deny the Parish Pastors theâ— deny them nothing hereby essential to theiâ— office All that can with any colour be said is that the Law now seems to be on these mens side by requiring Reordination But 1. The Law-makers profess to establish the Church and not to change it to another thing 2. The Law-makers were not all of one mind in the Reasons of their Laws nor had all studied these kind of controversies Many of them and of the Clergy to this day say that it is not a proper ordination that they require but the giving them Authority to exercise their Ministry in England and the decision of a doubtful case Part of the Church taketh them for true Ministers that were ordained by Presbyters and part do not and that the Congregations may not divide they say they require this like Baptizing after a doubtful Baptism If thou art not baptized I baptize thee I am against this But this proveth not that they take a Presbyter for no Pastor Yea tho they should take his ordaining others to be a nullity Ordaining not being essential to him XXIV The Act of Uniformity or the like Law cannot make the Church no Church or of another species than 1. As it is esteemed by God and his Law 2. Or as it is esteemed by the greater part of the Christian Clergy and Laity Tho the Law should speak as the foresaid odd innovators do For 1. All Christians profess that Christ is the only just Institutor of the essentials of his own Churches All Christians profess Communion with them as Churches of Christs making by his Law The present Church of England professeth this in many books it bindeth all Ministers to hold to Scripture sufficiency and use Discipiine as well as Doctrine and Worship as Christ commandeth It openly holdeth all Laws and Canons about Church essentials yea and integrals to be void and null that are against the Sacred Scriptures and Law of God There is no Power but of God God hath given no power to nullifie his institutions 2. All true Christians who consent to a Parish Minister and attend on his Ministry and join in the Assemblies openly profess to own him first as a Minister of Christ and to join in Worship and Communion of the church as prescibed by Christ which no man hath power to overthrow 3. The Parliament and Convocations and Bishops and Clergy all confess that they have no power to overthrow the Church essentials or offices of Christs Institution They have not revoked the Church Writings in which all this is oft professed They confess that if their Laws mistake and do contrary they bind us not They never openly professed a war against God or Jesus Christ What if one Dr. S. Parker make Christ subject to the King in his Kingdom he is not the Kingdom nor the Church of England For all his words they never made any Law to command Christ or to punish him They never cited him to appear before them nor did any penal execution on his Person which Government implieth They bow at his name and profess subjection to him Therefore if the law had by error said any thing inconsistent with the essence of Churches and Ministry it had not been obligatory to Pastors or people but they ought still to take Churches and Pastors to be what Christ hath made them and described them to be XXV Suppose a Law should say All families shall be so under Diocesans as to have no power but from them and all shall subscribe to this This doth not null family-power and society as instituted by God nor make it a sin to live in Families nor dissolve them all But all must continue in Families as instâ—tuted by God And if any subscribe to this it will not make it a sin in all Wives Children and Servants to live in those families If the Law had said All Schools in England shall be essentially subject to Diocesans must we therefore have had no more Schools Or if the School-master subscribe to them is it a sin to be his Scholar If the Law should say All Christians shall choose their own Pastors and meet and pray and preach as they please but only in essential subjection to Diocesans must all therefore give over Church Communion If the Law had said All the Parish-Assemblies in England shall henceforth be essentially subject to the Pope or a forreign Council We must not therefore have forborn all such Assembling but have kept to the state and duty appointed us by Christ XXVI Here the mistaking Opponents say 1. That indeed de jure none can change the Essence of Christs Ministry and Churches but de facto they may and have done Ans What is meant by changing it de facto Have they de facto nulled Christs Power Law or Offices and Churches What Nulled it by a Nullity of pretended Authority and overcome his Power without Power De jure and de facto to be a true Church or Pastor is all one Christ made true ones De facto they cannot unmake them but by destroying matter or form because they cannot do it de jure They have destroyed neither matter or form of such parish churches as I plead for and which Christ instituted for they had not power to do it Indeed they may de facto make other sort of Churches and Ministers to themselves tho not de jure but not to us who stick to Christs institutions XXVII But say they We confess if the Law did bid all assemblies in England meet in dependance on Diocesans private and publick this would not alter the species of our separate Churches because man hath not power and we consent not Ans Very good And I pray you what alters the case as to the Parish-Churches Is it that they have Steeples and Bells or that they have Tythes It 's the Calamity of Dissenters that they either cannot consider or can feel no strength in the plainest truth that is said against them but thoughts and sense run all one way which they think right XXVIII Obj. But say they Constitutive and Declaritive Laws must be distinguished They can but declare our Meetings to be Diocesan which is false 〈…〉 the Parish-Meetings such Ans 1. Remember that declaring the Parish-Churches to be such doth no more constitute them such than yours Why then talk you so much of the words of Bishops and Clergy and Books as if their declarations made them such 2. But how doth a Law constitute one the Parochial to be Diocesan or null more than your separate meetings if by a Law of toleration it should say the same of them The truth is They are such to consenters that judg them such But they constitute them not such to any that consent not to such a constitution but hold to Christs XXIX But it is said that our thoughts alter not constitutions they are our own immanent acts that nihil ponunt in esse and therefore the Pastors and Churches will be
