not oppose Sect. XVIII We find proof thar ordinarily Churches were first planted in Cities there being not then in the Villages Christians enough to make Churches But we find no proof that when there are Christians enough to constitute Churches they may not be planted in Villages also Nor yet that there may not be more Churches than one in the same City For so Grotius saith There were even then when Christians were comparatively but few and that they were as the Jewish Synagogues in this respect And Dr. Hamond largely asserteth that Peter had a Church of Jews and Paul another of Gentiles at Rome and that so it was in other Cities Sect. XIX Much less is it by Divine Institution that Bishops and their Churches or Seats be only in such as we now call Cities which by their priviledges are distinct from other great Towns and Corporations whenas the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 then signified a great Town or Corporation such as our Market-Towns and Corporations now are Sect. XX. But it is the Law of God that all things about Churches and Church-affairs which he hath left to humane prudence should be done according to such general Rules as he hath prescribed for their regulation SECT IV What Princes and Pastors may do in such matters I. THese foresaid General Laws of God do both give the Rulers their Power for determining things committed to them and also limit their power therein II. These General Laws are that All things be done to Edification the circumstances fitted to the End the Glory of God and the Publick Good the promoting of Truth and Godliness that all be done in Love to the promoting of Love and Unity and that all be done in Order and Decently and as may avoid offence or scandal to all both those without and those within Gal. 6. 15 16. Phil. 3. 15 16. 1 Cor. 14. 3 5 12. 26. 17. Rom. 14. 19. 15. 2. 1 Cor. 10. 23. Ephes 4 12 16 19. 2 Cor. 12. 19. 6. 3. 11. 7. 1 Cor. 8. 13. III. Therefore no Rulers Civil or Ecclesiastical have their power to scandalize and destroy but only to edifie being the Ministers of God for good Rom. 13. 3 4 5. 2 Cor. 10. 8. 13. 10. IV. The great Dispute is handled excellently against the Papists for Kings by Bishop Bilson of Christian Obedience Bishop Andrews Tortura Torti Bishop Buckeridge Spalatensis and many more whether the Kings of Christian Kingdoms have not the same power about Church-matters as the Kings of Israel and Judah had David Solomon Hezekiah Josiah c. which cannot be answered by an only Yea or Nay without a more particular consideration of the compared Cases V. We suppose it certain that Christian Kings have no lesser power than the Kings of Israel except 1. What any such King had as a Prophet or in peculiar by an extraordinary grant 2. And what alteration is made by alteration of Church-offices Laws and Worship which may make a difference of which hereafter VI. And 1. It must be remembred that God then reserved the Legislation to himself which he exercised by Revelation and by special Prophets And so the Prophet Moses delivered them that Law which no King had power to abrogate suspend or alter by adding or diminishing Deut. 12. 32. Jos 1. But they had a mandatory power and of making some subordinate By-laws as Cities and Corporations have from and under the King VII 2. Yea great and special Mandates were oft sent from God by Prophets against which the Kings of Israel had no power VIII 3. The Executive or Judicial Power was divided part was in the Kings and Magistrates and part was in the Priests and Levites which the King could not usurp himself as appeareth in Uzziahs offering Incense nor yet forbid the Priests to use it according to God's Law nor change or abrogate their Office For he and they were subject to God's Laws IX 4. God himself settled the High Priesthood on the line of Aaron and all the Priesthood on the Tribe of Levi and it was not in the power of the King to alter it X. 5. God stated the High Priesthood on the Priests during life Numb 35. 25 28. Jos 20 6 c. which Law the Kings had no power to violate XI 6. There are more particular Laws made by God for the duty of the Priests describing their office and work than for any other particular case as many hundred Texts will tell us And none of these Laws might be altered or suspended by the Kings of Israel Nor those by which God stated some of the Judicial Power in the Congregation Num. 35. 12. to 26. XII 7. Solomon's putting out Abiathar and putting in Zadok is not contrary to any of this For supposing the words 1 King 2 35. to be not only a history of the bare matter of fact but a justification of it de jure 1. It poseth learned men to resolve how Zadok and Abiathar are oft said to be both High Priests before and Zadok still put before Abiathar 2. It is certain that Zadok had the right both of Inheritance and especial Promise Numb 25. 11 12 13. 1 Chron. 6. 3 4 c. And what Solomon did was that the word of the Lord might be fulfilled How the possession came into the hands of the line of Ithamar Expositors cannot find It is like it was by occasion of the confusions of their oft Captivity and Anarchy in the interspace of the Judges 3. Even the Priests were the King's subjects and might be punished for their crimes so it were according to God's Laws And if Abiathar forfeited his life he forfeited his Office XIII 8. The Priesthood then depended not on the institution or will of the King or People He might not put out a lawful Priest that had not forfeited his Life or Office He might not have put any one in his place that had not right from God or that was unqualified He might not have forbid the Priests the work appointed them by God But yet if he had injurioâ—slâ— deposed one Abiathar and put in a Zadok the loss had been little to the Church But if he had deposed so great a number of the Priests and Levites as that a great part of God's commanded work must needs thereby have been lest undone and Religion so far destroyed or had as Jeroboam put of the basest of the people or uncapable persons into the Priesthood the loss had been greater and the thing unwarrantable and such as he had not power from God to do XIV And the quality of Moses Law and its Works as different from the Laws of Christ and the Works thereof must be considered that we may discern the difference of the Cases A man that did attempt to draw the people to Idolatry was then to be put to death yea the City to be destroyed that concealed him Deut. ch â—3 so were they that blasphemed and such as committed other heinous
