Concerning Ecclesiastical Affairs and therein the King after debates with Lords and Bishops distinguisheth the meer Pastoral preswasive Power from the Episcopal which is Cogent and alloweth the Rural Deans with the Presbyters of his Deanry to exercise the said Pastoral perswasive Power and the other Pastors also to joyn with the Bishops And the Law still calls them Rectors The Liturgy yet calls them Pastâ—rs the word Pastors being a Metaphor they take to be general Bishâ—ps and Priests being with them two Orders of Pastors Therefore because it doth not distinguish them they usually leave it out and put sometime Bishops and Curates and sometime Bishops Priests and Deacons The common description of a Bishop by them is that he hath the sole Power of presiding and determining in Ordination and Jurisdiction sâ—ne quo non oft alledging Jeroms Quid facit Episcopus quod non facit Presbyter excepta Ordinatione And yet the Law still binds them not to ordain without Presbyters Imposition of hands with them And Arch-Deacons and Presbyters Surrogates c. Excommunicate And in the Ember-week they are every day to pray by the Liturgy So guide and govern the minds of thy Servants the Bishops and Pastors of thy Flâ—ck that they may lay hands suddenly on no man Where Bishops and Pastors cannot be taken for Synonyma whilst they speak of all that lay on hands And they distinguish not Pastors and Curates where they change the words but Bishops and Curates But nothing more proveth what I say than that the Law yet bindeth all Priests to all that is essential to an Episcopus Gregis a Pastor of a particular Church see the Exhort in Ord. of Priests We exhort you in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ that you have in remembrance into how high a dignity and to how weighty an office and charge ye are called that is to say to be Messengers Watchmen and Stewards of the Lâ—rd to teach and to premonish to feed and provide for the Lords Family to seek for Christs Sheep that are dispersed abroad and for his Children who are in the midst of this naughty world that they may be saved by Christ for ever have always therefore printed in your remembrance how great a treasure is committed to your charge for they are the sheep of Christ which he bought c. The Church and Congregation whom you
Towns by that nameâ— But at last the Bishops being loath to diminish their Jurisdiction decreed that very small Cities should have no Bishops ne viâ—câ—eat nomen Episcâ—pi And in process of time in some Countries the name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or City was appropriated at the Princes pleasure to some very few Corporations peculiarly priviledged above the rest So that a King that would have had but one Bishop in his Kingdom as it 's said that all the Abaâ—â—ian Empire hath had but one might have done it by calling but one Town a City VII Yet the People and Bishops being sensible that there was more work For a Bishop in a City-Diocess than one could do in many Countries they had Rural Bishops set over Pâ—pulâ—ns country Churches And tho these were subject to the Diocesans yet hereby the Churches were multiplied But the Bishops soon grew jealous and weary of these Rural-Bishops and most places put them down and set up instead of them a kind of Itinerant visiting Presbyters empowring all Arch-Bishops and Ach Deacons till at last to save themselves the labour and yet not diminish their Dominion they set up the Courts of Lay-Chancellors Officials and many such Offices besides the Arch-Deacons Surrogates c. VIII In England as is agreed by most Historians at first one Bishop had but one Church or Temple And at Luindisfarne saith Bede It was so poâ—â— a thing that it was a house thatcht with reeds The Pastor of this one Church was to convert as many as he could in all the Countrey about him The Heathen Country might be his Diocess but not his Church The converted Christians got into several Monasteries and not into Parish-Churches These Monasteries were partly for Society in Religious Exercise and partly for Studies like Schools to Educate Youth for the Ministry So that long a Diocess was only the Bishops Church with divers Monasteries At last Gentlemen for their convenience built and endowed Parish-Churches the Bishops old single Churches being called the Cathedrals And finally by the help of Princes all the Land was divided into Parishes subject to the cathedral-Cathedral-Bishops to whom Deans and Chapters were added in imitation of the old Bishops Colledg of Presbyters in every single Church IX When the rural-Rural-Bishops were put down the Presbyters power in their several Parishes was somewhat enlarged And the Diocesses at last became so great that the Bishops were sain to commit more of the oversight to the Presbyters Tho they kept them under by severe Canons Lay-Deputies and the Cogent Sword X. It grew then a controversie among the Papists themselves whether the Parish Incumbents were proper Pastors and had any Power of Government and how much And my Objectors confess that they were reputed Pastors among the Papists and that Linwood calleth them Pastors and the Laity Oves I have cited in Treat of Epis â—ilesaâ—us and many more that prove it Ant. de Dom. Spalatensis is large and full in it Spâ—lman in R. Aâ—lâ—ricks Law shews that the Bishop and Presbyter made but one of their seven Orders A great sort of the Schoolmen say the same Most Drs. say That the Presbyters essentially as Sacredetes have the power of the Keys infâ—ro interiâ—re by which they mean not a power that must be kept secret but that which consisteth in the perswasâ—vâ— use of Gods word on Câ—nferâ—nâ—e privately or publickly as distinct from Magisterial and Câ—gent Power And if they â—e of one Order then if one be a Pastâ—r the other is so also That they are taken but in partem curae is nothing against it but for it For equal Presbyters in one Church have each but partem curae The Reformation finding thâ—ngs in this case determined none of the disputes de nomine Whether Parish Rectors shall be called â—pisâ—opâ—s Gregis or Pastors or Rectors or Iâ—cumbâ—nts but use these names promiscuously Nor did they dispute whether the Parishes are Political Churches But the Definition and not the Name is the thing now before us in debate God hath given every such Minister the essence of a Pastoral oversight of his Flock Men may hinder the Exercise but can no more alter the Christian Office Power than they can deprive a Husband of the power over his Wife And the Diocesans at last have been necessitated to permit the essential Pastoral power by the word to the Incumbents having none else to use it by But Lawyers have taught many to call nothing Government that is not Cogent on the unwilling and so to say that Government is not in the Presbyters but the Bishops and that all is derived from the King which is all true of Cogent Government by the Sword in fâ—ro exteriore but not as to Pastoral Government of the Flock by Gods wâ—rd As Bishop Bilson of Obedience hath distinguished and applied well at large XI Now to come nearer our Case Diocesan Bishops have put down the ranks of Bishops which of old was setled as Presidents over the Presbyters in every Church in Cities and of the lowest Order described by Ignatius and Cyprian and others Every lowest Church hath not now a Bishop over the Presbyters as it had for divers hundred years And by this they have unchurched all the old sort of Churches in the sense of them that say There is no Church where there is no Bishop over Preâ—byters And they have set up a Diocesan Church and Bishop only wâ—â—re should be many Churches and Bishops and thus 〈◊〉 homâ—â—â—m I argued with them c. But indeed this Parochial Episcopacy or Prâ—sidâ—ncy being wrongfully said to be Essential to the Church being at