Communicant hath not so much more than I. XXXVI But say they then you are bound to avâ—â—d sâ—andal by professing openly that you Communicate 〈◊〉 a Dissenter and not with the Church as established by Law Ans 1. Then I should falsly say that which I either think is otherwise or am not resolved in I tell you Few can truly say this if any 2. What need this when the open Profession of all Christians is That it is a Church and Worship of Christs making which they own and intend and none that is against them And when the Articles of the Church of England and the Ordination covenant own Scripture-sufficiency and disclaim all that is against Gods word Must we be supposed to renounce Religion when we meet to profess it And surely for disowning any thing which the Nonconformists judg unlawful all the Books written by them and all the notorious sufferings in twenty two years Ejection and Prosecution are no obscure Notification of their Judgments without speaking it at the Church â—oors or before the Assemblies Must I openly protest against Independency Anabaptistry or Presbytery if I dissent before the face of their Congregations if I will Communicate with them 3. But to stop your demand befâ—re I Communicated in the Parish â—hurch where I now am I went to the Incumbent and told him that I would not draw him into danger or intrude against his will I had been â—â—iled by the Kings Commission and after by the Lord Keeper to debate about Alteration in the Liturgy and Worship and Discipline and I thought that thereby I waâ— by 〈◊〉 6 7 8. ipso facto Excommunicate but not bound to do Execution on my self and therefore if I were separated it should not be my act but I left it to his will He took time and upon advice admitted me Obj. But you must tell them that the Parish Church hath no dependance on the Bishops but as the Kings Officers and that it is Independent and then you fall not under our opposition Ans 1. How many Lawyers and Civilians do openly say as Crompton before Cosins Tables that all Church Government floweth from the King And doth that satisfie you 2. And why must the Parish Church and Pastor needs be Independent Will you have no Communion with Presbyterians 3. And what if it be dependent on the Diocesan as governour tho not as destroyer Is it any more destructive of its Essence than to be governed by a Classis or Council XXXVII As for your telling us Wâ—â—m the Canons eâ—câ—mmunicate or 〈◊〉 Lay-chancellors Officials Surrogates Archdeacâ—ns c. excâ—mmunicate what Oaths they impâ—se c. tell them of it and not us who are not responsible for other mens deeds It no more concerneth our cause of Parochial Lay-communion than to tell us how bad men some Ministers are nor so much neither For I that willingly joyn in the Liturgy will not willingly if I know it so much as seem to own the Ministry of any man that is notoriously Insufficient Atheistical Heretical or so Malignant or Wicked as to do more hurt than good Avoid such and spare not XXXVIII Obj. They want the Peoples câ—nsent and so are no Pastâ—rs Ans The People shew their consent by ordinary Submission and Communion Obj. The People must be supposed to consent to the Law which maketh them no Pastors but the Bishops Curates Ans Both the Suppositions are before confuted both that the People are supposed to consent to any Law against Gods and that the Law maketh Curates to be no Pastors XXXIX To conclude the Objections about the Essence of Parish Churches 1. The question is not Whether there be not a sort of Diocesan Prelacy which nulleth them 2. Nor whâ—ther there be not some men in England that write and plead for such Diocesan Churches as have no true Episcopâ—s pregis much less Episcopus 〈◊〉 under them but are 〈◊〉 Bishops in that Diocess Nor of what number power or interest these men are of against whom I have oft written 3. But whether the Law be on their side or against them for the old Diocesan Government of subordinate Pastors and Churches is to me nâ—w uncertain I did once incline most to the fiâ—â—t sense of the Law but on secâ—nd thoughts hope better of it and am not Lawyer good enough to be certain 4. But if it should be so I verily think â—â—e main 〈◊〉 of the 〈…〉 and therefore 〈◊〉 not to renounce their Pâ—rish â—overnment â—ut only to use it in subordination to the Bishop 5. And I am pâ—st doubt that all the Communicants of England are neither â—ound to decide this Law-doubt nor to understand it nor to believe that the Law hath altered the Government 6. And if they did believe it they ought to keep on in Church Assemblies according to Christs Law taking all that 's against it as void as long as they are put â—n no sin themselves nor the Church notoriously renounceth its â—ssentials 7. And if they were stated Members of other Churches e.g. the Greâ—k the Dutch the French they might â—ccasionally Communicate in our Parishes transiently without examining the Pastors call and discipline but judging by possession and practice 8. And if they should prove no lawfully called Ministers their Office would be valid to those that blamelesly were deceived and knew it not 9. And if they were sure that they were no true Ministers they may joyn with them in all Worship belonging to Lay-Christians 10. But if they prove able godly Ministers of Christ tho faulty setled by Law to the advantage of Religion in a Christian Kingdom where all are commanded thus to maintain national Concord and the upholding those Churches is the very National possession of the Protestant Religion and it goeth for publick Disobedience and Scandal to forsake them and that at a time when many forsake them too for unjust grounds and by suffering for it stand to unwarrantable Accusations of them and sharply Censure those that do not as they and oppugne Peacemakers and all this after the old Nonconformists full Confutation of the Separatists unwarrantable way and the doleful experience of Subversion of all sorts of Government by the Prosecution of such mistakes I say If all this should be the case it is deeply to be considered XL. But the most effectual hindrance is the opinion of unlawfulness in jâ—yning in the Liturgy yet my last Objectors confess that It is lawful to some and that it is nâ—t Communion in it much less in all forms which they call unlawful tâ— all And the sober sort are loth to say tâ—at the Millions of Christians in England and Scotland who live where they can be in no other Churches should rather like Atheists live without all Church-Worship and local Communion And in gaining this I have gained the better half of what I pleaded for And they confess and so do I that publick Communion may be one mens duty and anotâ—â—rs sin as circumstances vary