to set a Bishop in every Market Town or to take the use of the Keys from Laymen or to take down Archdeacons Officials Commissaries Surrogates c Whether all Reformation be out of the power of the King or not to be desired by the people 2. Whether that which is Lawful may not be done by the Law makers and be endeavoured by speech in Parliament or by petition by the people Especially if the King Command it 3. Whether men be not bound by a Vow to that which is Lawful much more to that Which is antecedently a duty 3. The Conformists are here disagreed among themselves some say that the Vow Bindeth not because it was unlawfully imposed But otherâ— better say that this proveth no more but that the Imposers could not bind me to take it by any authority of theirs And that if I had taken it in secret without imposition I had been bound by it Els no private Vow should bind Some say that it binds not because it was sinfully taken But others truly say that if Oaths bind not wherever men take them sinfully no wicked man should ever be bound by Oaths or Vows because they usually make them sinfully by an ill end and intention wrong motives or ill principles or manner Or at least a bad man might choose whether ever he will be obliged But all good casuists agree that if the matter be lawful the unlawful taking hinders not the obligation A man that is Baptized with ill motives or intentions is yet obliged by his Baptismal Vow Some say that it binds not because the matter it self is unlawful But it s granted that it bindeth to no unlawful matter Others therefore truly say that he that Voweth six things whereof three are sinful is not disobliged by the conjunction of these from the other three that are Lawful Els a Knave may keep himself disobliged as to all Vows by putting in some unlawful thing Some say that it binds not because we were antecedently bound to all that is good by other bonds and therefore not by this But others truly say that this is a most intollerable reason and would nullifie our Baptismal Vow and all our sacramental Vows renewed and all Covenants that ever man can make to God of any duty For Gods own Laws first bind us to every duty But for all that our own Vows Covenants and promises secondarily bind us also And a man may have many obligations to one duty Yea indeed the Covenanters ordinarily profess that they think not that a man should Vow any thing to God but what God first hath made his duty And they are against the Papists for making Religions and duties to themselves which God never made And therefore they profess that if some things in the Covenant were not their duty before they would not think that they are bound to it now And they profess that if they had never taken that Vow they had been bound to all that by it they are bound to And therefore condemning that Vow doth no whit secure the Government of the Church e. g. Lay Chancellours use of the Keys or the destruction of discipline from their Lawful endeavours to alter it And they profess that seeing the King hath power to command them Lawful things if they had Vowed any thing meerly Indifferent it would not have bound them against the Kings Commands Because it is not in subjects power by Vows to withdraw themselves from their obedience to authority Some say that the Proclamation of King Charles the first against the Covenant null'd the obligation But others truly say 1. That it could null no more than the Imposition to take it and not the obligation when it 's taken in necessary things 2. That this is nothing to all them that took it afterward and that when Charles II. had though injuriously been drawn to declare for it Some say that it binds not because men took it unwillingly But others truly say 1. that this would leave it in the power of a bad man to nullifie all Vows and contracts by saying that he did them unwillingly 2. That man hath fâ—ee will and cannot be compelled And a Vow of a thing Lawful to save ones life bindeth Men must rather die than lie 3. This would teach Subjects to say that they take all Oaths of Alegiance to the King unwillingly and therefore are not bound 4. It s true that no man that forceth another injuriously to a promise can claim to himself any right from that which was not free but procured by his own injurious violence or fraud But God wrongeth none and a Vow to God bindeth though procured by sinful force by men Some say that It was only a League and Covenant with men and not a Vow and therefore ceaseth câ—ssante occasione and by the consent of Parliamentâ— c. Ans There is no place for the belief of this objection to any that knoweth a Vow otherwise than by the name Indeed an Oath that is but an appeal to God that I will faithfully perform my Covenant with a man obligeth me not when that man hath discharged me from any obligation to him But this in question was primarily a promise or Covenant made to God which is a Vow and a League and Covenant of men with one another that they will perform it as is notorious to any man that readeth it with common understanding II. The second thing questioned about that Vow and the main is whether every