most bâ—t useful to peace ad melius esse and the Epicopacy or Pastoral care of the Laity without any power over the Clergy being it that is essential to single Church Pastors In truth no man can alter this In Consent and â—â—putatiâ—n it is altered by those that think Parish Curates no Pastors and deny any Essential power over their Flocks But it is not in Consent and Reputation destroyed by them that acknowledg their Essential power and subject only themselves as Pastors to the oversight of Diocesans and Magistrates They do but destroy the 〈…〉 of Episcopacy of humane Institution which was over Presbyters in 〈◊〉 Châ—rchâ—â— but not the Episcopacy over the Flock which is of Christs Insâ—iâ—utioâ— XII 〈◊〉 whether most in England are of this Opinion or of that for 〈◊〉 or for meer gâ—verning Episcopacy and which way the Laws go and 〈◊〉 may be called the sense of the Church when Convocations and Bishops seem to differ and men change their Opinions with the Age and Interest it is impossible for me to be sure But I know how they govern by what Canons and by what Courts and as all their Cogent power is from the King it is no wonder if they be chosen by him But the old sort of Bishops that had no forcing power was so constantly otherwise chosen that their Canons nulled the Magistrates
must serve is his Spouse and his Body and if it shall happen the same Church or any member thereof to take any hurt or hindrance by reason of your negligence ye know the greatness of the fault and the hâ—rrible punishment that will ensue Wherefore consider with your selves the end of your ministry towards the children of God towards the Spouse and body of Christ and see that you never cease your labour your care and diligâ—nce till you have done all that lieth in you according to your bounden duty to bring all such as are or shall be committed to your charge to that agreement in the faiâ—h and knowledg of God and that ripeness and perfectness of age in Christ that there be no place left among you either for error in Religion or viciousness of life Forasmuch then as your office is both of so great excellency and of so great difficulty ye see with how great care and study ye ought to aâ—ply your selves as well that ye may shew your selves dutiful and thankful to the Lord who hath placed you in so high a dignity as also to beware that neither you your selves offend nor be occasions that others offend And after their Covenant to preach according to the Scripture they promise to give faithful diligence to administer the Doctrine Sacraments and Discipline of Christ as the Lord hath commanded and as this Church and Realm hath received the same according to the Commandments of God So that you may teach the people committed to your care and charge with all diligence to keep and observe the same Here Doctrine Sacraments and Discipline are their Office-works Gods Commandments are their Rule tho on supposition that this Realm hath received them according to his Commandments Next they covenant with all faithful diligence to banish all erroneous and strange doctrines contrary to Gods word and to use both PUBLICK and PRIVATE Monitions and Exhortations as well to the sick as to the whole within your cures as need shall require and occasion shall be given And to keep quietness Peace and Love among all Christian people and especially among them that are or shall be committed to their charge All this is setled by Law and all Ministers subscribe to it And is not this enough to the essence of a Pastors office What is the Reason The next promise is Reverently to obey their Ordinary and other chief Ministers to whom is committed the charge and government of them following with a glad mind and will their godly admonitions and submitting themselves to their godly judgments This shews that 1. It is not a strict Divine Right that is meant over them for all Ordinaries and other chief Ministers pretend not to such right 2. If others superiority null their office then none is in office but the King Was Diâ—trepâ—es no Minister because John threatned him as his superior It 's liker he had been none for resisting John of the two Were all degraded that obeyed the Apostles If it should be an error that a Parochial Bishop is a Governor over his junior-Presbyters or a Diocesan over both that nulleth not the Presbyters office The Presbyterians give a Classis or Synod as much power over particular Churches as the Episcopal give to Diocesans or near And yet few Separatists have thence concluded that they have no particular Churches or that this nulleth them contrarily ab est tertii adjecti ad est secundi valet argumentum Parish Churches are govern'd Churches subject to superiors ergo they are Churches And the Law calls them Churches 〈◊〉 it taketh them for Churches while it taketh no essential from them XXIII There are some particular Drs. in England indeed who say that There is no Church without a Bishop of its own and 〈◊〉 Epiâ—câ—pus ibi Ecclesia and that Ecclesia est plâ—â—s Epâ—sâ—â—â— aduâ—ata and that our Parish Ministers are no Bishops and that their sole Ordinations are nullities and consequently it would follow that their Parish Churches are truly but parts of a Church infimae specieâ— And because these men speak against Reordination and yet require those to be ordained again who were here ordained by mere Presbyters therefore it seemeth plain that they take the former for no true Ordination These men I have oft confuted especially in my Treatise of Episcopacy And hence some gather that I charge this error on all the Church of England and take the Law and Clergy to nullifie the Parish-Ministry and Churches Therefore I am specially obliged to answer such misconcluders lest they make my writings a means of deceit against my sence and against my will for so unhappy is the controversal world even of men of Worth and Name that if I do but say that two is less than three and that four is more than three they fear not to say that I contradict my self and R. is against B. and sometimes I speak for and sometimes against the same cause and these being ordinary Disputers and Church-guides What hope have the Christian Flocks of Unity and Peace but by such mens ceasing their disputes Here therefore it must be noted 1. That the men of this opinion are not to be called The Church of England The most of the Bishops and Clergy formerly were against them Dr. Hammond and Bishop Gunning and a few more were almost the first that seemed to go so far 2. And yet even these few do usually except the case of necessity and of the forreign churches as Dr. Sherlock hath lately done at large so that then they cannot take their Episcopal ordination received to be essential to the Priesthood 3. And these men themselves call our Parish societies Parish Churches and deny not the Presbyters to be Episcopi Gregis and to have a pastoral care of the peoples souls for they own the Liturgy Ordination and other writings of the Church which assert it 4. Their opposition to Presbytery hath carried them to appropriate the name Bisâ—op to the Diocesans but by it they mean only a Bishop over Presbyters having the power to ordain and depose them and to â—â— be chief in governing all the flocks But the controversie de nomine and de re are not the same This denieth not all Pastoral Episcopacy in Presbyters over the flocks under them That these men by running into extreams do ill many have written to prove But maiming the Parish Ministry or too much limiting it is not nullifying it 5. Let it be considered that even the Separatists say not that the Power of Ordination is essential to Pastors Some of them take Pastors unordained only elected and received with prayer Some take men ordained by nâ—ighbour Pastors that have no power over them Some take men ordained by Bishops some by Magistrates And Jurisdiction over nâ—ighbour Pastors I am sure the Separatists will say belongs neither to the being or well being of a Pastor If then it be the Power of Ordaining and of Jurisdiction over other Pastors which the Diocesans