must serve is his Spouse and his Body and if it shall happen the same Church or any member thereof to take any hurt or hindrance by reason of your negligence ye know the greatness of the fault and the hâ—rrible punishment that will ensue Wherefore consider with your selves the end of your ministry towards the children of God towards the Spouse and body of Christ and see that you never cease your labour your care and diligâ—nce till you have done all that lieth in you according to your bounden duty to bring all such as are or shall be committed to your charge to that agreement in the faiâ—h and knowledg of God and that ripeness and perfectness of age in Christ that there be no place left among you either for error in Religion or viciousness of life Forasmuch then as your office is both of so great excellency and of so great difficulty ye see with how great care and study ye ought to aâ—ply your selves as well that ye may shew your selves dutiful and thankful to the Lord who hath placed you in so high a dignity as also to beware that neither you your selves offend nor be occasions that others offend And after their Covenant to preach according to the Scripture they promise to give faithful diligence to administer the Doctrine Sacraments and Discipline of Christ as the Lord hath commanded and as this Church and Realm hath received the same according to the Commandments of God So that you may teach the people committed to your care and charge with all diligence to keep and observe the same Here Doctrine Sacraments and Discipline are their Office-works Gods Commandments are their Rule tho on supposition that this Realm hath received them according to his Commandments Next they covenant with all faithful diligence to banish all erroneous and strange doctrines contrary to Gods word and to use both PUBLICK and PRIVATE Monitions and Exhortations as well to the sick as to the whole within your cures as need shall require and occasion shall be given And to keep quietness Peace and Love among all Christian people and especially among them that are or shall be committed to their charge All this is setled by Law and all Ministers subscribe to it And is not this enough to the essence of a Pastors office What is the Reason The next promise is Reverently to obey their Ordinary and other chief Ministers to whom is committed the charge and government of them following with a glad mind and will their godly admonitions and submitting themselves to their godly judgments This shews that 1. It is not a strict Divine Right that is meant over them for all Ordinaries and other chief Ministers pretend not to such right 2. If others superiority null their office then none is in office but the King Was Diâ—trepâ—es no Minister because John threatned him as his superior It 's liker he had been none for resisting John of the two Were all degraded that obeyed the Apostles If it should be an error that a Parochial Bishop is a Governor over his junior-Presbyters or a Diocesan over both that nulleth not the Presbyters office The Presbyterians give a Classis or Synod as much power over particular Churches as the Episcopal give to Diocesans or near And yet few Separatists have thence concluded that they have no particular Churches or that this nulleth them contrarily ab est tertii adjecti ad est secundi valet argumentum Parish Churches are govern'd Churches subject to superiors ergo they are Churches And the Law calls them Churches 〈◊〉 it taketh them for Churches while it taketh no essential from them XXIII There are some particular Drs. in England indeed who say that There is no Church without a Bishop of its own and 〈◊〉 Epiâ—câ—pus ibi Ecclesia and that Ecclesia est plâ—â—s Epâ—sâ—â—â— aduâ—ata and that our Parish Ministers are no Bishops and that their sole Ordinations are nullities and consequently it would follow that their Parish Churches are truly but parts of a Church infimae specieâ— And because these men speak against Reordination and yet require those to be ordained again who were here ordained by mere Presbyters therefore it seemeth plain that they take the former for no true Ordination These men I have oft confuted especially in my Treatise of Episcopacy And hence some gather that I charge this error on all the Church of England and take the Law and Clergy to nullifie the Parish-Ministry and Churches Therefore I am specially obliged to answer such misconcluders lest they make my writings a means of deceit against my sence and against my will for so unhappy is the controversal world even of men of Worth and Name that if I do but say that two is less than three and that four is more than three they fear not to say that I contradict my self and R. is against B. and sometimes I speak for and sometimes against the same cause and these being ordinary Disputers and Church-guides What hope have the Christian Flocks of Unity and Peace but by such mens ceasing their disputes Here therefore it must be noted 1. That the men of this opinion are not to be called The Church of England The most of the Bishops and Clergy formerly were against them Dr. Hammond and Bishop Gunning and a few more were almost the first that seemed to go so far 2. And yet even these few do usually except the case of necessity and of the forreign churches as Dr. Sherlock hath lately done at large so that then they cannot take their Episcopal ordination received to be essential to the Priesthood 3. And these men themselves call our Parish societies Parish Churches and deny not the Presbyters to be Episcopi Gregis and to have a pastoral care of the peoples souls for they own the Liturgy Ordination and other writings of the Church which assert it 4. Their opposition to Presbytery hath carried them to appropriate the name Bisâ—op to the Diocesans but by it they mean only a Bishop over Presbyters having the power to ordain and depose them and to â—â— be chief in governing all the flocks But the controversie de nomine and de re are not the same This denieth not all Pastoral Episcopacy in Presbyters over the flocks under them That these men by running into extreams do ill many have written to prove But maiming the Parish Ministry or too much limiting it is not nullifying it 5. Let it be considered that even the Separatists say not that the Power of Ordination is essential to Pastors Some of them take Pastors unordained only elected and received with prayer Some take men ordained by nâ—ighbour Pastors that have no power over them Some take men ordained by Bishops some by Magistrates And Jurisdiction over nâ—ighbour Pastors I am sure the Separatists will say belongs neither to the being or well being of a Pastor If then it be the Power of Ordaining and of Jurisdiction over other Pastors which the Diocesans