Minister must or may become the judge of all other mens Consciences and obligations in three Kingdoms even of many thousands whom they never saw nor heard of and that so far as to absolve or justifie them from all obligations by that Vow to endeavour any Church reformation 2. It is here supposed 1. That though men ought to take an Oath in the sence of a Lawful Governour so far as they know it yet that they are not bound beyond the plain meaning of the words to the sense of Usurpers Therefore they know not but the King and Lords c. might take the same words in another meaning than the obtruders did intend e. g to reform according to Gods Word and the example of the best reformed Churches might signifie to them an opposition to Presbytery 2 That if men mistake the sence of the Imposers they are bound to keep an Oath in the Lawful sence in which they took it And then how knoweth every Minister in what sense every man in the three Kingdoms took it And how is he able to say that no one man of them all is obliged by it to endeavour a lawful and necessary reformation 3. And as to the former Argument that men were forced to it many of the Old Parliament are yet living and many others that then forced others to it and were not forced to it themselves 4 And if the present Parliament-men could upon what compulsion soever Vow to reform e. g. scandalous Ministers Swearing
were cut out by the King's command and they spake freely by miracle after they were cut out as is testified by Aeneas Gaze◠and by Victor Uticensis who saw and spake with and heard the persons when this miracle was wrought upon them and by Procopius XXIV It will be objected that Constantius Valeus Gensericus Hunnericus c were Arrians and the later conquering Usurpers Answ 1. Even Heathen Emperours and Kings are our Governours though they want due aptitude to their duty as also do many wicked Christian Princes And we owe them obedience when their Laws or Mandates are not against the Laws of God We must not say as Bellarmine that Christians should not tolerate such Princes and that the ancient Christians suffered for want of Power to resist 2. Let the Emperours called Arrians be made no worse than they were Some were for Concord and Toleration of both Parties and so are more suspected than proved to be Arrians And Arrians themselves though unexcusably erroneous were not like the Socinians that utterly deny Christ's Deity They subscribed to all the Nicene Creed save the the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They would say that Christ was Light of Light very God of very God begotten not made c. They thought that as the Sun-beams or Light are its immediate emanation but not its substance as commonly Philosophers say they are not how true we say not so Christ was an immediate emanation from the Father before and above Angels by whom all things else were made And how dangerously Justin and most of the ancientest Doctors before the Nicene Council speak hereabout and how certainly Eusebius and other great Bishops were Arrians and how lamentably the Council at Ariminum endeavoured an uniting Reconciliation by laying by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And even old Osius by their cruelty yielded to them as Liberius subscribed to them we need not send any men to Philostorgius nor Sondius for proof it being so largely proved by D◠Petavius de Trinitate who fully citeth their dangerous words And if the heterodoxies of the Prince shall be made the reason of the Subjects disobeying him in a matter lawful in it self as some that we speak to now suppose we shall hardly know where to stop nor what bounds to set the Subjects when they are made Judges of the Princes Errours and what examination of cognisance of it they must have 3. Constantine that banished Athanasius who kept in while he could against the Emperours will is not proved an Arrian Nor Valentinian who commanded Ambrose not to cease Prenching himself nor to forsake his Church nor to subscribe to Arrianism but only to tolerate the Arrians to meet in one spare Church which was in Millan as an act of moderation But Ambrose resolutely disobeyed the Emperour we justifie not the manner because he thought that God's Law made it his office as Bishop so to do 4. And as to Gensericus and Hunnericus's Usurpation it was then ordinary with the Bishops even of Rome to submit to men that had no better title and alas how few of many of the old Roman Emperours had any better at least at first XXV We doubt not at all but that Kings are the Governours of Bishops and Churches by coercive power as truly as of Physicians or other Professions And though they have no Authority to abrogate or suspend the Laws of Christ yet they have a Power of Legislation under Christ as Corporations for By-laws have under them which power is only about those things which God hath left to their determination and not either above Christ against Christ or in coordination with Christ but only in such subordination to him and to his Laws XXVI How far Rulers have power or not to command things indifferent and how far things scandalous and evil by accident some of us have opened already distinctly and need not here repeat XXVII And we have there shewed that as they may regulate Physicians by General and Cautionary Laws but not overthrow their Calling on that pretence by prescribing to the Physician all the Medicines which he shall use to this or that Patient at this or that time c. so they may make such General and Cautionary Laws circa sacra 1. As shall drive Bishops and Pastors on to do their certain duties 2. And as shall duely restrain them from sin and doing hurt 3. And they may punish them by the sword or force for such crimes as deserve that punishment And a King of England may depose or put to death a traiterous Bishop Priest