after against the Emperours negative voice in the confirmation of Popes 2. And his negative in Investing Bishops But even in this strife the Election was confest to be in the Clergy the People chusing or freely consenting and no man to be made their Bishop against their will and it was but the Investiture per bâ—culum annulum as a confirmation which the Emperours claimed § 14. I have formerly named elder Testimonies not denied I will now recite but some Canons of Councils 1. The 9th and 10th Canons of the first great Nicene Council nullifieth the very Ordination of scandalous uncapable men And in the Arab. Can. 4. Si populo placebit is made a condition of the Episcopal relation And c. 5. in case of the Peoples disagreement the said People must take the most blameless 2. The Roman Council said to be under Silvester of 275 Bishops saith No Bishop shall Ordain any Clerke nisi cum omni adunatâ Ecclesia but with all the Church united If this Council be not certain the very forgers shew the Antiquity of the Churches right and custom 3. I before named a Council at Capua that decreed that the two Bishops at Antioch chosen by their two Churches should live in Love and Peace 4. Chrysostom's Church of Joannites would rather separate than forsake their chosen Bishop or his honour though Emperour Council and Patriarch was against him and though Cyril Alex. wrote that their breach of Canons was intolerable and to tolerate them a few stubborn Nonconformists would but discourage the obedient 5. Even the famous Pope Caelestine who helpt Austin against the Pelagians Decreed Let no man be given a Bishop to the unwilling Let the sense and desire of the Clergy the Laity and Magistracy ordinis be required or necessary 6. How the people deposed Theodosius Bishop of Synada and chose another and the change approved I have elsewhere shewed 7. After Atticus death the Clergy at Constantinople were for Philip or Proclus but the people chose Sisinnius and prevailed 8. Sisinnius sent Proclus to be Bishop at Cyzicum but the people refused him and chose another 9. The Orleance Council an 540. Can. 3. decreeth about Ordaining Bishops Qui praeponendus est omnibus ab omnibus eligatur as of old viz. Let him be chosen by all who is to be set over all 10. An. 541. The Concil Avern decree c. 2. That none seek the sacred Office of a Bishop by Votes but by merit nor seem to get a Divine Office rebus sed moribus and that he ascend to the top of that eminent dignity by the election of all and not by the favour of a few and that in chusing Priests there be the greatest care because c. Therefore another Council at Orleance decreed that a Bishop must be ordained in his own Church which he must oversee 11. Another Orleance Council decree c. 10 That none get a Bishoprick by gifts or seeking but with the will of the King by the election of the Clergy and the Lay-people And Can. 11. And as the ancient Canons have decreed Let none be made Bishop to an unwilling People or without the Peoples consent Nor let the People or the Clergy be inclined to consent by the oppression of persons in power a thing not lawful to be spoken But if it be otherwise done let the Bishop be for ever deposed c. 12. I have formerly cited Pope Gregory I. his express Decrees herein 13. Clodovâ—us his Council at Cabilone renewed the old Decree That all Ordination of Bishops be null which was otherwise made than by the election of the Com-Provincials the Clergy and the Citizens 14. The General Council called Quinosextum an 692. decreed Can. 22. That Bishops and Priests Ordained with Money and not by Examination and Election be deposed Though the same Council by humane wisdom decreed Can. 38. That whatsoever alteration the Imperial power maketh on any City the Ecclesiastical Order also follow it The way by which Humane Order overthrew Divine Order and Institutions 15. And by the way you may conjecture of the Chusers by the Council of Toletane an 693. under King Egica where the King Preaching to the Bishops as was then needful decreeth That every Parish that hath twelve Families have their proper Governour But if it have less than twelve it shall be part of another's charge 16. K. Pepin who advanced the Pope to advance himself and added the Sword to Excommunication by mischievous decree yet altered not the common way of Election and decreeth that every City like our Corporations have a Bishop and none meddle in another's Diocess without his consent 17. The choice of Pope Constantine the humiliation of Stephen and many such instances shew that even at Rome still the People had the greatest hand in chusing the Pope and that to Communicate with a Bishop irregularly chosen was taken for a great sin And when Charles Mag. was gratified as to the Papal Chair it was but by making him a necessary Confirmer 18. The French Constitutions l. 1. c. 84. objected about this by Baronius and Binius say Not being ignorant of the sacred Canons we consented to the Ecclesiastick Orders to wit that Bishops be chosen by the Election of the Clergy and People according to the Statutes of the Canons out of their own Diocess without respect of persons or rewards for the merit of their life and their gift of wisdom that by example and word they may every way profit those that are under them 19. The old Canons gathered by Pope Adrian and sent to Charles Magn. recorded by Canisius depose a Bishop Presbyter or Deacon guilty of Theft Fornication or Perjury And Can. 28. A Bishop who obtaineth a Church by the secular power shall be deposed And Can. 33. That no one pray with Hereticks or Schismaticks Ex conc Sard. Can. 2. A Bishop that by ambition changeth his seat shall not have so much as Lay Communion at his end That no Bishop be above three weeks in another City nor above two weeks from his own Church Can. 17. A Bishop contradicted by opposers shall not after be ordained or purged by only three Bishops but by many And Can. 94. The people converted from Heresie by another Bishop may be of his flock without removing their Parish dwelling where another is Bishop Amongst the other 80 Canons against oppression as one is That no Bishop judge any Priest without the presence of his Clergy it being void if not so confirmed So another is against all foreign Judgment because men must be judged by those that are chosen by themselves and not by strangers And none of the Clergy must be condemned till lawful Accusers be present and the Accused answer the Charge 20. The second General Council at Nice though by servility they were for Images held to the old Church-Canons for Elections saying Can. 3. Every Election of a Bishop Priest or Deacon which is made by Magistrates shall remain void by the
A SECOND TRUE DEFENCE OF THE MEER Nonconformists AGAINST THE Untrue ACCUSATIONS REASONINGS and HISTORY of Dr. EDWARD STILLINGFLEET DEAN of St. PAULS c. Clearly proving that it is not sin but duty 1. Not wilfully to commit the many sins of Conformity 2. Not Sacrilegiously to forsake the Preaching of the Gospel 3. Not to cease publick worshipping of God 4. To use needful Pastoral helps for salvation though men forbid it and call it Schism Written by RICHARD BAXTER not to accuse others but to defend Gods Truth and the true way of Peace after near 20 years loud Accusations of the silencing prosecuting Clergy and their Sons With some Notes on Mr. Joseph Glanviles Zealous and Impartial Protestant and Dr. L. Moulins Character 1 Tim 6. 5 6. Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds and destitute of the truth supposing that gain is godliness from such withdraw thy self But godliness with contentment is great gain LONDON Printed for Nevil Simons at the Sign of the Three Golden Cocks at the West-end of St. Pauls 1681. AN Historical Preface § 1. THE matter of fact occasioning this second Defence hath been formerly and is after here opened in part I need now but briefly tell the Reader that after the long difference between the English Prelatists and those that desired Reformation and Discipline the most of the English Ministers who were in possession of the Parish-Churches from 1646 till 1660 obeyed the Parliament so far as to disuse the English Book of Common-Prayer and Subscription and Obedience to the Diocesan Episcopacy some of them being most for Church-Government by Synods of Parochial Pastors and assisting Elders and most for a Reconciling of the several divided Parties thinking somewhat in the Episcopal Presbyterian and Independent Parties to be good and somewhat in each of them unwarrantable 1. They were so far Independent as to hold that particular Churches associated for Personal Communion in faith worship and holy living were of Divine Institution such as true Parish-Churches are and that each of these Churches ought to have its proper exercise of that Discipline which is described by Christ Mat. 18. and by St. Paul 1 Cor. 5. and in other Texts of holy Scripture and was exercised in the days of Ignatius and so on for many hundred years some part of it still remaining even to the times of Popery Therefore they held that the Pastors of such Churches must be such as had power to exercise the said Discipline And they held that Parish-Bounds were of great convenience against disorder though not of Divine Institution not taking all that dwell in a Parish to be eo nomine of the Church but such of them as were capable by continued owning their Baptismal Covenant not nullified by proved Heresie or inconsistent wickedness And they held that no unwilling person was capable of a sealed Pardon of sin and so of Church-Communion nor yet of the true receiving of the use of the Pastoral office And therefore that none but free Consenters should have the Sacrament nor be related to the Pastor as his Flock of that Church but the rest should be constrained to live as Catechumens or Hearers as they were capable in peace and quietness and such as the Magistrate found meet to be tolerated in other Churches who only were uncapable in that 2. They were so far for Presbytery as to hold that 1. If men of competent sufficiency were made by ordination Elders ejusdem ordinis with the chief Pastor to be his Assessors and Assistants though they seldom or never Preached publickly but helped him in Catechizing or private over sight and in judging persons and cases and though in necessity they laboured with their hands it would not be unlike the ancient Government 2. And they judged that all Gods work should be done in the greatest concord and with the best mutual counsel and help that might be and therefore that Synods are to that end of great use and if they were appointed at stated times and places it would by order be a furtherance to their ends But they were not for their assuming a proper Regent Power by Majority of Votes over the minor part or the absent Pastors and thought that when sixedness occasioned that usurpation occasional Synods pro re natâ were better And 3. They judged that Presbyters are ejusdem ordinis with Bishops and that no Bishops have a divine right to govern without the Presbyters assistance nor to deprive them of any of their power nor their Churches of true Discipline or Worship nor the people of their Rights much less to use any forcing power of the sword on any 3. They were so far for Episcopacy as to hold it lawful and convenient that the particular Churches have one that shall have a Priority and in many things a Negative Vote as the Incumbent in each Parish hath among his Curates a sort of power And that the Presbyteries and Synods have their Moderators and if they were fixed durante vitâ and had a Negative Vote in Ordinations they could consent sobeit they were duly chosen as of old and had no forcing power by the sword but only a Ministerial teaching guiding power And some of them thought it of Divine right that the Apostles and Evangelists have Successors in the ordinary parts of their office and that to have a special caâ—e of many Churches and their Bishops and Elders are some of that ordinary part 4. And to the Erastians also they granted that the King is the Supreme Governour of the Church by the sword or force and that we must obey him not only when he enforceth the Commands of Christ but in all acts of outward circumstance and order left by God to his determination and not appropriated to the Ministers office These were the thoughts then of the far greatest part of the Ministers that I had then knowledge of § 2. Before the King returned many Episcopal Doctors and great men perswaded these Reconcilers that thus much would be accepted to our common concord if the King were restored But some said They do but decieve you there are such men now got into chief credit on that side that will silence you all and ruine you unless you will follow Grotius or be of the French Religion or unite in the Pope as Principium unitatis and obey him as the Western Patriarck c. And when you are all turned out what men have they to supply your places § 3. But when the King came in and encouraged the Reconcilers with the promise of his help they made the attempt in 1660 and 1661. the History of which I need not repeat Since that foreseeing what the silencing of so many Ministers and the afflicting of the people of our mind would unavoidably cause we pleaded we petitioned the Bishops to have prevented it by those necessary means which they might have yielded to to their own advantage But it was all in vain § 4. When the Act of
or form wich another may speak The help of knowledge hearing use and passion may help him to words Therefore they never take a man to be proved godly or sinceer by his bare words but by the grace of Prayer which is holy desire c. and not by the speaking gift or habit 11. But we think that it was not the Jesuits that first said out of the aboundance of the heart the mouth speaketh and though the tongue may lie it is made to express the mind and we must judge of other mens minds by their words till somwhat else disprove them And its natural for the Heart to lead the Tongue And men are more affected by words which come from affection than by those that do not and Reading words written by another when we speak to God is not so natural a signification of desire or other affection as speaking them from the present dictate of the heart For any Child that can read may do the one and it is not the usual signification of seriousness in other actions A beggar that should only read his begging lesson or a Child or Servant that should only read some words to his Father or Master would be thought less sensible of his wants 12. Ministers should be men better aquainted than the people how to speak to God and man It is their office and therefore it belongeth to them to choose the words which are fittest and to set up a Ministry that can do neither is to befriend the Prince of darkness against the Kingdom of Light and to be a deadly enemy to the Church and Souls And to set up a ministry that need not do it but may choose or is not obliged to it is the way to set up a ministry that cannot do it Let the Ministers be bound to no more than to Read and a few years will transform them to such as can do no more than read Moscovy proveth that and too many other Countries 13. If it be praying freely from present knowledge and desire without a book or set form which you call Spiritual prayer either you are for the use of it in the Pulpit or not If you are did the Jesuits teach it you or will you go on to follow them If not what a divided party are the Conformists while so many use it and pray spiritually And what a Case is the Church of England in that hath still so many Ministers that pray as the Jesuits Disciples Or why do you so reproach your Church and Ministry 14. Do you think that there is more force in the name of a Jesuit to disgrace Spiritual prayer or in the name of Spiritual prayer to honour the Jesuits And do you not seem to prevaricate and highly honour the Jesuits on pretence of dishonoring Spiritual prayer If you had said that the Jesuits first brought in Spiritual preaching and discourse and Spiritual living would it not have more honoured them than dishonoured Spirituality Will freedom from Spiritual prayer honour your Church as Seneca thought Cato's name would do more to honour Drunkenness than Drunkenness could do to dishonour Cato I am not such an Antipapist as to fall out with Father Son or Holy-Ghost because the Jesuits own them You do but help to confirm my charity who have long thought that among the Papists there are many persons truly godly though their education converse and proud tyrannical wordly Clergy have sadly vitiated them 15. All prayers written or unwritten are made by some body Those that the Bishops write down for us in the Liturgy and for our Fasts were made by their invention Either they had the help of the Spirit in making them or not If yea then why is it not as Jesuitical to write a Spiritual prayer as to speak one If not excuse them that say Gods Spirit made not your Liturgy nor are they Spiritual prayers 16. And were it not too like high and dangerous Pride if such a one as Bishop Bancroft Bishop Laud Bishop Morley Bishop Gunning in a Convocation or before every publick Fast should be appointed to write the words of Prayer and should in effect say to all the most Learned Divines in England The Spirit caused us to write these prayers and our measure is so sure and great that none of you may presume to question it nor to think that you can pray Spiritually in any words of your own but only in ours at least in the Assemby The Spirit will help you if you say our words but not your own It now cometh into my mind what may be some of the meaning of Bishop Gunning's Chaplain Doctor Saywell in his last Book that none hath power to ordain Bishops but they that have power to give the Holy Ghost for the work of their Office It may be it is The Holy Ghost to write Doctrine Sermons and Prayers for all their Clergy to use But do you not say also to the Presbyters Receive the Holy Ghost If they have him why cannot they speak their own hearts in other words than yours Is Spiritual prayer appropriated to your Liturgy words or forms any more than at the Council at Trent he was to the Popes instructions 17. We all confess that as all the actions of imperfect men have their imperfections so have all our prayers and these are easily aggravated Sudden free prayer and book prayer have both their conveniencies and inconveniencies The question is which hic nunc hath the greatest and whether forbidding either be not worst of all I have named the conveniencies and inconveniencies of each in my Christian Directory 18. Experience telleth the world that the daily saying over only the same words and that read out of a paper imposed by others by one that no further sheweth any sense of what he doth is not so apt as more free and well varied words in season to keep people from sleepy senseless prophanation and praying as the Papists do with their Masses Rosaries and Beads And the variety of Subjects preached on and variety of occasions and all accidents require some diversification of words and methods 19. It is a work of reverence to speak to the King yet as it is lawful to write a Petition to him so to speak to him without Book Judges have serious work to do for estate and life and yet they are trusted to speak without prescribed words and so are Advocates Lawyers Ambassadors Physicians Philosophers and all men in their Professions except Ministers and Christians as such 20. We know not why men may not be intrusted to speak to God in the name of imperfect man without imposed books and words as well as to speak to man from the most perfect God and in his name in preaching Mans actions will be like man Nothing that is not divine and spiritual should be spoken as from God and in his name And as after our frustrated Treaty for Concord 1661. one of them nameless wrote a Book against free praying