ever I knew have not that I know of renounced any thing essential to a Parish-Pastor I before said Ordination and Jurisdiction over Presbyters or other Churches is no part of its essence To be obedient to a Diocesan is no such Renunciation Therefore it is no such Renunciation to promise to obey them in lawful things subordinate to obeying Christ If it prove a mistake in them and that they owe no such Obedience every such mistake doth not degrade them He that said that he that will be greatest shall be servant of all thought not that to obey an equal did null the Ministry Nor he that said Be suâ—ject one to another Christ and Peter paid tribute to avoid offence tho the Children be free But what if a man be in doubt whether such Obedience be not his Duty Is it not the safer side much more if he verily think it his Duty 2. To take Diocesans to be Jure Divino is said by some to be destructive of the Pastoral Office and Churches and a change of the English Church-Government But it 's error For 1. It is not the Destructive Diocesan Government which acknowledg no Church and Pastor under them that those in question consent to but the Governing Diocesan who ruleth subject Pastors and Churches 2. This Question of Divine right is threefold 1. Of that which by Dâ—â—ire right is necessary ad esse 2. Of that which is by Divine right best and mâ—st elegible or needful ad melius esse 3. That which is by right of Divine Concession lawful but not necessary The Church of England never determined which of these was the Diocesans Case All Conformists judged it Lawful multitudes judged it Better than other forms Many judged it necessary when it might be had But no Law determined for any of these alone Unless you will say the Preface to the Book of Ordination doth it by saying It is evident to all men diligently reading holy Scripture and Ancient Authors that from the Apostles time there have been these Orders of Ministers in Christs Church Bishops Priests and Deacons Which Offices were evermore had in such Reverend Estimation c. Here some say That the Church of England took not these for three distinct Orders before 1640 but now Therefore by the word these Orders is meant only two Ans At this rate he must have the betteâ— whom the hearer best trusteth whatever he say If these Orders of Ministers Bishops Priests and Deacons speak not three Orders I cannot understand them Here note partiality the same that refuse to subscribe them because they speak three Orders yet say they speak but two when they argue that Church-Government is changed 1662 from what it was 1640. Indeed Aelfricks Laws in Spelman make Bishops and Priests the same Order and so do a great part of Schoolmen and other Papists but the English Bishops and Clergy were some of one mind and some of another about it and determined it not Unless this Preface be a Determination the Name Order and Office being both used And to instance in no other Saravia tho no English man yet of the Church of England wrote more strongly almost than any that I ever read for Diocesan Episcopacy against Beza c. and that upon this ground of Divine right that they succeeded the Apostles and such as Timothy Titus c. in the Government of many Churches And the Kings Divines at the Isle of White went all on that Ground To say then that to plead a Divine right for them is new is to contradict large Historical Evidences And were it true that this had been never before Imposed or Subscribed surely it is not an Opinion of the Divine right of governing of many Churches that renounceth the being of those Churches it asserteth them to be by Divine right For that which is not is not governable Non entis non sunt accidentia But where and how hath the Law or Church altered the case since 1640. These words were in the Book of Ordination before and I know of none plainer that way since It s destructive Diocesan Government which renounceth the Government of any subject Churches but of one only and of any Pastors that I argue against and not Governours of such Churches XXXIV But it 's objected That they swear not to endeavour any alteration of Church-Government therefore they renounce the Pastoral Office because the present Government excludeth it Ans 1. This is to dictate and not to prove The Diocesan Government hampered and fettered it by the Canons in the time of Whitgift and Bancroft but null'd it not He that reads the Canons or knows the Church and thinks that it's Government hath no need of Amendment is far from my mind But governing is not nullifying 2. It is not true that ever I heard that they swear what this Objection saith The Ministers do not swear but subscribe it and swear Obedience in licitis honestis And I could never learn what Law commands that Oath And if it should extend to obey all the Canons it 's that which I would be full loath to swear but I know no Canon that utterly nulleth the Parish-Churches and Ministers And a Justice that sweareth to execute the Laws is not supposed thereby to justifie every Law nor to execute any if it should be against Gods Law that exception being still supposed 3. Their Subscription never to endeavour alteration engageth them never to endeavour to destroy the Parish Churches and Ministry and so is for them For that would be a great alteration indeed 4. If you should think otherwise yet if the Subscriber or Swearer think himself that it is not destructive but governing Diocesans that he subscribeth to it is not your Opinion or Exposition that bindeth him against his own No tho you were in the right as to the Imposers sense For Ignorantis non est consensus It 's unjust to face them down that they mean what they profess they do not Ask forty Conformists whether they think the Government which they promise not to alter be that Diocesan form which ruleth Parish Churches and Pastors or that which denieth their being and I think few will profess the latter sense 5. And suppose the worst that any Parish-Priest were of that mind yea and were really no true Pastor as to his own acceptance with God he may yet be a Pastor so far true as is necessary to the Essence of the Church if the People know it not For the Innocent suffer not for the guilties sin If a man be a secret Atheist or Heretick or do counterâ—eit Ordination and Election and really had none and the People be deceived by him and know it not while he possesseth the place and doth the work his Baptisms and Administrations are valid to the Church as a Church tho not to himself and his Ministry The Jews Church was not null when the high Priests had no lawful call but bought the Office of Râ—man
