not had more than one of such fixed Societies or Churches under him Or might have more stated members of his Church than were capable of Personal Communion and mutual assistance at due seasons in holy Doctrine Discipline and Worship Though we doubt not but as now there are many Chapels in some Parishes where the aged weak children and all in soul weather or by other hinderances may hear and pray and occasionally communicate whose proximity and relation to the Parish-Churches do make them capable of Personal Communion in due seasons with the whole Parish at least per vices in those Churches and in their conversation And as a single Congregation may prudently in persecution or foul weather meet oft-times in several houses so the great Church of Jerusalem though it cannot be proved a quarter so big as some of our Parishes might in those times when they had no Temples hold their publick Meetings oft at the same time in divers houses and yet be capable of Personal Communion as it is before described Sect. II. It is not inconsiderable to our confirmation that so worthy a man as Dr. Hamond doth over and over in his Dissertations against Blondell and in his Learned Annotations on the new Testament assert all the matter of fact which we are pleading for viz. That the word Presbyter and Pastor in the New Testament is ever taken for a Bishop That it belonged to the Bishops office to be the Preacher to his Church to visit all the Sick to take care of all the Poor and to take Charge of the Churches stock to administer the Sacrament c. And as he saith on Acts 11. 6. That although this Title of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elders have been also extended to a second order in the Church and is now only in use for them under the name of Presbyters yet in the Scripture-time it belonged principally if not alone to Bishops there being NO EVIDENCE that any of that second Order were then instituted though soon after before the writing of Ignatius's Epistles there were such instituted in all Churches Sect. XII By this it followeth that 1. the office of a subject Presbyter that was no Bishop was not in being that can be proved in Scripture-times 2. That no Bishop had more than one worshiping assembly at once For all Christians assembled for worship on the Lords dayes and their worship still included somewhat which none but a Minister of Christ might do and when there was no other Minister in being but Bishops and a Bishop can be but in one place at once a Bishop could have but one assembly Though for our parts we think that we have just reason to believe that Churches then had more Ministers than one when we read how Paul was put to restrain and regulate their publick officiating at Corinth 1 Cor. 14. Sect. XIII And it further confirmeth us that the said Doctor tells us that for ought he knoweth the most of the Church then were of his mind And Franciscus a sancta clara de Episcop tells us that this opinion came from Scotâ—â— And Petavius that Learned Jesuit was the man that brought it in in our times viz. That the Apostles placed only Bishops with Deacons in the Churches and that it is only these Bishops that are called Presbyters in Scripture So that the Matter of fact for the whole Scripture-times is granted us by all these learned men Sect. XIV It being the Divine Institution of the Office of this second Order of Presbyters which we are unsatisfied about and these Reverend men confessing that de facto they were not in being as can be proved by any evidence in Scripture-times and those times extending to about the hundredth or ninety ninth year after Christs Nativity when St. John wrote the Revelation we must confess that we know not how that Order or Office can be proved then to be of God's institution 1. As to the Efficient who should do it as the certain authorized Instruments of God 2. Or how it shall be certainly proved to us to be of God when Scripture telleth it not to us and what Records of it are infallible And whether such pretended proofs of Tradition as a supplement to Scripture be not that which the Papacy is built on and will not serve their turn as well as this Sect. XV. And whereas it is said that the Bishops made in Scripture-times had authority given them to make afterward that second Office or Order of Presbyters 1. We cannot but marvel then that in such great Churches as that at Jerusalem Ephesus Corinth c. they should never use their Power in all the Scripture-times And when they had so many Elders at Jerusalem so many Prophets and Teachers at Antioch and Corinth that Paul was fain to restrain their exercises and bid them prophesie but One by One and one said I am of Paul and another I am of Apollo c. there should yet in that age be none found meet for Bishops to ordain to this second sort of Presbyters as well asmen to make Deacons of 2. But we never yet saw the proof produced that indeed the Bishops had power given them to institute this other Species of Elders Sure it belonged to the Founders of the Churches Christ and his Apostles to institute the Species of Ecclesiastical Officers though the Bishops might make the Individuals afterwards And where is the proof that the Apostles did institute it If Ecclesiastical generation imitate natural the Bishops would beget but their like men beget men so Physicians make Physicians and so Bishops may beget Bishops But he that saith they could morally first beget this other Species must prove it Sect XVI When Presbyters were first distinct from Bishops we see no proof that it was as a distinct Office or Order in specie and not only as a distinct degree and priviledge of men in the same Office Nor hath the Church of Rome it self thought meet to determine this as de fide but suffereth its Doctors to hold the contrary Sect. XVII It much confirmeth us in our judgment that no mere Bishop then had more Churches than one as afore described when we find that Ignatius whose authority Dr. Hamond Dissert cont Blondel Laieth so much of the cause upon and whom Bishop Pierson hath lately so industriously vindicated doth expresly make ONE ALTAR and ONE BISHOP with the Presbyters and Deacons to be the note of a Church Unity and Individuation And that by one Altar is meant one Table of Communion or place where that Table stood is past doubt with the judicious and impartial Whence learned Mr. Joseph Mede doth argue as certain that then a Bishops Church was no other than such as usually communicated in one place Yea saith Ignatius the Bishop must take notice and account of each person even of Man-servants and Maids that they come to the Church And this was the Bishop of a Seat that after was Patriarchal Such Bishops we do
is it denyed but that as Father Son and Holy Ghost do enter into Covenant with us as Christians in our baptism so do they with Ministers as such in their ordination-covenant But such a Relation to the Holy Ghost as the Ministers future helper in his work cannot well be supposed to be all that is meant by the words Receive the Holy Ghost both Scripture and common use taking them in another sense XXV This Oath in the Consecration of Bishops is to be taken by every Bishop In the name of God Amen I. N. Chosen Bishop of the Church and See of N. do profess and promise all due reverence and obedience to the Arch Bishop and to the Metropolitical Church of N. and to their successours so help me God through Jesus Christ 2. It is not pretended that any such Oaths of obedience were instituted by Christ or his Apostles or were used in the Churches for many hundred years nor till the Papacy was rising which was furthered by such Oaths 3. They that suppose Bishops to be successours of the Apostles cannot make them subjects to any other Ecclesiastical Rulers without asserting that the Apostles were Governours over one another which we find not that they do 4. It was many hundred years before arch-Arch-Bishops had any Governing power over Bishops or exacted any obedience from them being not Episcopi Episcoporum as the Carthage Fathers in Cyprian professed But were only such as had the first seats and voices in the Synods 5. The question therefore is whether such Oaths as necessary to a Bishops consecration be to be Approved and consented to XXVI An Oath of Canonical obedience also is put upon all that are made Priests and Deacons And Priests at their ordination must make this Covenant that they will reverently obey their Ordinary and other chief Ministers unto whom is committed the charge and Government over them 2. The ordinary is not only the Bishop but also the Chancellour Officials Surrogates Comissaries arch-Arch-Deacons and all that are Judges ' in the Ecclesiastical Courts 3. to obey them that are thus de facto set over us is no less than to obey them in the excercise of that power which is given them as so set over us 4. The doubt is whether they that take any of them to be Usurpers of an Ecclesiastical power which indeed they have not and can prove it to be so should swear or Covenant obedience to them as such e. g. It is commonly confessed by the Conformists that the true power of the Keys of excommunication and Absolution is appropriated by Christ to the Clergy And yet our Chancellours being lay men do decretively excercise that power The question is may we swear or Covenant to obey them 5. And seeing Christ never gave one Presbyter the Government of others as Archdeacons Surrogates Officials c. whether all the rest may swear obedience to them or Approve of and consent to the use of such Oaths And divers Councils have condemned it as a dangerous practice for Bishops to tle subject Presbyters to them by Oaths XXVII Ministers that live among the people have greatest advantage to know the penitent from the impenitent 2. But it is the foresaid lay Chancellours who usually know nothing of them but by reports that excommunicate and absolve them And the Parish-Minister must as a cryer readeth a proclamation or sentence of a Judge openly read these excommunications and absolutions 3. These excommunications must pass according to the Canons against all that shall affirm that there is any thing in the book of Common-Prayer râ—pugnant to the Scripture or any of the 39 Articles â—rroneous or any of the Rites and Ceremonies such as he may not with a good conscience subscribe to or that the Government by Arch-Bishops Bishops Deans Arch-Deacons and the rest that bear Office in the Church of England is repugnant to the word of God or that any thing in the form and manner of making consecrating Bishops Priests or Deacons is repugnant to the word of God c. 4. The present doubt is whether a Minister who knoweth such of his Parish to be godly peaceable men whom the Chancellour decretively excommunicateth may both openly read and declare such excommunications and also swear or Covenant so to do in obedience to the Ordinary And whether when he knoweth that a wicked impenitent man is absolved he may pronounce such absolutions XXVIII The Oath of Canonical obedience seemeth to mean obedience according to the Canons And he that Covenanteth to obey his ordinary must be supposed to mean no less than According to the Canon Laws by which he is known to govern and as Government thereby is excercised 2. And if so then there are more things in the Canons and present Government which the Nonconformists dare not swear or Covenant to obey besides those already named than we will now stand to enumerate XXIX The Rubrick saith that the Minister who repelleth any from the Sacrament shall be obliged to give an account of the same to the Ordinary within 14 daies after at the furthest 2. If all that by gross ignorance Atheism Infidelity Sadducism Heresie Schism Drunkenness Whoredom Stealing Malice c. are uncapable of the Communion be presented to the Ordinary within 14 daies no charity that is guided by knowledge of the common state of the people can think that in London Diocess there would be fewer than many score thousands presented at once And in other Diocesses many score hundreds at least 3. Some Ministers dwell a hundred Miles or neer from the Bishops And the Bishops are divers of them so much at London or abroad as that it cannot be expected that all these must be presented to the Bishop himself but to the Chancellours court as is usual 4. The Chancellours Court is so far from most Ministers in the Land and the prosecuting so many when proof is demanded will be so chargeable and take up so much time as that it will undo many poor Ministers that have scarce enough to maintain their families and it will take up the time which they should use in the necessary labours for their flocks 5. The Chancellour is a lay man to whom they must be presented And the issue will be but a lay mans excommunicating them if obstinate or absolving them Which is not justified by the Bishops themselves 6. At the said Chancellours court things are managed as at a civil judicature There is not that endeavour to convince sinners by Scripture and to draw them to true Repentance by humbling evidence intreaties and prayers for them as should be for the saving of a soul from sin But the charges of the court fees and the fears of a prison after excommunication maketh it an unacceptable and as unlikely means to convert men as the stocks 7. Therefore for a minister to present all his Parishioners to such courts whom he is bound to deny the Sacrament to were but to make him seem their greatest
only in worse lands but in Ireland and in England as part of Lancashire the far greatest part of the Parishioners are Papists who renounce the Protestant Churches in some places XXXII Neither dwelling in the Parish nor the Law of the Land makes any Christian a member of that Parish Church without or before his own consent But proximity is part of his extrinsick aptitude and the law of man or command of his Prince may make it his duty to consent and thereby to become a member when greater Reasons mollify not that obligation XXXIII Parish Bounds and such other humane distributions for conveniency may be altered by men and they bind not against any of Christs own Laws and predeterminations nor when any changes turn them against the good ends for which they are made of which more afterward when we speak of separation XXXIIII And about these humane Church-Laws the general Case must be well considered how far they are obligatory to conscience and in what cases they cease to bind Sayrus Fragoso and other the most Learned and Moderate Casuists of the Papists ordinarily conclude that Humane Laws bind not when they are not for the Common good We had rather say that when they are notoriously against the Laws of Christ or against the Common good or are made by usurpation without authority thereto they bind not to formal obedience in that particular though sometime other reasons especially the honour of our Rulers may bind us to material obedience when the matter is indifferent and though still our subjection and loyalty must be maintained But of this before and more largely by one of us Christian directory Part. 4. Chap. 3. Tit. 3. c. The Council of Toletum 1355 decreed that their decrees shall bind none ad culpam but only ad poenam see Bin. Inoc. 6th Sect. XXXV Kings and Magistrates should see that their Kingdoms be well provided of publick Preachers and Catechists to convert Infidels and Impious men where there are such and to prepare such for Baptisme and Church priviledges and Communion as are not yet Baptized but are Catechumens And they may by due means compel the ignorant to hear and learn what Christianity is though not to become Christians for that is impossible nor to prosess that which is not true nor to take Church-Priviledges to which they have no right and of which at present they are uncapable But they may grant those rewards and civil Priviledges to Christians and Churches for their encouragement which they are not bound to give to others and which may make a moving difference without unrighteous constraint XXXVI Christ and his Apostles having as is aforesaid settled the Right of Ordination on the Senior Pastors or Bishops and the Right of Consenting in the People and this continued long even under Christian Emperours Princes or Patrons may not deprive either party of their Right but preserving such Rights they may 1. Offer meet Pastors to the Ordainers and Consenters to be accepted when there is just cause for their interposition 2. They may hinder both Ordainers and People from introducing intollerable men 3. They may when a Peoples Ignorance Faction or Wilfulness maketh them refuse all that are truly fit for them urge them to accept the best and may possess such of the Temples and Publick Maintenance and make it consequently to become the Peoples duty to consent as is aforesaid so also when they are divided XXXVII Princes ought to be Preservers of Peace and Charity among the Churches and to hinder Preachers from unrighteous and uncharitable reviling each other and their unpeaceable controversies and contentions XXXVIII Christ himself hath instituted the Baptismal Covenant to be the Title of Visible Members of his Church and the Symbol by which they shall be notified And he hath commanded all the baptized as Christians to Love each other as themselves and though weak in the faith to receive one another as Christ receiveth us but not to doubtful disputations and so far as they have obtained to walk by the same rule of Love and Peace and not to despise or judge each other for tolerable differences much less to hate revile or destroy each other and it seemed good to the Holy Ghost and the Apostles to lay no greater burden on the Churches even of the Ceremonies which God had once commanded but Necessary things Act. 15. 28. And these terms of Church-Union and Concord which Christ hath made no mortal man hath power to abrogate All things therefore of inferiour nature though Verities and Good must be no otherwise imposed by Rulers than as may stand with these universal Laws of Christ which are the true way to prevent Church-Schisms XXXIX Princes by their Laws or Pastors by consent where Princes leave it to them may so associate many particular Churches for orderly correspondencie and concord and appoint such times and places for Synods and such orders in them as are agreable to Gods aforesaid generall Laws of doing all in Love to Edification and in order And how far if Rulers should miss this generall Rule they are yet to be obeyed we have opened elsewhere XL. As we have there also said that Princes may make their own Officers to execute their Magistratical Power circa sacra which we acknowledge in our King in our Oath of Supremacy and if such be called Eclesiastical and their Courts and Laws so called also that ambiguous name doth not intimate them to be of the same species as Christs ordained Ecclesiastical Ministers or as his Churches and Laws are so now we add that if Princes shall authorize any particular Bishops or Pastors to excercise any such visiting conventing ordering moderating admonishing or governing power as it belongeth to the Prince to give not contrary to Christs Laws or the duties by him commanded and priviledges by him granted to particular Churches we judge that Subjects should obey all such even for conscience sake However our consideration of Christs decision of his disciples controversie who should be the greatest and our certain knowledge how necessary Love and Lowliness and how pernicious wrath and Lordly-Pride are in those that must win souls to Christ and imitate him in bearing not making the cross together with the sad history of the Churches distractions and corruption by Clergy-Pride and Worldliness lamented by Nazianzene Basil Hilary Pictavus Socrates Sozomen Isidore Pelusiot Bernard and multitudes more yea by some Popes themselves these and other reasons we say doe make us wish that the Clergy had never been trusted with the sword or any degree of forcing power or secular pomp yet if Princes judge otherwise we must obediently submit to all their Officers XLI It seemeth by the phrase of His Maiesties Declaration about Ecclesiastical affairs 1660 in which after consultation with his Reverend Bishops the Pastoral way of Perswasion reproofs and admonitions are granted to the Presbyters that a distinction is intended between this Pastoral and the Prelatical Government And we