priviledged peculiar places or little Chapells at least Few Counties had not some Gentlemen that sheltred them The Earl of Huntington kept in Mr. Hildersham at Ashby Mr. Slater and Mr. Ash even in the big Town of Bremicham Mr. Mainwaring kept in Mr. Ball at Whitmore Mr. Knightley kept in Mr. Dod Judge Bromley and his humble holy Lady kept Mr. Brumskill at Sheriff Hales and entertained many more Mr. Nicols c. Sir Richard Graves at Moseley had Mr. Pateman and divers others seldom without a Nonconformist One would think Doctor Stillingfleet should know that his own Patron under whose wing he lived Sir Roger Burgonie was seldom without a Nonconformist at Roxhall in Warwickshire Mr. Hering had long liberty at St. Maries in Shrewsbery Mr. Ford who wrote on the Psalms had the School Lecture there Mr. Atkins at 〈◊〉 kept in to the last even the Lord Dudley favouring him Abundance such I might name Mr. Barnet at Uppington whom I oft heard Catechize Dr. Allestree Mr. Tandy at Bewdley Mr. Langley Mr. Paget Mr. Hind Mr. Lancaster Mr. Rowle Mr. Nicols Mr. Mather Mr. Rathband Mr. Barâ—â—n Mr. Gee Mr. Wright Mr. Smart c. had their liberties for some time And when one Bishop silenced them the next oft gave them liberty as Bishop Bridgman did after Bishop Mortons silencing some and when they were silenced they went oft into another Diocese where they rubd out a year or more and then to another And so were still in some hope of publick liberty And when silenced they used to keepe private fasts And where they lodged to preach on pretense of expounding to as many as they could They obeyed the Bishops as Magistrates but not as Pastors They knowingly broke the Law in their private and publick Ministry They obeyed not the Canons used not much of the Liturgy And many of them did as some do now get into publick Pulpits for a day and away where they were not known § 12. But yet there are more undeniable evidences of the falseness of what he saith he is certain of as the judgment of All the Old Nonconformists One is the known judgement of the Scotch Reformers and the common accusation of the English as being of their mind He that will affirm that the Scotch Presbyterians thought it unlawful to preach or hold Assemblies when forbidden by Magistrates or Prelates will incur a very sharp censure from their own Leaders who have written so many Books which charge them with the contrary and make them Rebels and Seditious for it Such as Bancroft Heylin Beziers and multitudes both old and new especially these last twenty years And though the Nonconformists in England did not justifie all that the Scots did and they that took Knox Buchanan Melvin and such other for very pious men yet thought some words and deeds too rash especially Knox's publick opening the Queens faults in the Pulpit and refusing her offer to come at any time and tell her of them privately yet it s known that in the Rules of Discipline they were mostly of the same judgment And they often joyned in defending the same Cause See their several demonstrations of Discipline and the several Defences of them how little they differed when Bancroft preacht against them at Pauls Cross Feb. 8. 1588. An English man wrote a Brief Discovery of his untruths c. And a Scoth man J. D. Bancrofts rashness in railing against the Church of Scotland printed 1590. And how little differ they if at all and Dr. Reignolds wrote a Letter against it to Sir Francis Knowles printed with Sir Francis Knowles his account to the Lord Burleigh of his Speech in Parliament against the Bishops keeping Courts in their own names as condemned by Law And in many of their writings the English own the Scotch Discipline and Church And yet even these Scots have rejected Brown as a Schismatick and the English Confuter of Bancrofts Sermon tells him Pag. 43 44. Brown a known Schismatick is a Fit man to be one of your Witnesses a-against the Eldership His entertainment in Scotland was such as a proud ungodly man deserved to have God give him and you repentance And Giffords Pagets Bradshaws Brightmans Rathbands Balls c. words against the Brownists proved not them to be against their own doctrine and practice no more than the Scots rejecting Brown proved them against theirs § 13. And another proof is the common doctrine of the Nonconformists of the difference of the Magistrates and the Churches Offices The said confutation of Bancroft hath it pag. 45 and forward and abundance of their publick writings viz. That the Magistrate only hath the power of the Sword and of Civil Government and to restrain and punish Ministers that offend by Heresie or otherwise But that as Preaching Sacraments and the disciplinary use of the Keys are proper to the Ministry so the deciding of Circumstantial controversies about them and about the due ordering of them doth primarily belong to Ecclesiastical Synods Therefore if these Synods were for their Preaching they were not for ceasing it meerly in obedience to the Magistrate that silenced them § 14. And it is proved by the many Volumes which they wrote against the Power of our Diocesans that it was not any Ecclesiastical Authority of theirs which they thought it a sin to disobey § 15. And Mr. Fox a Nonconformist and many more of them own the Doctrine of Wicliff and John Husse and the Bohemians for which the Synods of Constance and Basil condemned them who affirm that it is a heynous sin to give over Preaching because men excommunicate us and that such are excommunicated by Christ § 16. And it is not nothing that the most Learned Conformists agree with them as I have oft cited Bishop Bilsons words that the Magistrate doth not give us our power nor may hinder our use of it but is appointed by God to protect and encourage us and if he forbid or hinder us we are to go on with our work and patiently suffer And even now I believe most of the Leading Clergy think that if a Synod bid us preach and hold assemblies and the King forbid it we are to obey the Synod rather than the King Mr. Thorndike and many others that write for the Church thought so And Mr. Dodvel thinks so even of a particular Bishop The difference then is but this One party giveth this power to a Synod of Bishops and Presbyters perhaps conjoyned and the other to a Synod of Parochial Pastors Doctors and Elders But both agreed that the Magistrates prohibition in that case is not to be obeyed And the Conformists will not take it well if I should say that the Nonconformist are more for obedience to Magistrates than they I still except the Erastians and such as own Dr. Stillingfleets Irenicon § 17. There is a most considerable book called A Petition directed to her most Excellent Majesty shewing a meane how to compound the Civil Dissentions in the Church
their several fixed Provinces which I never saw proved I will not contend whether those Provinces may be called Churches If we agree about the thing use the name as you see cause Sect. 9. And to your talk of our Bishops being of the same sort I ask you whether any of the Bishops for 300 years or for long after save Cyril Alexand. by violence did ever use or claim any power over any Ministers or Christians besides meer fatherly Teaching Perswading urging Gods Word on them and applying it to the consciences of particular Persons by Admonitions verbal Censures and Absolutions Did they meddle by Force with Body or Purse Let your Bishops use no other force or way of constraint than the Apostles did if they be their Successors and not lay the excommunicate in Prisons and ruine their Bodies and Estates valeat quantum valere potest But Mr. Glanvile and many of you tell us how little you care for it without the Sword Sect. 10. If any man will but consider what I cited out of Greg. Nazianzen that saith Men unfit were so ambitious to be of the Clergy that the Clergy was in many Churches almost as many as the Laity And that Presbyters then were much like the Presbyterians Elders save that they had the power of Word and Sacraments though they seldom exercised Preaching in Cities but left that to the Bishop and that the number of their Acoluthi Exorcistae Ostiarii Lectores Subdiaconi Diaconi c. made up the great body of them And the very Boys and Schollars that were bred up under them yea or but for Church-singing are sometimes joyned to make up the number see Isidor de Offic. Eccl. L. 2. even all the Monks are often numbred with them And Victor cited by him seemeth to number twice the Infantuli so bred up with the great number of Readers to the Carthage Clergy I say he that considers all this will not judge of the number of people or Churches by the number of the Clergy as he would do now with us where the great Parishes have but two or three Priests Sect. 11. And as to the cause that I plead for it is enough that I have proved that even when the name of Bishop was confined to the Episcopi Pastorum yet the Presbyters had the power of the Keys and were Episcopi Gregis and exercised this power in their distant Countrey assemblies though under the Bishop and the Bishop was to exercise his with them as Assistants so that the particular Churches were not really unchurched Sect. 12. p. 265. He cometh nearer our controversie but first falsly stateth the question supposing that I say that the whole power of the Presbyters is swallowed up by the Bishops And is the disputing of a question falsly stated of any profit I only said that the office of a Church-Pastor or Presbyter hath three essential parts viz. the power of Teaching the Church of conducting them in Worship and Governing the people by the use of the Keys And that he that destroyeth one part that is essential though he swallow not up all the power altereth the essence of the Office and that so the English Diocesan Form doth I have largely proved in my Treat of Episcopacy which he doth not answer Sect. 13. 1. He tells us that the Presbyters are the lower house in the Convocation and so have their Votes in passing all the Rules of Discipline Articles of Doctrine and Forms of divine Service Ans 1. According to his description the Church of England hath no one Ecclesiastical Government either Monarchical or Aristocratical or Democratical And therefore the Acts of the Convocation are no Acts of governing the Church of England but meer Agreements Therefore this proveth not the Presbyters power of governing it 2. If this be a part of Government it is the Legislative Part or the Executive The later it is not The former the Lawyers say it is not King and Parliament only being Legislators But if this be Legislation we deny it to be any of the power of the Keys in question which is but to judge who is fit or unfit for Church-communion to Admonish Absolve or Excommunicate according to Christs Law and is the execution of Christs Law and not the making of new Laws 3. It is lis sub judice whether the things here named be any part of true lawful Church-Government Rules of Discipline Christ hath made enough except about meer mutable Accidents Articles of Doctrine man must not otherwise make than to declare what he believeth Christ hath made Forms of Divine Service commanded to all others the Apostles never made nor that we find appointed any others to make them If these be lawful by way of agreement of many Churches this is none of the Power we speak of Yet he calls this one of the greatest Rights of Government viz. making Rules for the whole body which he denyeth to have any constitutive Government Sect. 14. He saith In this main part of Government our Church falls behind none of the ancient Churches only there they were taken singly in every City c. Ans That is 1. When the Ministers of a Diocess choose four out of whom the Bishops take two And 2. This only to make agreements without any governing power over the Church of England 3. And this only about general Regulation 4. In either unlawful or doubtful Impositions on others about meer Accidents or Circumstances of Order This is the same or as good as when every true Church hath present Pastors personally to exercise the executive Church-Government called the Keys by the Laws of Christ already made in judging the case of each particular Person as to his Title to Church-communion and the Kingdom of Heaven For that is the thing which by us is pleaded for Sect. 15. Next he tells us of four that are to joyn in Ordinatiom and Examination when 1. It is not the making or governing of Pastors which I am speaking of but the Government of the Flocks 2. He knoweth that it is no strange thing for our Bishops to say that both in Convocations and Ordination the Presbyters act only as the Bishops Council and the Bishops only act by governing authority 3. I never disputed for Presbyters Power to ordain as essential to them nor did I ever meddle in any Ordination 4. If four Presbyters have such power that proveth not that four hundred have it that never exercise it in the same Diocess 5. If by all this you mean that really Presbyters have the governing Power of the Keys it condemneth those the more that give it to four and deny it to four hundred or one thousand 6. When I was ordained none examined us but the Bishops Chaplain and two or three City Ministers called by the Bishop that never saw us before meerly pro formâ laid hands on us with him But it 's well that you give such a power to ordain Sect. 16. Next p. 267. he
am glad I understand you § 12. Saith he Quest By what way this National consent is to be declared By the Constitutions of this Church the Arch-Bishops Bishops and Presbyters summoned by the King 's Writ are to advise and declare their judgments in matters of Religion which received and enacted by Parliament there is as great a National consent as to any Law And all the Bishops Ministers and People make up this National Church Answ Now we are come to the bottom And 1. Our question is of the Constitution of the Church and the Doctor tells us the Administration makes it To consult and advise and make Laws are acts of Administration and follow the Constitution Men must have Power before they use it and must be a Church before they act 〈◊〉 Church 2. Yea to Advise and Consult are not so much as acts proper to administring Government but belong to those that are no Governours also 3. If they be no Laws till the Parliament make them such then either the Parliament are your Church Head or you have none that 's Ecclesiastical But having your plain Confession that you have no such Regent part and so are no Church Political save Civil but a meer Association I ask § 13. 1. Why do you pretend that we are none of the Church of England or that we vent our spleen against it or deny it who deny not Associated Churches in England under one Civil Government 2. How unhappily are the Church-Defenders and Conformists disagreed Read Mr. Dodwell and many such others that take the Church to be a Governed body Politick and see what they will judg of you 3. Are not you and I liker to be of one Church of England who agree what it is than you and those Bishops and Doctors that speak of two different things and agree not so much as what it is 4. Have you not brought your Defence of the Church of England to a fair issue by denying that there is any such Church in the questioned political sense 5. What made you before talk of being under one Government If you meant only Civil Is your Governed Church as such only Civil or a Kingdom only 6. Do you not now absolve all men from the duty of obeying the Church of England aâ— such and from all guilt of disobeying them How can men Govern that are no Governours and how can we obey them It 's only the Civil power then that we herein disobey If you say that all the Bishops are Governours and altogether govern the whole I answer Yes per partes but not as a whole or Church If twenty Families in a Village agree as Masters and Servants to go one way as Consenters this maketh no one Government of the Village If the Physicians of London consent to one Pharmacopeia that maketh them not a body Politick If twenty Sea Captains consent to go one Voyage by one rule each one is a Governour of his own Ship but this maketh no Government of the whole All the Justices and Mayors of England rule the Kingdom per partes by the same Law But all together make not one Aristocracy to Govern the Kingdom as One whole Unless your Bishops c. are United in One persona Politica or Aristocracy they may rule their several Churches but they make not one common Government for the National Church as such An agreement of the Emperour Spaniard and other Confederates make not one Kingdom or body Politick 7. How can they be Schismaticks for disobeying them that are not their Governours 8. How come Dissenters bound by Parliament consent If it never was in their minds to trust them as Consenters for them yea and declare their own dissent as most of the Nation did lately against Prelacy and Liturgy yea and their chosen representatives Have such representatives more power to express our consent than we our selves 9. You unhappily erre with Hooker in your popular Politicks if you think that the Laws bind us only because we consent to them by our Representatives or that as such they make them Whereas it is as by Consenting in the Constitution they are made part of the Rullers or Legislators and not meerly as if we made the Laws by them 10. And as to Convocation consent how binds it all those that never consented to them How is the City of London so bound to Conform when they had not one chosen Clerk but only the Dignitaries in the Convocation that made us our Conformity the two chosen by them being refused by the Bishops 11. Will not you pass for an asserter of the Principles of Independency that not only say The Keys are given to the whole body and the Convocation represent the People c. but also that England is one Church but by consent without consenting to any one Constitutive Regent Church head The Independants are for a National Church meerly by confederacy and consent without National Government of it 12. You go further from the Episcopal Politicks than the Presbyterians do For they make an Aristocratical Regent Part but you make none 13. I doubt some Statesmen will be angry with you that say there is no power of Church Government in England but from the King as Head as Crumptâ—â— before Cousins Tables and others ordinarily 14. Do you make England in essentials any more one Church than England and any Foreigners agreeing are one Did the Synod of Dâ—rt make us one with them Do large Councils make many Nations one Church Did the Heptarchy make England one Kingdom when seven Kings Governed the whole by parts but none the whole as such 15. I beseech you think what you have done against the Parochial Diocesane and Provincial Churches in England Have none of these have not each of these a Regent Constitutive part Are none of them true Churches in sensu politico You dare not say No. If they are You have said that visible Churches as Parts unavoidably require a visible Head to the whole by which I bring in the Pope because you think Christ will not serve the turn And do you not say that all these Churches are parts of the Church of England And if you deny it to have one Regent part do you not then either destroy the rest or use the name Church equivocally to these several sorts so heterogeneal 16. I pray you tell us from whom our Arch-bishops receive their power If you say from the Bishops and so Inferiours or Equals may give power why may not Presbyters make Presbyters or Bishops and generare speciem If it must come from Superiours the Church of England hath none such 17. If the Peoples consent can make a National Church why may it not make an Independant or Presbyterian Church 18. If the Nations consent as such make the Church of England it is not made by Legislative power of King and Parliament 19. Do the Clergy represent the King or is he none of the Church 20. How prove you that the
