Selected quad for the lemma: sense_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
sense_n	catholic_n	church_n	universal_a	1,773	5	9.0565	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A27046	A third defence of the cause of peace proving 1. the need of our concord, 2. the impossibility of it, on the terms of the present impositions against the accusations and storms of, viz., Mr. John Hinckley, a nameless impleader, a nameless reflector, or Speculum, &c., Mr. John Cheny's second accusation, Mr. Roger L'Strange, justice, &c., the Dialogue between the Pope and a fanatic, J. Varney's phanatic Prophesie / by Richard Baxter.	Baxter, Richard, 1615-1691.	1681 (1681)	Wing B1419; ESTC R647	161,764	297

Doctrine Worship or Religious Ministration for the Ministration of the word and Sacraments and Keys is already appointed by Christ And the Office or Order is specified by the work and terminus and a new Office hath new work But in the same species of Religious Ministration there are abundance of accidentals and circumstances and Princes or consenting Churches may give men power in those accordingly But not to forbid what Christ commanded nor destroy the works and power of his Institution And if they that are for other superiour or co-ordinate species of Church-power besides what is afore-granted say that it is a lawful humane Ordinance 1. Those that say Princes only may make it confess the Church had none that was lawful for three hundred years And they must prove the Commission 2. Those that say the Inferiour Bishops made it by consent 1. feign Inferiours to have power to make a power above their own which is more than for Presbyters to ordain their like 2. Why may not Archbishops then make Patriarks and they a Pope ad summum ascendendo 3. They must prove their power and that they are so far equal to Apostles who yet were but to teach the Nations what Christ commanded them which these Men know not but by the Scripture 4. What Man maketh Man may unmake And how came we to be less free than our Ancestors that made such Offices XLI In my Book of Concord where this is granted yet I say that let Church-Patriarchs Metropolitans Primates Archbishops or Diocesans like ours that have no Bishops under them be never so probably maintained to be lawful yea and desirable yet the uniting in them by consent and approbation will never become the terms or way of Universal Concord which I have fully proved even all that is true and good will never be the terms of Universal Concord nor just Christian Communion much less that which hath so much matter of doubt and great suspition of evil But I will live in Christian love peace and submission my self on terms uncapable of common concord or my own approbation of the things as imposed or done by all others XLII Lay-Chancellours may do what belongeth to a Magistrate but not use the Church-Keyes nor be the Church-Judges of Mens Communion because Christ hath Instituted the Sacred Office for it XLIII A Church is Ens Politicum in the sense in hand and the form of it is Relative in the predicament of Relation XLIV The parts of the Universal Church are similar and dissimilar more simple or more compound And the word whole applyed to a part disproveth not its being a part of the whole Christian world or Church A whole hand foot head c. is part of a whole Body and a whole Body part of a whole Man and a whole Man part of a whole Family and a whole Family part of a whole street and that of a whole City and that of a whole County or Kingdom A whole Colledge of a whole University c. All Members save Souls and Atomes are compounds XLV When we call all the Christian world The Catholick Church and call e. g. Hippo A or the Catholick Church the word Catholick and The are not univocal In the later we mean only The Church at Hippo which holds the true Catholick Faith and is a true part of the Catholick Church in the first sense Penuria nominum necessaria reddit aequivoca XLVI Particular Churches are Visible in the Regent and Governed parts The Universal Church is Visible in the Governed part and in the Head only so far as he was once on Earth and is now visible in Heaven his Court and will be visible at last to all and ruleth by visible Laws but not as a Head now visible on Earth nor is this any deformity to his Church nor any reason why it may not be called Visible as I have fully proved in two Books against W. Johnson alias Terret XLVII Those that deny an Universal Visible Church differ only de nowine not de re They only deny any Universal Regent power Monarchical or Aristocratical or Democratical under Christ but I know no Christian that ever denyed the fore-described XLVIII Forma dat esse Divers constitutive forms or specifying differences make divers Essences Therefore the form of a Troop being the Captains Government differs from the form of a Regiment which is the Colonels Governing Relation and both from the forms of the Army which is the Generals The formal Essence of a Colledge is divers from that of an University and of a Family from a Corporation or City and that from a Kingdom And as forma dat nomen they have divers names A Family quatalis is not a Kingdom c. Reader forgive the mention of these things which Children know and till now I never read or heard any man deny or question In that which followeth you shall see the Reasons that excuse me CHAP. III. What Mr. Cheyney saith against these things And 1. Of Church-Forms and Essence § 1. THough it tempt me not to Conformity as the way of Concord where I see