Duties will permit I have done my part in urging you and them with my offer till you call me unto more In the mean time Madam may I intreat you to read impartâ—ally and deliberately 1. My little Book called The Trâ—â— Catholick and Catholick Church c. which I shall send or bring you 2. My Preface before the Disputation with Mr. Iohnson and the Letters in the end and the Second Part and then the first 3. My two first Books against Popery The Safe Religion and The Key For your former reading of them before any doubting had made you observe the stress of Arguments is nothing if you will but now read them again impartially after your contrary Conceptions continue a Papist if you can And truly if you will not do thus much for your own Soul because Men engage you to the contrary that dare not appear to make good their own Cause I must be a Witness against you before the Lord that you wilfully resused Instruction and sold your Soul at too cheap a rate I tried when I was last with you to revive your Reason by proposing to you the Infallibility of the Common Senses of all the World and I could not prevail though you had nothing to answer that was not against Common Sense And it is impossible any thing controverted can be brought nearer you or made plainer than to be brought to your Eyes and Taste and Feeling and not yours only but all Mens else Sense goes before Faith Faith is no Faith but upon Supposition of Sense and Understanding if therefore Common Sense be fallible Faith must needs be so But methinks yet I should have hope of reviving your Charity You cannot be a Papist indeed but you must believe that out of their Church that is out of the Pope's Dominions there is no Salvation and consequently no Justification and Charity or saving Grace And is it possible you can so easily believe your religious Father to be in Hell your prudent pious Mother to be void of the Love of God and in a state of Damnation and not only me that am a Stranger to you but all the Millions of better People in the World to be in the same State of Gracelesness and Damnation and all because we believe not that the Pope is Christ's Vicar General or Deputy on Earth and dare not subject our selves to his usurped Dominions When we are ready to protest before the Lord as we shall answer it at his Bar that we would be his Subjects but for Fear of the high Displeasure of the true Head and King of the Church and for fear of sinning and Damning our own Souls And that we are heartily willing to read and study and pray and hear all that can be said for them and some of us read as much of their Writings as of our own and more and would not stick at Cost or Pains or Loss or Shame were it to travail over Land and Sea to find out that they are in the Right if that would do it and they be so indeed But the more we study the more we pray to God for his Assistance the more diligently we search we are the more resolved and convinced that their way as it differeth from ours is false and that they are the most Superstitious Tyrannical Leprous part of the Catholick Church condemning the main Body because they will not be under their abominable Dominion and will not sin as much as they We hold all that was held necessary by the Apostles and the ancient Church and we dare not make a new Faith to our selves as the Papal Sectaries have done Must we renounce both our Sense and Reason and put out the Eye of Natural Understanding and also renounce the Catholick Church and Christian Charity and step into the Throne and pronounce Damnation not only upon all the Saints of God that we have been acquainted with our selves but also on the Body of Christ which he died for even on the far greatest part of the Universal Church and all this because they will not depart from the Word of God to corrupt his Doctrine Discipline and Worship and herein obey an usurping Vice Christ must we do all this or else be judged to Damnation by the Sectaries of Rome For my part I shall be so far from fearing their Sentance that I appeal to Christ whose Body they condemn and I had rather be tortured in their Inquisition and cut as small as Herbs to the Pot and be accounted the odiousest Wretch on Earth than be guilty of being a Papist at all but especially on such hellish Terms as these If the greater part of the Church must be damned as no part of the Church it will be impossible to prove your Sect or Fragment to be the Church any more than any other Christ is the Saviour of his Body Eph. 5. 23 and to him as to its Head it 's subject ver 24. and this Body is that which is sanctified by him ver 26. And by one Spirit all his Members are baptized into one Body 1 Cor. 12. 12 13. Did you never note where the Unity of the Body is fulliest described that Apostles themselves are made but Members and Christ only the Head 1 Cor. 27 28 29. Eph. 4. 4 5 7 11. There is but one Lord c. but diversity of gifts of whom the Apostles are the chief And when Thousands were added to the Church even such as should be saved Acts 2. 47. what made them Christians but the Baptismal Covenant and what were they Baptized into but into the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost Peter or Paul baptized none into their own Names nor dare the Pope himself lest his Innovation be too visible Christ hath said He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved Mark 16. 16. Did they ever then subject any Baptism to the Bishop of Rome Was the Eunuch Acts 8. subjected to the Pope that only saith I believe that Iesus Christ is the Son of God and was Baptized If men could not be saved without believing in the Pope and being subject to the Church of Rome how comes it to pass that none of the Apostles preached this necessary Article of Faith Why did they never say You must believe in or be subject to the Pope of Rome or you cannot be saved Would they be so unfaithful as to hide a necessary Article Why did Peter himself Acts 2. by Baptism take Three thousand into the Church without preaching any of this Doctrine to them The Gospel professeth that he that hath the Son hath Life 1 Joh. 5. 11 12. and whosoever believeth in him shall not perish but have everlasting life Joh. 3. 16. and that there is no condemnation to them that are in Christ Iesus that walk not after the Flesh but after the Spirit And now up steps a Man of Rome and presumeth to Reverse the Gospel and say It 's no such matter for all this they shall not be