Heathens XXXV Obj. But the Vestry swears never to endeavour any alteration Ans 1. The Vestry was never empowred to give the sense of the Church herein 2. I never lived where any such things as Vestries were but in London unless you will call the Ministers and Church-Wardens the Vestry And what 's London to all England 3. If they are so sworn it is as a new thing since 1661. But then they are sworn whoever is for it never to end 〈…〉 in Popery nor destroying Dioceâ—ans but only not to alter 〈…〉 I doubt with mâ—re Officers than we wish continued 4. And whereas those that I now deal with say That indeed before 1640. 〈…〉 Churches and Pastors but now it doth by 〈…〉 Let it be considered that the Lawmakers are so far from professing any 〈◊〉 alâ—â—ratâ—n that it is only the Long-Parliament and the 〈◊〉 Alteratiâ—â— that they complain'd of and therefore sweaâ— Corporations Vestries Militia Nonconformists by the Oxford Oath and engage all Conformists never to endeavour any alteration So that they thought that it was the old Government that they setled And now all this great part of the whole Kingdom is sworn as I said against Popery and foreign Jurisdiction against Patriarchs and against putting down parish churches and pastors that they will never endeavour it by consent or execution of any mens commands The alterations made before these oaths were not essential XXXI I add one more argument That owning subjection to governing Diocesans as such nulleth not the suâ—ject Churches and Pastors else by parity of Reason Subjectionâ— to Arch-Bishops would null the Diocesan Churches and Bishops which it doth not do nor do you think it doth yea tho all Diocesans solemnly promise to obey their Arch-Bishops in their Consecration XXXII If you do know of any Minister that is for destructive Diocesans that will not nullifie the Offices of all the rest that never were of that mind or consent Yea if the Law so meant as you say but prove not you know how commonly Conformists say that the meaning of the Subscription and Oaths is only against Seditious or unlawful sorts of endeavour to alter Be this true or false it proveth that those men consent not contrary to their sense of the Subscription and so renounce not their Churches XXXIII Indeed the new Laws have made Ministerial Conformity much harder than it was before 164â— And also Lay Conformity with uâ— the Church-doâ—rs by the aforesaid Oaths and also Lay Conformity within the Church seemeth very hard in some particular Offices especially Baptismal Circumstances But I think the ordinary Communion in the Liturgy is better than it was before For 1. The â—pistles and Gospels are used after the new Translation which were used after the old 2. Divers Collects have some mistakes changed As on this day at Easter Whitsuntide when it was not on that day 3. The Minister is newly enabled and required to keep all from the Sacrament who are not ready to be confirmed that is that are not Catechized and ready understandingly to renew their baptismal Covenant which is a very great addition of power And if any practise it not that 's his fault and a neglect of execution of his power and when he puts scandalous Sinners from the Sacrament he may say As a Minister of Christ and Rector of this Church I judg you unmeet for its Communion and forbid it you And no more is essential to his Church Discipline in Excommunication It 's too true that the Exercise of this it clog'd with further Prosecution by him in the Chancellors Court which I think few will undertake And it 's true that such Ministers are required to publish the Excommunications of Lay-men past in the Bishops names tho it be according to such Canons as the 6 th 7 th 8 th c. But a man in Fetters is a man It changed not the Pastoral Office when Heathen Emperors persecuted it and when such Christian Emperors as Anastasius Zeno Basilicus Theodosius 2d Constantius Valens c. vexed or cast out those that were not of their Opinions It nulleth not the Office in Switzerland to have none but the Magistrates Discipline XXXIV The Objectors grant that If any Parish-Church shall by Minister and People consenting be formed according to the Rules of the Gospel they are true Churches tho the Law should be against them or command the contrary Ans 1. Much more then if the Law be for all that is essential 2. And doth not this say as much as I am pleading for Name me if you can any thing essential which all Ministers promise not at Ordination If any after renounce it the crime is personal Prove it before you say it and forsake him and charge not his fault on others I think you are not of their minds that say The Law bindeth every Subscriber and Swearer to the sense of the Imposers when he took it through mistake in another sense because they refused to explain it especially if he declared his sense Much less doth it bind him to your sense against his own XXXV But then say the Objectors such Churches are Dissenters as such you joyn with them and not as setled by Law and so it is but a Conventicle and is excommunicated by the Canon or you excommunicated for saying it is a Church and joyning with it Ans 1. What if all this be true Doth it follow that I must separate from it Are not your private Churches more unquestionably Excommunicate c. by the Canon and yet you separate not from them Can you see but on one side 2. But your Affirmation proveth not that the Law nulleth such Ministers or Churches as use the Liturgy and subscribe in the favourable sence tho it should prove a mistake It must first be tryed and judged to be a mistaken sense and even where they strangely Excommunicate ipso facto the fact must be proved and declared by the Judg before Priest and people are bound to Execution tho the Law be loco sententiae the 〈◊〉 being proved and declared no man is bound to do Execution on himself 3. I would seriously advise these Brethren to think Whether all good Christian Men and Women are bound to study the Laws of England before they may resolve what Church to â—â—mmuniâ—ate with yea whether they must be all so well skill'd in Law as to decide these Law-controversies that you and I are not agreed in and Lawyers themselves do ordinarily differ in that is Whether by Law the Parish-Churches and Pastors be changed and nâ—lled and Diocesses be made the only Churches â—â—simae species Must all forbear Communion till they are so good Lawyers Why may it not suffice to know Christs Law and to profess to obey it and to do nothing against it willingly He that will promise to Communicate with thâ— Church but as it is established by Law should have more skill in the Law than I have to know how it is established and every