the great difference of such as plead for it amongst themselves yet I must do that right to the Conformists as to tell the world that they must not be judged of by Mr. Ch 's opinions and that I know no other Conformist or Non-conformist of his mind about Church-Forms § 2. But I must add that his Case doth increase my Conviction against himself and them that their Conformity is so far from being the necessary Cement that it is utterly destructive of it as so imposed and that it must be on few plain necessary things that common concord must be held or we must have none Mr. Ch. thinks me one who may be endured in the Ministry and I think so by him and yet how far easier and plainer than our Controversies of Conformity are those things in which we differ to the height of his following Accusations If none should be endured that cannot Covenant Swear Subscribe Declare and Practice as is required how much less can such as he and I be endured in one Church if we differ as he saith we do O what pardon and forbearance doth our peace require § 3. Of Church-Forms and Essence hear some of his Judgment Pag. 3. The several Congregations and Assemblies of Pastors and People throughout the Kingdom are not limbs and parcels of a Church but they are so many Churches consisting of a Pastor Governing and people governed joyning together in publick worship It is called the Church of England as all the Christian Pastors and people throughout the world are called the Universal Church One Church of which Christ is the transcendent Head I do not see but it is proper to call all the Christian Pastors and people of England One Church P. 6. Christ is the Head of the Church of England and under Christ all the Parish-Ministers are subordinate Guides and Rulers of their Flocks

an Universal Head or Government over all the Pastors Churches and Christians in the world besides Christ and you say this is of Divine Institution and you lay the concord of all the Churches upon it Do but grant the Papists this one assertion that particular Churches as headed by their respective Pastors are parts and members of the Universal Church as a City is of a Kingdom and overthrow the Popes headship over all if you can It will follow that there must be besides Christ an Universal Ecclesiastical Monarch on Earth either personal or collective who must have the Supreme power P. 96. But indeed you have gone beyond Bellarmine in seting up Papal Monarchy Your other assertion sets up Atheism by making the Holy God the Author and Founder of two essentially different Churches or Church-Forms According to Bellarmines assertion for the Pope there would be Pastors c. But according to your assertion all the world must be Atheists of no Religion at all P. 224 225. Your division of the Church into Universal and particular is plainly against that Rule in Logick Membra omnis bonae divisionis debent esse inter se opposita But in this your division the Membra dividentia are not inter se opposita you oppose the same thing against itself You make the Church at Corinth a particular Church The whole or the Universal Church at Corinth is sound and good You plainly leave out of your description the differencing Form or token of that which you call a particular Church and that is Neighbourhood or dwelling or abiding in this or that place you make a new essential of Church-Membership and Church-Communion and lay the peace of all the Churches on it and say it is Divine sure harmless fitted to the interest of all good men This startles me I strive to be silent and cannot The more I strive the more I am overcome Mr. Cawdrey was lately with me and we had Conference about this point suspecting mine own judgment I have conferred with divers about your other Notions two Churches or two Church-Forms differing essentially and they cannot apprehend how it can stand you make the Universal Church-Form and the particular Church-Form to differ essentially and this by Divine Law I prove to you from the nature of the thing it self and the express word of God that the Universal Church of God at Corinth and the particular Church of God at Corinth are one and the same To oppose the Universal and particular Church and say they differ essentially is to oppose the same thing against itself and make the Lord Jesus Christ the Authour and Founder of selfsubverting Principles P. 226 227. As for that other point of the Church particular being part of the Church Universal it is to say that the whole Church at Corinth is a part of the whole Church which is absurd Reader I must not Transcribe the whole Book the rest is too like this exercise your patience in receiving a short Answer to the several parts which seemeth needful CHAP. IV. A Defence against the foresaid Accusations § 1. WHat Christians heart can choose but mourn for the Church of God and the puzzling confounding temptations of the ignorant that must hear men charged thus publickly with Atheism and the overthrow of all Religion for that which the Christian world agreeth in and this by Preachers of professed humility sincerity and zeal How shall the unlearned know when they are safe yea what snares are thus laid to rob men of their time as well as their Faith and Charity I must not give such lines their proper names but I will say that it remembreth me of Isa 1. 