Men are about to do § 213. You have had the Substance of our wandering Discourses you are next to have our as unprofitable Disputes In which all was to be managed in Writing ex tempore by Dr. Pierson Dr. Gunning and Dr. Sparrow with Dr. Pierce on one side and Dr. Bates Dr. Iacomb and my self on the other side we withdrawing into the next Room and leaving the Bishops and them together while we wrote our part And we began with the Imposition of Kneeling upon two Accounts though I took the Gesture it self as lawful 1. Because I knew I had the fullest Evidence and the greatest Authority of Antiquity or Church-Law and Custom against them 2. Because the Penalty is so immediate and great to put all that kneel not from the Communion And it was only the Penalty and to the Imposition on that Penalty which we disputed against § 214. Oppon Arg. 1. To enjoin all Ministers to deny the Communion to all that dare not kneel in the Reception of the Sacrament on the Lord's days is sinful But the Common-Prayer-Book and Canons enjoin all Ministers to deny the Communion to all that dare not kneel in the Reception of the Sacrament on the Lord's Days Ergo the Common-Prayer-Book and Canons do or contain that which is sinful Resp. Not granting nor denying the Major in the first place prove the Minor Oppon We prove both 1. Prob. Major To enjoin Ministers to deny the Communion to Men because they dare not go against the Practice of the Apostles and the universal Church for many hundred Years after them and the Canons of the most venerable Councils is sinful But to enjoin Ministers to deny Communion to all that dare not kneel in the Reception of the Sacrament on the Lord's Days is to enjoin them to deny Communion to them because they dare not go against the Practice of the Apostles and the universal Church for many hundred Years after them and the Canons of the most venerable Councils Ergo. To enjoin all Ministers to deny Communion to all that dare not kneel in the Reception of the Sacrament on the Lord's Day is sinful Prob. Minor The Words of the Common-Prayer-Book and Canons prove it Resp. The Minor viz. as to the Common-Prayer-Book of which the Proof must proceed is not yet proved But the Major which we had not then spoke to but now do clearly denying that Major also of the first Syllogisin you prove by the Syllogism brought in which we deny the Minor § 215. Here we told them That for the Proof of both Propositions denyed the Presence of the Book is necessary which we desired them to procure us but they were not fatcht And first we had a large Debate about the Words of the Common-Prayer He shall deliver it them kneeling on their knees Dr. Pierson confessed that the Canons did reject them that kneel not from the Communion but these Words of the Common-Prayer-Book do not But they only include Kneelers but exclude not others We answered them that either the Common-Prayer-Book doth exclude them that kneel not or it doth not If it doth the Proposition is true If it do not then we shall willingly let fall this Argument against it and proceed to another Therefore I desired them but to tell us openly their own judgment of the Sense of the Book for we professed to argue against it only on Supposition of the exclusive Sense § 216. Hereupon unavoidably they fell into Discord among themselves Dr. Pierson who was to defend the Book told us his judgment was that the Sense was not exclusive Bishop Morley who was to offend the Nonconformists gave his judgment for the exclusive Sense viz. That the Minister is to give it to Kneelers and no others So that we professed to them That we could not go any further till they agreed among themselves of their Sense § 217. And for the other Minor denied though the Books were not present I alledged the 20th Canon Concil Nicaen Concil Trull and Tertullian oft and Epiphanius with the common Consent of ancient Writers who tell us it was the Tradition and Custom of the universal Church not to adore by Genuflexion on any Lord's Day or on any Day between Easter and Whitsuntide Ergo not so to adore in taking the Sacrament § 218. Bishop Morley answered That this was the Custom but only between Easter and Whitsuntide and therefore it being otherwise the rest of the Year was more against us I answered him that he mistook where a multitude of Evidences might rectifie him it was on every Lord's Day through the Year that this Adoration by Genuflexion was forbidden though on other Week-days it was only between Easter and Whitsuntide § 219. Next he and the rest insisted on it that these Canons and Customs extended only to Prayer To which I answered That 1. The plain words are against them where some speak of all Adoration and others more largely of the publick Worship and offered to bring them full Proof from the Books as soon as they would give me time 2. And if it were only in Prayer it is all one to our Case For the Liturgy giveth the Sacrament with Words of Prayer and it is the common Argument brought for kneeling that it 's suitable to the conjunct Prayer And I told them over and over that Antiquity was so clear in the point that I desired all might be laid on that and I might have time to bring them in my Testimonies But thus that Argument was turned off and the Evening broke off that part of the Dispute The next Days Argument § 220. Oppon To enjoin Ministers to deny the Communion to such as the Holy Ghost hath required us to receive to the Communion is sinful But to enjoin Ministers to deny the Communion to all that dare not kneel in the Reception of the Sacrament is to enjoin them to deny the Communion to such as the holy Ghost hath required us to receive to the Communion Ergo. to enjoin Ministers to deny the Communion to all that dare not kneel in the Reception of the Sacrament is a Sin Resp. We deny the Minor Oppon The Holy Ghost hath required us to receive to the Communion even all the weak in the Faith who are charged with no greater Fault than erroneously refusing things lawful as unlawful But many of those who dare not kneel in the Reception of the Sacrament are at the worst but weak in the Faith and charged with no greater Fault than erroneously refusing things lawful as unlawful Ergo To enjoin Ministers to deny the Communion to all who dare not kneel in the Reception of the Sacrament is to enjoin them to deny the Communion to such as the Holy Ghost hath required us to receive to the Communion Resp. We say This is no true but a fallacious Syllogism of no due Form For this Reason That whereas both Subject and Predicate of the Conclusion ought to be somewhere