28. When able faithful Pastors are lawfully set over the Assemblies by just Election and Ordination if any will causelesly and without right silence them and command the people to desert them and to take others for their Pastors in their stead of whom they have no such knowledge as may encourage them to such a change we cannot defend this from the charge of Schism which puts a Congregation on so hard a means of Concord as to judge whether they are bound to that Pastor that was set over them as Christ appointed or must renounce him and take the other when they are Commanded So Cyprian in the case of Novatian sayes that he could be no Bishop because another was rightfull Bishop before XXXI 29. In England it belongeth 1. to the Patron to present 2. to the Bishop to ordain and institute and therefore to approve and invest 3. to the people jure divino to be free Consenters 4. and to the Magistrate to protect and to judge who shall be protected or tolerated under him If now these four parties be for four Ministers or for three or two several men and cannot agree in one the culpable dissenters will be the causes of the Schism XXXII 30. If a Church have more Presbyters than one and will be for one way of worship discipline or doctrine and another for another as at Frankford Dr. Cox Mr. Horn and others were for the Liturgie and others against it so that the people cannot possibly accord it is the culpable party which ever it be that must answer for the Schism So much of enumerated Schisms XXXIII On the Negative we suppose that none of these following are Schisms in a culpable sense 1. All are agreed that it is no Schism for the Christian Church to separate from the ancient Jewish or from the Infidel Heathen World XXXIV 2. All Protestants are agreed that it is no Schism to deny obedience to the Roman Pope nor to deny that communion with them which they will not have without obedience To separate from other Churches is to deny them meer Communion But to separate from the Roman as Papal is but to deny them subjection To deny any other Christian Church to be a true Church is Schismatical if they have the Essentials of a Church But to deny the Papal Church or Monarchy to be a true Church of Christ's institution is true just and necessary though they be Christians because we mean only the Papal Church form as it is an Universal Ecclesiastical Monarchy of the whole Christian world which no other Church but that doth claim XXXV 3. It is no Schism to deny Subjection to Pope Councils or Patriarchs of other Kingdomâ— or to any forein Power by what names or titles soever called XXXVI 4. It is no Schism to deny that Christ hath any such Visible Church on Earth as is one by Union with any Universal Head Personal or Collective besides himself XXXVII 5. It is no Schism to Preach and gather Churches and elect and ordain Pastors and Assemble for God's Worship against the Laws and will of Heathen Nahometan or Infidel Princes that forbid it For thus did the Christians for 300 years And if there be the same cause and need it is no more Schism to do it against the Laws and will of a Christian Prince Because 1. Christ's Laws are equally obligatory 2. Souls equally precious 3. The Gospel and Gods worship equally necessary 4. And his Christianity enableth him not to do more hurt than a Pagan may do but more good If therefore either out of Ungodly enmity to his own profession or for fear of displeasing his wicked or Insidel Subjects he should forbid Christian Churches he is not to be therein obeyed XXXVIII 6. If a Prince Heathen Infidel or Christian forbid Gods Commanded worship and any Commanded part of the Pastors office as in Papists Kingdoms Prayer in a known tongue and the Cup in the Lords Supper is forbidden and as they say all preaching save the reading of Liturgies and Homilies is forbidden in Moscovie and as the use of the Keyes is elsewhere forbidden It is no Schism to disobey such Laws what Prudence may pro hic nunc require of any single person we now determine not XXXIX 7. If any Prince would turn his Kingdom or a whole Province Diocess or County into One only Church and thereby overthrow all the first order of Churches of Christs institution which are associated for Personal present Communion allowing them no Pastors that have the power of the Keyes and all essential to their office though he should allow Parochial Oratories or Chappels which should be no true Churches but Parts of a Church It were no Schism to gather Churches within such a Church against the Laws of such a Prince Many write that there is but One Bishop in Abassia though some say that others have Episcopal power under him some that read the old Canons which confine Bishops to Cities and take not the word as then it was taken for any great Town or Corporation but for such priviledged Towns only as are called Cities in England hence gather that as the King may disfranchise Cities and reduce them to ten two or one in a Kingdom he may by consequence do so by Churches that have Bishops which if it be spoken but of Episcopi Episcoporum we resist not But if of Episcopi Gregis of the first Order of Churches called Particular we suppose that out of such a Kingdom-Church Provincial or Diocesan-Church it is no Schism to gather particular Parochial Churches though forbidden And the same reason will prove that if in a lesser circuit the same things be done though in a lower degree viz were it but three four or ten particular Churches of the largest size capable of Personal Communions turned into one which is capable only of distant Communion per alios it is lawful to gather particular Churches out of that larger sort of Church If the Bishop of Rome Alexandria Antioch Cesarea Heraclea Carthage c. should have put down the Bishops of ten twenty an hundred or many hundred Churches about them and set up only Oratories and Catechists in their stead making them all but part of their own Churches it would have been lawful to have gathered Churches in their Churches For God never made them proper Judges whether Christ should have Churches according to his laws nor whether God should be worshipped and souls be saved or his own nstitutions of Churches be observed XL. 8. If Bishops would ordain Presbyters by limiting words restraining them from any Essential or Integral Part of the Office or Power as instituted by Christ and yet profess that they ordain them to the Office which Christ hath instituted it is no Schism for those Presbyters afterward to claim and execute in season all the power which by Christ's institution belongeth to their Office though against the Bishops Wills Because the Bishops are not the Authors or Donors of
gently with them and adjudged Communion to them And the Africans pretended to no authority over them but by Counsell told them of Gods own Law which no man had power to invalidate They charge the people as heinous sinners if they forsake not a wicked unmeet Bishop or Pastor what Libellaticks were I supposed the reader to know viz such as to save their lives in persecution had permitted another to put their names by subscription to a false profession that favoured idolatry or infidelity Obj. 1. But Cyprian and the African Councils were mistaken in the point of Rebaptizing those baptized by Hereticks and so they might be here Ans 1. The Council of Nice decreed the rebaptizing of those that were baptized by some Hereticks though not by all And if the Africans did not confine the word to such they erred only in not sufficiently distinguishing of Hereticks 2. If we are excused from receiving the testimony of such Fathers and Councils as had any Errour or as great an Errour as that you may see what will follow 3. We do not citâ— Cyprian and the African Council as infallible nor as having more Governing power over us than the present Rulers but as being to us I say to us of more credit and authority in telling us what is jure devino than those Bishops or others that now condemn us as Schismaticks 4. Câ—pâ—â—an and the African Councill were not forbidden for this judgment of theirs to Preach Christs Gospel nor cast out of the Churches noâ— sent to Goals nor called and used as Rogues and Schismaticks and farr worse then drunkards adulterers yea or the atheists and infidels among us Nor were the people that obeyed their Councill so used But tâ—e names of these holy men are venerable to this day Obj. 2. There were then no Christian Magistrates and therefore the peoples power must be used in their stead Ans Church power was the same before and after The Lawes of Christ concerning it altered not The Pastors were then the Guides of the people by divine right And the power of the Keyes was no less forcible or effectual as used by the Bishops and Presbyters than when the power of the sword was added to them if not much more And the peoples power of choosing and refusing Bishops continued many hundred years after Magistrates were Christians confirmed even by Popes and Councills Obj. 3. This would cast all into confusion and there would be no Church Government if the people be Judges when a Minister is bad and then maâ— full him down or forsake him and choose another Answ This is after further answered I now only say 1. The people may not touch his Person by violence nor deprive him of his benefice or temple nor yet degrade him As they that change their Physician or Lawyer do no such thing but simply choose one that they can trust No man will win more by my salvation than I shall nor would suffer more than I by it if I were damned Who is more than I concerned what becometh of my soul Am I not to have more care of it than of my estate or health of body Who can easily believe those men that send us to goales and ruin us for trusting our soules with such Guides as to the best of our understandings we think meetest or at least for avoiding such as we cannot so farr trust and then tell us that they do it because they love our souls better than we love our selves and therefore will not trust them to our choice 2. what confusion doth it cause that every man now chooseth his owne Tutor in philosophy his own master his own Lawyer and physician and every woman at age her own husband 3. Doth not the Church of England as is said allow every man his choice when no man is forbidden to forsake any Bishop or Pastor and choose another by removing his habitation when he pleases So that all this is but about Parish bounds which is confessed to be of humane alterable constitution And how ordinarily do many Gentlemen of the Church of England go from their own Parishes in London 4. You may see by Philip Nyes printed papers and Mr. Tombs his that even those called Independents and some Anabaptists are for hearing such Parish-Teachers as their Rulers shall appoint so they may but commit the Pastoral care of their souls to such as they can better trust and have Sacraments and special Church Communion free 5. what great confusion doth it breed in London that the French and Dutch Churches thus differ from the rest and have their proper modes and Government Yea or that the Nonconformists by the favour of his Majesties Licenses had their choice and several meetings Let not envy and animosity seign greater confusion than there is and the matter will appear much otherwise than it is represented even that the discords and confusions were incomparably less on that occasion than they were under the Bishops in the better times of the Churches even from An. 400 to 600 of which more in due place 6. They that will condemn all that hath inconveniences shall condemn all things in this world But the Greatest must be noted and avoided first Shall the people have any judgment of discerning or not If yea the bounds of it must be shewed and not the thing denyed as if it must bring in all confusion If Usurpers claim the Crown the Subjects must judge which is their true King and must defend his right Will you say If the people be Judges they may set up Usurpers and put down the King They are but discerners of that which is before their duty They have no right to erre nor to alter the Law or right But if it be otherwise they are to be ruled as brutes And so must not judge so much as whom they must obey Is there any Christian that dare say that Bishops or Princes are in all things to be obeyed lest the people be made Judges And so that under Heathen Mahometan Papist Heretical Rulers they must be all of their Religion as to the external professing and practising part None dare for shame say so save an Infidel Is not this a greater confusion or michief than that which is now disputed against Therefore the bounds must be set on both sides which are not difficult to discern As the people have property in their limbs children and liberties and acquisitions antecedently to humane Government which is to order these and not to destroy them so have all men greater interest in the safety of their own souls which no man can take from them no nor is it in their just power to put it into the hands of others from themselves If Hereticks blind guides oâ—â—faithless men or insufficient be made Pastors of the Flocks and all men commanded to hear no better nor trust the Pastoral Conduct of their souls into any wiser or safer hands Satan will be more gratified by it than by the
favos Marcionitae Ecclesias saith Tertullian XLIV 12. If any persons shall pretend to have the power of Governing the Churches and Inferior Pastors as their Bishops who are obtruded on those Churches without the Election or consent of the people or Inferior Pastors and these Bishops shall by Lawes or mandates forbid such Assembling Preaching or Worship as otherwise would be Lawful and a duty It is no Schism to disobey such Laws or mandates as such Nor do such disobey their Pastors they being truly no Bishops of theirs till they do consent however in some cases the advantages of some imposed persons may make it an act of Prudence and so a duty to consent as is aforesaid It was no Schism for the people of Antioch Alexandria Cesarea Constantinople c to refuse Ecclesiastical obedience to the ill Bishops set over them by the Emperour to whom they did not consent But the Schism was theirs who complied with the imposed Usurpers Here it must be noted that Church history hath constrained all that understand it to confess both Papists Greeks and Protestants that the ordination of Bishops and Presbyters was in the power of the Bishops and the Election in the power of the people not only the first 300 years under heathen Emperours but for many hundred years after under Christian Emperours and Princes 2. That this was taken for their right given them by God To cite more proofs for this would expose us to the readers censure as unnecessary tediousness Many Papists largely prove it As doth David Blondel beyond exception de jure plebis in regimine Ecclesiastico with more 3. That yet we here plead not for the necessity of so much as the peoples election as it signifieth the first nomination of the person but only for the necessity of consent either explicitly or implicitly exprest If the senior Pastors have the first nomination or if it be the Magistrate or Patrons as with us we quarrel not against it if the flock do but consent Parents may Chuse Husbands and Wives for their Children but they are not such at all till mutual consent XLV 13. The consent of a few of the Church is not the consent of the Church Nor is it Schism for the Major part to differ from their choice or determinations as such In Government the will of the Sovereign is the publick will But in contracts and consent of a Community where Unity is the thing intended and voting the means the Major part is denominatively the society unless they have made others their trustees or delegates in Electing Consenting themselves to what they do such societies are not denominated from the Minor or a small part as contradistinct from the rest If a Diocess have a thousand or 600 or 300 Parish Pastors and a hundred thousand or a million of people or 50000 or 20000 as you will suppose and if only a dozen or twenty Presbyters and a thousand people or none chuse the Bishop this is not the Election or consent of the Diocesan Church Nor is it Schism for 20000 to go against the votes of 2000. XLVI 14. If Bishops that have no better a foundation of their relative power over that particular flock shall impose inferior Pastors or Presbyters on the Parish-Churches command the peoples acceptance obedience the people are not bound to accept and obey them by any authority that is in that command as such Nor is it Schism to disobey it no more than it is treason to reject the Usurper of a Kingdom XLVII 15. whilest such obtruded Parish Pastors have no consent of the flock explicite or implicite that Parish is no Parish Church in the proper Political Organized sense as we now speak of a Church as constituted by the Governing and Governed parts For that which wanteth an essential part wanteth the Essence And therefore it is no Schism to pronounce it no such Church and to deny it the Communion proper to such a Church Though yet as the word Church doth signifie an ungoverned Society in potentia proxima to receive Government they may be improperly called a Church as they are in a vacancy XLVIII 16. If they that make a Diocess the lowest proper Church which hath a Bishop and none under him and a Parish to be but a part of the Diocesan Church and no proper Church of it self as having no Episcopus Gregis shall accuse those as separating from the Church who separate not from the Bishop and keep to any Parish in the Diocess they contradict themselves Though such forsake many Presbyters and Parishes XLIX 17. If Princes or Prelates shall unjustly silence or depose so great a number of faithful Pastors or Preachers as shall leave people destitute of a necessary Preaching and Pastoral help it is no Schism but a great duty for such Ministers to preach and pastorally guide such people otherwise by the same reason one man might put down Christianity in an Empire at his pleasure or dissolve the Churches L. If it be said that it 's true if he put down all but not if he silence but a minor part We answer that the reason is the same to those to whom the Ministry is necessary if he put down Ministers to them The supply of the Churches e. g. in one City of a Kingdom is no supply to the other Cities And if a Parish have 10000 or 30000 or 50000 or 60000 souls it s no supply to all the rest if 3000 of these have the benefit of a Preacher and Pastor The same power which may deny a Pastor to ten parts of a Parish may deny him to the eleventh part that is to all So if competent Pastors be set over half the Parishes in a Kingdom and the other half hath incompetent men or if nine parts of a Kingdom were competently supplied and but the tenth part had not such to whom the people may lawfully commit the Pastoral Care of their souls it is no Schism but a duty for those that are destitute to get the best supply they can and it is no Schism but a duty for faithful Ministers though forbidden by superiours to perform their Office to such people that desire it Their General Ordination with the peoples Necessity and Consent added to God's General Commands to all his Ministers to be faithful and diligent are a sufficient obliging Call to such Ministration without the will of prohibiting Superiours yea against it For 1. Else it were at the will of a man whether souls shall be saved or damned for how shall they believe unless they hear and how shall they hear without a Preacher and whether Christ shall have a Church and God be publickly worshiped or not 2. Our Ordination consecrateth us to our Office during life And it is Sacriledge and Covenant-breaking with God to cast it off and alienate our selves 3. God hath described the Office and the Work in his Word and charged his servants to give the children their bread in due
prophesied to be Christian Nations never were distinct Christian Kingdoms but parts of the Empire nor had a National Church or Head being but parts of such a Church Nay when Rome got the National Primacy it had not such a Priestly Governing Soveraignty as the Jews High-Priest had § 25. Though there was no Christian King for three hundred years unless he of Edessa or Lucius of England of whom we have little certainty but it 's like that both were subjects to others yet if a Supream Church-Power had been necessary the Apostles would have before erected it which they never did For even Rome pretendeth to be by them made the Ruler of the whole world and not a meer National Head which Constantinople claimed but not as of Apostolical institution § 27. The question whether the Jews had they believed should have continued their High-Priest and Church Policy is vain as to our purpose 1. It being certain to Christ that they would be dissolved by unbelief And 2. he having setled another way and changed theirs 3. And if their Priesthood and Law except as it typified spiritual things had stood yet it would not have bound the Gentile Christians in other Nations § 28. When Emperours became Christians they did not set up the Jewish Policy nor thought themselves bound to it no nor any setled Priestly Supremacy for National Government For Councils were called but on rare accidents by the Emperours themselves and to decide particular cases about Heresies And the Pope had but the first voice in such Councils § 29. But if every Nation must have the Jewish Policy then the whole Empire must then have one High Priest and then the Pope hath a fair pretence to his claim of a Divine Institution as the Church Soveraign of the whole Empire which it 's like was then seven parts in eight of the whole Christian world at least unless Abassia were then generally Christians as now But then his power would change with the Empire and fall when it falleth § 30. III. But if the question be only whether a National Priestly Soveraignty be lawful or whether God's general Rules for Concord Order Edification do bind the Churches prudentially to erect such a form To this they sayas followeth 1. We will first lay hold on certainties and not prefer uncertainties before them We are sure that such a power of Apostles and Pastors as is before mentioned was established and that the junior Pastors were as Sons to the seniors ordained by them Whether the power of Ordaining and Governing Ministers was by Apostolical Establishment appropriated to men of a superiour degree in the sacred Ministry seemeth to us very dark 2. We are past doubt that all particular Churches by Apostolical order had Bishops and that a Church was as Hierom saith Plebs Episcopo adunata and as Ignatius the Unity of every Church was notified by this that to every Church there was one Altar and one Bishop at that time and as Cyprian Ubi Episcopus ibi Ecclesia 3. And we are satisfied that every Presbyter is Episcopus Gregis whoever claim to be Episcopi Episcoporum which the Carthage Council in Cyprian renounced 4. And we are satisfied that no Church-superiours have authority to destroy the particular Church form Ministry Doctrine Worship or Discipline which were setled by the Holy Ghost in the Apostles And that the priviledges and duties of these single particular Churches being plainest and surest in Scripture they must be continued whatever Canons or Commands of any superiour Priests should be against them 5. Nor can they force any man to sin 6. Nor have any Priests a forcing power by the sword or violence but only the power of the Word and Keys that is of taking in or putting out of the Church where they have power and binding men over on just cause to the judgment of God The power that they have is from Christ and for him and not against him and for the Churches edisication and not destruction and what is pretended contrary to this is none They cannot dispense with the Laws of God but preach and execute them 7. And these things being thus secured though in our doubts we dare not swear or subscribe that National Patriarchal Provincial or Metropolitical Powers are of God's institution yet we resolve to live in all Christian peaceableness and submission when such are over us § 31. And we must profess that when we find how anciently and commonly one Presbyter in each Church was peculiarly called the Bishop without whom there was no ordinary ordinations and against whom in matters of his power none was to resist and also how generally the Churches in the Roman Empire conformed themselves to an imitation of the civil power as to their limits in all the official part being all subject to the Emperour who set up no Ecclesiastical Peer we are not so singular or void of reverence to those Churches as not by such notices to be much the more inclined to the aforesaid submission and peaceableness under such a power nor are we so bold or rash as to reproach it or condemn the Churches and excellent persons that have practised it §32 Nay we have already said that securing the state worship doctrine and true discipline of the inferiour particular Parish Churches there are some of us that much incline to think that Archbishops that is Bishops that have some oversight of many Churches with their Pastors are Lawful successours of the Apostles in the ordinary part of their work And such of us have long ago said that the Episcopal Government of the Bohemian Waldenses described by Commenius and Lascitius is most agreable to our judgment of any that we know excercised Therefore that which we humbly offered for our concord in England at His Majesties Restauration was Archbishop Ushers form of the Primitive Church Government not attempting any diminution of the Power wealth or honour of the Diocesanes or Archbishops but only a restauration of the Presbyters to their proper Office-work and some tolerable discipline to the particular Parish Churches §33 But we must ever much difference so much of Church order and Government as God himself hath instituted and is purely divine and unchangeable from those accidentals which men ordain though according to Gods general Rules For these are often various and mutable and are means to the former and never to be used against them And of these accidentals of Government we say as they that say no such form is fixed by God Concord order decency and edification are alwaies necessary But oft times it may be indifferent whether concord order and decency be expressed by this accidental way or that And that which is most congruous for order decency edification and concord in one Countrey Church or time may be incongruous in another Therefore if the question be but how far the giving one Bishop or Pastor power over others or making disparity of Cities in conformity to