Nor unwillingly desire the Pastors visitation and prayers in his sickness 7. Nor unwillingly seek and receive absolution c. I mean he can do none of this that doth not consent And is he a Pastor to such men that refuse all this It 's a shame to think that learned men should bend their wits to prove that the Sun is not light Did the Church at Alexandria ever after chuse their Bishops and not before All the Alexandrian Church-History tells us that the people there indeed exercised too great power after this no place on earth more tumultuous and unruly And yet no place where the Bishops were more secular and more assumed the power of the Sword But the people chose them 4. And if it had been true that the choice lay only and absolutely on the Presbyters how came they to have so long two Bishops and two Churches besides the Arians 5. And he wisely overlooketh the Question who chose those Pres byters that were the chusers of the Bishop § 22. He next instanceth ex Euseb l. 6. c. 10. in Germanion and Gordius Ordained by the Bishops in Narcissus place at Hierusalem Answ 1. His argument if any must be this Eusebius saith the Bishops Ordained them not mentioning the peoples consent or choice Ergo their consent or choice was not used How easily might he have known that we would deny the consequence Doth any of us deny that the Bishops were the Ordainers of Bishops 2. And even the words of Eusebius confute him saying That when Narcissus shewed himself again the brethren no doubt the Laity intreated him to enjoy his Bishoprick again § 23. His next instance is Severus Bishop of Milevis in his life time appointed his successour acquainting only the Clergy with it And Augustine prevented the peoples disturbance and got them to receive him Answ Thus it is some mens work to confute themselves It 's a known thing that the peoples right was so universally and unquestionably acknowledged that the Canons forbad any Bishop to nominate and chuse his Successour lest it should forestall them and prejudice their choice And why else was the peoples resistance feared And what did Austin but perswade them to consent And why doth he mention that the People consented and received him if they had no consenting Vote or right on just cause to dissent It would be an odd argument to prove that a woman had no power of choice in Marriage because one was put to perswade her to consent which proveth the necessity of her consenting § 24. He next tells us of Austin's own nomination of his Successour Eradius Answ More and more against himself All that men do is in danger of miscarrying by their faultiness Wise men would do their best to prevent this and the peoples consent being of necessity they sometimes will pre-engage them so Austin's predecessour thought it the craftiest way in his life-time to take in Austin for his Coadjutor or fellow Bishop two in a City lest the people should miss of so excellent a man But this being against the Canons Austin confesseth that he did it ignorantly and disowneth it Yet lest the people who grew more and more faulty should mischuse he in his life time commendeth to them Eradius that their love to him might procure their acceptance Doth not this prove that their choice or consent was necessary Reader if the Doctor can perswade thee that the Country have not the choice of Parliament men because some are commended or named to them thy yielding is too easie § 25. The next is the story of Paul the Novatian out of Socrat. l. 8. who hath but seven Paulus was advising his Clergy to chuse his Successour They told him their fear of their own disagreement and to prevent it intreated him to nominate one He made them promise to stand to it and named Mercianus in a sealed paper Doth not this instance prove that the Bishop had not power to chuse one of himself And was not his fear of the disagreement of the Clergy And doth any of this disprove the peoples consenting right And would the Doctor perswade us that even the Novatians excluded them § 26. He tells us that the Greek Canonists think that the Council of Nice took away all the power of election of Bishops from the people and gave it to the Bishops of the Province Answ 1. In all reason he should have cited those Canonists for it 's strange that yet their following Customs and Canons should say the contrary 2. There is not a word in the Canon cited about election but only ordination that all the Bishops in the Province should Ordain a Bishop But when that cannot be there shall be at least three present and three more consenting by writing And what 's this to the Case the Peoples election or consent § 27. Yet he bringeth more against himself viz. Can. 18. Concil Antioch which is That if one be Ordained Bishop and go not to the Parish because the people refuse him he shall have the honour and Office of a Bishop not troubling the peace of the Church which plainly saith what I have oft said That the people have no power to hinder any from being Ministers or Bishops indefinitely in the Church Universal but only to judge whether he shall be theirs whereas the Ordainers have power in both cases and usually were the first chusers though the people had a refusing or accepting power as there appeared cause § 28. Next he addeth more for what I plead that Basil Ordaining one first perswades the Senate and People to accept him Adding Their way then was if the people did agree on a person to be Bishop to petition the Metropolitan and Synod who had the full power to allow or refuse him Answ Is not this a strong proof that the people had no such agreeing or chusing power because the Metropolitan and Synod also had their vote what need Basil perswade them to accept him when they had no power to refuse Did Basil or any Synod say all people are bound to accept those whom we chuse be they what they will and not to try them and judge themselves § 29. And here I desire the Reader to remember 1. That we take the chief trust to be by Christ committed to the Ordainers for taking in fit men and keeping out the unfit They being the only Judges with the person himself who shall be a Minister of Christ in the Church Universal And neither Magistrate or People have a power to chuse or refuse them 2. That the Universal Church being one body of Christ though Ministers have not such a charge of each others flocks as the particular Bishops of them have yet are they bound to give them all the help they can as neighbour families to help each other And therefore to offer to vacant Churches the best they know and perswade them to accept them when they are at a loss or need advice 3. The
Uniformity came out of about 9000 Ministers that kept in and had laid by the Liturgy before about 7000 Conformed to the altered Liturgy before any of them ever saw it save a few by declaring their Assent and Consent the Act being known before the Book could be Printed and about 2000 were silenced by that Act. How they behaved themselves since then is so well known and I have here and oft declared and how the Plague first and the burning of the Churches next and the Kings Licenses next did give them the opportunities and calls which made more publick Preaching seem to them a duty that I shall not make recital of it § 5. All this while abundance of invectiues were poured out against them by many of the Conforming Clergy in Press and Pulpits and especially in the ears of great men to whom we had no access but seemed what such men described us to be The new Laws against Conventicles and the Oxford Act of Consinement had been added to the first Many were hunted up and down their Goods and Libraries distrained many were imprisoned some there died The Informers and Prosecutors grew weary They saw the severity came most from the Prelates and the Parliament the King being not for severity therein The Justices grew unwilling of Execution the Preachers reprove them and call on them to put the Laws in Execution they are greatly offended at the Kings Licenses they continue to accuse us for Schism at least and some of Sedition though we invaded none of their Temples nor askt them for any part of their maintenance And the Parliament and Prelates were so sharp against us that we durst not tell the world what we refused in Conformity and why lest we put them upon more severity nor indeed could we do it the Press was lockt up by so great penalties But while we were forced to silence we were lowdly called to to say what we stuck at and what it was that we would have And after 17 years such calls I ventured to name the things and hence is the storm of the present indignation § 6. I had before proved the wilful desertion of our Ministry especially when the King Licensed us to be odious Sacriledg To this I am told of mens power to silence such as they think deserve it I grant it if they truly think so so may they on just cause alienate Churches and Church-lands and hang Malefactors but not when no such cause is given nor at their pleasure § 7. When in the fitst Plea for Peace I had stated the case of our Nonconformity I intended to bring the Proofs of each particular supposed sinful as I after found occasion And meeting with abundance that accused us of disloyal rebellious Principles I largly delivered my own and many others judgment of Civil and Eccesiastical Authority the power of Princes and the duty of Subjects and therein also wrote some Answer to Four Accusations brought against us 1. That we pretend Grace against Morality 2. That we hold that things Indifferent became unlawful if commanded 3. I largly confuted Bishop Morley's false Accusation of my Doctrine of the Magistrates power to command things unlawful by accident and Dr. Parker's Doctrine of Scandal 4. I confuted them that extend our Non-conformity to things which we refuse not All this in the second Plea for Peace which none yet that I know of have answered § 8. And lest any should think that we are all for Negatives I wrote a Treatise of the only Terms of Universal Christian concord which I value above all the rest being assured that the Churches will never otherwise be healed than by that impartial sure and easie Catholick way which some have reviled but none since that I know of confuted One Learned Bishop that had a chief hand in our present Impositions and ejection I desired to tell me which is the way of Christian concord if this be not And he maintaineth That the only way is to obey the Colledg of Pastors who are to govern the Catholick Church through all the world per Literas formatas Where this Colledg as one governing power do meet or how they signifie their Majority of Votes and in what cases and who must gather the Votes from Abassia to Moscovie and in how long time and how they shall come to all men with certainty and whether the ejected silenced and excommunicated c. may appeal to them c. I could not learn § 9. In the same Book I sufficientiy confuted Mr. Dodwell's great Book which denyeth not only the Churches and Ministry which are not by uninterrupted Episcopal Ordination but also the ordinary salvation of all such Churches as having no covenant promise by valid Sacraments delivered them He hath pretended some defence in a late Book of Letters to which if they can be Printed I hope to give easily a satisfactory reply § 10. In the same book he Publisheth some old Letters of his to me for the Diocesan frame of Government the notice of which beforehand given me caused me to Publish a full Treatise of Diocesan Episcopacy containing the Reasons why we cannot swear to it or approve it or swear never to endeavour any reforming alteration of the frame here setled and exercised And whatever Mr. Dodwell pretendeth to the contrary if this Treatise do not fully answer his Letter and justifie us in this part of Nonconformity I am unable to judg of the Cause but am willing to recieve any better information § 11. And because I find false History not the least cause of ordinary mistakes and men cry up Diocesan Prelacy as the ancient and chief cure of Schism I gathered an Abstract of the history of Bishops and their Councils that the true matter of fact might not be so commonly mistaken as it is § 12. At the same time came out against me First a book of Mr. John Cheyneys the mistakes of which I manifested in an Answer And afterward old Letters of Mr. Hinkleys to which I had an old Answer which I cast by and now Published and another Accuser abounding with untruths called the Impleder and another called Reflections or Speculum c. And another Book of Mr. Cheneys full of most pitiful mistakes All which with Justice L'Estrange's Dialogue and someothers I answered together in a Book called the Third Defence ef the Nonconformists c. § 13. But the Accusations of Dean Stillingfleet in his Sermon made the loudest noise In the Answer to which I chiefly desired to have come to some understanding agreement with him about the true state of our Case and Controversie and to that end craved his answer to several necessary questions but was not able to procure it And now in his large Book where I hoped to have found an Answer to them I look for it in vain Yea though Mr. Hikeringhill roughly provoked him but to expound his own Text and tell us intelligibly what the same Rule is which the Apostle
would have all walk by he will not do it but instead of that with unusual gentleness tells me he will not differ about it if I do but grant that it is a Rule that binds us all to do all that lawfully we can for peace which I cheerfully grant And if it be not lawful for peace and concord to forbear silencing us imprisoning us accusing us as odious for not wilful sinning and urging Magistrates to execute the Laws against us and making us seem Schismaticks for not forbearing to Preach the Gospel to which we were vowed and consecrated by Ordination I know not lawful from unlawful I cannot yet get him to tell us what he would have the many score thousands do on the Lords Days that have no room in the Parish-Churches with many such which our case is concerned in § 14. I thought his Book had been an Answer to mine and other mens Prefaces but I find that I was mistaken Indeed he nameth five Books written against his Accusation what he saith to Dr. Owen and Mr. Alsop I leave to themselves to consider of The Countrey Gentlemans Case in sense was this Whether all they that think Parish Communion under the present impositions to be sin are bound till they can change their judgment to forbear all Church-worship and live like Atheists and so be damned And who can find any Answer to this Mr. Barret's Queries out of his Books he saith next nothing to but a dark retracting his Irenicon And far be it from me to blame him for growing wiser But why took he no notice of his own words cited in the Epistle out of his late Book against Idolatry threatning us all with no less than damnation if me prefer not the purest Church And as to my Defence his Book is nothing like an Answer unless his naming me and citing out of that and other Books a few broken scraps which he thought he could make some advantage of may be called an Answer § 15. I confess he hath made some attempt to tell me what the National Church of England is but so Independently as I doubt his party will disown it with great offence In short he holds that there is no such thing as a Church of England in the usual Political sense having any Constitutive Ecclesiastical Supreme Power Monarchical or Aristocratical or Democratical but it 's only the many Churches in England associated by the common consent in Parliament c. Remember that he and I are so far agreed As I was writing this I saw a Book against him of a friend too much for me and somewhat freely handling the Dr. which in this point would help them by saying that the Convocation having the Legislative Church-Power may be the Constitutive Regent part But he confesseth to me that he spake not what is but what he counts should be or wisheth for the Dr. himself had before told us that the Convocations of Canterbury and York are two and not united to make one National supreme power so that this proveth no one political Church of England at all but only 2 Provincial Churches in England § 16. The Dr. hath so judiciously and honestly pleaded our Cause in his defence of A. Bishop Laud and his Book against Idolatry that I have made his words the first Chap. of this Book which if he candidly stand to I see not but our