Towns by that nameâ— But at last the Bishops being loath to diminish their Jurisdiction decreed that very small Cities should have no Bishops ne viâ—câ—eat nomen Episcâ—pi And in process of time in some Countries the name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or City was appropriated at the Princes pleasure to some very few Corporations peculiarly priviledged above the rest So that a King that would have had but one Bishop in his Kingdom as it 's said that all the Abaâ—â—ian Empire hath had but one might have done it by calling but one Town a City VII Yet the People and Bishops being sensible that there was more work For a Bishop in a City-Diocess than one could do in many Countries they had Rural Bishops set over Pâ—pulâ—ns country Churches And tho these were subject to the Diocesans yet hereby the Churches were multiplied But the Bishops soon grew jealous and weary of these Rural-Bishops and most places put them down and set up instead of them a kind of Itinerant visiting Presbyters empowring all Arch-Bishops and Ach Deacons till at last to save themselves the labour and yet not diminish their Dominion they set up the Courts of Lay-Chancellors Officials and many such Offices besides the Arch-Deacons Surrogates c. VIII In England as is agreed by most Historians at first one Bishop had but one Church or Temple And at Luindisfarne saith Bede It was so poâ—â— a thing that it was a house thatcht with reeds The Pastor of this one Church was to convert as many as he could in all the Countrey about him The Heathen Country might be his Diocess but not his Church The converted Christians got into several Monasteries and not into Parish-Churches These Monasteries were partly for Society in Religious Exercise and partly for Studies like Schools to Educate Youth for the Ministry So that long a Diocess was only the Bishops Church with divers Monasteries At last Gentlemen for their convenience built and endowed Parish-Churches the Bishops old single Churches being called the Cathedrals And finally by the help of Princes all the Land was divided into Parishes subject to the Cathedral-Bishops to whom Deans and Chapters were added in imitation of the old Bishops Colledg of Presbyters in every single Church IX When the Rural-Bishops were put down the Presbyters power in their several Parishes was somewhat enlarged And the Diocesses at last became so great that the Bishops were sain to commit more of the oversight to the Presbyters Tho they kept them under by severe Canons Lay-Deputies and the Cogent Sword X. It grew then a controversie among the Papists themselves whether the Parish Incumbents were proper Pastors and had any Power of Government and how much And my Objectors confess that they were reputed Pastors among the Papists and that Linwood calleth them Pastors and the Laity Oves I have cited in Treat of Epis â—ilesaâ—us and many more that prove it Ant. de Dom. Spalatensis is large and full in it Spâ—lman in R. Aâ—lâ—ricks Law shews that the Bishop and Presbyter made but one of their seven Orders A great sort of the Schoolmen say the same Most Drs. say That the Presbyters essentially as Sacredetes have the power of the Keys infâ—ro interiâ—re by which they mean not a power that must be kept secret but that which consisteth in the perswasâ—vâ— use of Gods word on Câ—nferâ—nâ—e privately or publickly as distinct from Magisterial and Câ—gent Power And if they â—e of one Order then if one be a Pastâ—r the other is so also That they are taken but in partem curae is nothing against it but for it For equal Presbyters in one Church have each but partem curae The Reformation finding thâ—ngs in this case determined none of the disputes de nomine Whether Parish Rectors shall be called â—pisâ—opâ—s Gregis or Pastors or Rectors or Iâ—cumbâ—nts but use these names promiscuously Nor did they dispute whether the Parishes are Political Churches But the Definition and not the Name is the thing now before us in debate God hath given every such Minister the essence of a Pastoral oversight of his Flock Men may hinder the Exercise but can no more alter the Christian Office Power than they can deprive a Husband of the power over his Wife And the Diocesans at last have been necessitated to permit the essential Pastoral power by the word to the Incumbents having none else to use it by But Lawyers have taught many to call nothing Government that is not Cogent on the unwilling and so to say that Government is not in the Presbyters but the Bishops and that all is derived from the King which is all true of Cogent Government by the Sword in fâ—ro exteriore but not as to Pastoral Government of the Flock by Gods wâ—rd As Bishop Bilson of Obedience hath distinguished and applied well at large XI Now to come nearer our Case Diocesan Bishops have put down the ranks of Bishops which of old was setled as Presidents over the Presbyters in every Church in Cities and of the lowest Order described by Ignatius and Cyprian and others Every lowest Church hath not now a Bishop over the Presbyters as it had for divers hundred years And by this they have unchurched all the old sort of Churches in the sense of them that say There is no Church where there is no Bishop over Preâ—byters And they have set up a Diocesan Church and Bishop only wâ—â—re should be many Churches and Bishops and thus 〈◊〉 homâ—â—â—m I argued with them c. But indeed this Parochial Episcopacy or Prâ—sidâ—ncy being wrongfully said to be Essential to the Church being at most bâ—t useful to peace ad melius esse and the Epicopacy or Pastoral care of the Laity without any power over the Clergy being it that is essential to single Church Pastors In truth no man can alter this In Consent and â—â—putatiâ—n it is altered by those that think Parish Curates no Pastors and deny any Essential power over their Flocks But it is not in Consent and Reputation destroyed by them that acknowledg their Essential power and subject only themselves as Pastors to the oversight of Diocesans and Magistrates They do but destroy the 〈…〉 of Episcopacy of humane Institution which was over Presbyters in 〈◊〉 Châ—rchâ—â— but not the Episcopacy over the Flock which is of Christs Insâ—iâ—utioâ— XII 〈◊〉 whether most in England are of this Opinion or of that for 〈◊〉 or for meer gâ—verning Episcopacy and which way the Laws go and 〈◊〉 may be called the sense of the Church when Convocations and Bishops seem to differ and men change their Opinions with the Age and Interest it is impossible for me to be sure But I know how they govern by what Canons and by what Courts and as all their Cogent power is from the King it is no wonder if they be chosen by him But the old sort of Bishops that had no forcing power was so constantly otherwise chosen that their Canons nulled the Magistrates