6. and it cryeth out unclean unclean How few words of Truth and soberness and soundness can you number among all these Had he written and published it in his sleep as some talk and walk it were some excuse But for a Man a Minister awake and after publick admonition deliberately on consultation a second time to talk at this rate in the Press And yet cannot we be endured without their Ceremonies c. When the Friendly Debater and Mr. Shurlocke have compared such Books as this with those that they reprehended perhaps they will say Iliacos intramuros c. To begin at the end I am sorry to read what he saith of the Divers he Conferred with c. 1. I never till now read or heard Papist Protestant or any Christian of his mind And alas are divers of it now Are Conformists come to that Either they were at Manhood or in breeches at least or not If not he should have chosen other Counsellers If yea were they Laymen or Clergymen He was to blame if he took up with the former alone in such a case If the later he greatly disgraceth them But we must say somewhat of our Atheistical Errours The beginning of his words which say the same thing which he so abominateth I will not charge with contradiction in sence from the rest for if he mean the same thing by One and Two A Church and no Church A part and no part Yea and Nay they are no contradictions in sence And indeed I cannot perceive that he understandeth what he readeth and answereth nor well what he saith And therefore I am not sure when I understand him but I will review some of the things that his words seem to accuse in order § I. The Universal Church as I defined it is a True Church Proved Where there is a true Church-Head and a Body of all Christians on earth united and subjected to that Head by mutual consent and Covenant there is a true Universal Church but such is that which I named and defined as the Church Universal Ergo. The Major is from the definition to the thing denominated As to the Minor 1. That Christ is the True Head 2. And all Christians the Universal true body visible as Baptized and mystical as Heart-Covenanters 3. And that mutual Covenanting is a sufficient bond for this Church-union the Christian Reader will chide me if I stay to prove § 11. Particular Churches existent are true Churches in Essence Proved to him 1. He oft confesseth this and the former 2. A true pars dirigens pars subdita necessarily qualified ad esse and united in those relations for Church-ends are a true particular Church But such are many existent particular Churches and all that I defined Ergo. 1. That a true Bishop at least with his Presbyters is a true pars dirigens 2. And a qualified flock a true pars subdita 3. And that such are found united in these relations I will take for granted with the Reader except Mr. Ch. And the Major is the definition § III. That the Relative union of the governing Part or nearest Head to the Governed body is the specifying form The proof being de Ente politico notione Logicâ is the consent of all Politicks Logicks and use of speech by the professours

Teaching some men are angry with them if they will care whether they are taught or untaught Of all Merchandize I love not making Merchandize of Souls But I pray you dream not that I take all the old Ministry for such as these I know there are many excellent men But I think the present Non-conformists as fit for the Sacred Office as these Is that presumption § 10. p. 10. I thank you for your transitions and purposed brevity To requite you 1. Your first Paragraph doth but say in effect 1. That you untruly suppose me to meddle with the Controversie which I do but wish for leave to meddle with 2. And that you think many things good which I think to be stark naught But because you call me so oft to Dispute the main Controversie I tell you once that it is disingeniously done still in Print and Writing to call for more as if we had never done any thing in it while our Printed Books lie by you unanswered Answer my Fifth Dispute of Church Government 1. In the Point of Prelacy 2. Of Reordination 3. Of Impositions and then call out for more when you have done Or if you have more time Answer Baine's Diocesanes Tryal Robert Parker de Polit. Eccles Blondel de Episcopis where Dr. Hammond left at the entrance One quarter of the Reasons of our Non-conformity is contained in these Books and some are in Ames his fresh Suit and Nicols and Bradshaw but the most are upon a new account which our Fathers were not put upon 2. I am ashamed to Read a Preacher a Writer an Accuser of the afflicted to talk of the dreadfull subject of Oaths so poorly as you do Though I tell you I will not dispute this Point with you without a License from Authority I will say 1. That when you say Take an unlawfull Oath in what sense you please and will there be much need of absolution You should not so confusedly have Named an Unlawfull Oath Remember that you have proved against me that a Question may be false And that an Indefinite in renecessariâ or thus unlimitedly delivered goeth for an Universal an Oath is unlawfull 1. Quoad actum imponendi 2. Quoad actum jurandi 3. Quoad materiam juratam If the Materia Jurata be Lawfull do you think that the unlawfulness of the other two do leave no need of an Absolution 1. What if a Thief force me to swear Allegiance to the King or to swear to do some Duty doth it not add a Second bond Or what if I vowed without the Command of any power 2. What if I sinned in making a Vow or Oath by taking it from a Usurper or without just Cause or unreasonably or to an ill end c. If the Matter be good doth it not then bind me And de materiâ what if one Article or many be bad and another good doth the Neighbourhood of the bad disoblige me from the good If so it