principles are the same § 17. His book is made up of 3 parts I. Untrue Accusations II. Untrue Historical Citations abundance III. Fallacious Reasonings Would you have an undeniable Confutation ad hominem in few words I. As to his Principles he saith himself as aforesaid Of Idolat p. 7. We are sure that wilful ignorance or choosing a worse Church before a better is a damnable sin II. As to his History of the old Nonconformists read A. Bishop Bancrofts dangerous Positions and Heylins History of Presbytery charging them odiously with the clean contrary and the Canons made against them on that supposition III. As to his History and Doctrine against the Election of Bp s which I pleaded as I have fully proved his abuse of History in it I repeat Mr. Thorndikes words Forbear of Penalty It is to no purpose to talk of Reformation of the Churchtoregular Government without restoring the liberty of choosing Bishops and priviledg of enjoying them to the Synods Clergy and people in the making of those of whom they consist and by whom they are to be governed that I need make no other reason of the neglect of Episcopacy than the neglect of it O pray hard to God to provide greater store of skilful holy and peaceable Labourers for his Harvest that by the sound belief of a better world have overcome the deluding love of the honours prosperity and pleasures of the flesh and wholly live to God and Heaven POSTSCRIPT DR Edward Stillingfleet Irenic P. 114. saith The Episcopal men will hardly find any evidence in Scripture or in the practice of the Apostles for Churches consisting of many fixed Congregations for worship under the charge of one Pastor nor in the Primitive Church for the Ordination of a Bishop without the preceding Election of the Clergy and at least consent and approbation of the people and neither in Scripture nor Antiquity the least foot-step of the delegation of church-Church-power so that upon the matter all of them at last make use of those things in Church-Government which have no other foundation but the principles of humane prudence guided by Scripture and it were well if that were observed still P. 370. Surely then their Diocesses we re not very large if all the several Parishes could communicate on the same day with what was sent from the Cathedral Church P. 361. I doubt not but to make it appear that Philippi was not the Metropolis of Macedonia and therefore the Bishops there mentioned could not be the Bishops of the several Cities under the jurisdiction of Philippi but must be understood of the Bishops resident in that City P. 157. There must be a form of Ecclesiastical Government over a Nation as a Church as well as of Civil Government over it as a Society governed by the same Laws For every Society must have its Government belonging to it as such a Society And the same reason that makes Government necessary in any particular Congregation will make it necessary for all the particular Congregations joyning together in one visible Society as a particular National Church For the Unity and Peace of that Church ought much more to be lookt after than of any one Congregation P. 131. The Churches power as to Divine Law being only directive and declarative but as confirmed by a Civil Sanction is juridical and obligatory P. 113. Where any Church is guilty of corruptions both in Doctrine and in practice which it avoweth and professeth and requireth the owning them as necessary conditions of Communion with her there a Noncommunion with that Church is necessary and a
total and positive separation is lawful and convenient P. 117. Where any Church retaining purity of Doctrine doth require the owning of and conforming to any unlawful or suspected practice men may lawfully deny Conformity to and Communion with that Church in such things without incurring the guilt of Schism P. 119. Let men turn and wind themselves which way they will by the very same argument that any will prove separation from the Church of Rome lawful because she required unlawful things as Conditions of her Communion it will be proved lawful not to Conform to any suspected or unlawful practice c. They lay the imputation of Schism on all them who require such Conditions of Communion and take it wholly off from those who refuse to Conform for Conscience sake A Premised explication of the Equivocal word CHURCH THE word CHURCH being Equivocal is unfit for our disputation till explained It signifieth being a Relative several sorts of related Assemblies which are distinct I. In their Matter A Church of Jews Turks Christians of Orthodox and of Hereticks being not one thing II. In the Efficient A Church of Gods instituting or a Church of mans III. In the Fnds. 1. A Christian Assembly at a Fair or Market or Court or Army c. is not the same with an Assembly for Religious exercises 2. Nor an Assembly for Legislation about Religion in Parliament or Consultation in Synods or Disputation in Schools the same thing as an Assembly for stated worship c. IV. In the Form or Constitutive Relation to the Correlate And so the great difference which now concerneth us to note is that a Church of Equals in Office and Power is one thing and a Political Society related as Governours and governed is another The first is either an accidental Assembly or else a designed Assemby by consent This last is either an Assembly of Lay-men which may be agreed hereafter to come under Government and may meet to worship God without a Pastor and this in Politicks is usually called a meer Community 2. Or an Assembly of Rulers or Pastors in equality as to Government there And this is called a Council Synod Dyet Parliament Convention c. V. A Governed or Political Church is of Three several Species at least as there are three Species of such Government I. A Christian Family consisting of the Family-Government and Governed living together in holy faith love worship and obedience to God the Master being their Teacher Ruler and Guide in worship II. A Pastoral-Church consisting of one or more Pastors and Christian people correlated as his flock for the benefit of his Pastoral office which essentially containeth a power to teach them lead them in worship and govern them by the Keys as a Ministerial Judg who is fit for that Commmunion All together is called also the Power of the Keys and is subordinate to Christs Teaching Priestly and Ruling Office III. A Royal or Magistratical Church consisting of a Christian Soveraign and Christian Subjects to be ruled by his sword or forcing power under Christ and his Laws for the spiritual and temporal welfare of the society and the glorifying and pleasing the Lord Redeemer And IV. The Universal Church comprehendeth all these three as parts and is most excellently properly and fully called the Church consisting of Jesus Christ the chief Pastor Teacher Priest and King an eminent perfect Policy with all Christians as the subject part It is visible in that the subjects and their profession and worship are visible aod Christ was visible on earth is visible in the Court of Heaven his Laws and Providence are visible and he will visibly judg the world and reign for ever And it is no further visible The constitutive essential parts are only Christ and his subject-body The noblest organical parts of that body are Prophets Apostles Evangelists Pastors and Teachers In all this note 1. That we have no difference that I know of about the Church in any of these senses before mentioned except 1. How far men may invent Church-forms for Gods service without Gods particular prescript or institution 2. Whether it be true that the King is so persona mixta as some hold as to be King and Priest and to have the power of Church-Keys and Word and Sacraments 3. Whether over and above the lowest Pastoral Churches Christ hath instituted a direct superior Pastoral sort of Churches to rule the inferior in Faith Worship and the Keys of Discipline over Pastors and people And if so what are these superior Pastoral Churches whâ—ther Diocesan Provincial National Patriarchal Papal or all And if Christ made no such whether men may make them 2. And note that we are certainly agreed that the Magistratical form of forcing power and the Pastoral form of Sacerdotal power of the Keys are two though the subjects should be the same though usually the Church is in the Commonwealth as part And none of us deny a Christian Common-wealth Monarchical Aristocratical or Democratical and though this power be over the Pastoral Church it is but Accidental and not Essential to it 3. And note that the chief questions which I put to the Dr. about this were 1. What is the Pastoral specifying form of the Church of England And 2. Whether it be of Divine or humane Institution And I have brought him to maintain that there is no such Church of England at all And of the Royal Church or Kingdom we are Members as well as he 4. And Lastly Note that as to a Pastoral Church we agree I suppose in distinguishing a Transient and a fixed relation And as he that is a Licensed Physician acteth as such where he cometh though related fixedly to no Hospital so if a lawful Minister of Christ either fixed in another Church or in none but the Universal be called pro tempore for a day to do his office in another Church he acteth as Christs Minister and their Pastor for that dayâ— And if a travelling Christian joyn with them he is a Member for that day Yea if the whole company intend to meet but that one day in the same relations to the same ends it is a temporary transient Pastoral Church But fixed Inhabitants for order and edification ought to fix their relation and practice Though most of this be said after where he calls me to it I thought meet here to premise the Explication of the word Church as in divers books largely I have done of the word Separation lest I imitate him in leaving my explication to the hinder part and we should dispute about a word which the Reader and perhaps our selves understand not But we have a greater controversie than this risen since A. Bishop Laud's and Grotius's Reconciling design v z. what the Catholick visible Church is 1. Protestants have hitherto held as the first point of difference from the Papists that the Universal Church hath no constitutive Head or supreme regent Power but Christ He hath setled no one
to the Anabaptists and Quakers Answ Alas that such things should be the best to such a man By May go you mean 1. lawfully 2. or eventually 3. or for want of due hindring The Reader may think that you by Calumny father the first on me as if I said that so to go to the Quakers were no sin whereas I still say that if they do but leave your Churches by any culpable Error it is their sin 2. And as to the Event many not only may but do turn Quakers Papists and Athiests 3. And as to the third it 's all the question here not whether we should seek to save them but which is the true reasonable and allowed means Whether it be the Patrons choosing for all England the Pastors to whose care they must trust their Souls and laying them in Jail that will choose others Or whether there be not a righter way And again I say Kings and Patrons choose not mens Wives or Physicians or Food and every man hath a charge of his Soul as well as of his Life Antecedent to the Kings or Patrons charge Sect. 6. But why saith he P. 11. v. 115. must the King bear all the blame if mens Souls be not provided for c Answ He that is the chooser must bear the blame the King for Bishops and the Patrons for Parish Priests if they mischoose And do you think in your conscience that all the Patrons in England of so various minds and lives are like to choose only such in whose pastoral conduct all that care for their Souls should rest Yea though the Bishops must Institute them as they Ordained them When we heretofore told them of the multitudes of grosly ignorant drunken Priest their answers were 1. Their Chaplains examined them 2. They had certificates 3. A quare impedit lay against them if they required higher knowledge than to answer the Catechism in Latine And now experience will not warrant us to know what such men are P. 115. He asketh How it is possible on these terms to have any peace or order in an established Church Answ I have fully told him how in a whole Book of concord And hath their way caused greater peace and order Yes to themselves for the time So Popery keepeth some Order and Unity with them that hold to it But it kept not the Greeks or Protestants from forsaking them Sect. 7. P. 119. 120. He saith They only look on those as true Churches which have such Pastors whom they approve Answ Equivocal words 1. If they approve not those whom they should approve it is their sin 2. Approving is either of the necessaries ad esse or only ad melius esse They must not put the later for the former 3. Approving is by a Governing or but a discerning private Judgment The first they have not but the later In good earnest would he have all the people take those for true Pastors who they verily think are none Can they at once hold contradictions And if they must not judge as dissenters what meaneth Mr. Dodwels and such mens Arguments to prove all no Ministers that have not Succession of Episcopal Ordination Must not the people on that account disown them by his way Sect. 8. p. 119. He brings in against us my words I take those for true Churches that have true Pastors and those for none that have 1. Men uncapable of the Pastoral Office 2. or not truly called to it 3. Or that deny themselves the essential Power Answ He knoweth that I speak not of equivocal but proper political Churches And is it possible that such a man should dissent in this 1. Can he be a true Pastor that is uncapable of the Office Shall I abuse time to confute gross Contradictions Or if he be a profest Infidel Can he be a Christian Pastor 2. Is a Layman a true Pastor that is not truly called to it why then do they argue as Mr. Dodwell or Re-ordain men 3. Can a man be a Pastor against his will or that conâ—enteth not but renounceth it or can that be a true Pastoral Church that hath no Pastor Verily we are but upon low works if these be the things which we must prove Sect. 9. He adds And one or other of these he thinks must if not all the parochial Churches in England fall under Answ I read these words of the Dr. to a Papist To speak mildly this is a gross untruth Therefore I hope it were no Rage for me to have said the like How doth he prove it Nay in the place cited by him I not only profest the contrary but gave the Reason p. 65. Because I judge of their Office by Gods Word and not by the Rule which deprives them of an essential Part. And 1. He citeth my confession that those that I hear preach well and therefore are not uncapable men 2. That their Ordination hath all essentially necessary and all the worthy men that I know have the communicants of the Parishes consent though not Election and therefore are called 3. And many of them as he thinks they have all essential to the Office and disown it not though I think others deny it them where there is the truth of what he saith Sect. 10. p. 120. Because my practice disproveth him he finds out a Subtilty that I joyn not with the Parish Churches as true Churches but only as Chappels or Oratories he accounts not our parochial Churches as true Churches nor doth communicate with them as such a Subtilty beyond the reach of the old Brownists Answ Deliberately to print such untruths seems tolerable in him but to say they are such would seem passion in me and what other answer are they capable of What I expresly say of the three forementioned excepted sorts he feigneth me to say of all or most of the Parish Churches and yet dare not deny the truth of any one of the Exceptions 1. Do not all those men take the Parishes for no proper political Churches but only for Parts of the Diocesan Church such as we call Curates Chappels who say that a Bishop is a constitutive Part of a true political Church and entereth the Definition and that it 's no Church that hath no Bishop and that Diocesan Churches are the lowest political And do I need to tell him how considerable these men are among them 2. Doth he himself take any one of these for a true political Church When I was young divers Laymen by turns were our publick Reading Teachers Among the rest one was after proved to counterfeit Orders This mans acts were no nullities to us that knew it not but when we knew of such must we take them for true Pastors and it for a true Church Sect. 11. p. 221. He saith Any Parochial Church that hath such a one a Bishop or Pastor over them that hath the power of the Keys and owns it self to be Independant he allows to be a true Church and none else Answ