choice And our present Canons since 1604 tho they null not the Parochial Pastorship do so far restrain it as I hope my Conscience shall never approve But yet for that I will not forsake what is of God nor make mans failings a pretence against my duty to God and Man to the Violation of Love Unity and Peace Yet I will try by distinct speaking to make both the Case and my meaining plainer if I can And thereby to shew that our case differeth but gradually from the old Nonconformists as to Lay-mens Parochial Communion where there are honest Ministers And that the old Nonconformists had better Evidence Scripture and Reason on their side than either those Innovators who make Parish-Pastors to be but de specie of humane Institution made by Bishops and changeable by them having just so much power as they please to give them or the Brownists that are so much of the same Principles as to think that mens Laws or Canons can change the form of the Office or that judg it nullified by tollerable Imperfections and Communion made unlawful by such faults as are found in almost all the Churches on Earth Qu. Whether according to the description of the Scripture and the exposition of Dr. Hammond himself all qualified Parish Ministers be not true Pastors and Bishops of the Flocks and with their consenting Christian Communicants true particular Churches and de facto all be not in the power given them by God which is essential hereto and in the power generally acknowledged by the legal Church Ans I have spoken to this so largely in my Treatise of Episcopacy and there added the testimonies of Writers old and new Protestants and Papists that I will give but a breviate of it here The essence of the Church Ministry consisteth in POWER and OBLIGATION FROM CHRIST to teach to guide in Worship and to oversee and guide the Conversation and Communion of the Flocks If it were not of Christ they were but officers of men de specie even of an office of mans making Dr. Hammond saith that Christ gave the Keys only to the Apostles and they only to their Successors That there is no evidence that there were any of a second order of Presbyters in Scripture time that this order was after made by Man Mr. Dodwell sheweth how and why and more fully than Dr. Hammond asserteth that such Presbyters have no more power than the ordaining Bishops intended to give them Or saith Dr. H. If they have a first power it is such as may not be exercised without a second so that it is indeed no true power to act And the Dr. plainly tells the London Ministers p. 80 81. There is no manner of incongruity in assigning of one Bishop to one Church and so one Bishop in the Church of Jerusalem because it is A. CHURCH not Churches being forced to acknowledg that where there were more Churches there were more Bishops And he denied our Presbyters that were not Diocesans to be Bishops both City and Country Presbyters And consequently that our Parishes were no Churches And on these grounds he and Bishop Gunning and such others judged Presbyters Ordination null because they were no Bishops And the said Dr. tho I thought he had been next Petavius one of the first that had expounded the new Testament Elders to be all Bishops of several Diocesses yet tells us that he thought most of his brethren were of his mind herein And when we in Worcestershire formed a Pacificatory Association of the Epicopal Presbyterians Indepâ—ndents and Peace-makers agreeing lovingly to practice so much in Doctrine Worship and Discipline as we were for according to our several principles forbearing each other in the rest and Dr. Warmstâ—â—â— and Dr. Tho. Good being for Bishops subscribed to it Dr. Peter Gunnâ—â—g wroâ—e largely against so doing to Dr. Warmstrie and took him off upon these aforesaid principles and they then called their Judgment the Judgment of the Church of England and wrote as if the Church had been of their mind and gone their way I wrote â—large Answer to Dr Gunning's Paper not printed and proved that the old Protestant Bishops and Doctors were of another mind largely citing their testimonies in my Christian Câ—ncâ—rd and plainly warned English Protestâ—nts to take heed of these Innovators and that the name of the Church and Episcopacy deceive them not against the Church and Protestant Cauâ—e many â—ose against me for this with great indignâ—tion especially Arch-Bishop Bramhall and two or three learned Writers and would make the world believe that it was the Church of England which I sought to defame and bring under suspition and which owned Grâ—tius and his way of Reconciliation with Rome when as it was for departing from the professed principles of the reformed Bishops and Doctors and from the book of Ordination and other writings of the Church that I blamed them Yet would they needs claim the name of the Church of England And it is not here seasonable for me to tell how many and how great men in 1661 and 1662 seemed by their wâ—rds and doings to be full at least as high as they nor how they expressed it nor how many strongly conceited by the Act thâ—â— requireth reordination of men ordained by Presbyters and by the number rejected who refused it That the Parliament had been of thâ—ir mind and much more the â—â—nvâ—cation called the church-reprâ—sentative especiâ—lly when they heard men call the old Bishops and Arch-Bishops such as â—sher Downame 〈◊〉 c. in Iâ—eland and G. Abbot Rob. Aâ—bâ—t Grindal and many such in England Puritans and Presbyterians And when Pâ—â— Hâ—lâ—â— maketh Arch bishop Abbot and the Bishops and Clergy in his days to â—e of one mind vilified by him and Arch-bishop Laud and his Clergy after of another In this case I gave the name of the present Diocesans to those that thus claimed it and pretended so confidently to the present possession of it but I thought not their claim just And when I sometimes used the name of English Diâ—cesans for this sort who nullifie the Parish Churches and Pastorship it was but to notifie them that so claimed it supposing I had oft sufficiently opened my sense and usually added that they nullifie them not effectively but quantum in se and by their consequences But I again now tell the Reader that I think the Judgment of the church of England considered as humanely constituted by publick professions and by Law much less as divinely constituted is not to be measured or named from any innovators or any that most confidently claim it or think they are uppermost at the present and thereby have that right but as Divine by Gods word whose sufficiency we all profess and as humane by the published Church professions that is the Liturgy the book of Ordination the 39 Articles of Religion the Apology of the Church of England the Defence of that Apology set in all Churches the book of Hâ—milies Nowels