I confess one man may possibly live under so intollerable a Minister as is not to be owned And even some of the high adversaries of Nonconformists seem of this mind and break the Canon and having Pastors who they think do not heartily confâ—rm â—ut plead for Peace and Moderation they revile them as Trimmers and will not Communicate wiâ—h them but go out of their own Parishes and thousands seldom any where Other circumstances also may vary mens cases â—ut some Objectors at last tâ—ll us that the great difference which they mean is differeâ—t light Tâ—e â—ld Martyrs Reformers and Nonconformists had not so much light as we and so it wâ—s not thâ—â—r sin but greater light being now mâ—râ— common it will be a common sin to jâ—yn in the Liturgy Ans 1. It is ordinary and easie for men to magnifie their own understandings but Gods Law was then the same as now and they were bound to know it Their ignorance might make sin less and stripes fewer but could not make it none 2. I have many Reasons to think that it is your light that is lâ—ss and the old Nonconformists and Conformists in this that was greater 1. That is the greater light that most agreeth with Gods Word and thâ— universal churches practice accordingly 2. The writings of the old Nonconformists yet extant give better reasâ—ns than the seperatists did and therefore had clearer light What vast difference is there in the writings of Ball Hildersham Amâ—sius Manuductions Gifford Paget Bradshaw c. on that part and Johnsons Cans Penrys c. on the other 3. The Theological writings and labours of the Nonconformists in all other points shewed that they were men of incomparable more light than the Separatists and is it like that God would give men such rare light only in church communion that had so little comparatively in the rest of Divinity except Ainsworth's skill in Hebrew in other things by Paget laid too naked how few old Separatists have left any considerable fruits of great light unto the church Read the writings of Cartwright Dudley Fenner Hildersham John Reignolds Dod Perkins Baiâ— Parker Ames Bradshaw c. Besides Scots and all Foreigners such as Calvin Beza Zanchy Sadeel and hundreds more and compare these with the Writings of the Separatists and judg who had greater light 4. Since 1660. all the London Ministers and others with them tâ—at offered the King to set up in the parish churches the old Liturgy with some alterations were men except my self who shewed in their Writings and preaching as much light as the Separatists have shewed even Brown or John Goodwin himself that wrote Prelatical Preachers are no Teachers of Christ Where do they now shew greater light than others this boast to me deserveth pity more than confutation Anabaptists and others say the same but I find much less light in them both when I read and hear them tho I truly love and honour all that is good in them If you have so much more light than we and all the Reformed churches shew it us in other excellencies XLI But I must more particularly consider of this Authors Allegation of my own words against me especially my Treatise of Episcopacy And I do heartily thank him for calling me to review it For 1. I profess to write nothing which may not be amended And 2. If mens misunderstanding turn my writings to a snare and scandal it greatly concerneth me to remove it by explication or by retractation of any thing that needeth it And 1. I do find that I have incautelously given some occasion to the mistake for thol entituled my Book not against Diocesan episcopacy but against that sort of Diocesan churches Prelacy and Government which casteth out the Primitive church spâ—cies of â—piscopacy Ministry and Discipline and tho to avoiâ— mistake I said in the Preface I â—ere give notice to the Reader that whenever 〈…〉 me speak as against the English Diocesan Prelacy I mean it as described by Cosins and Dr. Zouch and as relating to the Et câ—tera Oaths and 〈◊〉 and not in opposition to the laws of the Land Yet all this was not enough to avoid misunderstanding Indeed I took the church Government to be described and judged of by the churches own sentence more than by the â—â—w and I had read the said Et cetera oath and canons with the words that so it â—ught to stand which I think could mean nothing less than that so by Gods Law it ought to stand and I had read the old canons 6 th 7 th and 8 th Which exâ—ommunicate ipso facto all men withâ—ut excepting Lâ—rds or Parliament Mâ—n who affirm that any thing in the church Government by Arch-Bishops Bishops Deans Arch-Deacons and THE REST that bear office therein is repugnant to the Word of God And I read the canons that forbid Ordained Ministers to preach till they are further licensed by Bishops yea and in the church or elsewhere so much as to expound any Doctrine or Matter but only to râ—ad Scripture and Homilies c. with much more like this 3. And then I took the stated restraint of the Ministry with Lay-chancellors and officials decreâ—ive power of Excommunication and absolution and the foresaid Civilians denying all Gâ—venment to Presbyters to have been quoad exercitium quantum 〈◊〉 at least an overthrow of parish churches Rectors and discipline 4. And I thought that the Bishops and Chancellors could never have so long done all this and ruled by these canons if the Law had not been on their side 5. And I thought that the Authors of the canons of 1640 being a câ—nvoâ—aâ—iâ—n it was to be called the Church of England and specially when I found the most highly honoured Doctors pleading there was no Bishop but Dâ—â—cesan and no church without its proper Bishop By all these inducements with long sad experience I oft speak so incautelously calling this the English dâ—â—â—â—san frame that the Reader might easily think that I meant it was that frame that was setled by law whereas having read â—ryn Hâ—ntley Leighâ—â—â— and others that deny the law to be for it and being my self a stranger to that case of Law I should have more fully separated the Law case from the new convocation case and much more from the destructive Innovators case who nullified the foreign churches with whom it was that I disputed and specially considering that the canons and oath of 1640. were aâ—ter cashier'd by Parliament and never since restor'd no not by the Parliament of 1662. Upon all this 1. I retract all words that seem to determine the case in Law if any such be there or that by darkness tend so to the Readers error 2. And all words that make the writings of superconformists and subverâ—ers or changâ—rs of the church government or the canons of the convocation 1640 to be the sense of the Church of England when it is said that before its sence was otherwise and alteration is now abjured