the state be prudently to be chosen we only say so that Gods establishment be not violated whatever we might think best we presume not herein to give Laws to the Lawgivers nor to obtrude our Counsel uncalled on our superiours much less seditiously to oppose their Lawful institutions § 34. But to those that think that Gods foresaid General Laws of order concord edification do make such a policy ordinarily necessary in the Churches as imitateth the Jews or the civil form of Government we humbly offer to their consideration 1. If so then it would have been the matter of an Vniversal Law with its due exceptions And then Christ the only Vniversal Lawgiver would have made it For if he have not made all necessary Vniversal Laws his Laws are imperfect And then there should be some other Vniversal Lawgiver to supply that defect But there is no other upon earth whether Pope or Council 2. It is contrary to the nature of undetermined circumstances to be alwaies the same and so to be fit matter of such Vniversal or fixed Laws The cases will vary and then so will the duty 3. There will be great diversity of the interest and ingeny of the Judges of the case in several Countries and ages And therefore though some think the said imitation of the civil state alwaies best vet others will not § 35. But if such a settlement were certainly best let it be remembred 1. That the Jews had not under the chief High-Priest one in every City or Tribe like Diocesane Bishops 2. That their Synagogues had discipline within themselves ever where there was but a Village of ten persons there was a Presbyter that had the power of judging offenders § 36. What man doth prudently set up man may prudently alter as there is cause Greg. Nazianzen earnestly wisheth that there were no difference of Place or seats among the Pastors of the Church And therefore he neither thought their Government of each other to be of Divine right nor of prudential necessity or use Else he would have been against it And the whole Greek Church did and still doth take the seats of preeminence to be but of mans appointment or else they would never have changed them and set Constantinople so high as they did And the Council of Calcedon expresly determineth that Rome was by the fathers made the chief seat because it was the seat of the Emperour which was mutable § 37. The Councils in those daies were about Popes or Patriarchs and could depose them And yet it is most evident to any man considerately reading such history that all the Councils called before Christian Emperours gave them more power and conjoyned their authority did meet only for acts of Agreement and not of Regiment over each other Many such synods are mentioned by Eusebius And the Right Reverend Arch-bishop Usher declared his judgment so in general that Councils had but an agreeing power and not a Regent power over the particular Bishops Yet these two things must be supposed 1. That the Pastors in a synod are still Rectors of their slocks and their Canons to them may be more authoritative than a single Pastors words 2. That Gods Law bindeth us to keep love and concord and the Agreements of Councils may determine of the matter in alterable points and so even absent and present Bishops may concordiae gratiâ be obliged by Gods Law to keep such canons as are made for concord and so they may be the matter of our duty But seeing the Church for 300 years judged Councils to have no proper Governing power over particular Pastors and Bishops or Patriarchs singly had ever less power than Councils it followeth that then a Churches Government of disparity and supraordinate Bishops like the civil or like the Jews was not then taken to be of divine right nor then of any right at all § 38. And as to the doubt whether it began after 300 years to be a prudential duty or at least most desirable when we hear what is said on both sides we think it not easie to judge either how much in such a case Christ hath left to humane prudence nor which way the scales of prudence herein will ordinarily turn On one side it is said 1. That it is absurd that there should be no appeals for injured persons to a superiour power 2. And that the dissensions of the Church else will be remediless and all will be broken into heresies and sects 3. And that Apostolical men of a higher rank than meer Presbyters will else have no convenient opportunity to excercise their Governing power if it be not tyed to fixed seats § 39. On the other side they plead 1. That it is safer for the Church to have Religion in the power of many Bishops or Pastors than that one High Priest or Patriarch should have power to corrupt it or silence the faithful preachers or persecute the people when ever he proveth a bad man Yea they say it must be rare if he be not bad seeing it is certain that the most proud and worldly men which are the worst will be the most earnest seekers of rich and honourable places and he that seeketh will usually find 2. They say Christ directly forbad this to his Apostles Luk. 22. That which they strove for was it that he forbad them But that which they strove for was who should be the chief or greatest and not who should tyrannize 3. They say that all Church history assureth us that there have been more Schisms and scandalous contentions about the great superiour Bishopricks far than any of the rest It is a doleful thing to read the history of the Churches of Alexandria Antioch Constantinople and Rome Gregory Nazianzen giveth it as the reason why the contention at Cesarea was so lamentable because it was so high an Archbishoprick The whole Christian world hath been scandalized torn and distracted by the strife of Bishops of and for the highest seats Their famous General Councils which we justly honour for their function and that which they did well were shamefully militant even the first and most honoured Council at Nice was with great difficulty kept in Peace by the personal presence wisdom and authority of Constantine preaching peace to the preachers of peace burning their libels of mutual accusation silencing their contentious wranglings and constreining them to accord Nazianzens descriptions of the ignorance and insolence and naughtiness of the Clergy Orat 1. and of the shameful state of the Bishops Orat. 32. must make the readers heart to grieve The people he describeth as contentious at Constantinople yet as endued with the Love of God though their zeal wanted knowledge pag 528. But the Courtiers as whether true to the Emperours he knew not but for the greatest part perfidious to God And the Bishops as fitting on adverse thrones and feeding adverse opposite flocks drawn by them into factions like the clefts that Earthquakes make and the pestilent
Sect. I. BEcause men will judge of such Causes according to their several Principles and Presuppositions we must take notice of some of the divers Principles of those whose censure we must expect Though not of inconsiderable Sects Sect. II. And 1. Some say that no humane Form of Church Government and of Churches as governed is of God's Institution or as they say Jure Divino but that it is left to humane prudence Sect. III. 2. Some hold only an Universal Church governed by a Pope say some of them or by a General Council while sitting and a Pope in the Intervals say others or by a Pope and Council agreeing while it sits and a Pope in the Intervals say others to be Jure Divino and all particular Church-Forms as subordinate left to the prudence of this Universal Governour as Supreme as Inferiour Officers in Kingdoms are made by the King Sect. IV. 3. Some hold that this Universal Church-Form and also Diocesan and no other are instituted of God Sect. V. 4. Some hold that the Universal Patriarchal Metropolitical or Provincial Diocesan and Parochial are jure divino or instituted by Christ and his Apostles Sect. VI. 5. Some hold that only Diocesan Churches and Metropolitical or Provincial are jure divino and not the universal And of these some take Diocesan Churches for those only that contain many fixed Assemblies and some for such as have one Bishop whether over one Congregation or over multitudes Saith the very learned Dr. Hamond in 1 Tim. 3. The Church of the living God was every such regular Assembly of Christians under a Bishop such as Timothy was an Oeconomus set over them by Christ Such again every larger circuit under the Metropolitane who as Timothy had 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ordination and Jurisdiction over the whole Province And such all the particular Churches of the whole world considered together under the Supreme Head Christ Jesus dispensing them all by himself and administring them severally not by any one Oeconomus but by the several Bishops as inferiour Heads of Unity to the several Bodies so constituted by the several Apostles in their plantations each of them having an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a several distinct Commission from Christ immediately and subordinate to none but the supreme Donor or Plenipotentiary He here supposeth as he elsewhere sheweth that de facto Episcopal Churches were in Scripture-times but single Congregations but that after it was otherwise And whether then the New Form of Congregations were jure divino when they became but Parts of a Bishops Church we leave to the Readers conjecture as also of the New Form of a Diocesan Church Sect. VII 6. Some hold that National Churches that is Christian Kingdoms as governed by the Soveraign Secular Power are instituted by God and that all Church-Forms else within that Kingdom are jure humano at the pleasure of the King so be it that worshiping-Assemblies be kept up and Bishops and Priests placed as it shall please the King Sect. VIII 7. Some think that Diocesans or Bishops whether over one Congregation or many are instituted by God and some say also Archbishops and that these have power by consent or contract among themselves to make Patriarchal and National Churches And so that these National and Patriarchal Churches are jure divino mediato but jure humano immediato and are rather made by the consent of Bishops than by Kings And so under Heathen Kings the Churches may be National Sect. IX 8. Some think that Parochial Churches consisting of Christians distinguished by the circuit of ground and combinations of these into Synods less and greater Classical National are jure divino and no other lawful Sect. X. 9. Some think that only Parochial Churches ordinarily and single Congregations of any Neighbour Christians when Parish Order cannot be observed are jure divino Sect. XI 10. And some think that only such single Congregations of Christians with their Chosen Pastors without any necessary respect to Parish bounds are properly called Churches of Divine Institution though these Churches may and should hold such associations as correspondence and mutual help require Sect. XII There being so many sorts of Churches in the world as Universal National Patriarchal Provincial or Metropolitical Diocesan Classical Parochial Congregational it is hard to give a just decision of the question From which of these and when it is a sin to separate till it be first known which of these is Divine and which of Humane Institution and which Humane Churches are necessary which lawful and which sinful And it must be known of which the question is And while there is so signal a diversity of Judgment about the several Forms the nature of Schism will be hardlier opened SECT III. What Churches we hold to be instituted by God and what not Sect. I. OUR own Judgment we shall plainly express in this following Order 1. We shall shew what Church we judge to be of God's Institution and what not 2. What about Churches the Magistrates or Pastors may institute by God's Authority or allowance And what they may not institute 3. In what cases it is lawful to gather Churches where Churches are In what cases it is lawful to separate from Churches and in what cases neither of these last is lawful Sect. II. 1. All Christians are agreed that Christ is the Author of the Universal Church considered both as Baptized or Externally covenanting and professing called Visible and as Regeneraâ—e and sincerely Covenanting called Mystical as it is Headed by Christ himself and called his Body and his special Kingdom Sect. III. 2. We doubt not but Christ hath instituted the Office of the sacred Ministry to be under him as the Teacher Ruler and High Priest of the Church in Teaching Guiding and Worshiping And that he hath instituted holy Assemblies and Societies for these things to be exercised in And that a Society of Neighbour Christians associated with such a Pastor or Pastors for personal Communion herein even in such Doctrine Discipline and Woâ—sâ—â—p is a Church-Form of Divine Institution Sect. IV. If they be not Christians by Baptism or visible Profession they be not visible Materials for a Church If they be not Neighbours that is within reach of each other so as to be capable of such Communion they are not matter that hath the necessary extrinsecal disposition If they be not associated explicitely or implicitely by some signification of Consent they may be an accidental Assembly but not a proper Christian Church If they be not associated for this holy Communion they may be a Civil Society but not a Church If they be not associated for Personal Communion at some due seasons but only for Communion at distance by Delegates Messengers or Letters they are not a Particular Church of this species now defined though they may be members of larger associations National Diocesan c. If they are not associate with one or more Pastors they may be a Community of
Christians but not a Political Church which we now define If they are not joyned with a Pastor that hath all the foresaid Powers of Teaching Ruling by the Word and Keys and going before them in Worship and if they consent not to his relation as such they may make a School or an Oratory but not a proper particular Church simpliciter so called but only a Church secundum quid or as to some part for an Essential part is wanting But it is not the defect of Exercise that unchurcheth them while there is the Power and that consented to for Men cannot be Pastors or Churches against their wills Sect. V. 3. As all Christians grant that the Apostles had a general Commission to call Infidels to Christ and to plant Churches with their particular Pastors as aforesaid and to take care that their Pastor and they do the duties not compelling them by their Sword but by the Word so we are far from denying that yet some Ministers of Christ may and should seek the conversion of Infidels and plant Churches of the converted ordaining Pastors over them by their consent and taking due care by their grave advise that such Churches walk in the obedience of Christ as far as they can procure it And such Seniors which have so planted these Churches and Pastors by Gods blessing on their labours should be much reverenced by the Churches which they have planted and their just advise exhortations and admonitions should be heard by the People and the Pastors whom they ordained and all their juniors And though the Apostles have no successours in their extraordinaries yet that some should in this ordinary work succeed them we deny not because 1. We find that it is a work still necessary to be done 2. And others as well as Apostles did it in those times as Silas Luke Apollo Timothy Titus c. and since all such as have planted the Gospel among Infidels 3. Because Christ promised to be with them that did this work to the end of the world Mat. 28. 21. But whether such men be of a different office or order from the junior Pastors whether any true Presbyter that hath ability opportunity and invitation may not do the same work with Infidels and by his success and seniority may not so ordain Pastors over the Churches which he gathered and have an answerable right to reverence and regard from those that he so planteth and ordaineth are controversies which we presume not now to decide And we cannot prove that this maketh a distinct form of a Church no not in the Apostles time and case For we cannot prove that they distributed the Countrys into Provinces or Dioceses peculiar to each Apostle and had any Churches which they supposed to be peculiarly under this or that Apostles Government so as that any of the rest might not with Apostolical power have come resided preacht and governed in the same No Scripture tells us of such limits Provinces Nay the Scripture tells us that many of them were as Apostles at once in the same places As at Jerusalem oft Paul and John had Apostolical power at Ephesus Peter and Paul as is commonly held at Rome And its probable that as Christ sent forth his disciples by two and two so the Apostles went in company as Paul and Barnabas did so that such appropriate settlement of Provincial or Diocesan Churches we cannot see proved though such a Generall Ministry is easily proved and we doubt not but by consent they might have distributed their Provinces had they seen cause and that actually they did so distribute their labours as their work and ends required But if they had become proper Provincial Bishops over several Districts or Provinces it seemeth strange to us that no history telleth us which were the twelve or thirteen Provinces and how limited and that they continued not longer and that instead of three Patriarchs first and four after and five next we had not twelve or thirteen Apostles or Patriarchs seated over all the world with their known divisions And that men seek not now to reduce the Churches to this Primitive State rather than to the said Imperial Constitution and rather to subject us all to the Apostolical Seats than to five Patriarchs in the dominions of another Prince and now mostly subject to an Infidel Yea it is strange to us that the first Seat Rome should derive its pretended power from two Apostles as if our Church might have two Bishops and the second Alexandria from Saint Mark who was no Apostle and the third Antioch from the same Apostle that Rome did as if one Bishop might have two such Dioceses and the fourth Ierusalem from St. James commonly said to be no Apostle and the last which became the second or the first from no Apostle nor make any such pretence if thirteen Apostolick Provinces were then known But we easily acknowledge that as Apostles having planted many Churches staid a while in each when they had setled it and some time visited it again so they are by some historians called the first Bishops of those Churches being indeed the transient Governours of them In which sense one Church might at once have two or many Bishops and one Bishop many Churches and he be Bishop of one Church this week who was Bishop of another where he came the next Sect. VI. Christian Community prepared to be a Polity and a Christian family and a Christian Kingdom we doubt not may all prove their Divine Right And if any will call these Churches let us agree of the definition and we will not strive about the name Sect. VII We know not of any proof that ever was produced that many Churches of the first Rank must of duty make one fixed greater compound Church by Association whether Classical Diocesan Provincial Patriarchal or National and that God hath instituted any such Form And we find the greatest defenders of Prelacy affirming that Classes Provincial Patriarchal and National Churches are but humane institutions of which more anon Sect. VIII We find no proof that ever God determined the Churches should necessarily be individuated by Parish-bounds or limits of ground and that men in the same limits might not have divers Bishops and be of divers particular Churches Sect. IX We never saw any satisfactory proof that ever Christ or his Apostles did institute any particular Church taken in a Political sense as organized and not meerly for a Community without a Bishop or Pastor who had the power of Teaching them Ruling them by the Word and Power of the Church-Keys and leading them in publick Worship Sect. X. Nor did we ever see it proved that any one Church of this first Rank which was not an Association of Churches consisted in Scripture-times of many much less many score or hundred such fixed Churches or Congregations Or that any one Bishop of the first Rank that was not an Apostle or a Bishop of Bishops of whom we now speak