the Ministry in general but a designation to a particular Charge and a legal License c. 4. By such as by his Majesty c. because it is not for us to offer our selves to a Diocesans Imposition of Hands in that manner but if you put it in other Words we cannot help it 5. There are three things which the Nonconformists here scruple 1. Renouncing their Ordination 2. Reordination which is like Rebaptization 3. Owning the Diocesan Species of Prelacy for the Presbyterians are against all Prelacy and the Episcopal Nonconformists are against the English Frame as contrary to that in the time of Cyprian c. Therefore because these Words so much seem to express a Re-ordination by Diocesans 1. by the sign of Imposition of Hands 2. By the Authorising Words 3. and put in of purpose to satisfie them that think the Presbyterians no Ministers 4. In a time when this hath been so publickly declared they cannot submit to all this without either a Declaration to the contrary in the Law or a Liberty by the Law given them to profess their own Sense in the three particulars questioned that they renounce not their Ordination nor take this as Re-ordination nor own the Diocesan Prelary as distinct from the old Episcopacy though they will submit to it 6. As by Instituted we intend admittance to a Pastoral Charge or Authority to administer Sacraments we desire that may he plainly inserted seeing he that only preacheth as Probationers may do hath no need of this nor do any scruple to hear him Or if they do while he hath no charge they may turn their back on him while a Man is a Lecturer only to meer Volunteers there is no use for this II. 1. We mention the Vniversity because many were turned out of their Fellowships there for non-subscribing c. 2. We would have the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy made necessary 3. The professed belief of the Scriptures and Creed we take to be needful to Admittance That which was the only ancient Catholick Profession should not be left out of ours 4. The professed Assent to the Doctrine of the Church of England and not only to approve it in tantum seâ—meth needful to satisfie the Suspicious and to shut out Papists and Hereticks from the comprehension 5. Yet the word approve as related to the Worship and Government though restrictively will on many Accounts be scrupled and that is needless 6. So absolutely as joyned to necessary is needful to avoid Ambiguity and just Scruple 7. The word promise requireth fuller certainty than resolve doth and it bindeth us not to alter our Iudgments which is not in our power in such a case 8. The Word continue is a needless and entangling Word and will deprive us of the use of the Indulgence if we should ever change our minds But if as some say it be only the Communion of Faith and Love such as we owe to Neighbour-Churches and not Subjection nor local presence in Worship let that be but expressed and every sober Person will promise it 9. To promise to preserve the Peace and Happiness of the Church is a fuller Word then to do nothing to disturb the peace and yet more clear and plainly relateth to the whole Church III. We put bowing at the Name of Iesus rather than c. to avoid the imputation of Impiety lest we be thought to be against bowing at that Name simply when it is but as comparatively and exclusively to others IV. 1. In case if it be thought fit c. We must suppose it thought fit 2. This whole Vndertaking is proper only to them that take a Cure and not for an occasional or set Lecturer 3. It will answer our Sense if you put it thus Shall read the Liturgy when satisfactorily altered and some considerable part 'till then if it be delayed 4. The profession of the Lawfulness is but a needless temptation as to him that is bound actually to use it 5. And the promise that it shall be constantly used may be hindered by sickness or so many Casualties that its much safer to bind them only by a Law 6. And then the Event only must be expressed that it be used by whose procurement soever so it be done I may think it unlawful to procure another to do that which I cannot do my self and yet some other may procure it In the Second Article I forgot to tell you That we annex the grant of the desired liberty after the Subscription lest else our hopes be frustrate when we have done all The Reasons of the added Articles are apparent in themselves The Sum of all our Reasons is It is confessed that our Phrase will serve the Ends of our Superiours and we are certain that they will satisfie a far greater number than the other will do and to their greater ease and quiet of Conscience that they may not feel themselves still pinched and uneasie and kept under desires of further changes And we are sure that we are much better able our selves to plead down Men's Objections if it be thus worded than as the other way And we would fain have this no patch or palliate Cure but such as may cause the now drooping Dissenters to rejoyce under the Government and to perceive it to be their Interest to defend it against all Attempters of a Change § 71. But because the grand stop in our Treaty was about Re-ordination and Dr. Wilkins still insisted on this That those Consciences must be accommodated who took them for no Ministers who were ordained without Bishops and some Words were 〈◊〉 into their Proposals which seemed to signifie a Reordination though he denied such a signification we were put to give in this following Paper The Reasons why we cannot consent to Reordination I. WE dare not causelesly consent to the use of such Words as imply an untruth viz. That such as were Ordained by Lawful Pastors and the Presidents of their Synods are not lawful Ministers of Christ in an Ecclesiastical Sense II. We dare not consent to the taking of God's Name in vain by using holy Expressions and a Divine Ordinance either as a Scenical Form or to confirm an Error III. We dare not causelesly go against the Iudgment of the Vniversal Church of all Ages who have condemned Reordination as they did Rebaptization The Canons called the Apostles deposing both the Ordainers and the Ordained IV. We dare not so far wrong the Protestant-Churches as to do that which importeth That their Ministry is null and consequently all their Churches null politically taken V. We dare not so far wrong all the People of England and all other Protestant-Churches who have lived under the Ministry of meer Presbyters or such Bishops as were Ordained only by Presbyters as to tempt them to think that all the Sacraments were nullities which they received and so that they are all unchristened or unbaptized even Denmark and those parts of Germany which have some kind of