or Deacon as lawfully as Solomon deposed Abiathar XXVIII And as we have there said we suppose that there are some circumstances of the Ministers work which it belongeth to his own office to determine of and are a true part of his Ministerial works But there are others which it is meet should be universally determined of for the Concord of all the Churches in a Kingdom These the Pastors and Churches by consent may agree in without a Law it Kings leave it to them And Kings by the advise of such as best understand Church Cases may well by their own Laws make such determinations As for instance in what Scripture Translations what Versions and Metres of Psalms the Churches shall agree Much more may they determine of the Publick Maintenance of Ministers and the Temples and such other extrinsick accidents XXIX Princes and Rulers may forbid Atheists Infidels Hereticks and Malignant opposers of necessary truth and godlyness and all that preach rebellion and sedition that propagate such wicked Doctrine and may punish them if they do it And may hinder the incorrigible and all that provedly or notoriously are such whose Preaching will do more hurt to men than good from exercising the Ministry or Preaching in their jurisdiction or Dominions For such have not any power from Christ so to Preach but serve the Enemy of Christ and man XXX Princes and Rulers may for order sake distribute their Christian Kingdoms into Parishes which shall be the ordinary bounds of particular Churches And such distribution is very congruous to the Ends of the Ministry and Churches and conduceth to orderly settlement and peace And experience hath shewed us that such Parish Churches where the Pastors are faithfull and fit may live as Christians should do to their mutuall comfort in Piety Love and Peace And such Parish-order we desire XXXI But no Rulers may hence conclude 1. that Parishes are distributed by God immediately or that he hath commanded such a distribution as a thing of absolute necessity to a Church But the Generall Rules of order and Edification do ordinarily in Christian Kingdomes require it 2 Nor may any make a Parish as such to be a Church and all to be Church members that are in the Parish as such for Atheists Infidels Hereticks Impenitent Rebels may live in the Parish and many that consent not to be members of that or any Church And not
only in worse lands but in Ireland and in England as part of Lancashire the far greatest part of the Parishioners are Papists who renounce the Protestant Churches in some places XXXII Neither dwelling in the Parish nor the Law of the Land makes any Christian a member of that Parish Church without or before his own consent But proximity is part of his extrinsick aptitude and the law of man or command of his Prince may make it his duty to consent and thereby to become a member when greater Reasons mollify not that obligation XXXIII Parish Bounds and such other humane distributions for conveniency may be altered by men and they bind not against any of Christs own Laws and predeterminations nor when any changes turn them against the good ends for which they are made of which more afterward when we speak of separation XXXIIII And about these humane Church-Laws the general Case must be well considered how far they are obligatory to conscience and in what cases they cease to bind Sayrus Fragoso and other the most Learned and Moderate Casuists of the Papists ordinarily conclude that Humane Laws bind not when they are not for the Common good We had rather say that when they are notoriously against the Laws of Christ or against the Common good or are made by usurpation without authority thereto they bind not to formal obedience in that particular though sometime other reasons especially the honour of our Rulers may bind us to material obedience when the matter is indifferent and though still our subjection and loyalty must be maintained But of this before and more largely by one of us Christian directory Part. 4. Chap. 3. Tit. 3. c. The Council of Toletum 1355 decreed that their decrees shall bind none ad culpam but only ad poenam see Bin. Inoc. 6th Sect. XXXV Kings and Magistrates should see that their Kingdoms be well provided of publick Preachers and Catechists to convert Infidels and Impious men where there are such and to prepare such for Baptisme and Church priviledges and Communion as are not yet Baptized but are Catechumens And they may by due means compel the ignorant to hear and learn what Christianity is though not to become Christians for that is impossible nor to prosess that which is not true nor to take Church-Priviledges to which they have no right and of which at present they are uncapable But they may grant those rewards and civil Priviledges to Christians and Churches for their encouragement which they are not bound to give to others and which may make a moving difference without unrighteous constraint XXXVI Christ and his Apostles having as is aforesaid settled the Right of Ordination on the Senior Pastors or Bishops and the Right of Consenting in the People and this continued long even under Christian Emperours Princes or Patrons may not deprive either party of their Right but preserving such Rights they may 1. Offer meet Pastors to the Ordainers and Consenters to be accepted when there is just cause for their interposition 2. They may hinder both Ordainers and People from introducing intollerable men 3. They may when a Peoples Ignorance Faction or Wilfulness maketh them refuse all that are truly fit for them urge them to accept the best and may possess such of the Temples and Publick Maintenance and make it consequently to become the Peoples duty to consent as is aforesaid so also when they are divided XXXVII Princes ought to be Preservers of Peace and Charity among the Churches and to hinder Preachers from unrighteous and uncharitable reviling each other and their unpeaceable controversies and contentions XXXVIII Christ himself hath instituted the Baptismal Covenant to be the Title of Visible Members of his Church and the Symbol by which they shall be notified And he hath commanded all the baptized as Christians to Love each other as themselves and though weak in the faith to receive one another as Christ receiveth us but not to doubtful disputations and so far as they have obtained to walk by the same rule of Love and Peace and not to despise or judge each other for tolerable differences much less to hate revile or destroy each other and it seemed good to the Holy Ghost and the Apostles to lay no greater burden on the Churches even of the Ceremonies which God had once commanded but Necessary things Act. 15. 