more such might have deceived a man that judged by his words And his arguing that it is unlawful to preach to them because it is unlawful to hear What was the meaning of all this if not silencing us Sect. 34. p. 140. The next Crime is Plea p. 42. As long as they suppose the terms of our Communion to be sinful they say The Schism doth not lie on those that separate but on those that do impose such terms and therefore they may lawfully separate from such imposers Ans It 's hard to know what words to use to detect all these historical untruths without being thought passionate 1. I never said that supposing them sinful will justifie a false supposer but have oft said the clean contrary their supposing is of his forging 2. I said not the Schism doth not lie on those that separate but only that it's Schism in the Imposers This also is his Fiction 3. And I said not and therefore they may lawfully separate from such imposers But all Readers will not stay to find out his Forgeries But how much of this he said once himself see in my Chap. 1. Sect. 49. But here he comes to some closing distinction which should have gone before Between terms of Communion plainly and in themselves sinful and such as are only fancied to be so through prejudice or wilful ignorance or error of conscience Ans What a deal of labour might he have spared himself and us if he had here fixed the Controversie in the beginning we thankfully accept your late distinction we ever desired here to put it to the Issue If it be through prejudice wilful Ignorance or Error that we judge Conformity a sin not only Separation but Nonconformity is a sin If we do not prove some parts of Conformity for one is enough to be plainly sinful which are imposed as Conditions of our Ministerial Communion and somewhat imposed on the people as conditions 〈◊〉 all that part of your Communion which I ever disswaded them from let the blame be ours Sect. 35. He passeth next to them that deal more ingenuously than I in owning Separation And then returneth to me p. 151. and he over and over repeateth his false accusation that I think it lawful to communicate with them occasionally but not as Churches as thinking they want an essential part viz. a Pastor with Episcopal Power but as Oratories and so that I renounce Communion with their Churches as Churches Answ If these untruths had been made without evidence only and not also against evidence they had been the more excuseable in a man of consideration But now they are not so when I have so often declared that I take the Parish Churches that have true Pastors for true governed Churches and prove that they have true Bishops Episcopos Gregis whether the Diocesans will or not because Gods Will and not the Investers instituteth their Office and measureth their power and the people shew their consent by constant Communion Sect. 36. Then because I never gathered a Church nor baptized any in 20 years nor gave the Sacrament in 18 he would know what Church I have been of all this time and he supposeth of no Church Ans I thought he had done with this before but he thinks it an advantage not to be so easily let go Would he know 1. What my Thoughts were 2. Or my Church-Covenant 3. Or my actual Communion He shall know all 1. I thought divers Ministers where I lived true Pastors and the Churches true Churches I cannot say so of every Curate 2. I made no Covenant with any of them If I had Mr. Cheny would have condemned me of Atheism Infidelity and what not 3. With divers of them I went constantly to the Liturgy Sermon and Sacrament as with true Churches with some of them I only joyned in prayer and hearing I heard Dr. Rieves till he caused me to be sent to Jail and then I could not And though I was accused by many for hearing a swearer I told them he swore not in the Pulpit I heard his poor Curate constantly when I was accused for hearing a Drunkard and told them that he was not drunk in the Pulpit But I must tell you I communicated also with some Nonconformists And now account me of a Church or no Church as you please I doubt you are renewing the Independant Questions with me which I am loth to dispute 1. Qu. Whether an ordained Minister must be a private Member of another mans Church Q. 2. Whether when a Non-resident Dean leaveth his Parish to an ignorant drunken Curate the Parish Church be essentiated by its relation to the Resident Curate or the Non-resident Dean Q. 3. Whether a Minister not degraded but silenced living in such a Parish is bound toâ—ke that Curate for one that hath the Pastoral Charge of his Soul and aâ— the rest of the flock to commit his Soul to his Pastoral Conduct in personal private and publick Offices 4. But I would ask the Dean himself whether a man may not be a fixed Member of two or three Churches at once The Reasons of the Quaere are 1. Because by them a man may be the sixed Pastor of two or three Parish Churches at once And an Integral Member of many is not so hard a case as to be a constitutive Regent Part of many 2. Because a man may have two houses in two Parishes at once As many Londoners have half their Family at a near Country house and half at a City house and are themselves part of the week or day at one and part at the other And they make Covenants with neither but what actual Communion intimateth Q. â— And if so why might not I at once be judged a Member of two Churches at once so far as I communicate oft with both I therefore answer his question further what Church I was a Member of 1. I was a Member of Christs Universal Church Is that none and yet is in the Creed 2. I was a Member of the reformed Church if you will call that One because associated in one Reformed Religion 3. I was a Member of the Church of England both as a Christian Kingdom and as the Churches in England agreeing in the Christian Reformed Religion 4 I was a Member of the Provincial Church of Canterbury so far as living peaceably in it and submitting both to such power as they had from the King as Magistrates and a meer general helping instructing care of many Churches could make me 5. So far also I was a Member of the Diocesan Churches where I lived 6. And I was a Member of some Parochial Churches so far as constant Communion could make or prove me And of others two at once so far as partial and moveable Communion could prove me If this will not satisfie you I have proved before and oft to some Independants that many men are under no obligation to be fixed Members of any Parish Church whether the
comes to the point in question whether they have the Pastoral Power of the Keys over their own Flocks And 1. He saith One would think the objector had never read over the office of Ordination for them For the Epistle is read the Charge given by St. Paul to the Elders at Miletus Act 20 or the third Chapter of 1 Tim. concerning the Office of a Bishop What a great Impertinency had this been c Ans This is like the rest I must not suppose that he never read it himself See Reader whether any of this be true Indeed heretofore it was in the Book of Ordination but we shewed the Bishops that thence Bishop Usher in his Reduction argued that the Presbyters have some conjunct Power with the Bishops to govern their own particular Flocks and some true Pastoral Power of the Keys I was one that oft urged it on them And they told us that the Bishop was the Pastor and they but his Curates and to confute us put out both these parts of Scripture from the Book which he saith are in it so that neither of them is there And presently they also put out the very name of Pastor given to Parish Ministers in almost all places of the Liturgy Doth not all this shew their mind Sect. 17. Next he tells us of the Bishops Exhortation calling them the Messengers Watchman Pastors and Stewards of the Lord. Ans It was so in the old Book But the word Pastors here also is purposely put out to shew their judgment Is this just dealing And doth it not confute himself 3. He tells us of the Promise to Minister Doctrine Sacraments and Discipline Ans The truth is neither in the exhortation nor collation of Orders is there any mention of any power given him to govern but only to administer the Word and Sacraments and thus far the people are called his charge But in the question Discipline is named thus as the Lord hath commanded and as this Church and Realm hath received the same according to the Commandements of God so that 1. The Priest hereby owneth that as it is received in this Church and Realm it is according to Gods Commandments and 2. Then promiseth so to use it which is 1. To be an Accuser 2. And as a Cryer to publish the Bishops or Lay-Chancellors Excommunication and Absolutions This is the promisé Sect. 18. And what if the name of Government or the Keys had been put in when it is denyed in its essential part I have proved out of Cousins Tables Zouch and the Canons and actual Judgment and Practice of the Bishop that Government or Jurisdiction is denyed to them And instanced in many and most acts in which it doth consist in my Treatise of Episcopacy And this being my question whether the English frame depose not the ancient Churches which had every one their own Pastor with the power of the Keys and so the ancient Offices and Discipline I am not now concerned about the General Archiepiscopal Power of the Diocesans Sect. 19. p. 269. He saith that while the Apostles lived it is probable there were no fixed Bishops or but few Ans Mark this Reader 1. If so then while they lived there were but twelve or thirteen Bishops in the World if any And were then no more Churches that had governing Pastors 2. Then if it cannot be proved that the Apostles were fixed Bishops but ambulatory Apostles there were none in the World in their times 3. Then the Angels of the seven Churches were Apostles reprehended by Christ or meer Presbyters or of the few excepted Bishops Why then doth he himself elsewhere argue that there were Bishops then because these Cities were Metropoles 4. See what concord is between the chief Doctors of the Church of England Dr. Hammond saith that it cannot be proved that there were any Presbyters but Bishops in Scripture times and supposeth the Episcopal Party of his mind This Dr. saith It 's probable there were no fixed Bishops or but few And so they differ 1. Of the sence of the Texts that mention Presbyters and Bishops 2. And about the guidance of the Churches de facto in those times 3. And if the Arpostles were not fixed Bishops of single Churches they have no Successors as such If they were we must have but twelve or thirteen Bishops as their Successors in the World And which be those Seats and how prove they their claim Sect. 20. To prove the Parish Ministers Pastoral Power p. 272. he tells us of that he is judge of the Qualification of those that are to be confirmed Ans 1. Had I ever taken a Parish Charge under them I would have taken more advantage from the new Rubrike about this than any thing else and then the Bishops intended But 1. There is not one of a multitude confirmed and desire of Confirmation proveth not any understanding of Christianity 2. And if the Minister doubt whether they be Ready or capable they may refuse to give him any account 3. He is to send in the names of such as he judgeth fit But 1. it 's only when the Bishop Summons them 2. And the Bishop is no way obliged to confirm no more than the Priest approveth of To prove this 1. Their ordinary practice is to confirm without the Curates hands 2. When the Kings Declaration was debated at Worcester House 1661 before the K. Lords Bishops and Ministers I laboured almost only for this that day to have got in the word Consent of the Minister of the Parish for such as should be Confirmed supposing that one word would have partly restored the Parish Pastors power and so have made our Bishops tolerable Archbishops that if possible we might have been healed But the Bishops rejected it with all their might and got the King to refuse it But because I laid so great a stress on it the Lords and others that were to collect and publish the Concessions when we were gone put it in for that time and at the Convocation the Bishops cast it all away Did they not tell us then their sence And they call him only the Curate of the Parish and not the Pastor And 4. If this were practicable some good men would practice it at least this Doctor himself But I never heard of one that pre-examined his Communicants whether they were ready and willing to be Confirmed 5. And if he did he would keep away many fit Persons that scruple our sort of Confirmation 6. And what is all this to the many thousand Noncommunicants who quietly remain members of your Churches Sect. 21. As to his words p. 275. of power to keep the scandalous from the Sacrament I have in so many books proved it next to none and utterly insufficient that I will not wast time to repeat all here Sect. 22. He tells me that in Can. 26 is not in Reformatio Legum Eccles Ans But I have before told him how much more and better is which would go
far to heal us could we obtain it He saith that any one that hath seen them knoweth it to be a mistake to say it was published by John Fox Ans His Reader must be a strong believer and take much on his word 1. I have seen them and spake with men of great understanding that have seen them that yet judge it no mistake 2. The Preface of the publisher is like his Style 3. It is called Praefatio I. F. And can every Reader know that I. F. meaneth not John Fox 4. Ordinary Tradition saith it was Fox's And what should I sooner believe in such a case Instead of proving that they have all a power to their condemnation which we see they exercise not let him procure a real power declared and granted and it will do more than these words Sect. 23. But when it comes to the question whether me may so much as call a sinner to repentance by name before the Church who rejecteth all more private admonition he puts the question whether the obligation to admonish publickly an offender or to deny him the Sacrament if he will come to it be so great as to bear him out in the violation of a Law made by publick authority c. Ans The first question is whether Christ have not made his Church so different a thing from the World that they should be openly differenced by a Communion of Saints 2. And whether he hath not instituted an office to judge of this and by Government execute it And 3. Whether any man have authority to suspend this Law or Office And then 4. I shall grant that not only Discipline but Preaching and Prayer and Sacraments may be forborn hic nunc in the present exercise when else the exercise would do more hurt than good 5. But are these Laws good that forbid it and should we Covenant never to endeavour an Alteration Sect. 24. He next tells us of the great difficulty of exercising true Discipline which is most true and seems thence to defend the forbearance of it with us Answ I have in my Treatise of Episcopacy and oft proved that it is of great importance to Christ's ends and that he would have it continued to the last and that the Communion of Saints is a practical Article of Faith and that making small difference between the Church and the World tends to Church destruction and to the reproach of Christianity and the utter undoing of millions of Souls And though Pope and Prelates have abused it to captivate Princes and Nations the just use of it he knoweth is mentioned by the Universal Church and visibly recorded in the Canons of the several ages Though some Erastians are of late against it And Jesuits and worldly Protestants can dispense with it when it would hurt their worldly Interest and turn it chiefly against Gods Servants that displease and cross them Sect. 25. p. 284. He saith The want of Discipline in the Parish Churches was never thought by old Nonconformists destructive to the being of them Answ They did not confound the Power and the Exercise Nor what the Ministers office is indeed and from God and what it is by the Bishops Mind and Rules of Conformity I say as they 1. The Exercise may be suspended without nulling the Power or Policy 2. They are true Pastors and Churches by Gods will against the will of those that would degrade them Sect. 26. But supposing every man left to his own Conscience for Communion 1. He saith the greatest Offenders generally excommunicate themselves Answ 1. And is it your way to leave all the rest to their Consciences and yet to preach and write against and lay in Jail dissenting godly People that communicate not with you 2. And are not all these Offenders still Members of your Church Albaspineus complaineth of their Roman French Church that he never knew any further cast out than from the Sacrament and left still to other parts of communion as Members And so do you by thousands who are all Sons of your Church but we are none He is again at it what Church I was of and I have told him oft enough CHAP. VIII What the National Church of England is Sect. 1. ACcording to the Doctors Method we come now to the Explication of one of the terms of our Controversie so long and loudly called for viz. what the National Church of England is which we must obey and from which we are said to separate p. 287. And the answer is such as may tell Dr. Fulwood and him that it's time to give over wondering that I understood not what they meant by it Sect. 2. Our question is of the Church Policy and Political Form All writers of Politicks difference a meer Community from a Political Body This is essentiated of the two constitutive Parts the Pars Regens and Pars subdita the former is much like the Soul and the later the Body The Ruling Part is called the Form by most and the sorts Monarchical Aristocratical Democratical or mixt the form in Specie as the rational or sensitive Soul to Animals But the Relative Form is the Union of both in their proper order Such a body Politick is a Kingdom a City a Church in the proper and usual sense But in a loose sense many other things may be called a Church As 1. a Community prepared for a governing Form not yet received 2. An occasional Congregation about Religion as Prisoners that pray together Men that meet about a Religious Consultation or Dispute c. 3. Many Churches as under one Christian Magistrate as an accidental Head 4. Many Churches associated for mutual help and concord without any governing Head Either of one Kingdom or of many 5. Many Churches as meerly agreeing in Judgment and Love in distant parts of the World None of these are Churches in the political Sense but are equivocally so called But Politically 1. All the Christian World is one Church as formed by their Relation to Christ the Head 2. All single Churches that have Pastors to guide them in the Essentials of the Pastoral Office are true Churches formed by this mutual Relation These two are undoubted 3. The now Roman Catholick Church is one by Usurpation as informed by one Usurping head 4. A Patriarchal Church is one as Governed by a Patriarch 5. A Provincial Church is one as headed by the Metropolitan or as mixt where Aristocratically others are joyned with him 6. An Archiepiscopal or Diocesan Church that hath particular Churches and Bishops under it is one as headed by that Diocesane Jure an injuriâ I dispute not 7. A Diocesane Church of many score or hundred Parishes having no Episcopus Gregis or true Pastors and Pastoral Churches under him but only half Pastors and Chappels that are but partes Ecclesia is one even of the lowest sort in their opinion as headed by that Diocesane 8. A Presbyterian Classical Church is one as headed by the Classes 9. A