for another yet agreeing in the same ordinary external Communion one part may be called national as well as the other The question is de â—omine the name equivocal from diversity of relations I own 1. A Christian Kingdom 2. I own a national association of Parish Churches and Pastors 3. Tho these submit to Diocesan superiority and be parts of a Diocess but true single Churches I do not therefore separate from them 4 A national Church headed by one constitutive pastoral Head I disown call which you will the national Church But saith he of his approved parish Church P. 14. Such a Church aâ—â—iâ—meth to it self all that pastâ—ral pâ—wer that in pursuance of Canon and Statute Law is fixed in the Bishop Ans Incogitantly spoken Do all Independents assume the power of Ordination Jurisdiction over others Citations Licencing Subspendings Degradings silencings instituting inducting c. which are so fixed on the Bishop If none of this be pastoral power then the appropriating it is no depriving parish Ministers of pastoral power and to be under Magistrates power nulls not the pastors XLIX What he saith about unlawful terms of Communion p 21. c. in the instances of kneeling putting off the hat standing up c. I answer 1. The Author all along seemeth to forget that I am not accusing him not telling every man his duty but only giving the Reasons of my own and such others practice so they make a long ado to vindicate him whose Manuscript I answered and say His question was only whether it be lawful to communicate with the churches as setled by Law and not in other respects When I ever told them I meddle with none of their Questions but my own viz 1. Whether I and such other do well or ill in that communion we hold with the Parish Churches 2. Whether all Protestants in England are bound in conscience to renounce and avoid Communion in the Liturgy with all Parish Churches and Chappels and rather to give over all church worship I only gave my Reasons why that Manuscript divulged and boasted of as unanswerable changed not my Judgment and I answered that in his Arguments which went further than the question put by them and assaulted my own assertions having before in my Christian Directory and cure of Church divisions without naming him fully answered his printed Reasons to prove it unlawful to use an imposed form or Liturgy especially because Ministers must use their own gifts But if any man believe that it is a sin to communicate kneeling or standing or sitting unless he lye down as Christ did or at any time save at a feast or supper or any where save in an Inn or an upper room or with any women or more than twelve or if they think it sin to kneel at prayer or be uncovered or to sing Psalms in our Metre and Tunes whether these men should separate from all the Churches that will not receive them in their own way or how far they do well or ill that will not let every man do what he will is none of the case that I have before me It will not follow that I must separate from a Church that bids me kneel and be uncovered c. because you take it to be sin put not your measures on all others And here because same maketh Mr. Faldo the Author of the Vindication which I answered that I may so far vindicate him as to shew that it 's â—earce likely I ask whether if Mr. Faldo did well as a pastor to keep up a church at Barnâ—â— many years which would not endure the singing of a psalm of praise to God but constantly forbore it tho his Judgment was against them besides that many of them were not only against Infant Baptism but fâ—rther differ'd in other things was this communion more lawful or laudable than with honest parish Ministers in the Liturgy Did he the whole office of a pastor What if the Bishop had forbid him to sing â—salms Is not the Church State more concerned in the whole congregation than in an absent Bishop what greater omission or defect is there in many Parish-Churches I again say that I am so far of the Judgment of Hildersham John Ball c. that I had rather joyn caeteris paribus in a Church that useth the Psalms Chapters and all the Lords-day Prayers in the Liturgy before Sermon than one that only giveth us one Psalm or none and a Pulpit-prayer and a Sermon without all the rest of Church Worship L. I will conclude all with repeating a little of the Explication of my misused writings I. The pastoral Oversight of the Laity by the Elders or Bishops of the several Flocks is of Christs Institution and belongs to all true Presbyters And tho in necessity it may be done by divers transient Ministers pro tempore most regularly every Church should have it s stated Pastors II. Where such Churches are large the work requireth many Ministers where each one hath but part of the Charge III. Reason and Church-consent among these made one a President over the rest and called him the Bishop pecularly if it were in Marks days as Hierom saith it was in John's And tho this be not essential to a Church it is lawful and fit and at last it grew to so great a Reputation and Opinion of necessity that all Churches had such Bishops and gave them a Negative voice and ordained not without them and defined Churches as essentiated by Relation to them Ecclesia est plebs Episcopo adunata If now such men as J.O. Mr. Nye Dr. Goodwin c. should have in one Church six or seven young men of their own training up to be their Assistant-presbyters I do not think an Independent Church would take it for any crime that he should have a Negative voice in acts of Order and Discipline or that they should ordain Ministers therein without his Consent IV. By degrees single Congregations increased to as many as our great Parishes that have Chappels and tho still they communicated in the chief Church at some special times of the year they ordinarily met in divers places and the Presbyters officiated some in one meeting and some in another at first whosoever the Bishop daily sent but after their particular Tyths or Chappels were assigned to each yet all together were esteemed but one Church governed by one Bishop and his Colledg of Presbyters V. When they increased yet more and more fixed Chappels were assigned to fixed Presbyters but not as distinct Churches but parts of the Diocesan Church tho at last they were larger than one Bishop and Colledg could guide according to the first Institution VI. Yet long every Christian City had a Bishop and Church and every incorporate big Town like our Corporations or Market-Towns was called a City not because it had a Market as a reverend Slanderer seigneth me to lay but because Custom the master of Language called all Corporations and great
Christs Name to invest him solemnly in the number of the faithful delivering him a sealed pardon of all his sins and a grant of right to grace and glory Can there be a higher exercise of the Keys Matth. 28.19 20. It is the Apostles work Disciple me all nations baptizing them c. And Dr. Hammâ—nd thinketh that in Scripture-time there were no Baptizing Presbyters but Bishops and indeed it is so great a use of the Keys that this chiefly condemneth Laymens and womens Baptizing at least the trying the Catechized and judging of their capacities must needs be the prime great act of church-Church-Power whatever be said of the executâ—â—n Now Papists and Protestants generally place this Power in Parochial Incumbents yea and in all other â—resbyters Even those that convert Countreys of Infidels and are under no particular Bishop must baptize and judg of the Catechumens capacity for baptism and are Parish Incumbents denied this Office power of the Keys and is it the Diocesan or they that use it by baptizing Obj. The Canon requireth them to baptize all Infants brought according to law and so not to be the Judges Ans You should say and so commandâ— them how to judge The Magistrate may command men how to do their office-work and yet neither be the maker nor unmaker of the office tho he mistake If Rulers misgovern that 's their sin but the office of Pastors is still the same and we must not misobey but suffer and as Bâ—shop Bilson saith Go on with our work as long as we can 2. And to bid them do more than they would is not to null their power of doing less And to punish a man for his duty is not to diâ—oblige him from it till it truly disable him 2. A second great exercise of the Church Keys is Ministerially as from Christ to declare his Laws and charge men to obey them both the Church together and particular persons singly As Legislation is the first and great part of Christs Government before Judicature so the Ministerial declaring Christs commands and demanding obedience is the great act of Government The same word therefore comprehendeth feeding and ruling 1 Pet 5.2 3. c. Matth. 