enjoy what Success is such a Dispute like to have either with the People or with the Adversary will they not tell us our Church is invisible especially when these few Bishops are dead Except to Sect. 6. 2. Whether in this Worcestershire Association whosoever will enter into it doth not therein oblige himself to acknowledge that Presbyters while there remain alive fourteen or thirteen or twelve Catholick Protestant Bishops may proceed to publick Excommunications and Absolutions in foro Ecclesiastico without asking those Bishops Consent allowance or taking any notice of them See Resolution 12 13 14 15. and the Scope of the whole Book Reply to Sect. 6. To your second Question I answer The Term Excommunication we use not This Term is used to signify sometimes a delivering up to Satan and casting out of the Catholick Church sometimes only a Ministerial Declaration that such a Person should be avoided by the People acquainting them with their Duty and requiring them to perform it sometimes it signifies the Peoples actual Avoidance In the former Sense we have let it alone and that which you call your Excommunicatio Major we meddle not with much less do we usurp a compelling Power for the Execution The other we know to be consistent with the Principles of Episcopal Protestants if not also with Papists yea even when there is a Bishop resident in the Diocess it being but part of our teaching and guiding Office as Presbyters of that Congregation but I have said enough of this in my Explications already 2. But what if there be twelve latent Bishops in England when for my part I I hear not of above two or three have they Power not only to ordain but also to govern other Diocesses which have no Bishops Yea must they needs govern them 1. Woe then to the Churches of England that must live under such Guilt devoid of all Government 2. Woe to the Sinners themselves that must be left without Christ's Remedy 3. Woe to particular Christians that must live in the continual Breach of God's known Law that saith with such go not to eat c. for want of a Bishop to Execute it 4. Woe to the few Bishops that be for it all the Authority be in them then the Duty and Charge of executing it is only on them and then they are bound to Impossibilities one Bishop must Excommunicate all the Offenders in a great part of the Land when he is not sufficient to the hundredth part of the Work Then when all the Bishops in England are dead save one or two they are the sole Pastors of England and all Discipline must be cast away for want of their Sufficiency Then it seems the Death of one Bishop or two or three doth actually devolve their Charge to another and who knoweth which other This is new Canon Not only Protestant Bishops but some Papists confess that when a Bishop is dead the Government remains in the Presbyters till another be chosen sure they that govern the People at least with him whilst he is living as is confessed need not look on it as an alien supereminent transcendent Work when he is dead Bishop Bromhall against Mil. p. 127. gives People a Judgment of Discretion and Pastors a Judgment of Direction and to the chief Pastors a Judgment of Jurisdiction You may go well allow us by a Judgment of Direction to tell the People that they should avoid Communion with an open wicked Man even while a Bishop is over us Selden de Syne c. 8 9 10. and will tell you another Tale of the way of Antiquity in Excommunication and Absolution than you do hear But of this enough in the Books Except to Sect. 7. 3. Doth not he oblige himself also to acknowledge that not only Presbyters incommuni governing but one single one of them may proceed to Excommunicatiand Absolution in foro Ecclesiastico Reply to Sect. 7. Your third Question I answer by a Denial There is no such Obligation The Declaration of the Peoples Duty to avoid such an one is by one so is every Sermon so is your Episcopal Excommunication Doth not one and that a Presbyter declare or publish it But for advising and determining of it we have tyed our selves not to do it alone though for mine own private Opinion I doubt not easily to prove that one single Bishop or Pastor hath the Power of the Keys and may do all that we agree to do Except to Sect. 8. 4. That not only one single Presbyter but one whose Ordination was never by any Bishop to be Presbyter where also Bishops were that might have been sought unto hath that Power also of Excommunication c. Reply to Sect. 8. Your fourth is answered in the rest if his Ordination have only in the Judgment of Episcopal Protestants yea of some Papists an Irregularity but not a Nullity then he hath Power to do so much as we agree on Your Exception is as much against his other Ministrations Except to Sect. 9. I speak only of the Essence of their Association not insisting on what Mr. Baxter declares to the World that in some Cases the People not satisfied with the Bishops or Presbyters Ordination may accept or take a Man of themselves without any Ordination by Bishops or Presbyters to be their Pastor and Presbyter with Power of Excommunication and Absolution in himself alone without the People see p. 83. Reply to Sect. 9. That this may be done in some Cases I have lately disputed it with a learned Man of your Party and convinced him And methinks Nature should teach you if you were unordained but qualified by Gifts cast among the Indians that you should not let them perish for want of that publick constant teaching which is Ministerial or of Sacraments and Discipline only for want of Ordination that the Substance of Duty should not be thrown by for want of that Order which was instituted for its Preservation and not for its Destruction You dare scarce openly and plainly deny that Necessity warrants the Presbyters of the Reformed Churches to ordain And I doubt you allow it them then on no other grounds then what would warrant this that I am now pleading for Except to Sect. 10. And for any Votum or desire of Bishops Protest Bishops if they might have them or access unto them which was so oft the publick avowed Desire of the chiefest Reformers and Protestants beyond Sea much unlike the Spirit of our Presbyterians see what Mr. Baxter gives us to know p. 85. where comparing our present Bishops with a Leader in an Army he faith Nay it is hard trusting that Man again that hath betrayed us and the Church ibid. These have so apparently falsified their Trust that if we were fully resolved for Bishops yet we cannot submit to them for Ordination or Jurisdiction and then he proves it by Canon he thinks that the Presbyters now should not submit to the present Bishops by Canon Concilii Rbegien ut