one have been the generation of another how many Churches of England have you had 4. The whole Nation did not consent by Parliament when the Lords and Commons voted down the Bishops and Liturgy was there then no National Church 5. How shall we prove that the whole or half the Nation ever meant to put their consent into the hand of the Parliament to make a new Church of England and to alter it 6. What men make they may destroy May not the Nation withdraw such consent and the Parliament unmake their creature § 7. Next p. 300 he saith The Representative Church of England iâ— the Bishops and Presbyters of this Church meeting according to the Laws of the Realm to consult and advise about 〈◊〉 of Religion The consent of 〈◊〉 Convocations of Caâ—â—erbury and York Provinces â—â— the Representative National Church of England Answ 1. So here we have a Diffusivâ— Church and its Representative but no Government of either as a Church mentioned but the Civil 2. And they can be no Governours meerly as Representing those that are no Governours themselves Not as the peoples Representatives foâ— they are no Church Governours whatever elsewhere he saith like a Brownist of the Keys being given to Peter as representing the whole Church Not as the Presbyters representatives For 1. They are denied Episcopal power 2. And they are Governours at most but of their particular Churches and not of the whole 3. Not as the Bishops representatives for 1. They are there themselves 2. And they are no Common Governours of the whole as such 3. If he mean that the two Convocations when they consent become the One Common Constitutive Governing Power of the National Church this is intelligible but 1. He after denieth any such 2. And then their dissent would dissolve the Church and one Convocation not oblige it with much more such § 8. But yet he perceiveth he hath not answered me and therefore comes to it page 300 saying It 's a false supposition that where-ever there is the true notion of a Church there must be a Constitutive Regent part a standing Governing power which is an essential part of it Answ A true notion belongeth to equivocals The true notion and the proper political notion are words of various signification I have granted you that the true notion of a Church belongs to a Ship-full a Prison full a House-full of Christians as such and to our Parliament and to the Common-Council of the City But not the notion now in question 2. Is not Government essential to a Governed Church Fixed Government to a fixed Church and transient temporary Government to an answerable Church Deny this and few will follow you § 9. He adds Which I will prove to be false from Mr. B. himself He asserts that there is one Catholick visible Church and that all particular Churches headed by their particular Bishops or Pastors are parts of the Universal Church as a Troop is of an Army and a City of a Kingdom Then it will unavoidably follow that there must be a Catholick visible Head to a Catholick visible Church And so Mr. Bs Constitutive Regent part of a Church hath done the Pope a wonderful kindness But there are some men in the world that do not attend the advantages they give to Popery so they may but vent their spleen against the Church of England But doth not Mr. B. say that the Universal Church is headed by Christ I grant he doth But the Question is of the Visible Church of which particular Churches are parts And they being Visible parts require a Visible Constitutive Regent Head therefore the whole Visible Church must have likewise a Constitutive Visible Regent part This is to make a Key for Catholicks Answ I am glad he speaketh so intelligibly in denying a Constitutive Regent part though sorry that he speaks so ill 1. When I have written against Johnson alias Terrae the Papist two Books on this subject especially the later fully proving the Catholick Church headed by Christ to be that visible Church Catholick of which all particulars are members Can the Reader think I should write it over again because this Doctor will talk over a little of the same with that Priest and take no notice of my proof or answer 2. Doth he believe that the Kingdoms of the World are not visible parts of God's Universal Kingdom and yet God invisible 3. Dare he say that all true Churches are not real parts of Christ's Universal Church as a Governed body and yet are not they visible Is it necessary then that the Universal Head must be visible if the subordinate be so 4. Doth he not perceive that he turneth the Controversie from the necessity of a Regent head to the necessity of his visibility As if our question had not been Which is the Regent part of the Church of England but whether it must be visible Is this edifying 5. All Christians are agreed that the Universal Church is Visible 1. In its parts and members on earth and their profession 2. In that Christ the Head was visible on earth 3. And hath left Visible Universal Laws 4. And hath a Body visible in Heaven as the King is to his Courtiers but not to most of his Subjects 5. And will shortly visibly judge all the World Thus far and no further save as seen extraordinarily to Paul Stephen c. is the Universal Head Visible And are we not agreed that this is a real and most excellent Political Church and that all other Visible Churches are parts of it Something besides spleen makes some men talk dangerously § 10. But really doth he think that this doth unavoidably set up the Pope Why first is there a word of this that a sober Christian dare deny or that the Christian World doth not commonly consent to And do the certain Doctrines of the Gospel and Church set up the Pope Will he turn Papist if this be proved and the Christian World be not deceived Is this our Champion against Popery now I thought no man but Mr. Cheny and some odd Papists had been of this Opinion But to Mr. Cheny and against Johnson I have confuted it and therefore thither refer the Reader Far be it from me to resist Popery by denying 1. That Christ's Church thus far visible is one Political body headed by himself 2. Or that all true visible Churches are parts of it 3. Or that every Political Governed body is constituted of the Regent and subdite parts Christians will reject me for the former and Politicians deride me if I hold the last § 11. He proceedeth 2. The plain resolution is that we deny any necessity of any such Regent Constitutive part or one formal Ecclesiastical Head as essential to a National Church For a National consent is as sufficient to make a National Church as an Universal consent to make a Catholick Answ No consent maketh a Catholick Church but consenting to one supreme Head Christ But I
which setleth humane Government and obedience chosen the name of Parents rather than Princes because Parents Government is antecedent to Princes and Princes cannot take it from them nor disoblige their Children But Self-government is more natural than Parents and Parents and Princes must help it but not destroy it 7. When persons want natural capacity for Self-government as Infants and Ideots and mad-men they are to be governed by force as bruits being not capable of more 8. Family Government being in order next to personal Princes or Bishops have no right to overthrow it at least except in part on slaves of whose lives they have absolute power If the King impose Wives Servants and Diet on all his Subjects they may lawfully chuse fitter for themselves if they can and at least may refuse unmeet Wives and Servants and mortal or hurtful Meats and Drinks 9. Much more if Princes and Patrons will impose on all men the Bishops and Pastors to whose charge care and Pastoral conduct they must commit their Souls the people having the nearest right of choice and strongest obligation must refuse as discerning Self-governing judges such whose heresie negligence ignorance malignity or treachery is like either apparently to hazard them or to deprive them of that Pastoral help which they find needful for them and they have right to as well as other men 10. The gain or loss is more the Patients than the Imposers It is their own Souls that are like to be profited and saved by needful helps or lost for want of them And therefore it most concerns themselves to know what helps they chuse 11. If all the Kings on earth command men to trust their lives to a Physician who they have just cause to believe is like to kill them by ignorance errour or treachery or to a Pilot or Boat-man that is like to drown them they are not bound to obey such mandates Yea if they know an able faithful Physician that is most like to cure them they may chuse him before an unknown man though the King be against their choice 12. Scripture and experience tell us that God worketh usually according to the aptitude of means and instruments and learned experienced Physicians cure more than the ignorant rash and slothful and good Scholars make their Pupils more learned than the ignorant do And skilful able experienced holy Pastors convert and edifie much more than ignorant and vicious men And means must accordingly be chosen 13. If the Pastoral work skilfully and faithfully done be needful it must not be neglected whoever forbid it If it be not needful what is the Church of England good for more than Infidels or at least than Moscovites And for what are they maintained by Tythes Glebe and all the dignities honours and wealth they have And for what do men so much contend for them 14. It is natural to generate the like and for men to do and chuse as they are and as their interest leadeth them Christ tells us how hard it is for a rich man to be saved and how few such prove good And the Clergy themselves do not say that all the Patrons in England are wise and pious Many Parliaments have by our Church-men been deeply accused And most Parliament men I think are Patrons Others say that most Patrons not chosen to Parliaments are worse Some Preachers complain of Great men for fornication drunkenness excess idleness yea Atheism or infidelity If many or any be such are they like to chuse such Pastors as all godly men may trust in so great a Case Or would not such Princes chuse such Bishops 15. Men are as able and as much obliged now to take heed to whose conduct they trust their Souls as they were in all former Ages of the Church forecited 16. The Laws and Bishops of England allow all men liberty to chuse what Church and Pastor that Conformeth they please so they will but remove their dwellings into the Parish which they affect And in London thousands live as Lodgers and may easily go under whom they will chuse And if they like him not may shift as oft as they please 17. Parish bounds are of much use for Order But Order is for the thing ordered and not against it And Parish bounds being of humane make cannot justly be preferr'd before the needful edification and safety of mens Souls though such humane Laws bind where there are no greater obligations against them 18. The Law of keeping to Parish-Churches where we dwell and the Law that giveth Patrons the choice of all the Pastors and Princes of Bishops are of the same efficient power and strength 19. Casuists usually say even Papists that are too much for Papal power that humane Laws bind not when they are against the end the common good especially against mens salvation And a Toletan Council decreeth that none of their Canons shall be interpreted to bind ad culpam but ad poenam lest they cause mens damnation And many Casuists say that Penal Laws bind only to do or suffer and bearing the penalty satisfieth them save as to scandal 20. Yet we still acknowledge all the right in Princes and Patrons before-mentioned and that Princes are bound to promote Learning and piety and so to see that due places countenance and maintenance encourage faithful Ministers and that all the Subjects have meet Teachers and submit to hear and learn And that they should restrain Hereticks and Soul-betrayers from the sacred Office-work and judg who are to be maintained and who to be tolerated 21. But this power is not absolute but bounded And if on the pretence of it they would betray the Church and starve Souls like the English Canon that binds all from going to an able Pastor at the next Parish from an ignorant unpreaching vicious Reader men are not bound to obey it but to provide better for themselves unless materially not formally for some time when not obeying would do more hurt than good or as a man must forbear publick assemblies in a common Plague-time And so much to open the true reason of the case in hand And Paul's words to Timothy 1 Tim. 4. 16. tell me this care is not unnecessary Take heed to thy self and to the doctrine and continue in them for in doing this thou shalt both save thy self and them that hear thee § 17. come now to the Doctor 's words who p. 312. undertakes to prove 1. That the main ground of the peoples Interest was founded on the Apostles Canon A Bishop must be blameless Ans The word main may do him service but no hurt to my cause Main signifieth not Only who doubts but the People were to discern the Lives of chosen persons But without coming to the Ballance among many causes which is the main I have proved that there were more And among others that Christ and his Apostles bid them take heed how they hear beware of false Prophets and their leaven beware of the concision A man
that is an Heretick avoid Bid them not good speed Let no man deceive you Those that cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine ye have learned avoid from such turn away Is here no more than judging their lives § 18. Here he cometh to prove this even by Cyprian's Epistle against Martial and Basilides I must not name his dealing with it lest he say Irail But I may note 1. that he saith the force of what Cyprian saith comes at last only to this giving Testimony Answ Only here is more than Main before And though it was a matter of scandal that was before them and therefore it is no wonder if nothing else be particularly spoken of yet sure these words signifie more than Testimony By publick judgment and Testimony be approved worthy and meet And to be sound in the faith and apt to teach is some part of meetness And because they chiefly have power either to chuse Priests that are worthy or refuse the unworthy A chief chusing power of the worthy is more than a meer testimony of fact Again that by the suffrage of the whole fraternity the Episcopacy be delivered to him Suffrage is more than testimony of fact And All they do sin who are defiled by the sacrifice of a prophane and unjust Priest signifieth a dissenting power or else separation were no duty But he saith This is the strongest testimony in antiquity for the peoples power Answ A strange saying of so good an Historian who may easily know that the concurrent judgment of all the Churches their practice and their Canons making the Peoples consent and usually Election necessary was a far stronger testimony than one Epistle But to weaken this he saith 1. It was in a case where a Bishop had voluntarily resigned Answ 1. What 's that to the general rule here asserted 2. Was it voluntarily which they were adjudged to do But I find no mention of Martial's voluntary resigning but only Basilides 2. He saith Another Bishop was put in his place not by the power of the people c. Answ 1. This was before said that the people might give them power No. As if he would have the Reader think that we hold the people give the power which I have so oft disproved But it 's his advantage to talk to many men at once that he may say some of you said it But if distinction were not a crime I would distinguish between giving the power and concurring with other Causes to give a Receptivity to the person that must have it The peoples consent is a causa partialis of capacity and receptivity 2. But what signifie these words The Ordination of our Collegue Sabinus by the suffrage of the whole fraternity and by the judgment of the Bishops c. Is not this as much power as we plead for 3. Are not you the Author of the Defence of B. Laud and say That Christ gave the Keys to Peter as the representative of the whole Church And have you now said more against me or your self I am not of that mind 3. He saith They had the judgment of a whole Council for deserting him Answ Yes for deserting them both And that Council told them God had fore-determined in his word what men must or must not be Bishops and it was God rather than they that judged it and bound them to obey and that the power was chiefly in the people to chuse and refuse c. Did you think you had helpt your cause by saying It was a whole Council that was for what we say 4. He saith It was for Idolatry and blasphemy by his own confession Answ Which mean you by his when they were two neither of them were otherwise Idolaters than as Libellaticks who to save their lives suffered other men to subscribe their names thinking it was not their own deed like some that I have heard of that thought Conformity Perjury c. but let a Friend bribe an Officer to subscribe their names and give them a Certificate And Baslides blasphemy was in his sickness in terrour of Conscience and perhaps phrensie 5. He saith all St. Cyprian's proof is that the people were most concerned to give testimony of life c. This is answered already § 10. His next is The people on this assuming the power of Elections caused great disturbance and disorders in the Church where he goeth over some few of the many instances which I have at large recited at Antioch Rome Alexandria c. Answ 1. And yet for all these disorders the Church deprived not the People of their priviledge 2. But how fallaciously is this urged I have fully elsewhere opened to the Reader how the aspiring Prelates seeking Patriarchates and Bishopricks became as so many Captains at War and gathered Monks Clergy and People to strive and fight for them And now he layeth this on the People As if the common Souldiers and not the Generals were the cause of the War But of this I have said enough § 20. He saith To prevent this many Bishops were made without the choice of the People and Canons made to regulate Elections Answ Crastily said He saith not without the consent of the People but the Election And he saith not that the Canons took away either consenting or electing suffrages but that they regulated them Yes they over and over confirmed them § 21. He saith A◠Alexandria the Election belonged to the twelve Presbyters Answ They are hard put to it when they are put to fly to that testimony which maketh Presbyters the makers of Bishops Hierome and Eutychius Alexand. tell you that the Presbyters chose and made the Bishops as the Army doth a General which made Arch-Bishop Usher tell King Charles the First That the Presbyters at Alexandria did more than Ordain Presbyters for they made Bishops as he told me himself But 1. We never denied that the Com-provincial Bishops ordinarily afterwards Ordained them 2. Nor that the Presbyters chose them Did the Doctor think this was to the purpose But 1. Doth he think that the Presbyters choice excludeth the Peoples when it is a known thing that the Canons and Custom constantly conjoyned them 2. Will he conclude that when ever History nameth not the Peoples choice they are left out 3. Will he perswade us when the People are not the chusers that they are not necessarily the consenters or refusers I will add one more proof to all before-mentioned It is impossible ex naturâ rei that the Pastoral Office should be exercised on dissenters Therefore their consent is necessary A Patient may be drencht like a Horse and cram'd like fatted Fowl and so may have a Physician against his will But a Soul cannot use Pastoral help unwillingly 1. He cannot unwillingly be baptized 2. Nor unwillingly joyn in publick prayer and praise with the Church 3. Nor unwillingly confess sin 4. Nor unwillingly crave or receive Ministerial counsel 5. Nor unwillingly receive the Lords Supper 6.