not oppose Sect. XVIII We find proof thar ordinarily Churches were first planted in Cities there being not then in the Villages Christians enough to make Churches But we find no proof that when there are Christians enough to constitute Churches they may not be planted in Villages also Nor yet that there may not be more Churches than one in the same City For so Grotius saith There were even then when Christians were comparatively but few and that they were as the Jewish Synagogues in this respect And Dr. Hamond largely asserteth that Peter had a Church of Jews and Paul another of Gentiles at Rome and that so it was in other Cities Sect. XIX Much less is it by Divine Institution that Bishops and their Churches or Seats be only in such as we now call Cities which by their priviledges are distinct from other great Towns and Corporations whenas the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 then signified a great Town or Corporation such as our Market-Towns and Corporations now are Sect. XX. But it is the Law of God that all things about Churches and Church-affairs which he hath left to humane prudence should be done according to such general Rules as he hath prescribed for their regulation SECT IV What Princes and Pastors may do in such matters I. THese foresaid General Laws of God do both give the Rulers their Power for determining things committed to them and also limit their power therein II. These General Laws are that All things be done to Edification the circumstances fitted to the End the Glory of God and the Publick Good the promoting of Truth and Godliness that all be done in Love to the promoting of Love and Unity and that all be done in Order and Decently and as may avoid offence or scandal to all both those without and those within Gal. 6. 15 16. Phil. 3. 15 16. 1 Cor. 14. 3 5 12. 26. 17. Rom. 14. 19. 15. 2. 1 Cor. 10. 23. Ephes 4 12 16 19. 2 Cor. 12. 19. 6. 3. 11. 7. 1 Cor. 8. 13. III. Therefore no Rulers Civil or Ecclesiastical have their power to scandalize and destroy but only to edifie being the Ministers of God for good Rom. 13. 3 4 5. 2 Cor. 10. 8. 13. 10. IV. The great Dispute is handled excellently against the Papists for Kings by Bishop Bilson of Christian Obedience Bishop Andrews Tortura Torti Bishop Buckeridge Spalatensis and many more whether the Kings of Christian Kingdoms have not the same power about Church-matters as the Kings of Israel and Judah had David Solomon Hezekiah Josiah c. which cannot be answered by an only Yea or Nay without a more particular consideration of the compared Cases V. We suppose it certain that Christian Kings have no lesser power than the Kings of Israel except 1. What any such King had as a Prophet or in peculiar by an extraordinary grant 2. And what alteration is made by alteration of Church-offices Laws and Worship which may make a difference of which hereafter VI. And 1. It must be remembred that God then reserved the Legislation to himself which he exercised by Revelation and by special Prophets And so the Prophet Moses delivered them that Law which no King had power to abrogate suspend or alter by adding or diminishing Deut. 12. 32. Jos 1. But they had a mandatory power and of making some subordinate By-laws as Cities and Corporations have from and under the King VII 2. Yea great and special Mandates were oft sent from God by Prophets against which the Kings of Israel had no power VIII 3. The Executive or Judicial Power was divided part was in the Kings and Magistrates and part was in the Priests and Levites which the King could not usurp himself as appeareth in Uzziahs offering Incense nor yet forbid the Priests to use it according to God's Law nor change or abrogate their Office For he and they were subject to God's Laws IX 4. God himself settled the High Priesthood on the line of Aaron and all the Priesthood on the Tribe of Levi and it was not in the power of the King to alter it X. 5. God stated the High Priesthood on the Priests during life Numb 35. 25 28. Jos 20 6 c. which Law the Kings had no power to violate XI 6. There are more particular Laws made by God for the duty of the Priests describing their office and work than for any other particular case as many hundred Texts will tell us And none of these Laws might be altered or suspended by the Kings of Israel Nor those by which God stated some of the Judicial Power in the Congregation Num. 35. 12. to 26. XII 7. Solomon's putting out Abiathar and putting in Zadok is not contrary to any of this For supposing the words 1 King 2 35. to be not only a history of the bare matter of fact but a justification of it de jure 1. It poseth learned men to resolve how Zadok and Abiathar are oft said to be both High Priests before and Zadok still put before Abiathar 2. It is certain that Zadok had the right both of Inheritance and especial Promise Numb 25. 11 12 13. 1 Chron. 6. 3 4 c. And what Solomon did was that the word of the Lord might be fulfilled How the possession came into the hands of the line of Ithamar Expositors cannot find It is like it was by occasion of the confusions of their oft Captivity and Anarchy in the interspace of the Judges 3. Even the Priests were the King's subjects and might be punished for their crimes so it were according to God's Laws And if Abiathar forfeited his life he forfeited his Office XIII 8. The Priesthood then depended not on the institution or will of the King or People He might not put out a lawful Priest that had not forfeited his Life or Office He might not have put any one in his place that had not right from God or that was unqualified He might not have forbid the Priests the work appointed them by God But yet if he had injurioâ—slâ— deposed one Abiathar and put in a Zadok the loss had been little to the Church But if he had deposed so great a number of the Priests and Levites as that a great part of God's commanded work must needs thereby have been lest undone and Religion so far destroyed or had as Jeroboam put of the basest of the people or uncapable persons into the Priesthood the loss had been greater and the thing unwarrantable and such as he had not power from God to do XIV And the quality of Moses Law and its Works as different from the Laws of Christ and the Works thereof must be considered that we may discern the difference of the Cases A man that did attempt to draw the people to Idolatry was then to be put to death yea the City to be destroyed that concealed him Deut. ch â—3 so were they that blasphemed and such as committed other heinous
were cut out by the King's command and they spake freely by miracle after they were cut out as is testified by Aeneas Gaze◠and by Victor Uticensis who saw and spake with and heard the persons when this miracle was wrought upon them and by Procopius XXIV It will be objected that Constantius Valeus Gensericus Hunnericus c were Arrians and the later conquering Usurpers Answ 1. Even Heathen Emperours and Kings are our Governours though they want due aptitude to their duty as also do many wicked Christian Princes And we owe them obedience when their Laws or Mandates are not against the Laws of God We must not say as Bellarmine that Christians should not tolerate such Princes and that the ancient Christians suffered for want of Power to resist 2. Let the Emperours called Arrians be made no worse than they were Some were for Concord and Toleration of both Parties and so are more suspected than proved to be Arrians And Arrians themselves though unexcusably erroneous were not like the Socinians that utterly deny Christ's Deity They subscribed to all the Nicene Creed save the the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They would say that Christ was Light of Light very God of very God begotten not made c. They thought that as the Sun-beams or Light are its immediate emanation but not its substance as commonly Philosophers say they are not how true we say not so Christ was an immediate emanation from the Father before and above Angels by whom all things else were made And how dangerously Justin and most of the ancientest Doctors before the Nicene Council speak hereabout and how certainly Eusebius and other great Bishops were Arrians and how lamentably the Council at Ariminum endeavoured an uniting Reconciliation by laying by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And even old Osius by their cruelty yielded to them as Liberius subscribed to them we need not send any men to Philostorgius nor Sondius for proof it being so largely proved by D◠Petavius de Trinitate who fully citeth their dangerous words And if the heterodoxies of the Prince shall be made the reason of the Subjects disobeying him in a matter lawful in it self as some that we speak to now suppose we shall hardly know where to stop nor what bounds to set the Subjects when they are made Judges of the Princes Errours and what examination of cognisance of it they must have 3. Constantine that banished Athanasius who kept in while he could against the Emperours will is not proved an Arrian Nor Valentinian who commanded Ambrose not to cease Prenching himself nor to forsake his Church nor to subscribe to Arrianism but only to tolerate the Arrians to meet in one spare Church which was in Millan as an act of moderation But Ambrose resolutely disobeyed the Emperour we justifie not the manner because he thought that God's Law made it his office as Bishop so to do 4. And as to Gensericus and Hunnericus's Usurpation it was then ordinary with the Bishops even of Rome to submit to men that had no better title and alas how few of many of the old Roman Emperours had any better at least at first XXV We doubt not at all but that Kings are the Governours of Bishops and Churches by coercive power as truly as of Physicians or other Professions And though they have no Authority to abrogate or suspend the Laws of Christ yet they have a Power of Legislation under Christ as Corporations for By-laws have under them which power is only about those things which God hath left to their determination and not either above Christ against Christ or in coordination with Christ but only in such subordination to him and to his Laws XXVI How far Rulers have power or not to command things indifferent and how far things scandalous and evil by accident some of us have opened already distinctly and need not here repeat XXVII And we have there shewed that as they may regulate Physicians by General and Cautionary Laws but not overthrow their Calling on that pretence by prescribing to the Physician all the Medicines which he shall use to this or that Patient at this or that time c. so they may make such General and Cautionary Laws circa sacra 1. As shall drive Bishops and Pastors on to do their certain duties 2. And as shall duely restrain them from sin and doing hurt 3. And they may punish them by the sword or force for such crimes as deserve that punishment And a King of England may depose or put to death a traiterous Bishop Priest or Deacon as lawfully as Solomon deposed Abiathar XXVIII And as we have there said we suppose that there are some circumstances of the Ministers work which it belongeth to his own office to determine of and are a true part of his Ministerial works But there are others which it is meet should be universally determined of for the Concord of all the Churches in a Kingdom These the Pastors and Churches by consent may agree in without a Law it Kings leave it to them And Kings by the advise of such as best understand Church Cases may well by their own Laws make such determinations As for instance in what Scripture Translations what Versions and Metres of Psalms the Churches shall agree Much more may they determine of the Publick Maintenance of Ministers and the Temples and such other extrinsick accidents XXIX Princes and Rulers may forbid Atheists Infidels Hereticks and Malignant opposers of necessary truth and godlyness and all that preach rebellion and sedition that propagate such wicked Doctrine and may punish them if they do it And may hinder the incorrigible and all that provedly or notoriously are such whose Preaching will do more hurt to men than good from exercising the Ministry or Preaching in their jurisdiction or Dominions For such have not any power from Christ so to Preach but serve the Enemy of Christ and man XXX Princes and Rulers may for order sake distribute their Christian Kingdoms into Parishes which shall be the ordinary bounds of particular Churches And such distribution is very congruous to the Ends of the Ministry and Churches and conduceth to orderly settlement and peace And experience hath shewed us that such Parish Churches where the Pastors are faithfull and fit may live as Christians should do to their mutuall comfort in Piety Love and Peace And such Parish-order we desire XXXI But no Rulers may hence conclude 1. that Parishes are distributed by God immediately or that he hath commanded such a distribution as a thing of absolute necessity to a Church But the Generall Rules of order and Edification do ordinarily in Christian Kingdomes require it 2 Nor may any make a Parish as such to be a Church and all to be Church members that are in the Parish as such for Atheists Infidels Hereticks Impenitent Rebels may live in the Parish and many that consent not to be members of that or any Church And not
the Office Power but only the Ministerial Deliverers and Investers And therefore it is Christ and not they that must describe it XLI 9 No Prince or Prelate hath power from Christ to set over or impose upon any Church or Christian people any person as a Pastor who through Ignorance Heresie Malignant opposition to piety or utter defect of Ministerial ability is uncapable of the Office or unfit to be trusted by the people with the Pastoral care and conduct of their soules Nor is it Schism in them to refuse to commit their soules to such nor to chuse and use better when they may do it without greater hurt to others then their gain will compensate XLII 10. Princes or other Magistrates are not appointed by God to be the ordinary Electters and Imposers of Pastors on all the Churches and the people bound to consent to whomsoever they elect But Christ hath given the Bishops the power of free ordaining and the people the power of free consenting and made Magistrates the Goâ—ernours of them that have this power Even as he hath not given power to Princes to chuse Wives or Husbands Servants or Masters Tutors or Pupils Physicians or Patients for all their Subjects but hath antecedently given such Subjects power to chuse for themselves and to Princes to be civil Rulers of such as have this Choice by which Governing Power they may regulate their Choice in subordination to Christs Universal Laws and may punish them for gross misdoing Therefore it is no Schism for Pastors to ordain or People to chuse the Overseers of their souls without or against a Magistrates will or command as such submitting to his Government XLIII 11. When faithful Pastors truly ordained and elected or consented to are in possession if a lawful Magistrate cast them out not only of the Temples and Tithes but also of their Pastoral Relation and Oversight and put others in their places of untried and suspected parts and fidelity 1. The Princes imposition maketh not such the true Pastors of that Church before and without the Peoples consent 2. Nor will it alwaies bind the People to consent and to forsake their former Pastors nor prove them Schismaticks because they do it not For 1. God in Nature and Scripture hath given them that consenting power antecedent to the Princes determination which none can take from them As he hath in nature given men the Choice or Consent at least with what Physician they will trust their lives God hath not put all sick mens lives so far in the Princes power as to bind them to trust and use whomsoever he shall chuse For men are nearest to themselves and their lives are at their own wills in the first instance before they are at anothers And mens souls and everlasting happiness are preciouser to them than their lives and it is first under God their own wills by which they shall live or die though all their friends should do their best to make them willing of what is best 2. They are supposed related duely to their tryed Pastors in the bond of fidelity which they may not unnecessarily violate 3. Otherwise one Roman Emperor might have undone all the Churches and Souls in the Empire in a great degree by imposing on them insufficient heretical or malignant Pastors Where it must be noted 1. That God doth ordinarily work on souls according to the quality of the means To say that He can do otherwise is impertinent while we see that he doth not nor hath promised it We see that Heathens and Infidels are not converted without Preachers We see that Heretical Preachers make Hereticks and Schismatical ones make Schismaticks and ignorant ones leave the people ignorant In several Countries the people are Greeks Papists Lutherans c. as they are taught We see that one clear convincing experienced serious Preacher turneth more souls among us from ignorance errour fleshly lust and worldly wicked hearts and lives than abundance of raw young Readers or Preachers that ignorantly say over a dry prepared speech in a School-boys mode and tone It is not every Preacher of whom it can be said as Dr. Ames doth of old Mr. Midsley a Nonconformist of Lancashire That he was the means of converting many thousand souls from Popery Ignorance and a wicked life Nor whose labours are blest as Mr. Dods Mr. John Rogers Mr. Thomas Hookers Nonconformists or Mr. William Fenners a Conformist and such others were Even as we see by experience that a few skilful prudent experienced Physicians cure more than abundance of young beginners who too oft kill more than they cure We see that the Abassian Armenian Greek and most Popish Countries are lamentably ignorant and usually proportionably vicious for want of a learned pious skilful and laborious Ministery History tells us that the Kingdom of Nubia forsook Christianity for want of competent Teachers The industry of the Jesuits and Friars in China Japan Congo and other Countries telleth us how much they laid on the diligent use of means Jos Acosta tells us how much the West-Indies suffer in Religion by the ignorance and wickedness of the Priests How barbarous and sad a state the Empire of Moscovy is in for want of able faithful Pastors while the Emperours put down Preaching and confine them to Liturgies and Homilies as is affirmed commonly without contradiction How miserable a state the Roman Church yea the Papacy was in in the ninth and tenth Ages even Baronius Genebrard and the greatest flatterers of the Pope lament and this for want of able faithful Pastors and Teachers among them 2. No man hath his power to destruction but to edification The bonum Publicum is the end of Government Therefore it is not Schism in Subjects not to cast their souls on notorious peril of damnation in obedience to any mortal man 3. Every man especially experienced Christians have more sense and knowledge of what is profitable and congruous to them than standers by have how learned soever As ignorance maketh a few short plain oft repeated words in a familiar style more profitable to low-bred persons than an accurate learned Discourse would be so mens several tempers and vices maketh that matter and manner of Preaching profitable to them which to others seemeth otherwise And as a nice Lady must not tie her family of labouring persons to the matter and measure of her diet nor revile them as gluttons or fools if they like it not no more must learned men confine plain people to wordy Orations whether Learned or Pedantick and say This is best for them Much less must they silence causlesly such Teachers as truly profit them or tie them to Homilies or Liturgies only and say Here is as much as is necessary to salvation Nor is it any Schism in the people if they refuse to be so confined by them and denied such helps to their salvation as God hath sent them and made their due 4. Order is an excellent means of edification and
eos quale antea nunquam contigerat Aegypti Thraces Palestini Episcopi Dioscorum sequebantur Orientales Ponticis Asiani Sanctae Memoriae Flavianum Quod Schisma Permansit usque ad obitum Theodosii Principis But when Martian was made Emperour all was undon again that went for Heresie which before went for the right belief Dioscorus was banished Proterius was chosen and how chosen saith Liberatus c. 14. ut cum omnium civium volunt ate eligerint ordinandum Episcopum sacris ob hoc literis praecedentibus ad Theodorum tunâ— Augustalem collecti sunt ergo Nobiles Civitatis ut eum qui esset vita sermone Pontificatu dignus eligerint Hoc enim Imperialibus sanctionibus jubebatur N. B. Yet all this quieted not the people because Dioscâ—rus was still by the most taken for their true Bishop so that Proterius was fain to live under the guard of Souldiers among them Timothy Aelurus and Peter Moggus keeping separate Congregations would not communicate with Proterius and no sooner did they hear of Martians death but the people in tumult murdered Proterius in the Church mangled him cast out and burnt his carcass and scattered his ashes in the wind and made Timothy Aelurus their Bishop And thenceforward Alexandria had two Bishops And both sides petitioning the new Emperour Leo to be for them he commanded upon examination his General to cast out Timothy alium decreto populi qui Synodum Calced vindicaret inthronizare This Stâ—la the Captain performeth and another Timothy Salophaciolus is chosen But when after Leo's death Basiliscus usurped the Empire against Zeno this Timothy is cast out again and the other restored and other Bisops changed accordingly in opposition to the Council of Calcedon And no sooner was Zeno restored but all was returned back again and Aelurus poisoned himself to escape worse Yet did his Party make Peter Moggus their Bishop and the Emperour commanded Anthimius to cast him out and set up Timothy Saloph again But while the Emperours chose who should have the Publick Authority and Temples they left the people to joyn in the choice and the Dissenters kept up their own Bishops and Schism And thus the matter went on uncured And very ordinarily it was the Pulcheria's Theodora's Eudoxia's and such other women the Empresses that by Historians are said to dispose of these matters and make such Patriarchs and Bishops And these courses still increased Schisms Of the Joannites at Constantinople we spake before What a calamitous Schism was that at Alexandria between the Party that held Christ's body incorruptible called by the other the Phantasiastae and those that held it corruptible called the corrupticolae one part taking Gaianus for the Bishop and the other Theodosius and the secular power setting up one the Soldiers and the city sought it out abundance on both sides being slain and yet the Soldiers had the worst and Theophilus was forced away In Justinians time when Paulus an Orthodox man was made Patriarch he could not hold his seat without such plots as occasioned Rhodo the Augustalis to murder Psoius the Deacon which cost Rhodo and Arsenius their lives and Paulus his contemptuous deposition by the Emperours justice Should we but run over the history of other great Churches especially Rome Constantinople Antioch Ephesus Cesaâ—ea alas how sadly would it shew that neither Emperours nor synods assuming the power did end such Schismes but increase them where the Bishopricks were so great as to seem a very desirable prey But where they were small and poorâ— there was far greater peace and quietness though the people commonly had their choice and every where their consent was judged necessary the proofs of which might fill a Volume See in Synodo Romano quarto sub Symmacho in Binnio Vol. 2. p. 288. c. the claim of Odoacer that no Bishop of Rome should be made without the consent of the King of Italy And the Bishops speeches against it Even in the daies of Gregor 1. Rom. You may see how things went by the constant tradition of the Church Epist 22. in Bin. Vol. 2. p. 759. recitat natalem Salonitanae Ecclesiae scatrem coepiscopum nostrum obâ—â—sse discurrens in partibus istis sama vulgavit Qâ—od si verum esti experientia tua omâ—i instantia omnique solicitudine CLERUM POPULUM ejusdem Civitatis admonere festinet quatenus uno consensu ad ordinandum sibi debeant eligere Sacerdotem factoque in personam quae suerit clecta decreto ad nos transmittere studebis ut cum nostro consensu sicut priscis suit temporibus ordinetur Illud prae omnibus tibi curae sit ut in hac electione nec datio quibusque modis interveniat praemiorum nec quarumlibet personarum patrocinia convalescant nam si quorundam patrocinio fuerit quisquam Electus Volunt atibus eorâ—m cum fuerit ordinatus obedire reverentia exigente compellitur Talem ergo te admonente personam debent eligere quae nullius incongruae voluntati deserviat sed vita moribus decorata tanto ordine digna valeat inveniri And at the Council Paris 3. in the daies of Pope John 3. and K. Childebert when Kings were forbidden to make Bishops it was ordained Can. 8. that Nullus civibus invitis ordinetur Episcopus nisi quem Populi Clericorum electio plenissima quasierit voluntate non principis imperio And the Bishops are forbidden to receive him into their number who is made by Kings At the Council of Calcedon Act. 12. it was determined that neither of the two Bishops of Ephesus Bassianus or Stephanus could be Bishops because not duly elected but a third to be chosen See also for the peoples unanimous Election of their Bishop Greg. 1. Epist 65. in Bin. Vol. 2. p. 890. We need not bid the Learned enquire whether Gregory Naeoces Basil Ambrose Martin Damasus and so of the rest ordinarily were Bishops without the consent of the people over whom they were placed And though sometimes the peoples choice have many hundred years only after Christs time but not in the Primitive Church been restrained so was not their consenting voice denied I have translated and adjoyned the Epistle of Cyprian and an Africane Council with him where were then the best ordered Churches in the World as farr as I can learn in which they counsel the Churches of Basilides and Martial to forsake them because they were Libellatiks in persecution proving from Scripture that uncapable persons cannot be Pastors and that such scandalous sinners and bad men were uncapable persons forma non recipitur in matcriam indispositam charging it upon their consciences as from Gods word shewing them that els they will be Guilty of their sins because the chief power is in the people both of chusing the worthy and forsaking the unworthy And yet these two Bishops lived beyond the Seas in another Country and the Bishops of their own Country and the Bishop of Rome had dealt more