that it 's necessary Necessitate praecepti and if you will Necessitate medii if you speak not of absolute Necessity ad esse Ordinationis but a lower Necessity as of a mutable means and ad bene esse Do you think this is good arguing The Holy Ghost hath revealed it to be the Will of Christ that a Bishop must be blameless and having faithful Children and be not soon angry Tit. 1. 6 7. One that ruleth well his own House having his Children in subjection with all Gravity 1 Tim. 3. 4 5 6. Ergo It is essential to a Bishop to have faithful Children to be blameless not to be soon angry c. O what an Interruption then is made in the Succession or is this good arguing It is the Will of Christ that a Christian should not speak an Idle Word Ergo He that speaks an idle Word is not a Christian Next you suppose your self questioned How you know that it was Christ's Mind and Will that Imposition of Hands should be used in the Ordination of Ministers and you confess 1. That you have neither express nor implicite Command for it 2. But conclude that Christ's Mind may be otherwise known I confess I like this Passage worse than all the rest of your Writing 1. I can find both implicite and in a large sense explicite Commands for it in the Word of God 1 Tim. 5. 22. Heb. 6. 2. 1 Tim. 4. 14. at least an implicite that is unquestionably plain 2. If you had confessed as readily only this that there was no Word of God implicite or explicite to prove the Essentiality of Imposition of Hands to Ordination then I should have believed you But you will needs do more and do much to destroy the very Duty of Imposition while you are pleading it so essential so unhappy are extream Courses and so sure a way is overdoing to undoing Yet with me you give up the Cause of the supposed Essentiality in disclaiming Scripture Precept implicite 3. I perceive it is your Judgment that there are Duties essential to Ordination and consequently without which in your Judgment there is no Ministry and no Church which have no Command in Scripture no not so much as implicite And consequently that Scripture is not God's only Word for revealing supernaturally or his sufficient Law for obliging to Duties of universal standing necessity but he hath another Word called Tradition which revealeth one part of his Mind as the Scripture doth the other and another Law obliging as aforesaid This is the great Master Difference between the Reformed Churches and the Romanists of which so much is said by Whittaker Chamier Baronius and Multitudes more that it 's meerly vain for me to meddle with it For I take it for granted that you would not venture to disclaim the Reformed Churches in this Point till you had well read the chief of their Writers That were to venture your Peace and Safety to save you a Labour At least I hope you have read Chillingworth Yet I must tell you that some moderate Papists confess that the written Word containeth all things of absolute necessity to Salvation but I doubt you do not so for I think you will say that ordinarily there is no Salvation without the Church and Ministry and no Ministry without Ordination and no Ordination without Imposition of Hands and no Imposition of Hands by any Scripture Command so much as implicite Yea it seems you take not up this Course on any strongly-apparent Necessity when such Cases as this will put you on it and you are so willing to make the Scripture silent where it speaks plainly that you may prove a necessity of another Word I do confess the necessity of Tradition to deliver us safe the Scripture it self the Cabinet with the Treasure and the certainty of Tradition in seconding Scripture by handing down to us the Articles of our Câ—eed and Substance of Christianity in and against which the Church 〈…〉 in sensu composito because so erring unchurcheth it But this will not 〈…〉 necessity of another Law besides the written Law for it is opus subordinaâ—â—â—◠〈…〉 not the part of a Law nor belongs to it's sufficiency to publish pro 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈…〉 conserve it self But it belongs to it's Sufficiency to contain all the standing matter of Duty in Specie where the Species is permanently due and in genere only with Directions for determining of the Species when the said Species is of uncertain unconstant mutable Dueness He that faith a Duty of so great and standing necessity is not so much as implicitely commanded in Scripture doth plainly say that besides the Scripture which is insufficient God hath either another more perfect Law for Supernaturals or else another part to add to the Scripture to make it perfect Your Addition mollifieth the Matter in Terms but I doubt scarce in Sense for when you say that the Texts where Imposition of Hands is spoken of commented upon by the universal Practice of the Church from the first Age till this wild exorbitant last Century seems a clear Evidence what the Will of Christ is c. I very much like the Words and Sense which they in propriety express viz. That in a Matter of Fact where Scripture is obscure the Practice of the first second or third Centuries may be an excellent Commentary that is a help to understand them much more the Practice of the universal Church in all Ages But I must tell you that it is not the Work of a Commentary on the Laws expresly to add such Precepts about matters of such very great Concernment as is the very being of the Republick which are neither expresly or implicitly in the Law it self I must judge therefore that you make the Churches Practice a real Law though you thought meet to give it but the Title of a Comment And I scarce approve of your comparative Terms of the Centuries as bad as this is What! hath this Century which hath been the only reforming Age been worse than that before it whose Corruptions it reformed and worse than that of which Bellarmine saith Hoc seculo nullum extitit indoctius vel infoelicius quo qui Mathematicae aut Philosophiae operam dabat Magus vulgo putabatur and that of which Espencaeus saith that Graecè nosce suspectum fuerit Hebraicum propè Haereticum What worse than the four or five foregoing Centuries wherein Murderers Traytors common Whoremongers Sodomites Hereticks were the pretended Heads of the Church and grosly ignorant superstitious and wicked ones were the conspicuous part of the Body Will you appeal from this Century to those Did you not even now confess that it is admirably worth our Consideration that when God stirred up the drowzy World to depart from Rome's Superstitions and Idolatries he bowed the Hearts of some of the Church-Officers to go along with them Rome then was idolatrous We departed from it God stirred Men up and bowed their Hearts thereto I confess you