24.45 46. Who then is a faithful and wise servant whom his Lord hath made ruler over his houshold to give them meat in due seaâ—â—n It is ruling by seasonable feeding 1 Thes 5.12 To be over them is exercised by labouring amongst them and admonishing them 1 Tim. 5.17 Ruling well is nothing greater than labouring in the word and dâ—ctrine 1 Tim. 3.2 A Bishâ—p must be apt to teach Dr. Hammond One that is able and ready to communicate to others the knowledg that he himâ—elf hath Heb. 13.7 â—7 24. Ruling the flâ—ck is by teaching and watching over thâ—m To be the greatest is to be most serviceable to all to be ruled by them is to know them to esteem them highly in love for their works sake to obey Gods word delivered by them and their conduct in mutable circumstances Heb. 13.7 1 Thes 5.12 And to imitate their good examples 1 Pet. 5.3 And what law forbids Incumbents to promulgate Christs commands and charge men to obey them Or to go to any negligent person of his Flock with the same charge or to go to any Drunkard Fornicator Railer and to tell him from God of hâ—s sin and danger and exhort and command him to repent and amend And who most doth this work among us 3. Another part of Government is to judg professing Christians capable of Sacramental Communiâ—â— and admit them and deliver it them as Christs Ministers bâ— his comâ—â—â—siâ—â— anâ— from him And therein to renew their publick absoâ—ution and theâ—r Coâ—enant pâ—iâ—â—ledg and their delivered part in Christ and right to life Noâ—e dare dâ—â—y that this is a high part of the power of the Keys and proper Governmeâ—t to judg who is capable of Church Communion and receive them and deliver them from Christ the pledg of life And all Papists and Protestants almost judg this power essential to the Priesthood and common to all Parochial Incumbents And the Church of England as I said before 1. Delivereth it to them in Ordination 2. Requireth them to catechize and certâ—fie for such as shall be confiâ—med and methinks the Diocesan here useth less of the judicial power than the Incumbent for he doth but lay his hands on them and say a prayer over such as come to him for no man can dream that he can examine all the people in his Diocess so far as to judg whether they are fit for Communion Therefore he is supposed but to execute the judgment of the certifying Incumbent If he take all at a venture without a certificate or knowledg or if the Incumbent be unfaithful I cannot help or excuse that 3. They are required to keep away all that be not confirmed or ready and desirous of it 4. They may hear any just accusation of the scandalous 5. They may admonish him if he will speak with them 6. They may refuse him if obstinate and impenitent 7. They may declare the reason why they do so as Christs Ministers by his Authority and tell the Church their duty to avoid the Communion of such 8. They may bind him over to answer his contumacy at the Bar of God and what of this is denied by the Church to belong to the Incumbents Office and who else is capable of doing this in Parishes that have multitudes of ungodly persons If all this should be made so difficult by the multitude and badness of delinquents or by bad Canons or bad Government of the Church by Diocesans Officials c. and thereby be almost all left undone I cannot help that nor excuse it but what I have said against such doing is too little And if Priests be so bad that they will any where sooner scorn it than practice it at the rate that it must cost them I am as much against such Priests as others are But I will not therefore make the Office of Christâ— Ministers the creature of man and mutable at his will nor will I forsake faithful Ministers for the sake of the perfidious no nor for their own tolerable faults or imperfections And now consider seriously 1. Whether there be any essential part of the office of a Pastor denied by that which may justly be called the Church of England to the Parish Incumbents 2. And whether incomparably more of it even of the government of the flocks by the Kâ—ys of Christs Institution be not by Law and Canon required and in fact performed by the said Incumbents than by the Diocesans And whether any use it if they do not If it be alledged that I have in my Treatise of Episcopacy named many instances in which they are deprived of the exercise of the very essentials I still answer that if any shall by misgoverning Canons or practise lay penalties on them that will perform their office these do their part to
destroy it but their sin may consist with the true office that is hindred If we cannot pray without penalty we are yet bound to pray And if any such penalties should prevail with any Ministers to cast off so much of Discipline as is indeed their duty their office is so far destroyed as to its exercise But it is not every ill Council Canon Bishop or Priest of old when they began to be corrupted that changed and nullified the Pastoral Power and Office as from Christ I have repeated things over and over here because I would not be misunderstood nor leave a snare behind me to mislead men The sum again is 1. The Pastoral Office in specie is instituted by Christ and his Spirit therefore the essence of it is unchangeably fixed by him and no Bishops or Churches may change it by pretending they may give Presbyters as their servants what degree or kind of power they please or make the office another thing II. The said office in mutable accidents or circumstances may be altered by Princes Laws or the several Churches Agreements and thus far it is humane Of the Divine sort was the Apostolick and other extraordinary Prophetick offices And the ordinary Presbytery commonly called Priesthood and Elders setled over particular Churches were Episcâ—pi Gregis Bishops over the flock And of the humane sort is the Presidency of one in every single Church over the rest of the Presbyters who was the Episcopus Presbyterorum a Bishop over the Presbyters of one single Church as well as over the people This was the old Episcopacy of the first three Centuries this is it which I say our Diocesans have put down and we that would have them restored and would have such a Bishop and Assistant Elders in every Church are by the heighth of impudency said to be against Bishops because we would have them restored to each Church tho not as essential to it as hath been thought of old yet as a way of peace to comply with Antâ—quity and avoid singularity and they that put down many score or hundred Bishops and instead of them would have but one call themselves Episcopal III. Whether Arch-bps Diocesans as successors of the Apostles in the ministerial care of many Churches by the word and not the sword be of Divine or Human Institution I am in doubt IV. The cogent Power by the Sword is only the Magistrates and if Diocesans appropriate this only they are Magistrates and thereby take none of our office from us V. The â—ssence of the Parish ministerial oversight being of God de specie and the accidents that are mutable from man the existence of the office in individual persons is not without consent of the Pastors so that no man can be a Pastor against or without his will nor yet without a capacity in qualifiâ—atiâ—n so that if you prove any person to be uncapablâ— or else to have truly disclaimed and renounced the essentials of his office I am not about to perswade you that such a man is a true Pastor VI. But then we must know that indeed it is such an incapacity or renunciation and not a tollerable defect nor subscriptions and Oaths which by unseen consequences may seem to renounce it when the man took them in a sense which renounced it not For tho such a man may greatly sin by taking Oaths or subscriptions in a forced sense which plainly