is but inserting some bad Clauses and men may be bound by no Oaths or Vows as in the former Case It is but swearing sinfully to an ill end c. and never be obliged But if this be your Divinity about Oaths and Perjury you have no cause to censure them so deeply that swear not as quick and deep as you Your next Question is Must the sense of an Oath be measured by him that receiveth it or ●rom the Authority and Intention of those that im●ose it Answer Still worse and worse what Confusion is here Who knoweth whether by ●easuring the sense you mean as to the taking of the ●ath or as to the Obligation of it when taken Your Must seemeth to speak of both But 1. He ●hat taketh an Oath from one in lawful Authority ●r from an Equal is bound to take it in the sense ●f the Imposer or Requirer whom we would sa●isfie 2. He that taketh an Oath from a Thief ●r Murtherer some Casuists say Is bound not ●o lie to hide his sense but may take it in a sense ●ifferent from the Imposers when the plain words ●ill bear it without a Lie As if a Thief or Tray●r should force the King to swear that he will do ●his or that which hath an equivocal Name If ●he Traytor 's sense be not according to the Com●oner use or defaniosiore analega●o but the King 's they think that the King is not bound to wear in his sense though yet he may be bound ●o swear to save his life 3. But our Case is only ●e obligatione juramenti praestandi If a man that ●as bound to take the Oath in a Usurpers sense ●hall either mistake the Usurpers sense or shall ●ke it in another sense as supposing that he is not ●ound to the Usurpers I say that this man if ●e make this A VOW to God and not only an ●ath to Man is bound to keep it in the sense he ●ok it in if it were materially lawful If I Vow to ●ive so much to a Minister of Christ and he that ●rced me to it meant a Mass Priest and I mistook ●im and meant a true Minister I am bound by ●y Vow to give it him If your confused Question suppose the contrary then a man's Vows to God are all null if he that forced him to it were of another sense A meer Oath to confirm a Contract to a man is to be interpreted by the Contract being but an Obligation to perform it yea and may be remitted by the man that will remit his Right But in a Vow God and Man are the Parties and God's sense imposing and Man's sense intending in the Vow are each obliging So that if ten men use the same words in Vowing in ten several senses they are ten several Vows and all oblige if materially lawful And therefore when you say that the Vow was commanded by Usurpers and when I know not the sense of one that vowed let him that will say of Millions that they are not bound no not when they vow against Schism and Prophaneness But you cite here a Non conformist against me Amesius Case Consc to you p. 216. to me p. 203. But 1. He speaketh not at all of our Questions In what sense an Oath bindeth when taken but only in what sense it ought to be taken 2. He speaketh not of a Vow but of a meer Oath 3. He speaketh only of the Case of Equivocation but he that sweareth in sensu famosiore to a Thief whose mind he is not bound to follow doth not equivocate 4. He himself saith in the next Case that the words of an Oath must be taken Eo sensu quem audientes concepturos judicamus id est regulariter eo sensu quem habent in Communi hominum usu But the Audientes and the Imposers may be different and a man may think sometimes that the Imposers sense may be contrary to the usum communem and his own agreeable to it But this impertinent Question is nothing to

and many Adulteries with Citizens Wives And it is most to be noted That they who after his flight reformed the Civil Government were strong Papists and mainly opposed the reformation of Religion I shall recite no more out of this Episcopal Doctor Prebend of Canterbury but desire you again to read page 23 24. What changed Luther's mind to own the Protestants Arms against the Emperour And page 32 33. What King James saith to vindicate the French Protestants I never knew yet that the French Protestants took Arms against their King c. And that Cap. 3. pag. 64 to 73. He cites the Confessions of all the Churches the Augustane the French the Belgick the Helvetian the Bohemian the Saxonian the Swevian the English as consenting for Obedience to their Soveraigns But all this is nothing to you that can say nothing of worth against it Neither the Vindication of their Principles or Practice But unrighteous Judge I am with you partial and unequal 1. Because I told you that you should not have set down the bare Names of T. C. and Travers as a Charge without citing what they say And is not that true Is that an unequal expectation And what if I had added That had you proved them guilty it had not concerned any of us or our Discipline or Principles till you had proved that we had owned the same And is that unequal O Justice 2. Because I said I will no further believe Bancroft or Sir Th. Aston then they prove what they say No nor you neither Must I believe Adversaries accusing Parties without proof and such Adversaries too Why must I believe them more than Heylin or more than Doctor Moulin afore-cited believed the English Tradition against Geneva Is this the equality of your way § 37. It 's tedious disputing with a man that cannot or will not understand what is said no not the Question no not the Subject of it You cite my words out of the Saints Rest that say not any thing to the Question The Question is not What were the final Motives of the War But what was the Controversie