Publick Worship which yet Mahometans offer him some it is Schism not to obey But if the Bishop do but say the word we may meet daily without Schism and the Place Person Exercise that before was Schismatical if he do but licence them are presently lawful So that the Bishop's word against the King's yea against God's command to preach in season and out can make a thing Schism and his word can make it none again in a moment 17. Whether it be Schism to go to a better Minister in another Parish in the same Diocess though we separate from no Church in their sense the Diocesan being the lowest proper Church is not well agreed on Feigning Schisms is making Schism by turbulent noise and 〈◊〉 Accusations We that impose on no Man and that obey them in lawful things that we for Universal Love and Peace even with that meet in different Assemblies and in different Forms we that hold Communion with all true Churches as aforesaid and yet because we can be but in one place at once do choose the best obeying God's Command Let all things be done to edification and knowing best what edifieth our selves we suppose are farther from Schism than those that as from the Throne of Authority pronounce Schism and never help us to understand the sense and reason of their words but use it as for the advantage of their Cause And as one lately writeth Have led that Bear so long about the streets till the Boy lay by fear and do but laugh at it Nor are there many more effectual Causes of Schism and that harden true Schismaticks against all Conviction then when it is seen that Men of Contention Pride and Worldly Interest first make the Schism by sinful or impossible terms of Unity and next falsly call the most Innocent that obey not their Domination Schismaticks and the greatest Duties even Preaching where many and many thousands have no Preaching nor no Publick Worship of God by the Name of Schism as if we must let London turn Heathens for fear of being Schismaticks Dear Friend though these things have these Forty years had my deep and I hope impartial thoughts and I dare not for a thousand Worlds think to do otherwise than I do in the main yet I shall heartily thank you if by true light you help me to see any Errour which I yet perceive not And seeing Experience hath justly taught you to dread Anabaptistry and Separation think further 1. Whether they that forbid Parents to enter their Children into Covenant with God in Baptism and lay all that Office on those that have no power to covenant in their names nor shew any purpose to perform what they promise and deny Baptism as aforesaid to the Children of such as submit not to this and the Cross be not quantum in se Destroyers of Infant Baptism which is no Baptism if there be no Covenant 2. Again Whether they be not Separatists that both un-Church all the Parish-Churches quantum in se and also deny Communion with the Nonconformists Churches as null or unlawful even when they had his Majesties Licence Be impartial against Antipedobaptists and Separatists I constantly heard and communicated with the Parish-Church where I lived but the Conformists usually fly from the Nonconformists Assemblies as unlawful but if both sides were heard in their Charge against the other I know which would have the more to say Accept this freedom from the unfeigned Love of Your much obliged Friend Rich. Baxter May 13. 1626. The Instances promised you I. WHen I was cast out at Kidderminster and you know what a Minister was there I offered while the Indulgence of the King's Declaration continuâ—d to have been the Reading Vicar's Curate and to have preached for nothing and could not prevail I was by the Bishop forbidden to preach in his Diocess and when I offered him to preach only Catechistical Principles to some poor Congregation that else must have none he told me It was better they had none than me My presence at Kidderminster was thought so dangerous that Force was assigned to have apâ—â—â—hend me and had I stayed it must have been in the Jail and many another for my sake When I was forced away at Venner's Rising I wrote but a Letter to my Mother in-â—aw and it was way-laid intercepted opened and sent up to the Court though there was nothing concerning them in it but some sharp Invectives against the Rebellion which my Lord Chancellour acknowledging caused my Lord Windsor personally to bring me back my Letter so that I durst not write to them of many years My Neighbours I had perswaded to do as you advise to joyn in the Publick Church and help each other as private Men and for so doing repeating Sermons and praying and singing a Psalm many of them lay long among Rogues in the Common Jail and others of them impoverished by Fines II. When I came to live at Acton I drew all the People constantly to Church that were averse sometime I repeated the Parsons Sermon and sometimes taught such as came to my House between the Sermons When the Reverend Parson saw them come into Church he would fall upon them c. And not being able to bear my little Endeavours for their Instruction he caused me to be sent to the Common Jail not one Witness or Person being suffered to come into the Room while I was examined and committed III. I am now in a Parish where some Neighbours say that there are Fourscore thousand Souls suppose they be fewer Not above Two thousand of all these can hear in the Parish Church so that it 's like above Sixty thousand have no Church to go to no not so much as to hear the Scripture or the Common-Prayer Here I need not tell you what Prohibitions I have had and what my Endeavours to teach a few Publickly have lost me and others And lately because one that preached for me did without my knowledge at the importunity of a Parent Baptize a poor man's Child when they told him it was in danger of death the Curate of the Parish came to my House to expostulate the matter when yet many are baptized by Papist Priests for want of others to do it as they say I never my self Baptized a Child or administred the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper these fifteen years but ordinarily received it in the Parish Church at Totterridge and elsewhere one of the first times that I received it in private a Bullet was shot into the Room among us and came near to the Heads of divers of us I never gathered any Church from among them and yet have been usually the first sought after to be imprisoned or ruined in each assault and was put to sell my Goods and Books to save them from Distress Near me in the same Parish liveth Mr. Gabriel Sanger the late Incumbent Pastor of the Parish a Man of Age and Gravity great Moderation and Peaceableness and far from