28. And these terms of Church-Union and Concord which Christ hath made no mortal man hath power to abrogate All things therefore of inferiour nature though Verities and Good must be no otherwise imposed by Rulers than as may stand with these universal Laws of Christ which are the true way to prevent Church-Schisms XXXIX Princes by their Laws or Pastors by consent where Princes leave it to them may so associate many particular Churches for orderly correspondencie and concord and appoint such times and places for Synods and such orders in them as are agreable to Gods aforesaid generall Laws of doing all in Love to Edification and in order And how far if Rulers should miss this generall Rule they are yet to be obeyed we have opened elsewhere XL. As we have there also said that Princes may make their own Officers to execute their Magistratical Power circa sacra which we acknowledge in our King in our Oath of Supremacy and if such be called Eclesiastical and their Courts and Laws so called also that ambiguous name doth not intimate them to be of the same species as Christs ordained Ecclesiastical Ministers or as his Churches and Laws are so now we add that if Princes shall authorize any particular Bishops or Pastors to excercise any such visiting conventing ordering moderating admonishing or governing power as it belongeth to the Prince to give not contrary to Christs Laws or the duties by him commanded and priviledges by him granted to particular Churches we judge that Subjects should obey all such even for conscience sake However our consideration of Christs decision of his disciples controversie who should be the greatest and our certain knowledge how necessary Love and Lowliness and how pernicious wrath and Lordly-Pride are in those that must win souls to Christ and imitate him in bearing not making the cross together with the sad history of the Churches distractions and corruption by Clergy-Pride and Worldliness lamented by Nazianzene Basil Hilary Pictavus Socrates Sozomen Isidore Pelusiot Bernard and multitudes more yea by some Popes themselves these and other reasons we say doe make us wish that the Clergy had never been trusted with the sword or any degree of forcing power or secular pomp yet if Princes judge otherwise we must obediently submit to all their Officers XLI It seemeth by the phrase of His Maiesties Declaration about Ecclesiastical affairs 1660 in which after consultation with his Reverend Bishops the Pastoral way of Perswasion reproofs and admonitions are granted to the Presbyters that a distinction is intended between this Pastoral and the Prelatical Government And we
gently with them and adjudged Communion to them And the Africans pretended to no authority over them but by Counsell told them of Gods own Law which no man had power to invalidate They charge the people as heinous sinners if they forsake not a wicked unmeet Bishop or Pastor what Libellaticks were I supposed the reader to know viz such as to save their lives in persecution had permitted another to put their names by subscription to a false profession that favoured idolatry or infidelity Obj. 1. But Cyprian and the African Councils were mistaken in the point of Rebaptizing those baptized by Hereticks and so they might be here Ans 1. The Council of Nice decreed the rebaptizing of those that were baptized by some Hereticks though not by all And if the Africans did not confine the word to such they erred only in not sufficiently distinguishing of Hereticks 2. If we are excused from receiving the testimony of such Fathers and Councils as had any Errour or as great an Errour as that you may see what will follow 3. We do not citâ— Cyprian and the African Council as infallible nor as having more Governing power over us than the present Rulers but as being to us I say to us of more credit and authority in telling us what is jure devino than those Bishops or others that now condemn us as Schismaticks 4. Câ—pâ—â—an and the African Councill were not forbidden for this judgment of theirs to Preach Christs Gospel nor cast out of the Churches noâ— sent to Goals nor called and used as Rogues and Schismaticks and farr worse then drunkards adulterers yea or the atheists and infidels among us Nor were the people that obeyed their Councill so used But tâ—e names of these holy men are venerable to this day Obj. 2. There were then no Christian Magistrates and therefore the peoples power must be used in their stead Ans Church power was the same before and after The Lawes of Christ concerning it altered not The Pastors were then the Guides of the people by divine right And the power of the Keyes was no less forcible or effectual as used by the Bishops and Presbyters than when the power of the sword was added to them if not much more And the peoples power of choosing and refusing Bishops continued many hundred years after Magistrates were Christians confirmed even by Popes and Councills Obj. 3. This would cast all into confusion and there would