of the warranting Cause and Foundation that must decide the Case whether it was lawful or unlawful The Bonum publicum and the Gospel and Religion and mens Salvations are the great moving ends and Reasons of a lawful War But it is not these Ends that will serve to prove a War lawful Could that be the Cause or Controversie which they were both agreed in Did not the King profess to be for Religion Liberty c. as well as they See yet his Shrewsbury Half-crowns if Coin be any evidence with you private men may not raise War for Religion but the King may The Finis and the Fundamentum are not the same I there talkt but of the Finis and Motives I now speak of the Fundamentum and Controversie which is well known to be whether the King or Parliament then had the power of the Militia rebus sic stantibus and whether the Parliament had true Authority to raise an Army against the Army Commissioned by the King for that Defence and executing the Law upon Delinquents which they then pretended to Now I say still I know no Theological Controversie herein I know no Scripture but Policy and Law and Contract that will tell us whether the King of Spain or the States be the rightful Governours of the Low Countries Or whether the King of France be absolute If you can out of Scripture prove that all Republicks must have the same Form and Degree of Government or how Forms and Degrees must be varied in each Land I resist you not but only confess my weakness that so high a performance is beyond my power Had you understood the Question you might have spared your Citation of my words § 41. You come again to our swearing Conformity and you say That it must reasonably be understood of a tumultuous and armed endeavour Answ 1. And it is publickly known that we are ready to swear against a tumultuous and armed endeavour unless by the King's Command If you would not endeavour it even with Arms if the King commanded you accuse us not of Disloyalty for being more Loyal than you If you would we are of the same judgment as to the thing And so while the thousands of ignorant Souls are untaught men of the same judgment on our part openly professed out must some be Teachers and some silenced some preferred and some in Prison and banished from Corporations c. even while they hold the same thing And why Because one part of them dare take an Oath in a more stretching sence than the others dare And that 1. Because they are taught not only by Amesius where you cite him but by all consciencious judicious Casuists That an Oath is to be taken strictly and not stretchingly in the common sense of the words unless the Law-givers will otherwise explain themselves 2. And the words are universal Not endeavour at any time without the least limitation or exception of any sort of endeavour I should have broke that Oath by this writing to you had I taken it Et non est distinguendum aut limitandum fine lege 3. The Law-makers are to be supposed wise considerate men especially the Bishops and able to distinguish between an universal and a particular or limited enunciation and to express their minds in congruous words 4. The Law-makers knew before and since that we would take the Oath if Endeavouring had been limited as you do and yet they never would limit it by one syllable 5. The Reasons used for that Clause and our acquaintance with the Bishops and other Authors of it leave our Consciences perswaded that their meaning was against all Endeavours and not tumultuous military or illegal only as in the Et caetera Oath 1640. It was that I will not consent which is less than Endeavouring And we are not ignorant what relation this Oath hath to that And we take it to be a sin to deceive our Rulers by taking an Oath in that sence which we believe was not by them intended and seeming to them to swear what we do not mean 6. When twenty London Ministers took the Oath because Doctor Bates told them that the Lord Keeper promised him at the giving it to put in the words Endeavour by any seditious or unlawful means or to that sense the said limiting words were not only left out but when old Mr. Sam. Clark said My Lord we mean only unlawful endeavour Judge Keeling asked Will you take the Oath as it is offered you and refused to add any such Explication and told them when they had done they had renounced the Covenant 7. The Justices tell us when they offer us the Oath That we must take it according to the plain sense of the words 8. The Parliament in the Act for regulating Corporations in the Declaration there imposed and the Oath doth fully satisfie us what is their

sense about this matter 9. It is not true as far as any London Ministers can know that ever the Judges declared their sense as you say for that limitation That is that ever they did by any Consultation and Concord give any judgment in the Case whatever any single Judge as the Lord Keeper might say privately or any one alone when another may say the contrary 10. If they had it 's a known thing whatever their judgment may do to make Cases in the Common Law yet as to Statute Law only the Law-makers are the Law-Interpreters as to any Interpretation which shall be as the Law it self a Rule universally to the Subjects And that Judges and Justices who here are made the Judges do only interpret the Law for the decision of particular Controversies that come before them And if all the Judges and Justices in England should meet and agree of this Statute it would only shew how they resolve in particular judgments to expound it and not what is the true