taken would infer worse yet his sin is not a renunciation of the office if he declare that he meant it in a better sence and took it on such mistake for we must not for bare words against mens meaning quibble or dispute our selves into unwarrantable separations out of Christian Communion especially when it is specially necessary VII And if any lay-men or men unauthorized will usurp the Keys or any Councils will make hurtful Canons and hinder men in the work appointed by God we must be faithful and patient and God in due time will judg and decide all causes justly VIII The office-power is essentially related to the work so far as Parochial Incumbents are allowed the work as of Christ they are acknowledged to be Pastors and Bishops of the flocks tho the name were denied them and so far as the Bishops office may be delegated to Lay-men or to Clergy-men of another Order so far it is Humane and not proper to them by Gods Institution They therefore that say All Diocesans Jurisdiction may be so delegated to them that are no Bishops but that the Pastoral Rectorship by Word Sacraments and Keys cannot be delegated to any men that are not of the same office do thereby say as much as that the Diocesan government is of men and may be changed by men but the Pastoral Incumbency is of Christ and cannot be changed The Lord that instituted it protect it and save it from Satans most dangerous assault which is by getting his own servants into it by error and malignity and strife and cruelty to do his work as the Ministers of Righteousness and as by Christs Authority and in his name London Aug. 13. 1684. POSTSCRIPT Aug. 25. 1684. HE that gave me notice of this Book which I answer did withall send me a Manuscript to be privately answered containing the very same things but somewhat enlarged His displeasure against my former mention of his private Writings to me and the Contents made me confident that he would not have any thing Published which I should answer to his last By which I found my self in a notable strait For if he at once privately sent me his reasons and also in another Book Printed them if I should answer his private papers which reason forbad me doing in my condition for his use alone I should judg my self forestalled from answering the Printed Book because the matter being the very same and 't is likely by the same man I should be supposed to have broken the Laws of Civility to have answered his private papers But having no Amanuensis or Scribe to take any Copy of his papers or my own I thought it the best way to return his unanswered they being Written for my use which Reading will as fully serve as answering them but supposing the Printed papers must be answered I inserted also an answer to the strength of all his additionals in the Manuscript And at last he giveth me some notice of his thoughts of publishing the Manuscript or a vindication of it Which falls well for the Readers use that I have answered that Manuscript before it is Published without taking notice of it and sâ— avoiding wordy altercations The Author professeth himself my great acquaintance Who he is I know not but he seemeth to be a very rational sober man God forbid that I should ever contribute unless duty do it accidentally to the grievance of such men I doubt not but he speaketh as he thinketh And I doubt I have given him occasions by some uncautelous words in my writings I
deny the Parish Pastors theâ— deny them nothing hereby essential to theiâ— office All that can with any colour be said is that the Law now seems to be on these mens side by requiring Reordination But 1. The Law-makers profess to establish the Church and not to change it to another thing 2. The Law-makers were not all of one mind in the Reasons of their Laws nor had all studied these kind of controversies Many of them and of the Clergy to this day say that it is not a proper ordination that they require but the giving them Authority to exercise their Ministry in England and the decision of a doubtful case Part of the Church taketh them for true Ministers that were ordained by Presbyters and part do not and that the Congregations may not divide they say they require this like Baptizing after a doubtful Baptism If thou art not baptized I baptize thee I am against this But this proveth not that they take a Presbyter for no Pastor Yea tho they should take his ordaining others to be a nullity Ordaining not being essential to him XXIV The Act of Uniformity or the like Law cannot make the Church no Church or of another species than 1. As it is esteemed by God and his Law 2. Or as it is esteemed by the greater part of the Christian Clergy and Laity Tho the Law should speak as the foresaid odd innovators do For 1. All Christians profess that Christ is the only just Institutor of the essentials of his own Churches All Christians profess Communion with them as Churches of Christs making by his Law The present Church of England professeth this in many books it bindeth all Ministers to hold to Scripture sufficiency and use Discipiine as well as Doctrine and Worship as Christ commandeth It openly holdeth all Laws and Canons about Church essentials yea and integrals to be void and null that are against the Sacred Scriptures and Law of God There is no Power but of God God hath given no power to nullifie his institutions 2. All true Christians who consent to a Parish Minister and attend on his Ministry and join in the Assemblies openly profess to own him first as a Minister of Christ and to join in Worship and Communion of the church as prescibed by Christ which no man hath power to overthrow 3. The Parliament and Convocations and Bishops and Clergy all confess that they have no power to overthrow the Church essentials or offices of Christs Institution They have not revoked the Church Writings in which all this is oft professed They confess that if their Laws mistake and do contrary they bind us not They never openly professed a war against God or Jesus Christ What if one Dr. S. Parker make Christ subject to the King in his Kingdom he is not the Kingdom nor the Church of England For all his words they never made any Law to command Christ or to punish him They never cited him to appear before them nor did any penal execution on his Person which Government implieth They bow at his name and profess subjection to him Therefore if the law had by error said any thing inconsistent with the essence of Churches and Ministry it had not been obligatory to Pastors or people but they ought still to take Churches and Pastors to be what Christ hath made them and described them to be XXV Suppose a Law should say All families shall be so under Diocesans as to have no power but from them and all shall subscribe to this This doth not null family-power and society as instituted by God nor make it a sin to live in Families nor dissolve them all But all must continue in Families as instâ—tuted by God And if any subscribe to this it will not make it a sin in all Wives Children and Servants to live in those families If the Law had said All Schools in England shall be essentially subject to Diocesans must we therefore have had no more Schools Or if the School-master subscribe to them is it a sin to be his Scholar If the Law should say All Christians shall choose their own Pastors and meet and pray and preach as they please but only in essential subjection to Diocesans must all therefore give over Church Communion If the Law had said All the Parish-Assemblies in England shall henceforth be essentially subject to the Pope or a forreign Council We must not therefore have forborn all such Assembling but have kept to the state and duty appointed us by Christ XXVI Here the mistaking Opponents say 1. That indeed de jure none can change the Essence of Christs Ministry and Churches