disorder of the peoples chusing their own spiritual Councillors Tutors and Physicians And when Church-communion is due to none but voluntary accepters men should not be used so as to take it still against their wills and to be as it were crammed and drencht with sacred Mysteries driven to take them against their consciences and wills from such as they think they cannot communicate with without being guilty of their sin When some Councils have owned Pope Nicholas's decree that no man ought to hear the Mass from a fornicating Priest much less from men that are far more liable to exceptions To this I may add that as in divers cases the Canons and Decrees forbad hearing some Priests and allowed several Churches in the same ground so they seem to give that Pastor a right to the Conduct of the People who was the chief Converter of them from Infidelity or Heresie And hence was the Popes Controversie with the Greeks about the Bulgarians and his claim to the Church of England and many others because he said his Missionaries converted them I shall specially note here that the old Canons sent by Adrian to Carolus Mag. reciâ—ed by Canisius and Binius say That no one must pray with Hereticks or Schismaticks and so not with Papist-Bishops that are the greatest Schismaticks by dividing Impositions That if a Bishop six months after admonition of other Bishops neglect to make Catholicks of the people multitudes then being Heathens and Hereticks belonging to his seat any other shall obtain them that shall deliver them from their Heresie Yet the Bishop is not deposed but another Bishop and Church of the new Converts set up in his Precincts and so a Church gathered in the Precincts of another Church and Bishop And so Gregory Nazianzen did long preach as their Pastor in a small Church in Constantinople before he had possession of the Cathedral the people claiming him for their prositing by his teaching and Theodosius gave him the Cathedral as merited by his success And in the said old Canons c. 19. it s said that Dioceses which then were every Corporation and the Suburbs or Villages which want Bishops receive none without the consent of the Bishop who hitherto held them so be it not proudly For if he over-hold them affecting to sit over the people and despising his fellow-Bishops he is not only to be driven from the retained Dioc se but also from his own Church And ex Con. Sard. 2. A Bishop that by ambition changeth his seat which was then forbidden by the Canons shal not have so much as Lay-communion no not at the end his death Even old Clemens Romanus ad Corinth tells them that they ought not to cast out these Ministers that live unblameably having been Constituted by the Apostles or deinceps ab aliis viris celebribus Cum Consensu Universae Ecclesiae But I find the Roman and Tyrannical spirit much insisting uppon this that the Christian Religion was but in the shell or Embryo in the Apostles dayes and under Christian Emperours is grown up to the maturity of Papacie riches pomp and grandeur and that great power which the Christian Emperours gave the Patriarchs and prelates of their times But this Hypothesis must be better proved before we can receive it We confess that for extent and number the Church was there in its minority But if it was so as to infallibility of doctrine perfection of Laws and exemplary lives then the Pope is better than Christ and his Apostles and their contemptible Decretals and firebrand Councills are better than the sacred scriptures and their degenerate Clergie and people better than the ancient holy peaceable Christians their blood-shedders better than the Martyrs and the Cross-makers better than the Cross-bearers which are things that the worldly sort may believe more easily than mortified and heavenly Christians One testimony more we will add for the antiquity and the estimation of many that are against us And that is the Apostolicall constitutions Lib 8. cap. 4. de ordinationibus having said before cap. 2. that Episcopus ignorantia aut malo animo oppletus Episcopus non est sed falsus Episcopus non a Deo sed ab hominibus promotus they here say that a Bishop must be one that a cuncto populo ex optimis quibusque electus est Quo nominato placente populus in unum Congregatus not a thousand Churches but one una cum Presbyteris atque Episcopis praesentibus Die Dominico consentiat Qui vero inter reliquos princeps Episcopus est percontetur Presbyteros populum an ipse sit quem praeesse petant illis annuentibus rursus percontetur an tribuunt ei omnes testimonium quod dignus sit hoc magno illustri munere praesidendâ— An quae ad pietatem erga Deum pertinent recte peregerit An jura adversus homines servarit An domum suam résque domesticas recte administraverit an vita ei peromnia honeste laudate act a suerit cum vero Omnes simul non secundum opinionem praejudicatam sed secundum veritatem testificati suerint talem esse eum tanquam in conspectu jâ—dicis Dei Christi praesente etiam Spiritu Sancto atque omnibus sanctis administratoriis spiritibus rursus tertio interrogent utrum sit dignus Ministerio ut in ore duoâ—um vel trium stet omne verbum Et cum tertiò annuerint et dignum esse assensi suerint petatur ab omnibus ut praebeant signum assensus Et libenter praebentes audiantur We urge not this as of Apostolicall authority but as of great antiquity and agreeing with the primitive practise This course much differeth from the ordaining of a Bishop at an hundred miles distance from his Church Yea ordaining him not in or to a particular Church but to many hundred Churches when the people neither know him nor are present and yet the question 's askt as if they were And as the people had ever a chusing or a free consenting Voice so they oft received Bishops and Presbyters who were ordained by such as were out-casts Nonconformists and banished both by Emperours and Synods as in many more instances might be proved As also that they adhered to the Pastors so chosen notwithstanding their ejections by the Imperial Power yea and by such Councils as they thought to be unjust as the sad divisions by the displacings restorings and changes of Bishops by the Councils of Constantinople 1. Ephesus 2. Calcedon and by the Emperours in those times do fully prove the people following some one and some another though fear oft prevailed for conformity with the greater part And no wonder when so many Bishops at the Council of Calcedon professed that for fear they had judged against Flavianus for Eutichus against their consciences and even old Osius and many more at Ariminum did the like and when the powers changed cryed Omnes peccavimus and when under Theodosius
2d so many went one way who under Martian went another way even in point of Heresie When Mavia the Saracen Queen chose Moses a Monk to be her Bishop as the condition of her peace with the Roman Empire Moses would not be ordained by Lucius not because he was an Arrian but because he was a persecutor and hurtful to other men for Religion and so he would be ordained Priest by some that were banished to a certain Mountain Socr. l. 4. c. 29. When the Emperour was gone from Antioch where in person he went to disperse their Meetings and yet they held on the people thrust out Lucius whom he had set up and set up Peter again whom the Emperour had banished But such instances are too many to be recited Yea under Orthodox Princes the people would cleave to their injured Pastors though against the Emperours will as they of Miliane did to Ambrose and the Joannites to Chrysostom who even long after his death separated from the Bishop and kept up their separate Meetings against the will of Prince and Prelates till milder Bishops instead of persecuting them restored Chrysostom's bones and name to honour and reconciled them It will still be objected as before that most of these instances were but the peoples rejection of Arrians But again we answer 1. In other instances they usually chose their Pastors and cleaved to them though prohibited 2. These Arrians were such as subscribed the Ariminum Creed which was so ambiguously compiled that abundance that renounced Arius did think that for obedience and peace they might put a fair sense on the words and so subscribe them And we meet with persons in our times that think words imposed on them by Superiours may and must endure stretching to a sense as far from their usual acceptation as the foresaid words were stretched by the Ariminum Subscribers 3. They that never accused and convicted the refused Bishops of Arrianism yet adhered to their former Bishops 4. It seemeth then that the people are left Judges as to the guiding of their own practice what Bishops to refuse as heterodox and whom to own as Orthodox And indeed the saying of Cyprian is well known that The people have the greatest power both to chuse a worthy Priest and to refuse or forsake the unworthy 6. All Protestants believe that it is no Schism in France or other Papist Countries to chuse Pastors and meet for the Worship of God though forbidden by the Civil and Ecclesiastick Governors of the place Obj. That is because that the Princes are Papists Ans A Papist King is to be obeyed in lawful things what Protestant denieth that Obj. But it is because that the Churches and Worship in those Countries is such as it is not lawful to be present at Ans 1. This Objection granteth that when the commanded Assemblies or Worship are such as it is not lawful to be present at 1. The people are discerning Judges 2. And may lawfully meet else where under Pastors of their own choice 2. But let the Question be not whether we may be present in their Churches but whether we may set up other Churches when we are necessarily kept from those established by Publick Power and it will go far 7. When the Form of Worship and Concord called the Interim was by Charles the 5th imposed on the German Protestants being drawn up by Julius Pflug Sidonius and Islebius Agricola men pretending to moderation as not imposing the Mass c. the Protestants judged it lawful to gather Assemblies and keep up Churches contrary to such an Edict of the Emperour One half of them held on their former way till banishment or other violence hindred them Melancthon and the others that thought the things commanded not utterly unlawful conformed only to prevent the utter desolation of the Churches but not in conscionable obedience to the Emperours Edict as if it had been any Schism to do otherwise if they could have been endured As may be seen in Melancthon's own words in his Epistles and elsewhere 8. The most of Protestants at this day hold that it is no Schism to keep up Churches of their several Parties against their Princes will and prohibition Those called Arminians in Belgia so think Episcopius writeth at large that if Ministers be forbid to Preach and People to Assemble in their case they must go on though they suffer death for it saving that prudence may direct them sometime to avoid a present storm The Churches under the Duke of Brandenburgh are generally contrary to his judgment in Religion And should the Princes of Saxony Brunswick Hassia c. or the Kings of Sweden or Denmark turn Calvinists their Clergy would be far from thinking it their duty to cease their Assemblies of the Lutheran Profession and Worship Bishop Andrews is so far from tying all Ministers to the Kings will that he saith cohibeat Regem Diaconus si cum indignus sit idque palam constet accedat tamen ad Sacramentum i. e. Let even a Deacon restrain the King if he come to the Sacrament being unworthy and that be openly manifest Bishop Bilson of subjection p. 399. saith The Election of Bishops in those daies belonged to the people and not to the Prince and though Valens by plain force placed Lucius there yet might the people Lawfully reject him as no Bishop and cleave to Peter their right Pastor Mark that he layeth it not on his Error but on his entrance without the peoples Election and that they might reject him as no Bishop We see here the full concurrence of such English Bishops as were the most Learned and zealous defenders of Episcopacy and loyalty The same Bishop ibid. p. 236. Saith more plainly Princes have no right to call or confirm Preachers but to receive such as be sent of God and give them Liberty for their Preaching and security for their persons and if Princes refuse so to do Gods labourers must go forward with that which is commanded them from Heaven Not by disturbing Princes from their Thrones nor invading their Realms as your father doth and defendeth he may do but by mildly submitting themselves to the powers on Earth and meekly suffering for the defence of the truth what they shall inflict This is the summ of all that we here intend so pag. 313. he saith we grant that they must rather hazard their lives than baptize Princes which beleive not or distribute the Lords mysteries to them that repent not but give willful and open signification of impiety c. So Beda Hist Eccl l. 2. c. 5. Tells us that Melitus Bishop of London with Justus was banished by the heirs of King Sabbaâ—eth because he would not give them the Sacrament of the Lords Supper which they would have had before they were baptized Yet all this is no justification of causeless disobedience to Magistrates that circumstantiate sacred things according to their Office nor will it justifie any Schismatical societies Vespae habent
of Miracles since the Apostles hath assured us that his separation from communion with these Bishops though cruel to Hereticks so gross was confirmed by vision and by an Angel from Heaven and he forbidden their communion for the time to come We again mention this as not yet having heard any answer to it 11. Our own Canons forbid the people to communicate with Ministers for lesser faults as private Preaching Sacraments Fasts Conventicles or out of their own Parishes c. 12. Moses the Monk aforementioned is commended by Historians because he would not be ordained by Lucius not because erroneous but because he had persecuted others by the countenance of Valens the Emperour Though his persecution extended not to the silencing of thousands or hundreds or very many that we read of And as is aforesaid he chose to be ordained by banished men 13. Especially if men have no obligation to that insufficient heretical or ungodly Priest but humane because a Patron presented him or a Magistrate imposed him or because Parish-order which is a humane thing of meer convenience will else seem violated When as the avoiding of the danger of a false Pastor and the guilt of his sin which by owning him may be incurred and escaping the great loss of a faithful Pastor's guidance when we are conscious that we greatly need it are things of greater importance and of Moral and Evangelical Divine obligation In this case we cannot prove it Schism to avoid a wicked Priest The Bishops hold it a duty to avoid a Nonconformist that hath not their License But such a one as is foredescribed hath not Christ's License and is a Nonconformist to his Laws Again let it be noted 1. That even under the Jewish Law Magistrates were not the chusers of the Priests but God chose them by setling the Priesthood on one line 2. That Christ hath by his Spirit in the Apostles altered the Priesthood and the way of their calling and entrance under the Gospel 3. That the Church neer a thousand years was in possession of that way and many hundred of those years the possession was universal in all the Churches 4. That the chusing of Bishops or Priests by Magistrates or Lay-Patrons was none of that way which Christ appointed Therefore seeing it is not the chusing or making but the Governing of Bishops or Priests that is committed to Princes and Christ's Law is the first by which they must govern it seemeth to us that they cannot oblige the Subjects to take up with wicked Pastors when better are prohibited and are to be had LXVII 21. In those times and Countries where the allowed Bishops are corrupted by ignorance heresie ungodliness or faction and set themselves to bring in an unconscionable corrupt sort of Ministers into the Churches and will not ordain fit and conscionable men or by snares divide the Churches and cast out the most worthy and impose sinful conditions on all whom they will ordain it seemeth to us to be no Schism to seek ordination from other Bishops and in case of necessity at least to be ordained by such Presbyters as are either the sole or chief or equal Pastors in Parochial Churches especially in Cities and to perform the Office of Presbyters without such Bishops consent We here suppose such Bishops had themselves been duely elected and ordained yet 1. They have their power to edification and not to destruction 2. We are more obliged to Christ's interest and the Churches safety than to them God will have mercy rather than Sacrifice and preferreth mens salvation to ceremony or Church Laws 3. So the Oâ—â—â—odox forsook the Arrian and other wicked Bishops Malignity and wickedness is poison in the Clergy as well as Heresie and Schism So as is aforesaid Moses and Martin disowned the bad Bishops that were neer them so the Protestants disowned the Papist Bishops And Bugenhagius Pomeranus a Presbyter reformed and ordained Bishops in Denmark Bishop Vsher himself told one of us that being asked by his Sovereign whether he found that ever Presbyters ordained Presbyters he answered I can shew your Majesty more even where Presbyters made Bishops citing the Alexandrian custom out of Jerom to Evagrius The Judgment of English Bishops and Divines for the validity of such Ordination by Presbyters and of the Ordination in the Reformed Churches abroad some of us have proved heretofore at large 4. Christ having made a Law which conferreth the Pastoral Power on him that is made a due Receiver as the King's Charter doth the Power of the Lord Mayor on him that is duly chosen to it it followeth that no more is absolutely necessary to such reception of that Power but that the person be duly qualified and have consent and opportunity and the best investiture which the time and place will afford Of which Voetius de desperata causa Papatus and one of us in a Dispute of Ordination have long ago said that which we suppose will never be well answered 5. And Grotius de Imperio summ Potest circa Sacra an excellent Book hath shewed that he that is the sole Pastor of a Church is in effect a Bishop And indeed Dr. Hammond as is said in his Disser and Annotations asserteth de sacto that in Scriptures one Bishop without any Presbyter under him was setled in each Church so that every Pastor of a particular Church then was a Bishop as far as can be proved And if that was the Apostolical institution that every Church have a Bishop and that there was no sole Pastor at least but Bishops then he that is ordained the Pastor at least sole or chief of a particular Church is ordained a Bishop The reason is because his Office and Power followeth the Law and Charter of Christ that made it and not of the investing Ministerial Ordainer if he would alter it or pronounce it otherwise LXVI 22. Not to obey Lay-Chancellours where they govern the Church by the power of the Keys decreeing Excommunications and Absolutions and performing the work of Exploration and Admonition belonging to Bishops in order thereto we take to be no Schism nor to refuse subscribing or swearing to such a Government LXVII 23. Not sacrilegiously to desert the sacred Ministry when vowed and consecrated thereto is no Schism LXVIII 24. Where such sins are made the Condition of Ministration by men in power as that all the whole Ministry of a Kingdom are bound in conscience to deny consent and conformity thereto it is the duty of all the Ministry in primo instante to forbear their Ministerial Office or none for the reason is the same to all For example If ten or twenty untrue or unrighteous forbidden things must be subscribed declared covenanted or sworn or as many sins practised yea were it but one no doubt but the whole Ministry is bound to deny Conformity to any one such thing Now if all these must forbear or lay down their Office because forbidden by men to exercise it then it is