against Prelacy in Specie and to let their Places and Honours die with them The Government may be so altered without putting out any Man if none be put in to succeed them when they die 2. And what if the King continue them as Church-Magistrates only to do what his own Officers may do to keep the Churches Peace as Justices and continue their Baronies and their Lands and Places in Parliament and only reform the pretended Spiritual Power of the Keys would not this have been a taking down of Prelacy without the wrong of any 3. Or what if he had taken down all their Power and given them a Writ of Ease and therewith left them durante vita their Estates and Honours Would this have been any injury to them 4. If Prelacy be as sinful as the Non-Subscribers foregoing Arguments would prove can it be injustice to save a Man from Sin and Hell and to save all the Churches from such Calamity for some fleshly abatements that follow to a few Persons 5. Was it injustice to put down the Abbots Or cannot King and Parliament do good by Laws to the Church or Commonwealth whenever a single Person or a few do suffer by it 6. Especially where the Maintenance is Publick and given for the Work and the Work is for the Publick Good Doth any Prince scruple the removing of an intolerable Pilot or Captain from a Ship Or an intolerable Minister from the Church Or an intolerable Officer from the Court though it be to his loss For my part I never accused them for casting out so many Hundred Ministers from their Livings or Benefices upon supposition that it be no wrong to Christ and Mens Souls to cast us out of the Church but should rather justifie it § 383. 11. The last and not the weakest Reason against the Obligation of the Covenant is That if it were lawful before for subjects to petition and Parliament Men to speak and vote against Prelacy yet now it is not because by this Act the Parliament hath made it unlawful Answ. 1. The Parliament doth only declare their sense of a thing past that no Man is bound and not enact by a Law that no Man shall henceforth be bound 2. If it had been otherwise all Protestants confess that neither Pope nor any Earthly Power can dispense with Oaths and Vows 3. They do not so much as prohibit all Men to endeavour an alteration of Government in the Church but only forbid them to say That they are bound to it by the Covenant 4. They have allowed Subjects to petition for the change of Laws so they do it but ten at a time 5. The Parliament is not by any Man to be accused of such a Subversion of Liberties and of Parliaments Priviledges and of the Constitution of the Kingdom as to forbid Subjects petitioning and all Parliament Men speaking and to disable the King and Parliament from changing a Law when they see cause If they should do any of this the Charges now brought against the Long Parliament would teach and allow us to suppose all to be null 6. If the Laws of God be against Prelacy those oblige above all Humane Laws And he that should forbid another to save him or his Neighbour when he is drowning doth not by that prohibition make the saving of them unlawful before God § 384. Now to the Latitudinarians addition of Reasons de modo sensu 1. They say that the Act extendeth not to the King at all when it biddeth us subscribe that there is no Obligation on me or any other person for Laws being made for Subjects are to be interpreted only of Subjects unless when the King is named To this it is easily answered That they distinguish not between the King as the Subject of a Law and the King as the Object of my Assertion or Belief It 's true that the Law speaketh of Subjects only whenever it speaketh of the Duty of Subjects and the King is no Subject But it is as true that the Law speaketh of the King only whenever it speaketh of the Prerogatives of the Crown and Soveraignty and as the Object of the Subjects Acts of Loyalty The question is not here Who is commanded by this Act but who is obliged by the Covenant or Vow And if I be commanded to say that no person is obliged without any limitation I can with no reason except the King whom the Law excepteth not Princes may be obliged by Vows as well as others and their Obligations may be the Subject of our Assertions and Belief § 385. 2. The second Reason is Because the King's Government is part of that whose alteration is declared against therefore be can be none of the any other persons Answ. 1. So the Prelates are the Persons whose Government is here mentioned and yet no doubt they are included in the any other persons as their Chancellors Commissaries Deans c. 2. If the King may be included when it is said That no Man must extirpate Monarchy no not the King much more when it is said That no Man may extirpate Prelacy for there the reason of the Objection faileth § 386. 3. They further say That the Act meaneth only that no Man is bound by the Vow to endeavour against Law as by Rebellion Sedition Treason c. and not that Subjects may not petition Parliament Men speak or King and Parliament alter the Law which they prove because it was taking up Arms and illegal Actions only that the old Parliament was blamed for Answ. This one pretence hath drawn abundance of laudable Persons to Subscribe but how unsatisfactory it is may thus appear 1. Why then could it never be procured to have the word unlawfully put into the Act when it was know that in that sence none of us would have scrupled it 2. All Casuists agree that Universal Terms in or about Oaths and Vows must not be understood any otherwise than Universally without apparent cogent Reason On such Terms as these else a Man may take any Oath in the World or disclaim any The Parliament hath exactly tyed Subscribers to the particular words and they long deliberated to express their own sence And they say neither I nor any other person and now cometh an Expositor and saith The King is not the any other person What! Is he no Person or is he not another Person So they say no Obligation lieth on us to endeavour and the Latitudinarian saith That I may endeavour it and that they mean no Endeavour but unlawful This contradictory Exception and Exposition is against all common Use and Justice and such as will allow a Man to cheat the State by saying or unsaying any thing in the World 3. We have many a time told some Latitudinarians how this matter may be soon decided if they will The Parliament hath past another Act with the self same words in it making it Confiscation for any Man to say That he or any other person is