be no Church Government if the people be Judges when a Minister is bad and then maâ— full him down or forsake him and choose another Answ This is after further answered I now only say 1. The people may not touch his Person by violence nor deprive him of his benefice or temple nor yet degrade him As they that change their Physician or Lawyer do no such thing but simply choose one that they can trust No man will win more by my salvation than I shall nor would suffer more than I by it if I were damned Who is more than I concerned what becometh of my soul Am I not to have more care of it than of my estate or health of body Who can easily believe those men that send us to goales and ruin us for trusting our soules with such Guides as to the best of our understandings we think meetest or at least for avoiding such as we cannot so farr trust and then tell us that they do it because they love our souls better than we love our selves and therefore will not trust them to our choice 2. what confusion doth it cause that every man now chooseth his owne Tutor in philosophy his own master his own Lawyer and physician and every woman at age her own husband 3. Doth not the Church of England as is said allow every man his choice when no man is forbidden to forsake any Bishop or Pastor and choose another by removing his habitation when he pleases So that all this is but about Parish bounds which is confessed to be of humane alterable constitution And how ordinarily do many Gentlemen of the Church of England go from their own Parishes in London 4. You may see by Philip Nyes printed papers and Mr. Tombs his that even those called Independents and some Anabaptists are for hearing such Parish-Teachers as their Rulers shall appoint so they may but commit the Pastoral care of their souls to such as they can better trust and have Sacraments and special Church Communion free 5. what great confusion doth it breed in London that the French and Dutch Churches thus differ from the rest and have their proper modes and Government Yea or that the Nonconformists by the favour of his Majesties Licenses had their choice and several meetings Let not envy and animosity seign greater confusion than there is and the matter will appear much otherwise than it is represented even that the discords and confusions were incomparably less on that occasion than they were under the Bishops in the better times of the Churches even from An. 400 to 600 of which more in due place 6. They that will condemn all that hath inconveniences shall condemn all things in this world But the Greatest must be noted and avoided first Shall the people have any judgment of discerning or not If yea the bounds of it must be shewed and not the thing denyed as if it must bring in all confusion If Usurpers claim the Crown the Subjects must judge which is their true King and must defend his right Will you say If the people be Judges they may set up Usurpers and put down the King They are but discerners of that which is before their duty They have no right to erre nor to alter the Law or right But if it be otherwise they are to be ruled as brutes And so must not judge so much as whom they must obey Is there any Christian that dare say that Bishops or Princes are in all things to be obeyed lest the people be made Judges And so that under Heathen Mahometan Papist Heretical Rulers they must be all of their Religion as to the external professing and practising part None dare for shame say so save an Infidel Is not this a greater confusion or michief than that which is now disputed against Therefore the bounds must be set on both sides which are not difficult to discern As the people have property in their limbs children and liberties and acquisitions antecedently to humane Government which is to order these and not to destroy them so have all men greater interest in the safety of their own souls which no man can take from them no nor is it in their just power to put it into the hands of others from themselves If Hereticks blind guides oâ—â—faithless men or insufficient be made Pastors of the Flocks and all men commanded to hear no better nor trust the Pastoral Conduct of their souls into any wiser or safer hands Satan will be more gratified by it than by the
2d so many went one way who under Martian went another way even in point of Heresie When Mavia the Saracen Queen chose Moses a Monk to be her Bishop as the condition of her peace with the Roman Empire Moses would not be ordained by Lucius not because he was an Arrian but because he was a persecutor and hurtful to other men for Religion and so he would be ordained Priest by some that were banished to a certain Mountain Socr. l. 4. c. 29. When the Emperour was gone from Antioch where in person he went to disperse their Meetings and yet they held on the people thrust out Lucius whom he had set up and set up Peter again whom the Emperour had banished But such instances are too many to be recited Yea under Orthodox Princes the people would cleave to their injured Pastors though against the Emperours will as they of Miliane did to Ambrose and the Joannites to Chrysostom who even long after his death separated from the Bishop and kept up their separate Meetings against the will of Prince and Prelates till milder Bishops instead of persecuting them restored Chrysostom's bones and name to honour and reconciled them It will still be objected as before that most of these instances were but the peoples rejection of Arrians But again we answer 1. In other instances they usually chose their Pastors and cleaved to them though prohibited 2. These Arrians were such as subscribed the Ariminum Creed which was so ambiguously compiled that abundance that renounced Arius did think that for obedience and peace they might put a fair sense on the words and so subscribe