obliging sense to the Subjects Conscience Otherwise the Judges would be equal to if not above the King and Parliament For he hath more power who determineth what sense and soul the Laws shall have than they that only make the words and body which others may put what sense they please on Nor can all the Judges make it lawful to take up Arms against the King if they so expounded any Law They have a deciding Expositors judgment as to the Case before them but not the regulating universal expounding power at all 11. We think that Divines that preach against sin above al● men must not stretch their Consciences in so dangerous a point as publick swearing 12. And we think that if men be once taught to equivocate and play fast and loose with the sacred Bond of Oaths Conscience is quite debauched no sufficient Bar is left to keep out any the greatest sins Preachers and People become incredible humane society is endeavoured to be dissolved and the King's Life secured much by his Subjects Fidelity and Conscience of an Oath is exposed to the wicked wills of men We charge no others with all this but we will avoid it our selves though it cost us yet more You may swear not to endeavour and mean particularly not by Tumult or Arms but by some other endeavour but so cannot we Therefore do you enjoy your Liberty Maintenance and Honour and we will be without them and to morrow at death we shall be as free and as high as you But fie Sirs why will you talk of straining Oaths and turning plain Oaths into Snares ana● allowing no Interpreters Are your ways here equal too 1. What is the plain sense but an universal sense of an universal enunciation If by All or None I understand All or None and you understand not All but Some who is the Strainer of the Oath And I pray you tell me if once any endeavour shall be excepted who shall determine how much it must be The first part of the Oath saith Not on any pretence whatever That is we must not take up Arms against any Commissioned by the King What if a bold limited Expositor will here come in and say Except King John deliver up the Kingdom to the Pope Or except the King's Commissions through the Officers fault should be contradictory Or such Exceptions as Wil. Barclay and Grotius make Should not this man rather be the Equivocator and Strainer of the Oath than he that thinketh so plain a Phrase as not any pretence whatsoever is exclusive of any pretence whatsoever Never trust the man that feareth not an Oath 2. But why talk you of none being Interpreters we cannot give the Power to whom we please The Law-makers think it best as it is and will not interpret as you do when they can and know all the Reasons that you can give them The Justices are made our Judges I told you that the Justices when they sent me to the Gaol refused to Expound it and told me I must take it according to the proper sense of the words Yet do you go on as if none of all this had been said to you As to what you say of Obligation by the Covenant and leaving a gap c. I answer Melancholy men by fearing bring the thing feared on themselves It was the Et caetera Oath 1640 that forced me who else had lived quietly in my ignorance to read and study many Authors to know the truth before I swore who turned me not against Episcopacy but against the Italian and Diocesan frame The Covenant is not the thing that they are in danger of but their own Diseases we firmly believe that the Covenant bindeth us to nothing but what we were bound to if we had never taken it as being not a primary Bond to make new Duty but a secondary to bind us to that only which is antecedently a duty and that no Vow or Covenant bindeth us from obeying the King in any thing indifferent much less a duty before These are our Principles however you nauseate them But without respect to any Vow or Covenant we hold that we are all bound not to any Treason Rebellion or any illegal means but in our true Place and Calling to endeavour that those things may be reformed in the Discipline which my first Dispute of Church Government hath proved to be evil After which so long unanswered you need not so loudly have called for my Reasons And if this be it that maketh you think my Retraction not sincere think what you please I never retracted any of this § 44. First They that exercise the Keys of Excommunication and Absolution in the ordinary open Judicatures of the Land are Church Governours But Lay Chancellors exercise the Keys of Excommunication and Absolution in the ordinary open Judicatures of the Land Ergo Lay-Chancellors are Church-Governours 2. Who doubts but the Et caetera included them If it included None it was superfluous If Any how exclude you them And is it not said As it standeth and ought to stand But were it but Deans and Archdeaeons I would not swear that if the King commanded me by Writing or Petition to endeavour some alteration I will resist or disobey him you may do as you will 3. It were too long now to tell you how far I take my Conscience obliged to a Lay-Chancellor and how far not 4. But what 's next That no Learned men so much as maintain in the Schools the Lay-Chancellors Church Government And yet have we hot and feaverish heads if we will not swear to that which no man will maintain Well! let it go for our Crime or Folly while such men judge 5. Add p. 20. The fear of God is the beginning of wisdom a good understanding have all they that do them Fools make a mock of sin See that ye walk circumspectly not as fools but as wise To fear an Oath is a mark of the fear of God and