but de facto they may and have done Ans What is meant by changing it de facto Have they de facto nulled Christs Power Law or Offices and Churches What Nulled it by a Nullity of pretended Authority and overcome his Power without Power De jure and de facto to be a true Church or Pastor is all one Christ made true ones De facto they cannot unmake them but by destroying matter or form because they cannot do it de jure They have destroyed neither matter or form of such parish churches as I plead for and which Christ instituted for they had not power to do it Indeed they may de facto make other sort of Churches and Ministers to themselves tho not de jure but not to us who stick to Christs institutions XXVII But say they We confess if the Law did bid all assemblies in England meet in dependance on Diocesans private and publick this would not alter the species of our separate Churches because man hath not power and we consent not Ans Very good And I pray you what alters the case as to the Parish-Churches Is it that they have Steeples and Bells or that they have Tythes It 's the Calamity of Dissenters that they either cannot consider or can feel no strength in the plainest truth that is said against them but thoughts and sense run all one way which they think right XXVIII Obj. But say they Constitutive and Declaritive Laws must be distinguished They can but declare our Meetings to be Diocesan which is false 〈…〉 the Parish-Meetings such Ans 1. Remember that declaring the Parish-Churches to be such doth no more constitute them such than yours Why then talk you so much of the words of Bishops and Clergy and Books as if their declarations made them such 2. But how doth a Law constitute one the Parochial to be Diocesan or null more than your separate meetings if by a Law of toleration it should say the same of them The truth is They are such to consenters that judg them such But they constitute them not such to any that consent not to such a constitution but hold to Christs XXIX But it is said that our thoughts alter not constitutions they are our own immanent acts that nihil ponunt in esse and therefore the Pastors and Churches will be
Communicant hath not so much more than I. XXXVI But say they then you are bound to avâ—â—d sâ—andal by professing openly that you Communicate 〈◊〉 a Dissenter and not with the Church as established by Law Ans 1. Then I should falsly say that which I either think is otherwise or am not resolved in I tell you Few can truly say this if any 2. What need this when the open Profession of all Christians is That it is a Church and Worship of Christs making which they own and intend and none that is against them And when the Articles of the Church of England and the Ordination covenant own Scripture-sufficiency and disclaim all that is against Gods word Must we be supposed to renounce Religion when we meet to profess it And surely for disowning any thing which the Nonconformists judg unlawful all the Books written by them and all the notorious sufferings in twenty two years Ejection and Prosecution are no obscure Notification of their Judgments without speaking it at the Church â—oors or before the Assemblies Must I openly protest against Independency Anabaptistry or Presbytery if I dissent before the face of their Congregations if I will Communicate with them 3. But to stop your demand befâ—re I Communicated in the Parish â—hurch where I now am I went to the Incumbent and told him that I would not draw him into danger or intrude against his will I had been â—â—iled by the Kings Commission and after by the Lord Keeper to debate about Alteration in the Liturgy and Worship and Discipline and I thought that thereby I waâ— by 〈◊〉 6 7 8. ipso facto Excommunicate but not bound to do Execution on my self and therefore if I were separated it should not be my act but I left it to his will He took time and upon advice admitted me Obj. But you must tell them that the Parish Church hath no dependance on the Bishops but as the Kings Officers and that it is Independent and then you fall not under our opposition Ans 1. How many Lawyers and Civilians do openly say as Crompton before Cosins Tables that all Church Government floweth from the King And doth that satisfie you 2. And why must the Parish Church and Pastor needs be Independent Will you have no Communion with Presbyterians 3. And what if it be dependent on the Diocesan as governour tho not as destroyer Is it any more destructive of its Essence than to be governed by a Classis or Council XXXVII As for your telling us Wâ—â—m the Canons eâ—câ—mmunicate or 〈◊〉 Lay-chancellors Officials Surrogates Archdeacâ—ns c. excâ—mmunicate what Oaths they impâ—se c. tell them of it and not us who are not responsible for other mens deeds It no more concerneth our cause of Parochial Lay-communion than to tell us how bad men some Ministers are nor so much neither For I that willingly joyn in the Liturgy will not willingly if I know it so much as seem to own the Ministry of any man that is notoriously Insufficient Atheistical Heretical or so Malignant or Wicked as to do more hurt than good Avoid such and spare not XXXVIII Obj. They want the Peoples câ—nsent and so are no Pastâ—rs Ans The People shew their consent by ordinary Submission and Communion Obj. The People must be supposed to consent to the Law which maketh them no Pastors but the Bishops Curates Ans Both the Suppositions are before confuted both that the People are supposed to consent to any Law against Gods and that the Law maketh Curates to be no Pastors XXXIX To conclude the Objections about the Essence of Parish Churches 1. The question is not Whether there be not a sort of Diocesan Prelacy which nulleth them 2. Nor whâ—ther there be not some men in England that write and plead for such Diocesan Churches as have no true Episcopâ—s pregis much less Episcopus 〈◊〉 under them but are 〈◊〉 Bishops in that Diocess Nor of what number power or interest these men are of against whom I have oft written 3. But whether the Law be on their side or against them for the old Diocesan Government of subordinate Pastors and Churches is to me nâ—w uncertain I did once incline most to the fiâ—â—t sense of the Law but on secâ—nd thoughts hope better of it and am not Lawyer good enough to be certain 4. But if it should be so I verily think â—â—e main 〈◊〉 of the 〈…〉 and therefore 〈◊〉 not to renounce their Pâ—rish â—overnment â—ut only to use it in subordination to the Bishop 5. And I am pâ—st doubt that all the Communicants of England are neither â—ound to decide this Law-doubt nor to understand it nor to believe that the Law hath altered the Government 6. And if they did believe it they ought to keep on in Church Assemblies according to Christs Law taking all that 's against it as void as long as they are put â—n no sin themselves nor the Church notoriously renounceth its â—ssentials 7. And if they were stated Members of other Churches e.g. the Greâ—k the Dutch the French they might â—ccasionally Communicate in our Parishes transiently without examining the Pastors call and discipline but judging by possession and practice 8. And if they should prove no lawfully called Ministers their Office would be valid to those that blamelesly were deceived and knew it not 9. And if they were sure that they were no true Ministers they may joyn with them in all Worship belonging to Lay-Christians 10. But if they prove able godly Ministers of Christ tho faulty setled by Law to the advantage of Religion in a Christian Kingdom where all are commanded thus to maintain national Concord and the upholding those Churches is the very National possession of the Protestant Religion and it goeth for publick Disobedience and Scandal to forsake them and that at a time when many forsake them too for unjust grounds and by suffering for it stand to unwarrantable Accusations of them and sharply Censure those that do not as they and oppugne Peacemakers and all this after the old Nonconformists full Confutation of the Separatists unwarrantable way and the doleful experience of Subversion of all sorts of Government by the Prosecution of such mistakes I say If all this should be the case it is deeply to be considered XL. But the most effectual hindrance is the opinion of unlawfulness in jâ—yning in the Liturgy yet my last Objectors confess that It is lawful to some and that it is nâ—t Communion in it much less in all forms which they call unlawful tâ— all And the sober sort are loth to say tâ—at the Millions of Christians in England and Scotland who live where they can be in no other Churches should rather like Atheists live without all Church-Worship and local Communion And in gaining this I have gained the better half of what I pleaded for And they confess and so do I that publick Communion may be one mens duty and anotâ—â—rs sin as circumstances vary