Counties the Noblemen Knights and Gentlemen that had still adhered to the King profest and published their peaceable desires of Concord and resolution against revenge And Letters were written from France to divers here to take off all the unjust suspicions that some had raised about the Kings Religion all which promoted the Concord that accomplished the Change 27. Those that saw the marvelous success of this reconciliation and concord and knew that the Clergies distance was most likely if any thing to hinder the happy perfection and settlement of a full desired peace did presently attempt an agreement among them And upon the motion of some of the since silenced Ministers the Earl of Manchester and the Earl of Orery mentioning it to the King they told us that it was well pleasing to His Majesty Whereupon His Majesty vouchsafing them audience and great encouragement several persons on each side were appointed to treat of the necessary terms of setled Concord and to yield to each other as far as they could and offer their mutual concessions What was done in this is not now to be mentioned save that part of it was published by some body which declareth it and the first part being about Church Government and worship issued in the publication of His Majesties Gracious Declaration about Ecclesiastical Affairs by which all our breaches seemed at the present to be almost healed and the House of Commons gave His MAJESTY Publick thanks 28 At this time the Lord Chancellor as a token of His Majesties Gracious favour and acceptance offered Bishopricks to three that then treated for Reconciliation and Deanries to two or three of them Of the three first one did the next day save one refuse it but in a letter to him professing his gratitude and that he was so rejoiced in His Majesties Gracious Declaration that if it might but be setled by Law he resolved to use his utmost endeavours to perswade all men to conformity on those terms and therefore would not disable himself thereto by taking a Bishoprick and making men think that it was not for just concord but his own interest that he wrote or pleaded Another of them soon accepted The third and the two or three that had Deanries offered them only suspended till they saw whether His Majesties Declaration would live or dye 29. what was done in the next attempt upon His Majesties Commission to agree on such alterations of the Liturgie as were necessary to tender Consciences c. we are to make no further mention of then is made by the writings given in which some body shortly after in part and with many false printings published An Addition to the Liturgie A Reply to some former Papers of the Bishops and an Earnest Petition to them for the Churches Peace which were given in and never answered by them that we know of some one printed And being in writing required by a Right reverend Bishop then in the Chair as from superiours to lay by meer Inconveniences and to give in those points which we took to be flat sin we gave in eight particulars the next day as part and by that time but one of our arguments about one of them was half handled and the rest of the arguments untouched and the rest of the Controverted instances not medled with our Commission was expired And the Bishops argumentation as Opponents afterward on another occasion printed 30. Shortly after the convocation of the Clergie setled the Liturgie as now it is setled The Kings Declaration dyed The Parliament made the Act of Vniformity by which many Ministers for not conforming to that Law were on August 24. 1662 ejected and silenced on severe penalties About Eighteen hundred of their names from several Counties were shewed Mr. Calamy and others and some say about 200 were omitted and that they were in all above 2000. 31. They that had treated for Reconciliation foresaw what sad divisions were like to follow if we were not healed and united and therefore in their Petition made a solemn Protestation that nothing but the fear of sin and Gods displeasure should hinder them from Conformity deprecating the woful effects of the division which could not possibly be otherwise avoided than by some necessary abatements of the Impositions and fore telling much that hath since come to pass which common understanding might easily see in the Causes 32. The persons that were silenced were not of one mind and measure about all the things imposed on them 1. Some of them were Episcopal and for as much as Richard Hooker writeth for and were against the Covenant and never took it and the Parliaments War and were for the Liturgie and Ceremonies and had Conformed had these been all that had been imposed who yet were cast out of Fellowships and Ministry Yea some had suffered for the King and been ruined in their patrimony some imprisoned for him and some had been in arms for him 2. Besides these and other Episcopal Nonconformists some and very many and we think the greatest part of any one were such disengaged pacificators as we before mentioned about associations 3. Some were for the Presbyterian Government and 4. Some for that called Independent which were comparatively but few Also some were as heretofore Dr. John Reynolds Dr. Humpbrey Mr. Perkins Mr. Paul Bayn c. for some part of Conformity Kneeling and Litâ—rgie and some for the Surplice against other parts Many would have come in to all the old Conformity had it not been for that one sentence in the Canon-subscription Nothing Contrary to the word of God which kept out Mr. Chilâ—ingworth himself as is reported till some dispensation let him in But the New Conformity was such as satisfied them all against it Many purposed to have yielded to Prelacy Liturgie and Ceremonies and gone to the utmost that Conscience would tolerate rather than lay by their Ministry But when they saw the new Act for Uniformity their deliberations were at an end 33. Their interest honour or somewhat else led many persons of those times when they had made the name of Presbyterians odious to call all the Nonconformists that were Episcopal or neutral by the name of Presbyterians even those that had declared themselves against the Presbyterian frame so they were not Independents And they continue that practice to serve their ends to this day 34. The elder sort of the Nonconformists were ordained by Diocesan Bishops The younger sort were ordained by Assemblies of the Parish Pastors of Cities and Countries no other ordination being then allowed by those in Power 35. As to the late Civil Wars which some most lowdly charge on the Nonconformists this is the truth that the several parties charge the beginning of that war on one another One party saith that the Presbyterians begun it in England Another party lay it on the old Church of England men that followed Archbishop Abbot and such like Both these accused Parties laid the beginning on Archbishop Laud
as an Innovator and those that followed him And some think that every side had too much hand in it and were to be blamed The truth is 1. That more by far of the Nonconformists than of the late sort of the Prelatists were for the Parliament in those times 2. That some that were Sectaries and some that were hot for the Parliament did conform 3. That some few that had been in the King's Army or Cause and that were sufferers for him and were against the Covenant and the Parliaments War were Nonconformists 4. That many more of the old Episcopal Comformists than of the later sort of them were for the Parliament 5. That the Archbishop of York Williams who had some time been Lord Keeper was one of the Parliaments Commanders in North-Wales as it is reported without denial 6. That most Ministers are dead that were in that War 7. That the Westminster Assembly as is said came thither almost all Conformists 8. That so small is the number of the present silenced Ministers who had any hand in those Wars that if no other were ejected and silenced but they the case would be judged comparatively very easie and it would be thankfully accepted as hath oft been told For most were then youths at School and in the Universities and many lived in the King's quarters and garrisons and many other never medled with Wars at all it being now about thirty four or five years since the War began 9. That all the Wars that have been since their opposition to the Parliament and violence done to the person of the King were far from being owned by the common sort of the now Nonconformists as was said 10. The Doctrine of Bilson Hooker and such like containing such Principles as Parliament men then usually professed is before mentioned though not fully recited and is commonly known and that the main body of the Parliament Assembly Army Commanders Lord Lieutenants Mâ—jor Generals of Bragades and Sea-Captains were professed Conformists of the Church of England 11. Lastly We had hoped that His Mâ—jesties prudence had by the Act of Oblivion long since ended this part of the Contention but we find still some conformable Ministers whom in other respects we much esteem and love who as if Truth Charity Justice and Humanity had been forgotten by them affirm in print that All the Nonconformists were guilty of the King's Death passing over what is aforesaid of the Conformists and others of them crying out to Magistrates to execute the Laws on us by the urged Motive of their late sequestrations and sufferings as if they knew not or would not have others to know how few Nonconformists in Parliament or Militia there were at the beginning of the War in comparison of the Conformists and how much the second third and following Causes Parties and Tragedies in that War were disliked by the now Episcopal and Presbyterian Nonconformists 36. The people who now adhere to the Nonconformists who were at age before the Wars whom we that write this were acquainted with had very hard thoughts of the Bishops persons and some of Episcopacy it self because of the foresaid silencing of Ministers and ruining of honest men about Sunday-sports Reading that Book and other such things besides Nonconformity But when the Ministers that guided them began to seem more reconciled to the Episcopal Party and upon the reports and promises which they had heard had put them in hope that the next Bishops would prove more moderate peaceable and pious than the former and would by experience avoid divisions and persecution the said people began to be enclined to more reverent and favourable thoughts of Episcopacy and the Bishops and were upon experience of the late confusions in a far fairer way to union submission to them than before But when they saw their Teachers taken from them and some such set over them against their wills who were better known to them than to the obtruders and when they heard of about 2000 silenced at once this so much alienated them from the Bishops that it was never since in our power to bring them to so much esteem of them and reverence to them as might have been but multitudes by this were driven further from Conformity than the silenced Ministers 37. The 2000 silenced were not a quarter of the Ministers of England who were in possession before the return of the Bishops so that it is evident that above three fourth parts of the Ministers that kept in under the Parliament and Protector notwithstanding Covenant Directory and all did prove Conformists 38. The New-altered Liturgy was not printed and published till August 24. or near it when the Ministers were to be silenced that subscribed not and consented not so that we must needs suppose that they were but few Ministers in England in comparison of the rest who ever saw and read much less long considered that Book before they declared their Assent and Consent to all things in it Sure we are that we that lived in London who had it at the first publishing found the time past or so short to examine all things in it with due deliberation that had it been blameless we must have been silenced unless we had consented upon an implicit faith 39. Since we were silenced His Majesties Declaration for more Liberty in Religion came out 1673. but soon died And since then we have been called to many attempts for Unity in which we have twice come to an agreement with those honest peaceable pious and learned Divines of the Church of England who were appointed to treat of it with us But that signified nothing as to our healing while Reasons unknown to us or ineffable prevailed 40. Yet still we have been called on to Tell what we sâ—â—ck at and what we desired and what would satisfie us who desire nothing but leave to excercise the Ministry to which we were ordained and the Cant still goeth on among the ignorant at least as if we had never told them to this day or as if since the new conformity we had ever been called or had leave to tell them or as if the same men would endure us to tell them our case of dissent and the reasons of it to this day But the Judg is at the door SECT VIII The Matters of Fact as to what is required of us by Laws and Canon to which we must conform And first of Lay-men I. OF Laymen that will have any Government or Trust in any City or Corporation is necessarily required the taking of the following Oath and Declaration by a Law I Swear that it is not Lawful upon any pretence whatsoever to take Arms against the King And that I Abhor that Trayterous position that Arms may be taken by His Authority against his Person or against those that are Commissioned by him And the Declaration is That there is NO OBLIGATION upon me or ANY OTHER person from the Oath Commonly called the solemn League and
perish Dead Images of all good things is but the last and most effectual means of destroying the life and real good Dead shews and Images of good are Hypocrisie sincerity is reality seriousness and life We take our Baptism to be our Christening or the summe of the Christian Religion And it is but for men to do that seriously at Age which they did in Infancy by others authorized or others for them which is the Conversion which we daily preach And it grieveth us to see what multitudes when aged never seriously think either what they did or received in their Infancy and how many hate such a life as they have vowed and yet think that they stand to their Baptismal Covenant And till the Pastors of the Church make a serious work of it to bring all their Parishes to a serious understanding and consideration of their Baptism and a serious owning it and renewing of that Covenant we cannot hope that the people will be serious Christians or that men will not think that serious Anabaptists are better than Hypocrites that contemn their Baptism SECT II. The Second Part of the Matter of Conformity THE First Part de facto being contained in the Canonical Subscription and the Declaration hath been opened The Second Part is the case of Reordination Either they that require Episcopal Ordination for all that were otherwise ordained when Bishops were put out do intend it a second Ordination or not If yea then it is a thing condemned by the ancient Churches by the Canons called the Apostles c. and by Gregory M. and others likened to Anabaptistry If not then they take such mens former Ordination to be null and consequently no Ministers to be true Ministers that are so ordained and not by Diocesans and consequently all such Churches to be no true Churches while they take the Roman Ordination to be valid To speak of the consequences of this as to the nullity of Baptizings and Consecration of the Lords Supper c. and of the taking of God's name in vain in the Office if it prove evil would be to go further than the Matter of Fact SECT XI The Third Part of Conformity THE Third Part of Conformity is the Subscribing against the obligation from the Vow To endeavour any change or alteration of Government in the Church with the Oxford Oath That we will never endeavour any alteration and the Articles for our Prelacy and the Ordination-promise and Oath of Canonical Obedience before-mentioned as to this point together 2. Even those Nonconformists that are for the lawfulness yea the need and desirableness of Bishops and Archbishops have so much against this Subscription as that to avoid prolixity we will forbear reciting the particulars any further than to tell you that while a thousand or many hundred Parish-Churches are all without any particular appropriate Bishops great Towns and Villages when in Ignatius's daies the Unity of each Church was known by having One Altar and One Bishop with the Presbyters and Deacons And Jerom defineth a Church to be Plebs unita Episcopo and consequently they are without the Discipline and Pastoral oversight of such Bishops and while all these Parishes are in the old sense become No Churches for ubi Episcopus ibi Ecclesia but only Parts of a Diocesan Church And while the old form of Churches Presbyters and Bishops is thus changed And while one Bishop hath now more work of Discipline besides Confirming and all his other work than an hundred of the ablest and best men can do and so such Discipline is necessarily undone And while the Case is as if the Bishop of Carthage had put down six hundred neighbour-neighbour-Bishops and become the sole Bishop of all their Churches or as if all the Schools in a Diocess have but one Governing School-master who had power to judge what Scholar to receive or to refuse And while the Keys are to be exercised by Lay-men these will be unsatisfying things 3. The Conformists are not agreed of the meaning of these Subscriptions and Oaths some think that they covenant only to submit to them though they dislike them But others think that it is also to approve the Government Some think that it is only Bishops that they are bound to But others say that the word Ordinary certainly signifieth more than Bishops even Lay-Chancellours And that the forâ—cited Canon expresly nameth many others even with an catera the rest that bear Office And any alteration must needs mean more as any alteration in State sure extâ—nleth to more than not endeavouring to change Monarchy or the King himself Some say that by nâ—t endeavouring is mâ—ant only not unlawfully endeavouring but not that all endeavours are forbidden viz. not petitioning speaking when called c. Others say that if exceptions had been allowed the Law makers would have made us know it and not have spoken universally And that if you expound it of unlawful endeavours you leave all men at liberty to judge what is unlawful and all Schismaticks will take the Oath or Subscription because they hold their endeavours to extirpate Prelacy to be lawful Some say that one may endeavour in his place and calling to take the Church-Keys out of the hands of Lay-Chancellours notwithstanding this Subscription and Oath But others more ingenuously say that the very actual Government or Keys being in the hands of Lay-Chancellours if it bind us not against endeavouring to change these it binds us to nothing that can be understood And that if Subjects thus take liberty after Universal Oaths and Promises to make such exceptions they reproach the Law-makers as if in such tremendous things as these they knew not how to put their Laws in words intelligible and of common sense And they relax all such sacred bonds Some say that in not endeavouring is excepted unless the King commission or command us But others say that if the Law-givers would have had such exceptions they had wit enough to have put them in And that if you leave it to men to except from universals you cannot tell them where to stop And that the use of the Oath and Subscription is that the Church-Government be taken for unalterable SECT XII The Fourth Part of Conformity IV. THE Fourth Part of Conformity is the Subscription against the obligation of the Oath called the Solemn Vow and Covenant Corporations are constituted by Declaring that there is no obligation from it to any one without exception But Ministers must only subscribe that there is no obligation on me or on any other person from the Oath to endeavour any change or alteration of Government in the Church 2. It is none of the Controversie here 1. Whether that vow was lawfully imposed or contrived 2. Nor whether it were lawfuly taken 3. Nor whether part of the matter was unlawful But supposing all these unlawful 1. Whether all alteration of Church Government be unlawful whether it be not in the power of the King and Parliament
to set a Bishop in every Market Town or to take the use of the Keys from Laymen or to take down Archdeacons Officials Commissaries Surrogates c Whether all Reformation be out of the power of the King or not to be desired by the people 2. Whether that which is Lawful may not be done by the Law makers and be endeavoured by speech in Parliament or by petition by the people Especially if the King Command it 3. Whether men be not bound by a Vow to that which is Lawful much more to that Which is antecedently a duty 3. The Conformists are here disagreed among themselves some say that the Vow Bindeth not because it was unlawfully imposed But otherâ— better say that this proveth no more but that the Imposers could not bind me to take it by any authority of theirs And that if I had taken it in secret without imposition I had been bound by it Els no private Vow should bind Some say that it binds not because it was sinfully taken But others truly say that if Oaths bind not wherever men take them sinfully no wicked man should ever be bound by Oaths or Vows because they usually make them sinfully by an ill end and intention wrong motives or ill principles or manner Or at least a bad man might choose whether ever he will be obliged But all good casuists agree that if the matter be lawful the unlawful taking hinders not the obligation A man that is Baptized with ill motives or intentions is yet obliged by his Baptismal Vow Some say that it binds not because the matter it self is unlawful But it s granted that it bindeth to no unlawful matter Others therefore truly say that he that Voweth six things whereof three are sinful is not disobliged by the conjunction of these from the other three that are Lawful Els a Knave may keep himself disobliged as to all Vows by putting in some unlawful thing Some say that it binds not because we were antecedently bound to all that is good by other bonds and therefore not by this But others truly say that this is a most intollerable reason and would nullifie our Baptismal Vow and all our sacramental Vows renewed and all Covenants that ever man can make to God of any duty For Gods own Laws first bind us to every duty But for all that our own Vows Covenants and promises secondarily bind us also And a man may have many obligations to one duty Yea indeed the Covenanters ordinarily profess that they think not that a man should Vow any thing to God but what God first hath made his duty And they are against the Papists for making Religions and duties to themselves which God never made And therefore they profess that if some things in the Covenant were not their duty before they would not think that they are bound to it now And they profess that if they had never taken that Vow they had been bound to all that by it they are bound to And therefore condemning that Vow doth no whit secure the Government of the Church e. g. Lay Chancellours use of the Keys or the destruction of discipline from their Lawful endeavours to alter it And they profess that seeing the King hath power to command them Lawful things if they had Vowed any thing meerly Indifferent it would not have bound them against the Kings Commands Because it is not in subjects power by Vows to withdraw themselves from their obedience to authority Some say that the Proclamation of King Charles the first against the Covenant null'd the obligation But others truly say 1. That it could null no more than the Imposition to take it and not the obligation when it 's taken in necessary things 2. That this is nothing to all them that took it afterward and that when Charles II. had though injuriously been drawn to declare for it Some say that it binds not because men took it unwillingly But others truly say 1. that this would leave it in the power of a bad man to nullifie all Vows and contracts by saying that he did them unwillingly 2. That man hath fâ—ee will and cannot be compelled And a Vow of a thing Lawful to save ones life bindeth Men must rather die than lie 3. This would teach Subjects to say that they take all Oaths of Alegiance to the King unwillingly and therefore are not bound 4. It s true that no man that forceth another injuriously to a promise can claim to himself any right from that which was not free but procured by his own injurious violence or fraud But God wrongeth none and a Vow to God bindeth though procured by sinful force by men Some say that It was only a League and Covenant with men and not a Vow and therefore ceaseth câ—ssante occasione and by the consent of Parliamentâ— c. Ans There is no place for the belief of this objection to any that knoweth a Vow otherwise than by the name Indeed an Oath that is but an appeal to God that I will faithfully perform my Covenant with a man obligeth me not when that man hath discharged me from any obligation to him But this in question was primarily a promise or Covenant made to God which is a Vow and a League and Covenant of men with one another that they will perform it as is notorious to any man that readeth it with common understanding II. The second thing questioned about that Vow and the main is whether every Minister must or may become the judge of all other mens Consciences and obligations in three Kingdoms even of many thousands whom they never saw nor heard of and that so far as to absolve or justifie them from all obligations by that Vow to endeavour any Church reformation 2. It is here supposed 1. That though men ought to take an Oath in the sence of a Lawful Governour so far as they know it yet that they are not bound beyond the plain meaning of the words to the sense of Usurpers Therefore they know not but the King and Lords c. might take the same words in another meaning than the obtruders did intend e. g to reform according to Gods Word and the example of the best reformed Churches might signifie to them an opposition to Presbytery 2 That if men mistake the sence of the Imposers they are bound to keep an Oath in the Lawful sence in which they took it And then how knoweth every Minister in what sense every man in the three Kingdoms took it And how is he able to say that no one man of them all is obliged by it to endeavour a lawful and necessary reformation 3. And as to the former Argument that men were forced to it many of the Old Parliament are yet living and many others that then forced others to it and were not forced to it themselves 4 And if the present Parliament-men could upon what compulsion soever Vow to reform e. g. scandalous Ministers Swearing