them And we meet with persons in our times that think words imposed on them by Superiours may and must endure stretching to a sense as far from their usual acceptation as the foresaid words were stretched by the Ariminum Subscribers 3. They that never accused and convicted the refused Bishops of Arrianism yet adhered to their former Bishops 4. It seemeth then that the people are left Judges as to the guiding of their own practice what Bishops to refuse as heterodox and whom to own as Orthodox And indeed the saying of Cyprian is well known that The people have the greatest power both to chuse a worthy Priest and to refuse or forsake the unworthy 6. All Protestants believe that it is no Schism in France or other Papist Countries to chuse Pastors and meet for the Worship of God though forbidden by the Civil and Ecclesiastick Governors of the place Obj. That is because that the Princes are Papists Ans A Papist King is to be obeyed in lawful things what Protestant denieth that Obj. But it is because that the Churches and Worship in those Countries is such as it is not lawful to be present at Ans 1. This Objection granteth that when the commanded Assemblies or Worship are such as it is not lawful to be present at 1. The people are discerning Judges 2. And may lawfully meet else where under Pastors of their own choice 2. But let the Question be not whether we may be present in their Churches but whether we may set up other Churches when we are necessarily kept from those established by Publick Power and it will go far 7. When the Form of Worship and Concord called the Interim was by Charles the 5th imposed on the German Protestants being drawn up by Julius Pflug Sidonius and Islebius Agricola men pretending to moderation as not imposing the Mass c. the Protestants judged it lawful to gather Assemblies and keep up Churches contrary to such an Edict of the Emperour One half of them held on their former way till banishment or other violence hindred them Melancthon and the others that thought the things commanded not utterly unlawful conformed only to prevent the utter desolation of the Churches but not in conscionable obedience to the Emperours Edict as if it had been any Schism to do otherwise if they could have been endured As may be seen in Melancthon's own words in his Epistles and elsewhere 8. The most of Protestants at this day hold that it is no Schism to keep up Churches of their several Parties against their Princes will and prohibition Those called Arminians in Belgia so think Episcopius writeth at large that if Ministers be forbid to Preach and People to Assemble in their case they must go on though they suffer death for it saving that prudence may direct them sometime to avoid a present storm The Churches under the Duke of Brandenburgh are generally contrary to his judgment in Religion And should the Princes of Saxony Brunswick Hassia c. or the Kings of Sweden or Denmark turn Calvinists their Clergy would be far from thinking it their duty to cease their Assemblies of the Lutheran Profession and Worship Bishop Andrews is so far from tying all Ministers to the Kings will that he saith cohibeat Regem Diaconus si cum indignus sit idque palam constet accedat tamen ad Sacramentum i. e. Let even a Deacon restrain the King if he come to the Sacrament being unworthy and that be openly manifest Bishop Bilson of subjection p. 399. saith The Election of Bishops in those daies belonged to the people and not to the Prince and though Valens by plain force placed Lucius there yet might the people Lawfully reject him as no Bishop and cleave to Peter their right Pastor Mark that he layeth it not on his Error but on his entrance without the peoples Election and that they might reject him as no Bishop We see here the full concurrence of such English Bishops as were the most Learned and zealous defenders of Episcopacy and loyalty The same Bishop ibid. p. 236. Saith more plainly Princes have no right to call or confirm Preachers but to receive such as be sent of God and give them Liberty for their Preaching and security for their persons and if Princes refuse so to do Gods labourers must go forward with that which is commanded them from Heaven Not by disturbing Princes from their Thrones nor invading their Realms as your father doth and defendeth he may do but by mildly submitting themselves to the powers on Earth and meekly suffering for the defence of the truth what they shall inflict This is the summ of all that we here intend so pag. 313. he saith we grant that they must rather hazard their lives than baptize Princes which beleive not or distribute the Lords mysteries to them that repent not but give willful and open signification of impiety c. So Beda Hist Eccl l. 2. c. 5. Tells us that Melitus Bishop of London with Justus was banished by the heirs of King Sabbaâ—eth because he would not give them the Sacrament of the Lords Supper which they would have had before they were baptized Yet all this is no justification of causeless disobedience to Magistrates that circumstantiate sacred things according to their Office nor will it justifie any Schismatical societies Vespae habent