people are bound to reverence the judgment of neighbour Pastors herein and not causlesly to oppose 4. When the People have chosen or they and the Clergy if the person were not before Ordained the Ordainers still are judges for their own act 5. It was not usual to Ordain sine titulo and the Ordainers did two things at once 1. Judge absolutely who shall be a Minister of Christ 2. Judge with the Church to which he was Ordained Elders and People who was fit for that Church and should be theirs And a threefold lock was safe 6. By all this it appears that all the Doctors talk against the peoples unfitness to discern who are sound or Heretick fit or unfit is to no purpose And that if unmeet men are Ministers or Bishops the fault is ten times more in the Ordainers than in the People seeing it is not the People but the Ordainers that are trusted to take into the Ministry indefinitely but only among many to judg who shall be theirs supposing them either before Ministers or next to be made such by the Ordainers And doth the Doctor think that the judgment of all parties is not as sure as of one alone or that my refusing a Physician is any wrong to his Licensers or him § 30. The Laodicean Canon cited by him speaketh for me as the rest Did he think I wanted his help to cite more for my self Who doubteth that the People being not the sole judges if they took in an un-Ordained or un-approved man without the Synods consent it was void By the way do either Synods or People the old chusers chuse our Bishops or Priests § 31. Yet more for me he citeth the Chalced. Council turning out Bassianus and Stephanus from Ephesus two men that strove and sought for the Bishoprick unto blood in the Church and both pleaded they were lawfully called by Clergy and People And yet had the People no right But they were both proved to be violent Intruders and another chosen And who doubts but a great General Council had the greatest power then § 32. Next he tells us of a Law of Justinian that made the Clergy and better sort of Citizens chusers And indeed Nazianzene once wisht the more religious sort were chusers but doth not this prove still the peoples power though so long after by an Emperour the poorer were so restrained I will not stay to search the Book but take it as he citeth it § 33. But his next seemeth to be downright against us Can. 13. Conc. Laodic But it is not so Crab hath two translations The first saith Quod non sit permittendum turbis electiones eorum facere qui sunt ad sacerdotium provehendi It is not sufferable to chuse by tumults ergo not for the people to chuse at all no nor dissent I deny the consequence To forbid disorder is not to forbid choice or free consent § 34. His next proof is Nic. Conc. 2. c. 3. which he saith restrained the election only to Bishops Answ Such dealing tells us that Protestant Doctors are not to be taken for infallible no more than Papists I cited the Canon before The doubt is whether it drive us not to more separation than we are willing of by nullifying our Bishops and Priests calling It is every election of a Bishop Priest or Deacon which is made by Magistrates shall remain void by the Canon which saith If any Bishop use the secular Magistrates to obtain by them a Church let him be deposed and separated and all that communicate with him Doth not the Doctor unhappily chuse his testimonies Had it not been better to have past over this Council Where now is all the Church of England by this Canon if Bishops coming in by the King and Parsons by the Patrons be all void and null and the people separated that communicate with them Such events are the fate of an ill cause And the next Canon doth not amend their matter which calleth it madness for gain or any affection of his own to drive any from the Ministry or segregate one of his Clergy he shall have Lextalionis and his work shall fall on his own head § 35. He adds Which was confirmed by following Councils in the Greek Church as Can. 28. Const against Photius and the people are there excluded with an Anathema so far were popular elections grown out of request in the Eastern Empire Answ 1. Had this been true it would not much move me that these two Councils that set up Image-worship and shewed much wickedness should contradict the Apostolical and Catholick constitutions and practice But 1. I thank the Bishops I am not able to buy the French Volumes of the Councils and therefore what is there I know not and my own Library is ruined to avoid their Agents distraining it for my Preaching And Doctor James and others have taught me to prefer the oldest Editions of the Councils and to take heed how I trust the later and the Jesuits pretended Manuscripts I have now none but Crab who medleth not with this and Binnius And in Binnius there are but 14 Canons in the last Action and 27 in the antecedent Fragmenta and no such thing as a 28th Canon to be found Nor is there in the 27th any such thing as the Doctor citeth 2. But if there were if it were but the confirmation of the 2. Nicene Canon it were much against the Doctor 's cause and nothing for him 3. But unhappily here also he sends us to find out much against him For besides that the 8th Can. in Fragm condemneth requiring subscriptions to stick to the Patriarch though they were not yet oaths of obedience the 12th Canon is indeed the same with those forecited viz. That the Apostolical and Synodical Canons flatly forbidding promotions and consecrations of Bishops by the power and command of Princes we concordantly define and sentence that if any Bishop receive the consecration of such a dignity by the craft and tyranny of Princes he shall be altogether deposed as one that desired and consented to have the gift of God by the will of carnal sense and from men and by men I suppose this is the Doctor 's Canon which deposeth all the English Bishops unhappily cited And the Can. 14. requiring Princes to honour Bishops and condemning the Bishops that debase themselves to go far from their Church to meet a Prince and that will alight to them from their Horses and that will basely kneel to them or will come to their tables unless with purpose freely to reprove them expoundeth both these Bishops hearts and words And so doth Can. 17. which condemneth such as come not to Synods because the Prince forbiddeth them and saith That Princes have no right so much as to be spectators of the matters which at Synods fall out among Priests And here indeed an Anathema is pronounced against the obstinately disobedient Bishops that will not obey their Patriarch before the forbidding Prince And
doth this meddle with the peoples Recipient power which is only levelled against Princes and Lay Patrons Impositions and deposeth the English Clergy and Church The same is repeated Can. 25. which it's likely is that which he meant viz. That according to the old Canons the promotions and consecrations of Bishops be made by the choice and decree of the College and that no Lay Princes or men in power potentuâ— do mix themselves in the election or promotion of Patriarchs Metropolitans or any Bishop lest hence there be inordinate confusion or contention specially seeing that it is not convenient that any Potentates or other Lay men have power in such matters but rather attend with silence And if any secular Prince or Potentate men in power or Lay men of other dignity strive against the common and consonant and Canonical Election of the Ecclesiastical Order let him be anathema till he consent and obey in this which the Church shall shew its will in in the Election and Ordination of its Proper Bishops Here 1. The Churches will is made the determiner of the Election and Ordination of their proper Bishop 2. The Canonical Order is established which ever required the Clergies and Peoples consent 3. Nothing of the Laity but acts of Princes power and dignity is excluded 4. And hereby our English Clergy deposed The Doctor had been better to have let alone his History and Antiquities § 36. His 4th note is Christian Magistrates did interpose in this matter as they judged expedient Answ Hitherto he hath produced the Testimonies of Councils and Bishops against Magistrates choice or medlings mistakingly thinking it had been against the Flocks Receptive power And now he will prove that Magistrates interposed as you shall hear § 37. And first So Constantine did in the Church of Antioch Soz. l. 2. c. 19. Answ What did he He motioned a Bishop to end the difference And who opposeth that § 38. Next Constantius put by two that the people strove about and set up Euseb Nicom Answ An unhappy testimony Socrates whom he citeth thus relateth it Alexander dying commended Paulus to the chusers as the fittest but if they would have a man of prowess to chuse Macedonius The people were divided in the choice and made a greater stir than formerly But the Orthodox carried it for Paulus against the Hereticks that were for Macedonius Constantius being the first persecuting Arian Emperour was offended and got a Council to depose Paulus and he got in his great favourite Eusebius Nicomed the head of all the Arians Doth not this shew 1. That the people were chusers 2. That the Emperour deposed him not but by a packâ— Council of Bishops which we know had a deposing power 3. That this is Recorded as an Act of two Hereticks a Prince and Prelate wronging the Church § 39. Saith he When Eusebius was dead the Orthodox party again chose Paulus and Constantius sends Hermogenes to drive him out by force Answ 1. I doubt he will next cite Valens Gensericus Hunnericus c. for murdering and persecuting the Bishops Was an Arians Tyranny a note of right 2. The story in Socrates cited by him is this Euseb the Arian being dead the People again went to the choice and chose as before But some were kill'd in the tumult The Arian Emperour sends Hermogenes to force out Paulus the chosen Bishop The people tumultuously fight for their Bishop and priviledge and set Hermogenes Lodgings on fire and kill him The Emperour comes from Antioch amerceth the City and puts Paul out and yet is angry that Macedonius was chosen by the other part without his advice but consenteth to him 1. Doth not this shew that the people were the chusers 2. And even their murderous tumult moved neither an Heretick Prince nor the Bishops to deny their right of choice 3. Murder and such violence was a fair colour for more severity 4. Yet all this was by a Heretick noted as an act against the Church 5. And all this was but about a Patriarch and not an ordinary Bishop and that at his Imperial seat where it concerned the Emperours to have most regard 6. And I told you that Princes are the Judges whom they should tolerate whoever have the choice § 40. He adds When Athanasius was restored Constantius declared it was by the decree of the Synod and by his consent Answ 1. If he meant here to intimate the exclusion of the peoples consent or choice he could scarce have named in History an instance more against himself than that of Athanasius who thereby was brought in upheld and oft restored 2. This History tells you the Arian Emperour was forced to this consent to avoid a threatned War from his brother 3. This was not to make him Bishop but to call him to his flock from his banishment 4. And doth not all this confirm what I plead for as to the Peoples Synods and Princes several parts § 41. Nectarius case is next about whom Historians disagree but the most credible say that the Council named Nectarius with some others in a paper and in honour to an excellent Emperour bid him take which he would But all this excluded not the peoples part who would not have left Gregory but by his own request and were glad to accept one from such a Council and Prince § 42. Next he saith out of Sozomen That the People and Clergy chose Chrysostome and Arcadius consented and then he affroâ—teth Sozomen with Palladius Answ 1. Palladius denyeth nothing that I plead for but only tells us of the Emperours premotion and endeavours in his Royal City about a Patriarch to prevent the division of the people Nor is Palladius credit to be equalled to Sozomen's herein much less preferred 2. Socrates the most credible of all in this saith l. 6. c. 2. It seemed good to them to send for John Chrys Wherefore not long after Arcadius with the general consent both of Priests and People sent for him And did not the Doctor think I needed help by such Citations § 43. The choice of Nestorius was just such another The people had no reason to deny consent to one out of Chrysostom's Monastery nominated by so good an Emperour who was judge whom to tolerate in his Royal City But both he and they after repented of the choice § 44. His last instance is Theodosius getting in Proclus before Maximianus was buried Answ Reader 1. All this is a good Emperours care about one Patriarch of his own City to avoid division and nothing to the common choice of Bishops 2. The true case Socrates cited thus describeth The people were the chusers They were for Proclus but some adversaries objected a Canon that a Bishop might not be removed from one Church to another and he being a Bishop already they could not have him Socrates pleadeth for the dispensableness of this Canon but the people were fain to take Maximianus The Emperour being for dispensing with that Canon and gratifying
the people that had before declared themselves for Proclus did not himself bring him in but got Celestine Bishop of Rome to write to Cyril of Alexand. John Bishop of Antioch and Rufus Bishop of Thessalonica to satisfie them to do it and so got Proclus in What is this against the peoples right These be all the Doctor 's instances on this point § 45. His 5th note is On the alteration of the Government of Christendom there was greater reason for the Magistrates interposing than before Because of Princes endowing Churches the Royal assent was fit though a Bishop was chosen by the Clergy and People Answ Who would strive against so friendly a disputer that goeth on to say the same as I when I doubt his party will say that he Prevaricateth § 46. But he saith The Royal power overthrowing the Papal reserved the power of nomination of Bishops as part of the Prerogative which being allowed in frequent Parliaments the consent of the people is swallowed up therein since their Acts oblige the whole Nation Answ 1. I see we yet understand not how much of the Irenicon is retracted and whether he yet hold not that no Form of Church-Government is of Divine Institution or we be not bound to be for that which King and Parliament are for But we undertake to prove the contrary and have done it 2. What if Parliaments gave the King power to chuse all Folks Wives and Husbands Physicians Tutors Diet Trade c. our Right were not swallowed up by this though it were called the King's Prerogative Much less where Gods Institution and the very Law of Nature have forestalled them and neither God nor Man gave them that swallowing power 3. I oft answered that Tythes and Temples may be more in the Magistrates power than Pastoral relation and power of the Keys § 47. He saith p. 326. That the inferiour right of Patronage is justly thought to bear equal date with the settlement of Christianity in peace and quietness Answ 1. It was scarce ever setled in peace and quietness to this day Much less during the Saxons Heptarchy 2. I have proved that the Universal Church was far from making Lay Patrons the chusers 3. It is less lawful to sell our Souls into slavery than our bodies And if our Ancestors had said to some rich men You shall all chuse our Pastors and we will stand to your choice if you will build us Temples and give them Lands it would no more bind us to stand to their bargain than if they had said Give us House and Land and you shall chuse our Diet Wives Physicians c. we say if your kindness be turned to our hurt take your house and land or give it to whom you will we will not sell our souls and Church-rights at such a price § 48. His 6th conclusion is That things being thus setled there is no ground for the people to resume the liberty of Elections Answ 1. I need not over and over repeat the answer to his reasons 2. If the liberty of Election be not resumed which was not that which I pleaded for as he would all along insinuate yet the liberty o free consent or refusal may be necessary § 49. Reader again the true case is like this following Parents have a ruling power to chuse Wives and Husbands for their Children Guardians have much power over Orphans in it Magistrates may make Laws to restrain unlawful Marriages Children are bound in these cases to obey Parents unless they chuse to their apparent hurt or danger and to obey Guardians and Magistrates in their proper Laws But 1 It is for all this no Marriage till both parties consent 2. And all the said power over them is limited and but directive and not destructive to their own consenting power Even so in our case 1. The Ordainers are the first Judges and have a power like Parents and none should be received against their wills unless they would betray the Church 2. The Magistrates may make ordering restraining Laws that no unworthy person shall be tolerated 3. A limited power of nomination may be left to Patrons as Guardians who have power to help the Churches but none to hurt much less to ruine them 4. But it is not a Church related as Pastor and Flock till both consent These things are evident truth though some would bury it in a heap of words § 50. I would also if I could have drawn the Doctor to resolve me this doubt Whether the power of Parents and Husbands or of Patrons yea or Princes be greater in the choice of Food Physick and so of a Tutor a Pastor or a particular Church Communion And if a Parent or Husband say I command you to hear and Communicate with such a Pastor and Congregation and the Patron say the contrary yea or the Prince or Law which is to be obeyed And to whom this Family Government most belongeth And why Father and Mother rather than Prince and Priests are named in the Fifth Commandment § 51. p. 329. He reciteth my reasons why Parliaments cannot take away our free Receptive consent and he again feigneth that I say all this for the peoples chusing power yet confesseth I deny not the Magistrates or Patrons power of their own Gift The Case of Sacrilege I leave to their Consciences § 52. p. 330. But saith he Anabaptists Quakers and all may pretend a care of their Souls and so leave the Minister only the Temple and Tythes Answ 1. And Anabaptists and Quakers will have a care of their Souls when you have said and done all you can against it A prison will not overcome it 2. So Turks Socinians Papists or Anabaptists if you will when they get into power may pretend that they are fitter to be trusted with mens Souls than men with their own And so Prelates may say But is nothing true that men can abuse and misapply And to me it is something though it should be nothing to you 1. That nature obligeth and disposeth every man more to care for his own soul than it doth the Patron to care for others 2. That many hundred or thousand men are not all so like to mistake and miscarry about their own Souls as one Patron is that is far from their hearts 3. That it is a matter more dangerous to trust thousands in one hand than in many as it would be in a storm to put all into one boat If that man miscarry he endangereth multitudes If another man miscarry it is but for one 3. To have a self-saving power and to have a self-destroying power differ with men that hate not distinction So little can a man know what we say by this Doctors Answers that a stranger would think by him that we were quite of another mind I never said Quakers or any others may have whom they will If they chuse men uncapable the neighbour Bishops or the Clergy may admonish them and renounce his Communion And the