We justly maintain against the Anabaptists that Infants relation to the Covenant and the universal Church as members was not repealed by Christ because it was not founded only on the Law of Moses which if it had it were as such repealed § 12. The Holy Ghost by the Apostles Acts 15. hath declared to all the Churches of the Gentiles that they are not bound to keep the Law of Moses and hath absolved us from all saving things antecedently and on other reasons necessary verse 28. § 13 If the Jews form of Government be ours then the High-Priest must have the power of the Sword or sit in judgment for life or death as Deut. 17. 12 13. and other places shew But many Papists and Protestants are agreed that the clergy have no power of the Sword or force unless the King make them also Magistrates § 14. It is a matter of so great importance to the Church to know whom we must obey that it is not to be thought that any way is made necessary by Christ which he hath not made intelligible and certain to be indeed his will Especially when the Apostles strove who should be the chief and two of them made it their request and when the Corinthians and others were ready to set up one before another and say I am of Cephas c. § 15. Yea Christ on this occasion expresly forbad them to seek to be one above another and told them that though Kings exercise authority and have magnifying Titles with them it should not be so but their preeminence should consist as that of a servant in humility and service unto others Luk. 22. which will not stand as we suppose with establishing the Jewish order § 16. And Pauls reproof of their making a Church head of Cephas Paul or Apollo or taking them to be other than helps of their faith and not Lords of it and Ministers by whom they believed even then when Schisms made it necessary to have known to whom they must appeal and adhere if that had been the way doth further confirm what we say § 17. The argument that some worthy persons bring from the Prophesies that Nations should be converted unto Christ and that the Kingdom should be taken from the Jews and given to a Nation that would bring forth the fruits of it Matth. 21. 43. and that the Kingdomes of the world are made the Kingdoms of Christ and that Egypt and Assyria should be converted and equalled with the Jews c. do ineeed shew that there should be Christian Kings and Kingdoms which the Apostles were sent to endeavour Mat. 28. 19. to convert Nations But here is nothing that we can perceive to prove that these Christian Nations must have the Jewish Church Policy § 18. Nay contrary the Church is said to be built on the foundation of the Prophets and Apostles Eph. 2. 20. and not of the Mosaical Policy of Priesthood Rev. 21. 14. It hath twelve foundations § 19. It is said Zech. 2. 11. Many Nations shall be joyned to the Lord and shall be my people So Zech. 8. 22. Isa 65. 1. Rom. 10. 20. Isa 2. 2. 55. 5. Hos 2. 23. Isa 60. 3. 49. 22. But not a word in all this of the old form of Policy or Priesthood but Contrarily that the Law should come out of Zion and a new Covenant should be made And it is certain that so large a history as we have of Christ's performances is a far clearer light than obscure Prophecies and darker texts must be explained by the plainer and not contrarily § 20. We see not how the Synod Act. 15. maketh any thing for a National High Priest or Sanedrim or any like Policy For 1. It appeareth to be no act of proper National Government but did bind other Churches as well as those within the Empire 2. It was an arbitration at the request of doubting persons and it was not the Relation of the Arbitrators to one seat of National Power as the Metropolis that was respected but the quality of the persons sent to who would have been equally obeyed had they dwelt in the least Village of another Land 1. There were the Apostles that had the promise of the Holy Ghost 2. There were many whom the people must needs more confide in than in one especially whose power was questioned by gainsayers 3. Both Apostles Elders and Brethren there were such as had seen or were neer to Christ and his works and therefore likeliest to know his mind 4. They were Jews themselves and therefore most impartial Judges in the point that Jewish Teachers troubled them about so far as that they might well acquiesce when Jews themselves resolved them And when the Apostles were dispersed we find not any more Jerusalem-Councils Governing the Imperial Churches § 21. If that Councils Authority were properly National and arose from the prerogative of Jerusalem then 1. All the Apostles when scattered would have been subject to James the first Bishop of Jerusalem thought to be no Apostle 2. Then Jerusalem might have after claimed the Supremacy as of Divine right before Alexandria Antioch or Rome But it is certain by experience that the whole Church was of another mind when Jerusalem had not so much as the fifth or lowest Patriarchate till long after by another grant But if the Power was not fixed to the place but the Itinerant Apostles then it is nothing to prove any Governing Church over others as being affixed to such a place Nor shall we easily find the Apostles Itinerant Successours in that power § 22. II. It is certain that Christ chose twelve Apostles besides Paul who had a preeminence before other Ministers and that he joyned with them some Prophets and Evangelists appointing them all to gather Churches through the world discipling and baptizing Nations and teaching them all things that he commanded a work to be still done and to which he promised his presence to the end of the world And that these having gathered Converts set over them fixed Bishops or Pastors or Elders to be their constant Guides in Teaching Publick Worship and Discipline under Christ the great Prophet Priest and King of the Church And that to the Apostles first and by them to others he gave them the Keys that is the Judging Power of reception and rejection and the Official Power of pronouncing God's reception or rejection of them according to his Word § 23. There is not the least evidence that these Apostles did affix a Superiour Power over the other Churches to any particular seats Patriarchal or Metropolitan much less National or that any of them exercised Government over the rest or that they themselves did fix themselves as Bishops to any twelve or thirteen Cities in the world much less to twelve Kingdoms § 24. There is no notice in Church history of any one National church-Church-power Priest or Synod setled asserted or exercised under Heaven of above three hundred years Egypt and Assyria that were
French Wars And yet we have instanced but in the best times of dominion in comparison of which Councils Prelates and later times have been a meer hurricane In a word they that think that the mischiefs of superiour seats are greater than the benefits do appeal to all Church history whether they have not been the true and principal causes of the distractions of the Christian world and of the long division of the East and West and of many civil and grievous wars § 40. And to the objections they say I. As to Appeals and Government of Inferiors 1. That the last appeals have ever been made to General Councils And how they went when ever the Prince did but countenance errour as in the daies of Constantius and Valens many great Councils that were for the Arrians and in Theodosius Juniors time for the Eutychians c. is too sad to think on And is it not far more dangerous for many hundred in a Council to bear down a whole Empire or Kingdom and raise persecution and there be no appeal from them than for a poor Priest to put a man from the Sacrament in his own Parish Church How many Councils have been against Images in Churches and how many for them condemning one anothers acts What good will appeals do to such 2. In doctrinal cases the consent of many tends to concord But in cases of personal practice are they fit judges to appeal to that dwell many hundred miles off and know none of the persons suppose a poor man in England is put from the Communion by a Parish-Priest yea perhaps an hundred or many hundred in some parishes because he findeth some to be utterly ignorant some to be drunkards fornicators heretical c. If these appeal but to a Diocesan which dwelleth 20. miles from some 40 or 60 or 100 miles from others the remedy is worse than the disease For if the Priest must travel so far and bring his witnesses and plead the cause with men that never saw the party before where neighbourhood giveth a surer knowledge than any such examination of strangers can do and a strange Chancelor or Diocesan knoweth not which witnesses are most credible and all this while his Pastoral Charge perhaps many thousand souls must be neglected while the Minister is prosecuting these appealing sinners will not the evil of this be greater than the benefit But how much more if every sinner must appeal to a Patriarch many hundred miles off A sober mind will be ashamed to think of the process of such a suit If you say that it is not in the case of such sinners as these whereof every Parish abounds that you would have appeals at least not to Patriarchs so far off I answer 1. Then answer your own objection What remedy shall they have if the Bishop wrong them 2. What is the case than that you suppose such supraordinations of power necessary for If you say If Ministers themselves should be excommunicate It is answered That none but Bishops or other superior powers pretend authoritatively as Rectors to excommunicate Pastors Therefore this is nothing to them that are against all such superiority of Pastors Where none such are none such can excommunicate or be injurious And if there must be a higher Bishop to deliver men from the injuries of a lower who should deliver us from him who may injure Kingdoms Obj. But it is supposed that Patriarchs are wiser and better men than Metropolitans and those than Bishops and those than Priests And that a meer Priest is not to be trusted with the power of the Keys Ans 1. The power of the Keys of his particular Church is essential to his Office 2. They that will make Priests of raw lads and naughty fellows and then plead that such must not be trusted with the Office which they themselves ordained them to do condemn themselves by such allegations 3. The old Church Government was for every particular Church no more numerous than our Parishes to have a Bishop and Presbyters And these were thought sufficient to judge who was fit for their own Communion 4. Hierom was but a Priest c. And Macedonius Nestorius Dioseorus Timothy Elurus Peter Moggus Gregory Alex. Lucius Al. Joh. Al. Theodosius Al. Eulalius Antioch Euphronius Ant. Placitus Ant. Stephanus Ant. Leontius Ant. Eudoxius Ant. Euzoius Ant. all Hereticks were all Patriarchs and to reckon the enormities of the Roman High Priests is a needless work Is it to be supposed then that these were better than Priests Doth Christ say that it is as hard for a rich man to enter into Heaven as for a Camel to go through a needles eye and shall we that are Christians say that it is to be supposed that the rich clergie are better men than the poor When Greg. Nazianz. Saith that such great places use to make Bishops worse than they were before All history tells us what striving there was for such places When Euschius refused Antioch two Priests were presently at Constantines elbow to beg that place and he was fain to mention them though they were not chosen What a stir did Maximus make at Constantinople Egypt and with the Emperour to have got Gregories place at Constantinople And so with others And is it not a fleshly proud and wordly mind which is the work of the Devil which is the importunate seeker And must we needs appeal to such 3. But to come neerer what need is there of any such appeal or such a Government if 1. A Bishop with-his Presbyters be over every particular Church associated for personal Communion in holy doctrine worship and Conversation 2. And if these Churches associate for meer concord and mutual help and not for Governing Bishops 3. And if the Magistrate govern them all as he doth Philosophers Physicians c. For 1. If a Bishop of a particular Church deny one the Sacrament or excommunicate him he doth it justly or unjustly If justly the person must submit If unjustly he may be received by a neighbour Bishop who is not bound to reject those whom upon trial he findeth to have been wrongfully excommunicated All neighbour Churches must refuse those that are by any one excommunicated justly but not all that are wrongfully cast out Some say that he that doth excommunicate doth cast a man out of the whole Church and therefore no one else may receive him But unexplained words must not serve to confound truth Souls and Congregations Every Minister is a Minister in the Universal Church as every Physician and Schoolmaster is in and to the Kingdom indefinitely not universally but his work and power are commensurate his power being only to and for his work Therefore the Bishop or Pastor of one particular Church or Parish is bound to confine his ordinary labour to them though occasionally he may help others And accordingly his power is to use the Keys ordinarily for his own Church only as to the direct effect though extraordinarily he
may use it in other Churches when called thereto and by consequence it may reach further For few Bishops will think if another Bishop come into their Diocesses or Parishes and excommunicate divers of their flocks that they and all others are bound to stand to such mens sentence and to hold such excommunicate That which a Pastor doth in ordinary Excommunicating is to declare after proof that This person is by his sin and impenitency made uncapable of Communion with the Church and therefore to require him to forbear it and the people to avoid Communion with him and to pronounce him unpardoned before God till he repent Now if this be done by one known to be heretical with whom the other Churches have no Communion those other Churches are not bound to deny that man Communion Nor yet if he offer himself to their Communion and they examine the matter and find him wronged It is concord in good and not in evil that we are bound to by the command of God Therefore if any man be wrongfully put out of this Church the next may and should receive him And what necessity is there then of going a thousand or an hundred miles to a Pope or Patriarch or Diocesan to right him And whoever thought that there was need of an Universal Physician or Schoolmaster or a General Council of such to receive appeals from Patients and Scholars that are wrongfully turned out of the Hospital or School The Caviller will here tell you of disparities in the cases but the question is whether the disrities be such as alter the reason of the Conclusion What man of conscience will be a Physician Schoolmaster or Pastor that hath not power to judge whom to receive for his Patient Scholar or part of his flock but must take all that some other man shall send to him or command him to receive and give them what others command him to give An Apothecary may do so but not a Physician What if a man had no other scandal but to say I will not take you for my Pastor nor take my self obliged to answer you speak with you give you any account of my self nor be questioned by you on any accusation must I be constrained to suppose this man to be one of my flock In despite of his own denyal If the freedom of consent be not mutual but I must be constrained to take those for my charge as Christians that renounce such a relation or will not own it a Pastor is not a free man nor hath any power of the Church-Keys but is as an irrational Slave a Cryer or Executioner that must but execute another mans commands 2. But if there be need of appeals and our own actions must not be free why will not the Synods of Neighbour-Pastors met only for Counsel and Concord and not to command the Pastors suffice for such persons to appeal to And what if I turn a servant out of my house or from his meat and he may take another Master when he will must there be an universal Judge of all family cases that shall force me to keep my servant against my will Is it not enough that I know why I am unwilling to keep him who am no way more bound to him than to others but by my own consent What if as Nazianzen left Sasimis Constantinople and Nazianzum at last I should give up my whole Charge and Bishoprick and say I will be a Pastor to none of them any more upon sufficient reasons as Latimer did Is it not better for the people to take another than to accuse me at Rome or Canterbury as wronging them 3. But if all this serve not neither the sufficiency of Pastors for one single Parish nor yet the Counsel of all the Neighbour-Pastors or Bishops what is there more to be done which the authority of Princes and Magistrates may not do All Christians confess almost that no Bishops or Pastors as such have from Christ any forcing power over the flocks that belongeth to the Magistrates only And they are to keep peace and force us to our certain duty And I would ask the contrary-minded whether if Bishops Patriarchs and Councils had no forcing power but only to excommunicate by the application of Gods word and leaving all men to their consciences would this sort of Government serve their turn and keep out Heresies or maintain order and unity They say no themselves And next whether it be not certain and confessed that the Pastors have no other power but the Magistrates only Obj. But shall all men gather Churches and teach Heresie and do what they will Answ 1. The power of Popes Patriarchs or Councils did not prevent it when there were all the Heresies that fill Epiphanius Volumns And when the far greatest part of the Clergy was long Arrian And when the Nestorians and Futychians so greatly multiplied after the condemnation of the Councils And when the Novatians lived so many years in reputation and when the Donatists nor they were not diminished by Prelates or Councils Censures till the sword dispersed them And cannot the Sword be drawn without such as have no power of it 3. And as to the last and greatest reason that the Apostles have successors who must orderly exercise their Government it is answered 1. The common doctrine of the Church was that all Bishops are their Successors so far as they have successions and every Church of one Altar had a Bishop in the daies of Ignatius and long after 2. The Council of Carthage said None of us calleth himself Bishop of Bishops 3. But if any be set as the Bishop of many Bishops and Churches so be it they use no violence but govern volunteers as all the old Bishops did and sorbid them nothing commanded of God nor command them any thing which God forbiddeth and destroy not the order doctrine worship or discipline of the lesser particular Churches we have before said that we shall submit to such §41 IV. As to the question whether the Government setled by Christ in National Churches be as to the Clergy from all parts Monarchical Aristocratical or Democratical and who must have the summam potestatem The disagreement of the persons that we have herein to do with puts us into utter despair of any solution And what good will it do us to believe that some must be obeyed if we cannot be certain who it is §42 V. And to the question Whether the King be the formal or only the accidental Church-head We find no more agreement 1. Some think that the King as Melchizedek is a mixt person secular and Clergy and hath both Offices to use and communicate as they say the Princes before Aaron had 2. Others say that this is not so but that the Clergy-jurisdiction distinct from the Priestly common power is a branch of the Christian Magistrates power and so derived from the King 3. Others say that the Church formally is distinct from the Civil