For all that he inferreth or can infer from them all is obligation to consent and to other duties after consent But obligation maketh not the relation of a member All that are obliged to be Christians are not Christians All that are obliged to be Pastors are not Pastors Nor all that are obliged to consent first and to do the duty of Pastors after Even as all that are obliged to consent to be subjects Husbands Wives Masters Servants Tutors Scholars c. are not such If meer obligation serve to one relation why not to others 2. Else a man might be a true Pastor unchosen unordained and against his will For he may by his qualifications be obliged to be ordained and to become a Pastor 3. And so the people may be the flock of one that was obliged to be their Pastor when another is set over them and in possession because it was the first that was obliged and they to choose him And so utter Confusion will come in And if a man can prove that another mans wife and servant was obliged to be his he may take them as his indeed 3. By this rule all the Papists Seekers Quakers c. that renounce our Churches should yet be members of them because they live in the Parish and are commanded to be members Which who believeth 4. A member of a Church hath right to Communion and Ministerial vigilancie and help But so hath not every baptized person that is commanded to be a member and obeyeth not that command If a man say to a Pastor I will be none of your flock or Church but yet I require you to do the office of a Pastor to me though I renounce your relation to me and the people to use me as a member of the flock because I am commanded to be a member this were a strange claim 5. If this did hold then no man that liveth in the Parish could be a proper separatist so as to break off himself from that Church nor become a member of another unless he apostatized from Christ For he would be still under the Magistrates Command and obligation But the consequent is absud Why do the same men speak so much against schismatical rending mens selves from the true Churches and gathering other Churches if there be no such thing The Laws change not which oblige them 6. They that are against schism and singularity should be against this opinion because as it is utterly absurd so it is notoriously contrary to the Judgment of all the Christian world in all ages to this day as acquaintance with Church history may fully inform them They have ever taken mutual consent between the Pastors and the flock to be necessary to the being of a particular Church and that whatever they were obliged to they were not actually related to each other as Pastor and flock till they consented And therefore have noted schismatical Churches in the same Cities that have been no parts of the Church which they disowned § 8. But it is objected that this unchurcheth our Parish-Churches and all the Churches in the world Ans Not one But the contrary would Our Parish Churches are associated by mutual consent The Pastor expresseth his consent openly at his institution induction and officiating The Flocks shew their consent by actual submitting to his Ministerial Office They hear him and communicate ordinarily with him and seek Ministerial help from him though all that are in the Parish do not so those do it that are indeed his flock or Church They do not perhaps by word or writing covenant to submit to him as their Pastor but they do it by actual signification of consent to the relation And the Bishops in Consecration enter into a Covenant to watch over the flock as do the Priests and the Priests promise if not swear in England to obey them This is a Covenant §9 It is objected that this is a disparagement to Baptism which is the only Church-making Covenant Ans Baptism only as such maketh us members of the universal Church but is not enough to make us of any Ministers special flock I am not a member of the Church of York Norwich Bristol c. because I am baptized Nor am I a member of the Parish Church now where I was baptized Consent to be a Christian is one thing and consent to be a member of this particular Church and to take this man more than all the rest about us for the Guide of my soul is another §10 And if a man would say I will be a member of this Parish Church and you shall perform so much of your Office as I desire and no more I will hear and receive the Sacrament but when I please and I will not admit you to catechize or instruct any of my family nor visit the sick nor will I be responsible to you for any thing that I hold or say or do nor have any thing to do with you but in the Church is a Minister bound to do his office to men or take them for his special flock on these terms The ancient Churches had abundance of strict Canons if the people should have chosen a Bishop and said We will obey none of these Canons nor you but you shall be our Bishop on our terms was he bound to have consented and to have been such a Bishop This is really the case of no small part of England though they say it not openly by words §11 It is objected that as Apostles so ordained Ministers have their authority before the consent of the people and receive it not from them Ans 1. Who ever questioneth it that is considerate as to an indefinite charge in the Church universal But what 's that to the question Are all the Ministers in the world bound to be the Pastors of this Parish or Diocess Our question is what constituteth the relations between a Pastor and his Particular flock Doth not the ordainer here say Take thou Authority to Preach the Word of God c. when thou art thereto lawfully called Because a man is a Licensed Physician without me doth it follow that he is my Physician without my consent 2. Are all those Church-members that Ministers are authorized to preach to Then all the Heathen-world are Church-members 3. They receive not authority from the people but their consent is necessary to make themselves capable receivers of the relation and right of Church-members God and not the Wife giveth the Husband the superiority but he is no such Husband to any that consenteth not §12 God hath laid mens rights and benefits on their wills so that no man can have them against his will It is a great priviledge to have right to communion with a particular Church and to this or that faithful Pastors oversight And its new Doctrine to say that unwilling persons have this right because they are willing of something else viz. to be members of the Church universal §13 We conclude