thing the doubt is whether their undertaking to educate another mans Child be lawful while he is bound to do it himself 2. And whether men use to be serious in such undertakings which I never knew one perform nor seem to mean it save such as take poor mens kinsmens or dead mens children to keep as their own 3. And if it be done without serious intention Is it not to make perjury or perfidiousness and prophane taking God's name in vain to be the way of Christening and Covenanting with Christ in order to salvation § 4. This is a great point and he doth well to handle it diligently His explication of it is this p. 382. 1. The Church hath the power of the Keys True but not as he and the Brownists say The whole Church but only the Pastors 2. They may baptize capable subjects No doubt of it 3. Infants are capable subjects Answ But what Infants All or some Is this our satisfaction If it be All Infants then how come the Heathens Infants to be baptizable and have right when the Parents have none Then how great a deed of charity is it to bring an Army among them to baptize their Children by force When even Aquinas and other Papists say that Children may not be baptized against the Parents wills I have elsewhere at large proved 1. That Baptism is but the sealing of the Covenant and the delivering of possession by Ministerial Investiture and not the first gift or condition of our right to Christ and his benefits 2. That in the Adult faith and Repentance and heart-consent are the Conditions which Baptism after solemnly expresseth 3. That if a true penitent believing consenter die without Baptism he is saved and if tâ—…ptized adult die without faith repentance and heart-consent he is damned 4. That therefore all the adult must have an entitling condition to give them right first initially coram Deo to pardon of sin and then to be baptized which solemnly delivereth their full right before they can be lawfully baptized 5. That God dealeth not so differently with Infants and Adult as to require conditions of right in the later and none in the former as if they were all born with right 6. That the Covenant is made to the faithful and their seed and that Infants condition of right is that they be children of believers And that if both Parents be Infidels the Children are unclean but else they are holy And God that confoundeth not the Church and the World confoundeth not their Childrens case This I have fully proved in my Disp of Original sin and Treat of right to Sacraments 7. That Baptism sealeth and delivereth to the qualified subject the present pardon of sin and right to Christ and life as to adopted Children of God And therefore there must be some reason and proof of a right to it more than all Infants in the world have 8. That it is not a mans bringing them to baptism and speaking feignedly in their name that giveth them right to a sealed pardon and salvation It must be one that can prove himself entitled to represent the Child which none can that cannot say He is my own 9. If it were otherwise Atheists Infidels wicked men though Baptized could give no right to the sealed pardon or to the Investiture in a state of life to which they have no right themselves And if they represent no better Parents as such they can give them no right save coram Ecclesia when they are not infideles judicati 10. Nor doth it suffice to an Infants right that the Minister or Church be Christians Therefore to tell us that Infants are right subjects signifieth nothing till either 1. He tell us what Infants 2. Or prove that all Infants have right which he can never do And if he could I would easily prove that all dying Infants are saved whether Baptized or not As I can prove that true Christian Infants are § 5. While he gives us not the least satisfaction of Infants Right he tells us of difficulties on the other side if we lay it on Parents or Owners right And 1. He tells us of divers mens Opinions which the Reader will be loth I should digress to try having done it so largly in my Christ Direct and Treat of Right to Sacraments 2. He nameth the qualification which I â—â—â—rt A profession of the Christian faith not invalidated and saith nothing to disable it but that Others will reject it Others wild Opinions named goes for my Confutation And now I desire the Reader to see the Catalogue of the things we account sinful in Conformity in my first Plea for Peace and try how many of them the Doctor hath so much as meddled with And whether he think by these few touches he hath proved either our Conformity lawful or our Preaching unlawful or our Communion with those Christians who are not of his mind herein unlawful If he say again that he meddleth not with Ministers Conformity but the Peoples 1. Note how he hath passed by even the greatest things also in their case 2. Whether he meddle not with the Ministers case who seeketh to prove their preaching unlawful and so perswades them to be silent 3. Whether their case should not be so far meddled with as to prove the things which they think sinful to be lawful or their preaching unnecessary before the endeavours used against them well known be justified as needful to the Churches Peace CHAP. XIII Of the three French Letters which he subjoyneth § 1. WHat advantage to the Drs. Cause the three Letters of the French Divines annexed can be to any that will not be decoyed by meer sounds and shews I know not But could we know these things following we might better understand the judgment of the Writers Quest 1. Whether he that sought their judgment did make them understand what all our present Impositions and Acts of Conformity are and what alterations are made in the Church of England since the beginning of Bishop Lands power 2. Whether he made them truly understand the difference between the ancient Episcopacy and the English Diocesan frame in all its parts 3. Whether he did put the Case as about Subscribing â—â— Declaring Covenanting or Swearing Assent and Consent to all things and practising accordingly or only of living in Communion with them which do such things 4. Whether he put the case as of denying active Communion in the practice of unlawful things or as denying Communion in the rest which are lawful 5. Whether he made them understand that we are ipso facto excommuncate by their Canon for telling our judgment 6. Whether he made them understand that it was about 2000 Ministers that were silenced and what men are in many of their places and what claim their ancient Flocks lay to many of them and what men they are and what they did to prevent all our divisions 7. Whether he made them understand what measure of Communion we
some excess of kindness to me V. With this Defence against Doctor Stillingfleet I at once pubblish in another Volume An Apology for the Nonconfirmists Preaching with an Answer to a multitude of their Accusers and Reasons to prove that it is the Bishops and Conformists great Duty and Interest to seek their Restoration Which is the most material part of the Confutation of Doctor Stillingfleet who would persuade us that our Preaching is a sin and make us guilty of silencing our selves FINIS Books lately Printed for Nevil Simmons â—â— the Three Cocks at the West and of St. Pauls 1. CHurch-History of the Government of Bishops and their Councils abbreviated Including the Chief part of the Government of Christian Princes and Popes and a true account of the most troubling Controversies and Heresies till the Reformation Written for the use especially of them 1. Who are ignorant or misinformed of the state of the Ancient Churches 2. Who cannot read many and great Volumes 3. Who think that the Universal Church must have one visible Soveraign Personal or Collective Pope or General Councils 4. Who would know whether Patriarchs Diocesans and their Councils have been or must be the Cure of Heresies and Schisms 5. Who would know the truth about the great Heresies which have divided the Christian World especially the Donatists Novatians Arians Macedonians Nestorians Eutychians Monothelites c. 2. A Treatise of Episcopacy Confuting by Scripture Reason and the Churches Testimony that sort of Diocesan Churches Prelacy and Government which casteth out the Primitive Church Species Episcopacy Ministry and Discipline and confoundeth the Christian World by Corruption Usurpation Schism and Persecution Meditated in the Year 1640 when the Et-câ—tera Oath was imposed Written 1671. and cast by Published 1680. by the importunity of our Superiours who demand the Reasons of our Nonconformity 3. A Moral Prognostication 1. What shall befall the Church on Earth till their Concord by the Restitution of their Primitive purity simplicity and Charity 2. How that Restitution is like to be made if ever and what shall befall them thenceforth unto the End in that Golden Age of Love All three by Rich. Baxter 4. Memorabilia or The most Remarkable Passages and Counsels Collected out of the several Declarations and Speeches that have been made by the King his Lord-Chancellors and Keepers and the Speeches of the Honourable House of Commons in Parliament since his Majesties happy Restauration Anno 1660. till the end of the last Parliament 1680. Reduced under four Heads 1. Of the Protestant Religion 2. Of Popery 3. Of Liberty and Property c. 4. Of â—â—rliaments By Edward Cooks of the Middle Temple Esq READER I Must take this opportunity for the avoiding of mistakes to give thee notice that whereas against them that plead for the necessity of an uninterrupted Succession of Episcopal ordination I have in the Preface to my Book for Universal Concord and in the beginning of my Breviate of Church-History said that our Northern English Episcopacy was derived from such as were no Bishops but Scottish Monks and Presbyters and that Aidan and Finan Tromhere Coleman were such lest I be misunderstood I must further explain my meaning viz. 1. The Culdees that were no Bishops first guided the Affairs of Religion in Scotland long before the coming of Palladius 2. These Culdees chose themselves for order sake some few to be as Guides and Governorus to the rest whom Writers called Scotorum Episcopos but were no Bishops in our controverted sense but as an Abbot among Monks and as the Presidents or Principals of Colledges rule those that are of the same office or order with them Nor had they any limited fixed Diocesses 3. And if any will call these Bishops and the question be but de nomine let them call them so and spare not I contend not against them 4. Afterwards Palladius sent from Rome began a higher sort of Bishops But the Culdees still kept up the greater part against him 5. Columbanus his Monastery in the Isle of Hy restored the Culdees strength And the Monks out of that Island were the most prevailing Clergy of Scotland who had no proper Episcopal ordination Or if you will call their ordainers Bishops they were not only ejusdem ordinis with the Presbyters but also not ordained by Bishops themselves but made such by mission from the Monastery and bare election and ordination of Presbyters 6. Out of this famous holy Monastery was Aidan first and Finan after and Tromhere c. and Coleman after sent into Northumberland where they aresaid to be made Bishops And they were the first Bishops that came thither and so had no ordination in England from any Bishops that were there before Nor is there any probability that the Palladian Bishops did ordain them Bishops But that their own order of Senior Monks and Presbyters only ordained them 7. Beda was such a votary to the Church of Rome that his testimony runs more for the Romish interest than most of the Scottish or English Historians of those times yet lib. 3. c. 5. saith of Aidan but that his approbation was in Conventu Seniorum and sic illum ordinantes ad praedicandum miserunt And c. 25. that Finan pro illo gradum Episcopatus a Scottis ordinatus missus acceperat qui in insula Lindisfarnensi secit Ecclesiam Episcopali sedi congruam Quam tamen more Scottorum uno de lapide sed de robore secto totam composuit arundine â—exit Et defuncto Finano qui post ipsum fuerit cum Colmannus in Episcopain sucâ—ederet ipse missus a Scotia c. And the King Oswi himself was taught by the Scots and was of their Language and for their way And Cedda was ordained by the Scots And at a Synod three or four of these kind of Bishops with the King and his Son and Hilda a woman Abbesse were the Company that made it c. 25. And c. 26. Tuda also was ordained by the Scots And c. 4. The Bishops themselves were under the Government of the Abbot juxta exemplum primi Doctoris qui non Episcopus sed Presbyter extitit et Monachus 8. Li. 3. c. 28. he saith that non erat tune ullus excepto Wini in totâ Britania Canoniee ordinatus Episcopus 9. And as there is no word of proof that it was the Palladian Roman Bishops that ordained these Northumbrian Bishops so there is enough to the contrary in that all these foresaid Bishops continued the stiffe enemies of the Roman Power and order which Palladius came to introduce Insomuch that Beda oft mentioneth their utter aversion to the Roman party and that the Brittons and Scots were all of a mind and Daganus and the rest would not so much as eate with the Romanists no nor so much as eat in the same house or Inn with them lib. 2. c. 4. 10. And lastly even that sort of Episcopacy which they took in Northumberland was but Equivocally so called as to that which we dispute about and not Ejusdem Speciei For. 1. They never pretended to a distinct order from the Presbyters 2. They had but one poor Church made of Wood and thatcht with Reeds and no possessions else And from theâ—â—e they went from village to village to instruct convert and pray with the people And that our English Episcopacyâ—eriâ—eth â—eriâ—eth its succession from these Scots and the Brittaineâ— and not frome Rome by Augustine and Palladius I refer the Reader to Mr. Jones and to the Preface before Knox his Church-History Thus much I thought needfull to prevent being misunderstood about the Episcopacy of Aidan 〈◊〉 c. Such an Episcopacy as the Bishop of Hereford pleade th for in his Naked Truth I meet with few that are against any more than that the Colledge of Physicians or Philosophers or Divines have â— President FINIS a The new Church since Bishop Laud's change b Note that the Bishops Book as against me runs upon a mere fiction p. 76. that I traduce him as a Factor for Popery when I had not a word to that purpose yea expresly excepted him by name though I argued against his too neer approach c No such thing but of the Churches within the Empire then d was there no necessary cause till after An. 1200 e So then these Protestant Bishops give the Pope Patriarchal Power and Primacy of Order and as much as the Greeks But 1. They had by Councils of old no Patriarchal Power over other Kingdoms out of the Empire 2. Obedience to the Pope as a Patriarch is against the Oath of Supremacy and on the matter little differeth our case from obeâ—ing him as Pope f So that this Arch-Bishop also was set on the pious design of joyning with the Papists on these terms and may not we have leave to worship God on better terms g That is 1. The Pope is not to govern us arbitrarily but by Canons Which what they are is hardly known 2. And all will be Schismaticks that so obey him not h 1. Thus for union with Rome all Protestants must pass for self made Schismaticks that cannot obey the Pope as Patriarch And doth this tend indeed to Concord It would open Protestants eyes did I but tell you all that is in the Canons which the Pope as our Patriarch must rule us by as these Doctors do desire i 1. If this Doctrine be true no wonder that Mr. Thorndike thought we could not justifie our Reformation till we alter the Oath of Supremacy then we are bound in conscience to a Foreign Jurisdiction 2. I have fully proved many great errors and sins to be decreed by many of the Councils by which the Pope as Patriarch must rule us all 3. Is it any easier to do evil In obedience to a Patriarch than a Pope 4. In my last Book against W. Johnson alias Tenet I have fully confuted all that he saith of the universality of Councils and the Patriarchs power over the Abassines and others without the Empire and shewed they were then all but in one Empire as the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury is in England ☜ Page 22. A vain Writer and malicious if not mad and distracted p. 11. he will magnifie the very worst of men if they be of his mind and vilifie the best if they be of another p. 27. He hath full liberty to vie with the Devil himself in his Calumnies with more such