as that the Bishop of the lowest degree instead of ruling one Church with the Presbyters ruleth many hundred Churches by Lay-Chancellors who use the Keys of Excommunication and Absolution c. And they take it for an Act of Rebellion against God if they should Swear never to do the Duty which he commandeth and so great a Duty as Church-Reformation in so great a Matter If it were but never to pray or never to amend a fault in themselves they durst not Swear it 12. This Oath seemeth to be the same in Sence with the Et caetora Oath in the Canons of 1640. That we will never consent to an alteration of the Government by Arch-Bishops Bishops Deans c. And one Parliament voted down that and laid a heavy charge upon it which no Parliament since hath taken off 13. As the National Vow and Covenant seemeth a great Snare to hinder the Union of the Church among us in that it layeth our Union on an exclusion of Prelacy and so excludeth all those learned worthy Men from our Union who cannot consent to that Exclusion so the laying of the Kingdoms and Churches Union upon the English Prelacy and Church-Government so as to exclude all that cannot consent to it doth seem as sure an Engine of Division We think that if our Union be centered but in Christ the King of all and in the King as his Officer and our Soveraign under him it may be easie and sure But if we must all unite in the English Frame of Prelacy we must never Unite § 15. Those that take the Oath do as those that Subscribe resolve that they will understand it in a lawful Sense be it true or false and so to take it in that Sense To which end they say that nullum iniquum est in Lege praesumendum and that all publick Impositions must be taken in the best Sense that the Words will bear And by force and stretching what words may not be well interpreted But the Nonconformists go on other grounds and think that about Oaths Men must deal plainly and sincerely and neither stretch their Consciences nor the Words nor interpret universal Terms particularly but according to the true meaning of the Law-givers as far as they can understand it and where they cannot according to the proper and usual signification of the Words And the Parliament themselves tell us That this is the true Rule of interpreting their Words Beyond which therefore we dare not stretch them § 16. And therefore 14. They dare not take the Oath because if it be not to be taken in the proper or ordinary Sense of the Words then they are sure that they cannot understand it for it doth not please the Parliament to expound it And Oaths must be taken in Truth Judgment and Righteousness and not ignoranatly when we know that we understand them not § 17. The Lawyers even the honestest are commonly for a more stretching Exposition And those that speak out say That an illegal Commission is none at all But we our selves go further than this would leads us for we judge That even an illegally commissioned Person is not to be resisted by Arms except in such Cases as the Law of Nature or the King himself by his Laws or by a contrary Commission alloweth us to resist him But if Commissions should be contradictory to each other or to the Law we know not what to Swear in such a case § 18. But because much of the Case may be seen in these following Questions which upon the coming out of that Act I put to an able worthy and sincere Friend with his Answers to them I will here Insert them viz. Serjeant Fountain Queries upon the Oxford Oath We presuppose it commonly resolved by Casuists in Theology from the Law of Nature and Scripture 1. That Perjury is a Sin and so great a Sin as tendeth to the ruin of the Peace of Kingdoms the Life of Kings and the Safety of Mens Souls and to make Men unfit for Humane Society Trust or Converse till it be repented of 2. That he that Sweareth contrary to his Iudgment is Perjured though the thing prove true 3. That we must take an Oath in the Imposer's Sense as near as we can know it if he be our Lawful Governour 4. That an Oath is to be taken sensu strictiore and in the Sense of the Rulers Imposing it if that be known if not by the Words interpreted according to the common use of Men of that Profession about that subject And Vniversals are not to be interpreted as Particulars nor must we limit them and distinguish without very good proof 5. That where the Sense is doubtful we are first to ask which is the probable Sense before we ask which is is the best and charitablest Sense and must not take them in the best Sense when another is more probable to be the true Sense Because it is the Truth and not the Goodness which the Vnderstanding first considereth Otherwise any Oath almost imaginable might be taken there being few Words so bad which are not so ambiguous as to bear a good Sense by a forced Interpretation And Subjects must not cheat their Rulers by seeming to do what they do not 6. But when both Senses are equally doubtful we ought in Charity to take the best 7. If after all Means faithfully used to know our Rulers Sense our own Vnderstandings much more incline to think one to be their meaning than the other we must not go against our Vnderstandings 8. That we are to suppose our Rulers fallible and that it 's possible their decrees may be contrary to the Law of God but not to suspect them without plain cause These things supposed we humbly crave the Resolution of these Questions about the present Oath and the Law Qu. 1. Whether upon any pretence whatsoever refer not to any Commissionated by him as well as to the King himself 2. Whether not lawful extendeth only to the Law of the Land or also to the Law of God in Nature 3. Whether I Swear that it is not lawful do not express my peremptory certain Determination and be not more than I Swear that in my Opinion it is not lawful 4. What is the Traytorous Position here meant for here is only a Subject without a Praedicate which is no Position at all and is capable of various Praedicates 5. If the King by Act of Parliament commit the Trust of his Navy Garrison or Militia to one durante vita and should Commissionate another by force to eject him whether both have not the King's Authority or which 6. If the Sheriff raise the Posse Commitatus to suppress a Riot or to execute the Decrees of the Courts of Justice and fight with any Commissioned to resist him and shall keep up that Power while the Commissioned Persons keep up theirs which of them is to be judged by the Subjects to have the King's Authority 7. If a Parliament or a