choice And our present Canons since 1604 tho they null not the Parochial Pastorship do so far restrain it as I hope my Conscience shall never approve But yet for that I will not forsake what is of God nor make mans failings a pretence against my duty to God and Man to the Violation of Love Unity and Peace Yet I will try by distinct speaking to make both the Case and my meaining plainer if I can And thereby to shew that our case differeth but gradually from the old Nonconformists as to Lay-mens Parochial Communion where there are honest Ministers And that the old Nonconformists had better Evidence Scripture and Reason on their side than either those Innovators who make Parish-Pastors to be but de specie of humane Institution made by Bishops and changeable by them having just so much power as they please to give them or the Brownists that are so much of the same Principles as to think that mens Laws or Canons can change the form of the Office or that judg it nullified by tollerable Imperfections and Communion made unlawful by such faults as are found in almost all the Churches on Earth Qu. Whether according to the description of the Scripture and the exposition of Dr. Hammond himself all qualified Parish Ministers be not true Pastors and Bishops of the Flocks and with their consenting Christian Communicants true particular Churches and de facto all be not in the power given them by God which is essential hereto and in the power generally acknowledged by the legal Church Ans I have spoken to this so largely in my Treatise of Episcopacy and there added the testimonies of Writers old and new Protestants and Papists that I will give but a breviate of it here The essence of the Church Ministry consisteth in POWER and OBLIGATION FROM CHRIST to teach to guide in Worship and to oversee and guide the Conversation and Communion of the Flocks If it were not of Christ they were but officers of men de specie even of an office of mans making Dr. Hammond saith that Christ gave the Keys only to the Apostles and they only to their Successors That there is no evidence that there were any of a second order of Presbyters in Scripture time that this order was after made by Man Mr. Dodwell sheweth how and why and more fully than Dr. Hammond asserteth that such Presbyters have no more power than the ordaining Bishops intended to give them Or saith Dr. H. If they have a first power it is such as may not be exercised without a second so that it is indeed no true power to act And the Dr. plainly tells the London Ministers p. 80 81. There is no manner of incongruity in assigning of one Bishop to one Church and so one Bishop in the Church of Jerusalem because it is A. CHURCH not Churches being forced to acknowledg that where there were more Churches there were more Bishops And he denied our Presbyters that were not Diocesans to be Bishops both City and Country Presbyters And consequently that our Parishes were no Churches And on these grounds he and Bishop Gunning and such others judged Presbyters Ordination null because they were no Bishops And the said Dr. tho I thought he had been next Petavius one of the first that had expounded the new Testament Elders to be all Bishops of several Diocesses yet tells us that he thought most of his brethren were of his mind herein And when we in Worcestershire formed a Pacificatory Association of the Epicopal Presbyterians Indepâ—ndents and Peace-makers agreeing lovingly to practice so much in Doctrine Worship and Discipline as we were for according to our several principles forbearing each other in the rest and Dr. Warmstâ—â—â— and Dr. Tho. Good being for Bishops subscribed to it Dr. Peter Gunnâ—â—g wroâ—e largely against so doing to Dr. Warmstrie and took him off upon these aforesaid principles and they then called their Judgment the Judgment of the Church of England and wrote as if the Church had been of their mind and gone their way I wrote â—large Answer to Dr Gunning's Paper not printed and proved that the old Protestant Bishops and Doctors were of another mind largely citing their testimonies in my Christian Câ—ncâ—rd and plainly warned English Protestâ—nts to take heed of these Innovators and that the name of the Church and Episcopacy deceive them not against the Church and Protestant Cauâ—e many â—ose against me for this with great indignâ—tion especially Arch-Bishop Bramhall and two or three learned Writers and would make the world believe that it was the Church of England which I sought to defame and bring under suspition and which owned Grâ—tius and his way of Reconciliation with Rome when as it was for departing from the professed principles of the reformed Bishops and Doctors and from the book of Ordination and other writings of the Church that I blamed them Yet would they needs claim the name of the Church of England And it is not here seasonable for me to tell how many and how great men in 1661 and 1662 seemed by their wâ—rds and doings to be full at least as high as they nor how they expressed it nor how many strongly conceited by the Act thâ—â— requireth reordination of men ordained by Presbyters and by the number rejected who refused it That the Parliament had been of thâ—ir mind and much more the â—â—nvâ—cation called the church-reprâ—sentative especiâ—lly when they heard men call the old Bishops and Arch-Bishops such as â—sher Downame 〈◊〉 c. in Iâ—eland and G. Abbot Rob. Aâ—bâ—t Grindal and many such in England Puritans and Presbyterians And when Pâ—â— Hâ—lâ—â— maketh Arch bishop Abbot and the Bishops and Clergy in his days to â—e of one mind vilified by him and Arch-bishop Laud and his Clergy after of another In this case I gave the name of the present Diocesans to those that thus claimed it and pretended so confidently to the present possession of it but I thought not their claim just And when I sometimes used the name of English Diâ—cesans for this sort who nullifie the Parish Churches and Pastorship it was but to notifie them that so claimed it supposing I had oft sufficiently opened my sense and usually added that they nullifie them not effectively but quantum in se and by their consequences But I again now tell the Reader that I think the Judgment of the church of England considered as humanely constituted by publick professions and by Law much less as divinely constituted is not to be measured or named from any innovators or any that most confidently claim it or think they are uppermost at the present and thereby have that right but as Divine by Gods word whose sufficiency we all profess and as humane by the published Church professions that is the Liturgy the book of Ordination the 39 Articles of Religion the Apology of the Church of England the Defence of that Apology set in all Churches the book of Hâ—milies Nowels