State though not alwaies materially And that the King as King is but an Accidental Civil Head as he is over Physicians and Schoolmasters being neither himself and that the National Church must have a formal Clergy-head Personal or Collective which shall in suo genere be the highest though under the Magisttates Civil Government as Physicians are 4. The Papists say that all National Churches are under the Pope as Universal Pastor who may alter them as he seeth cause 5. Some moderate men say that only Diocesan and Metropolitical Churches are jure Divino and that they are called National only improperly from one King or concording association as ab accidente and not properly from any formal Clergy-head § 43. VI. Lastly which is the formal Head of the Church of England and so what that Church is we are left as much uncertain 1. If it be only a Civil Head that denominateth it One then it is but a Christian Kingdom which we never questioned And Dr. Rich. Cosins in his Tables of the English Church-Policy saith That the King hath Administrationem supremam magisque absolutam quae dicitur Primatus Regius And Tho. Crompton in his dedication of it to K. James saith Ecclesiastica Jurisdictio plane Regia est Coronae dignitatis vestrae Regiae prima praecipua indivisibilis pars Ecclesiasticae leges Regiae sunt neque alibi oriuntur aut aliunde sustentantur aut fulciuntur penes Ecclesiasticos judices per Archiepiscopos Episcopos derivata a Rege potestate jurisdictio Ecclesiastica consist it And yet our Kings and Church explaining the Oath of Allegiance declare that the King pretendeth not to the Priesthood or power to administer the Word and Sacraments but as Crompton adds from Constantine is extra Ecclesiam constitutus a Deo Episcopus alii intra Ecclesiam Episcopi This is plain If they hold to this and claim no power in the English-Policy but as the Kings Officers in that part which belongeth to Christian Magistrates who will oppose them But this reacheth not to the Keys Preaching or Sacraments 2. Some say that the King is partly a Clergy man as Melchizedek and so that he is the formal Head and might perform the Priestly Office if he would But this our Kings have themselves renounced 3. Some say that the Archbishop of Canterbury is the formal Head but that cannot be because he is no Governour over the Arch-Bishop of York or his Province 4. Most say that the Convocation is the formal Church-Head which makes it One Political Church But 1. If so then why saith the Canon that the Convocation is the true Church of England by Representation and those excommunicate that deny it We enquire after the Church-Head or Governour And that which is but the Church it self by representation is not its Head unless the Head and Body be the same and the Church govern it self and so it be Democratical The governed and Governours sure are not the same 2. And the Supream Power is supposed by those that take Episcopacy for a distinct Order to be in the Supream Order only But the far greater part of the Convocation are not of the Supream Order Nay thus the Presbyters should be partly the chief Governours of the Bishops while they make Canons for them 3. When we did but motion that according to Arch-Bishop Ushers form of the Primitive Episcopacy Presbyters might joyn with the Bishops in proper executive Church-government instead of Lay-Chancellors and such like they decryed it as Presbytery and call us Presbyterians ever since And if they say that the Presbyters have so great a part in the Supream Government it self which obligeth all the Nation how much more would they be themselves Presbyterians which they so abhor § 44. Having oft said that we desire Christian Kingdoms as the great blessing of the world we mean not either that 1. All in a Kingdom should be forced to be baptized or profess themselves Christians whether they are so or not For lying will not save men nor please God and even the Papists are against this 2. Nor that all should be supposed to be Christians that are in the Kingdom But that the Kings be Christians and the Laws countenance Christianity and the most or ruling part of the Kingdom be Christians and all just endeavours used to make all the rest so The Ancient Churches continued them Catechumens till they were fit for Baptism and though they were for Infant-Baptism they compelled none to be baptized in Infancy or at Age but left it to free choice They baptized but twice a year ordinarily They kept many offenders many years from communion And if Crabs Roman Council sub silvest be true they at Rome admitted not penitents till fourty years understand it as you see cause The true Elibertine Canons kept many out so many years and many till death and many absolutely as shewed that they were far from taking all the Nation into the Church And the Christian Emperours compelled none It was long before the greatest part of the Empire were Christians In the daies of Valens the Bishops were some of them banished into places that had few Christians if any In France it self even in St. Martin's daies the Christians of his flock were not the most but he wrought miracles to convince the Heathens that raged against Christianity where he dwelt c. § 1. There are two appendent Controversies handled by some that write for National Churches which need but a brief solution The first is whether it be not an Independent Errour to expect real holiness in Church-members as necessary in the judgment of charity The second Whether it be not such an Errour to require the bond of a Covenant beside the Baptismal Covenant § 2. To the first we say that so much is written on this point by one of us in a Treatise called Disputations of Right to Sacraments c. that we think meet to say no more The Opponents now confess that it must be saving Faith and Consent to the Baptismal Covenant that must be professed And Papists and Protestants agree with all the Ancient Church that Baptism putteth the true Consenter into a state of certain pardon and title to life And God maketh not known lying a condition of Church-communion He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved It is true that God hath not made Ministers Arbitrary Judges of mens secret thoughts but hath limited them in judging to take their tongues that profess Faith and Consent to be the Indices of their minds But sure the power of the Keys containeth a power of judging according to Christ's Law who is to be taken into the Church by Baptism and who not If only the seeker be made Judge it will be a new way of Church-Government and a bad And then the question is 1. Whether he that accepts ones profession seemingly serious of Faith and Consent and that de praesente is not bound to hope in charity that such
preaching without it to deserve a Gaol and utter ruine and the same to neer 2000 others the silencing of whom will one day prove no indifferent thing And they that think it harmless publickly Ministerially upon deliberation to profess a falshood may shortly think it a duty to swear it But I believe that God will not hold that person Church or Kingdom guiltless which taketh his name in vain see Dr. Hammends Catechism on the 3. Commandment FINIS ERRATA's Reader THE smaller literary mistakes are left to thy own in genuity the grosser errours of the Press thou art desired thus to correct Epist p. 5. l. 24. for urge r. argue p. 10. for prefixed r. affixed p. 12. l. 4. for our r. one l. 24. r. A Christiau p. 32. l. 1. for mollifie r. nullifie p. 50. l. 21. r. one will p. 53. l. 20. r. communion p. 63. l. 4. r. Pontici p. 64. l. 31. r. Theodosius p. 73. l. 26. for there r. then p. 88. l. 20. r. put not p. 97. l. 25. r. formally p. 99. l. 15. for an acceptable r. uncapable p. 102. l. 8. r. help p. 119. l. 1. for considering r. concerned in p. 126. l. 13. r. said they p. 128. l. 6. for suspension r. suspicion p. 154 l. 5. for his r. their p. 157. l. 13. for any r. an p. 159. l. 16. dele that p. 160. l. 30. r. that THIS is p. 162. l. 26. r. we must p. 187. l. 5. r. fame l. 10. dele more p. 203. l. 25. r. Hale p. 205. from we take and 206 and 207. are all misplaced p. 224. l. last for swarming r. swearing p. 229. l. 21. r. 97. p. 238. for FIRE r. PLAGUE p. 265. l. 15. r. would not l. 24. for about r. above p. 269. l. 23. for hoc r. hos p. 272. l. 2. for that r. the l. 3. dele the p. 286. l. 5. for yet r. yea p. 288. l. 28. for assureth r. asserteth p. 161. l. 18. r. plenilunium p. 248. l. 8. for 1660 r. 1661. p. 289. l. 23. r. domination p. 298. l. 2. r. Regia p. 333. l. penult r. premised Many more are left to the Readers ingenuity A Catalogue of Books Printed for or sold by Benj. Alsop at the Angel and Bible over against the Stocks-Market 1. THE Compleat English Scholar is Spelling Reading and Writing By E. Young Schoolmaster of London 2. Jacobs Ladder Or The Devout Souls Ascension to Heaven By Jo Hall late Bishop of Norwich 3. Divine Consolations against the Fear of Death By John Gerrard Author of the Meditations 4. Divine Love Or The willingness of Jesus Christ to save sinners By V. P. 5. The Nonconformists Plea for Peace Or An Account of their Judgment By R. Baxter 6. Melius Inquirendum Or an Answer to the Sober Enquiry 7. The Ladies Delight * When persecution was hot some that would not offer Incense at Idols Altars nor renounce Christ yet to save their lives did through fear in secret hire another to subscribe their names to a sinful profession and these were called Libellaticâ— and it troubled the Churches whether and when they should be received to communion upon their repentance * It must be known that this Bishop lived in the depth of Popery and acknowledgeth the Popes Power as men do now the Bishops * Or Anglorum for its a various Lection * But a Papist will say who shall be Judge As if all men were not to be discerning Judges of truth duty * As of Assent and Consent to the Use of the Liturgy c.
though we hear that some of them take us as not sincere for keeping up a difference and giving no more reasons of it The thing which we so greatly desire leave to do but dare not be so bold yet as to venture by it to displease them who condemn us for not doing it lest their anger would be sharper to us if we do it so great is our difficulty between this Soylla and Charybdis But we hope we may adventure to open some part of the Matter of Fact which Conformity and Nonconformity are concerned in that so men may conjecture at the Case themselves which will be no reflexion on the Government barely to tell what they command nor a challenging any of our Superiours to a disputation nor a charging them as faulty that cannot bear it 1. Matters of Fact to be foreknown to the true understanding of the Cause 1. THE root of the difference between the Old Nonconformists and the Conformists was that one sort thought they should stick to the meer Scripture Rule and simplicity and go far from all additions which were found invented or abused by the Papists in Doctrine Worship and Government and the other side thought that they should shew more reverence to the customs of the ancient Church and retain that which was not forbidden in the Scripture which was introduced before the ripeness of the Papacy or before the year 600 at least and which was found lawful in the Roman Church and common to them with the Greek that we might not seem singular odd and humorous or to go further from the Papists than reason and necessity drave us And the Laity seemed no where so sensible of the difference as between the way of Ceremony and unceremonious simplicity and the way of our many short Liturgick Prayers and Offices and the way of free-praying from the present sense and habits of the speaker while pacificators thought both seasonably good 2. The sad eruption of this difference among the Exiles at Frankford while Dr. Cox and Mr. Horn and their party strove for the English Liturgie and the other party strove against it for the freer way is at large reported in a book called the troubles at Frankford 3. Queen Elizabeth and King James discountenancing and suppressing the Nonconformists they attempted in Northamtonshire and Warwickshire a little while to have set and kept up private Churches and governed them in the Presbyterian way But that attempt was soon broken and frustrate by the industry of Bishop Whitguift and Banctoft And the Nonconformists lived according to their various opportunities some of them conformed some were by connivence permitted in peculiars and small impropriate places or Chappels that had little maintenance in the publick Ministry which kept them from gathering secret Churches some of them had this liberty a great part of their lives as Mr. Hildersham Mr. Dod Mr. Hering Mr. Paget Mr. Midsley senior and junior Mr. Langley Mr. Slater and Mr. Ash at Bremicham Mr. Tailor Mr. Pateman Mr. Paul Bayne Mr. Fox of Tewksbury John Fox and many more Some had this liberty all their lives as Mr. Knewstubs Dr. Chadderton Dr. Reignolds Dr. Humphrey Mr. Perkins Mr. John Ball Mr. Barnet Mr. Geeree Mr. Root Mr. Atkins Mr. Gilpin John Rogers and many others some were fain to shift up and down by hiding themselves and by flight and these preached sometimes secretly in the houses where they were and sometime publickly for a day and away where they could be admitted so did Mr. Parker Mr. Bradshaw Mr. Nicols Mr. Brightman Mr. Brumskil Mr. Humphrey Fen Mr. Sutchff Mr. Thomas and many more and after their silencing Mr Cotton Mr. Hooker and many more that went to America Mr. Cartwright was permitted in the Hospital at Warwick Mr. Harvey and Mr. Hind at Bunbery in Cheshire and many more kept in having small maintenance being in peculiar or priviledged places Mr. Rathband Mr. Angier Mr. Johnson Mr. Gee Mr. Hancock and many others oft silenced had after liberty by fits Mr. Bowrne of Manchester Mr. Broxholm in Darbyshire Mr. Cooper of Huntingtonshire at Elton and many others suffered more and laboured more privately Dr. Ames was invited to Franekera some were further alienated from the English Prelacie and separated from their Churches and some of them called Brownists were so hot at home that they were put to death Mr. Ainsworth Johnson Robinson and others fled beyond seas and there gathered Churches of those that followed them and broke by divisions among themselves The old Nonconformists being most dead and the later gone most to America we cannot learn that in 1640 there were many more Nonconformist Ministers in England than there be Counties if so many 4. The Conformists shortly fell into dissension among themselves especially about three things Arminianism as it was called and Conciliation with the Church of Rome and Prerogative Dr. Heylin in the Life of ArchBishop Laud doth fully open all these differences and tells us that Archbishop Abbot was the Head of one party and in point of Antiarminianism even Archbishop Whitgist before him with Whitaker and others had made the Lambeth Articles driven the Arminians from Cambridge King James had discountenanced them in Holland and sent six Divines to the Synod of Dort who owned and helpt to form those Articles And he tells us that Bishop Laud had no Bishops on his side but Bishop Neale Bishop Buckeridge Bishop Corbet and Bishop Howson and after Bishop Mountague and thought it not safe to trust his Cause to a Convocation the major part called then The Church of England 1. Cryed down Arminianism as dangerous Doctrine 2. Cryed down any neerer approach to the Papists and the Toleration of them 3. And were much for the Law against absoluteness in the King and Dr. Heylins and Rushworth's Collect. will tell you the full story of Manwaring Sibthorp and Archbishop Abbots refusing to license Sibthorp's Book and the Consequents of all Thus these two Parties grew into jealousies the Old Church-men accusing the New on these three accounts and the New ones striving as Dr. Heylin describeth them to get into power and overturn the Old 5. In this contention the Parliaments also involved themselves and the Majority still clave to the Majority of the Bishops and Clergy then called the Church of England And in all or most Parliaments cried up Religion Law and Propriety and the Liberty of Subjects and cried down Arminianism Monopolies Connivence and Favouring of Papists and their increase thereby expressing by Speeches and Remonstrances their jealousies in all these points till they were dissolved 6. The writings of Bishop Jewel and much more Bishop Bilson and most of all Mr. Richard Hooker and such as were of their mind shew us what Principles there and then were by the Laiety that followed them received We will not recite their words lest our intent be misunderstood neither Bishop Bilsons instances in what cases Kings may be resisted by armes Nor Mr. Hookers that
maketh Legislation the natural right of the Body politick and governing power to be thence derived to depend upon the Body and to returne to it by escheats when heirs fail and that the King is singulis Major and universis Minor c. His eighth Book was in print long before Bishop Gauden published it who yet vindicateth it to be Hookers own 7. In 1637 1638 1639. A. Bishop Land useing more severity against dissenters than had been used of late before and the visitations more enquiring after private fasts and meetings and going out of mens own Parishes to hear and such like and also the Book for sports on the Lords daies being necessarily to be read by all the Conformable Ministers in the Churches and Altars Railes and Bowing towards them being brought in and in many places afternoon Sermons and Lectures put down the minds of men before filled with the aforementioned jealousies were made much more jealous than before And after the imprisonment of some the stigmatizing of some and the removall of many beyond the Seas and the death of more the Nonconformable Ministers were reduced to the paucity before mentioned but the minds of many people were more alienated from the later set of Bishops and the old sort of Conformists more jealous of them and more afraid of Popery c. than before 8. The new Liturgy then imposed on the Scots with the other changes there attempted the designes charged on the Marq. of Hamilton the fear of the Lords losing the Tyths c. which Dr. Heylin mentioneth as the causes or occasions of their arming there with the progress thereof and their entring into England and the advantage thence taken by some English Lords to advise the King to call a Parliament once and again and the discontents and proceedings of that Parliament against the two Ministers of the King for former things with such other matters we had rather the reader took from others than from us We are unwilling to be the mentioners of any more than concerneth our present cause and the things are very commonly known 9. On the 23. of October 1641. The Irish suddenly rose and murdered no less than two hundred thousand persons and Dublin narrowly escaped them of which we refer the Reader to the examinations published by Dr. Henry Jones since a Bishop in Ireland and to the history of Sir John Temple and to the Earl of Orery's Answer to Mr. Welsh 10. The dreadfulness of this Massacre so far exceeding the French the news sent over that the Irish said that they had the Kings Commission and the foregoing jealousies of the people and the Parliaments Declarations raised in multitudes of the people a fear that the Irish when they had ended their work there would come over hither and do the like and that they had partakers in England of whom we were in danger and that there was no way of safety but to adhere to the Parliament for their own defence or else it would quickly be too late to complain 11. In 1642. the lamentable Civil Warr brake out At which time as far as ever we could learn by acquaintance with some of them and report of others excepting an inconsiderable number the Houses of Lords and Commons consisted of those that had still lived in conformity to the Church of England and the Episcopal Government and were such Conformists as Dr. Heylin describeth Archbishop Abbot and the Clergy and Parliaments of his times to have been Crying out of the danger of a new partie that said they would shake our Religion Liberties and Property And such were they when the War began Presbytery being then little known among them 12. Their fear of being overpowred by the party of whom they seemed to think themselves in sudden danger caused some of them to countenance such Petitionings and clamours of the Londoners Apprentices and others as we think disorders and provocation of the King 13. The first open beginning was about the Militia And whether the Lord Lieutenants whom the Parliament chose were not almost all Episcopal Conformists we intreat the Reader but to peruse the Catalogue in the ordinance for that Militia and to ask any that well knew them as some of us did many of them and he may certainly be satisfied 14. The same we say 1. Of the far greatest part of the General Officers Collonels Lieutenant-Collonels and Majors of the Earl of Essex's Army 2. And of the Sea-Captains 3. And of the Major Generals of Brigades and Counties through the Land 15. When the Parliament's Armies were worsted and weakened by the King and they found themselves in danger of being overcome they intreated help from the Scots who taking the advantage of their straits brought in the Covenant as the Condition of their help which the Parliament rather accepted than they would lose them which at first was imposed on none by force But to pass by all other Considerations was judged by many wise men to be an occasion of division as making the opposition to Prelacy to be the terms of the Kingdoms Unity and Concord when they might know that the King and a great if not the greatest part of the Kingdom were of the contrary mind and so it was thought to be as the Papal terms of Unity a means of unavoidable division But others thought that because it tied them to no endeavours but in their Places and Callings they might take it 16. The Assembly of Divines at Westminster were men that had lived in Conformity except about eight or nine of them and the Scots But being such as thought Conformity lawful in case of deprivation but the things imposed to be a snare which should be removed if it could be lawfully done they also received the Covenant but were divided about the sense of the word Prelacy many professing their Judgment to be for Moderate Episcopacy whereupon the describing additions Archbishops Bishops Deans Archdeacons were added And upon such a Profession that it disclaimed not all Episcopacy Mr. Coleman is said to have given the Covenant to the House of Lords And they complained of the Parliament which tied them to meddle with nothing but what they offered to them 17. This Covenant and Vow was taken by the Parliament and by their Garrisons and Souldiers that would volunrarily take it as a test whom they would trust the rest being had in suspension And after the wars by such as were ordained Ministers and by the Kings adherents when they made their compositions so far was it afterward imposed But many Ministers and Gentlemen refused it and so did Cromwel's Souldiers and in many Counties few did take it 18. How far the Parliament was from being Presbyterians may partly be seen in the Propositions sent from them by the Earl of Essex to the King at Nottingham and partly by their defeating all the desires and endeavours of those that would have Presbytery setled through the Land We know of no places but London and