Christs Name to invest him solemnly in the number of the faithful delivering him a sealed pardon of all his sins and a grant of right to grace and glory Can there be a higher exercise of the Keys Matth. 28.19 20. It is the Apostles work Disciple me all nations baptizing them c. And Dr. Hammâ—nd thinketh that in Scripture-time there were no Baptizing Presbyters but Bishops and indeed it is so great a use of the Keys that this chiefly condemneth Laymens and womens Baptizing at least the trying the Catechized and judging of their capacities must needs be the prime great act of Church-Power whatever be said of the executâ—â—n Now Papists and Protestants generally place this Power in Parochial Incumbents yea and in all other â—resbyters Even those that convert Countreys of Infidels and are under no particular Bishop must baptize and judg of the Catechumens capacity for baptism and are Parish Incumbents denied this Office power of the Keys and is it the Diocesan or they that use it by baptizing Obj. The Canon requireth them to baptize all Infants brought according to law and so not to be the Judges Ans You should say and so commandâ— them how to judge The Magistrate may command men how to do their office-work and yet neither be the maker nor unmaker of the office tho he mistake If Rulers misgovern that 's their sin but the office of Pastors is still the same and we must not misobey but suffer and as Bâ—shop Bilson saith Go on with our work as long as we can 2. And to bid them do more than they would is not to null their power of doing less And to punish a man for his duty is not to diâ—oblige him from it till it truly disable him 2. A second great exercise of the Church Keys is Ministerially as from Christ to declare his Laws and charge men to obey them both the Church together and particular persons singly As Legislation is the first and great part of Christs Government before Judicature so the Ministerial declaring Christs commands and demanding obedience is the great act of Government The same word therefore comprehendeth feeding and ruling 1 Pet 5.2 3. c. Matth. 24.45 46. Who then is a faithful and wise servant whom his Lord hath made ruler over his houshold to give them meat in due seaâ—â—n It is ruling by seasonable feeding 1 Thes 5.12 To be over them is exercised by labouring amongst them and admonishing them 1 Tim. 5.17 Ruling well is nothing greater than labouring in the word and dâ—ctrine 1 Tim. 3.2 A Bishâ—p must be apt to teach Dr. Hammond One that is able and ready to communicate to others the knowledg that he himâ—elf hath Heb. 13.7 â—7 24. Ruling the flâ—ck is by teaching and watching over thâ—m To be the greatest is to be most serviceable to all to be ruled by them is to know them to esteem them highly in love for their works sake to obey Gods word delivered by them and their conduct in mutable circumstances Heb. 13.7 1 Thes 5.12 And to imitate their good examples 1 Pet. 5.3 And what law forbids Incumbents to promulgate Christs commands and charge men to obey them Or to go to any negligent person of his Flock with the same charge or to go to any Drunkard Fornicator Railer and to tell him from God of hâ—s sin and danger and exhort and command him to repent and amend And who most doth this work among us 3. Another part of Government is to judg professing Christians capable of Sacramental Communiâ—â— and admit them and deliver it them as Christs Ministers bâ— his comâ—â—â—siâ—â— anâ— from him And therein to renew their publick absoâ—ution and theâ—r Coâ—enant pâ—iâ—â—ledg and their delivered part in Christ and right to life Noâ—e dare dâ—â—y that this is a high part of the power of the Keys and proper Governmeâ—t to judg who is capable of Church Communion and receive them and deliver them from Christ the pledg of life And all Papists and Protestants almost judg this power essential to the Priesthood and common to all Parochial Incumbents And the Church of England as I said before 1. Delivereth it to them in Ordination 2. Requireth them to catechize and certâ—fie for such as shall be confiâ—med and methinks the Diocesan here useth less of the judicial power than the Incumbent for he doth but lay his hands on them and say a prayer over such as come to him for no man can dream that he can examine all the people in his Diocess so far as to judg whether they are fit for Communion Therefore he is supposed but to execute the judgment of the certifying Incumbent If he take all at a venture without a certificate or knowledg or if the Incumbent be unfaithful I cannot help or excuse that 3. They are required to keep away all that be not confirmed or ready and desirous of it 4. They may hear any just accusation of the scandalous 5. They may admonish him if he will speak with them 6. They may refuse him if obstinate and impenitent 7. They may declare the reason why they do so as Christs Ministers by his Authority and tell the Church their duty to avoid the Communion of such 8. They may bind him over to answer his contumacy at the Bar of God and what of this is denied by the Church to belong to the Incumbents Office and who else is capable of doing this in Parishes that have multitudes of ungodly persons If all this should be made so difficult by the multitude and badness of delinquents or by bad Canons or bad Government of the Church by Diocesans Officials c. and thereby be almost all left undone I cannot help that nor excuse it but what I have said against such doing is too little And if Priests be so bad that they will any where sooner scorn it than practice it at the rate that it must cost them I am as much against such Priests as others are But I will not therefore make the Office of Christâ— Ministers the creature of man and mutable at his will nor will I forsake faithful Ministers for the sake of the perfidious no nor for their own tolerable faults or imperfections And now consider seriously 1. Whether there be any essential part of the office of a Pastor denied by that which may justly be called the Church of England to the Parish Incumbents 2. And whether incomparably more of it even of the government of the flocks by the Kâ—ys of Christs Institution be not by Law and Canon required and in fact performed by the said Incumbents than by the Diocesans And whether any use it if they do not If it be alledged that I have in my Treatise of Episcopacy named many instances in which they are deprived of the exercise of the very essentials I still answer that if any shall by misgoverning Canons or practise lay penalties on them that will perform their office these do their part to
Nation into his Church as a Hen gathereth her Chickens under her Wings And Rom. 11. Only their own unbelief broke them off from being a National Church including Infants And it is part of the Saints triumph that the Kingdoms of the World are become the Kingdoms of the Lord and of his Christ If you will read Mr. Beverlys Book called The whole duty of Nations it will give you full proof of this Where hath the Gospel extensively much prospered where Princes and Rulers were not Christians The Turks give liberty of Religion And yet the sometime famous Greek Churches Corinth Philippi Coloss Ephesus Laodicea Philadelphia and more than all the West are Apostatized or withered to a few ignorant vicious scandalous Christians Obj. IV. 8. If such a confederation in lawful Circumstantials as well as Integrals will make a Church I know not why we may not have a Catholick Visible Church organized if this be a due acception of a Church Ans This is as much as to say If the name Church may be used equivocally as all words must of several sorts then all those sorts may be the same I deny it If you dislike the use of the name you have your liberty as a Grammarian to forbear it But sure the Name and the Thing are not all one nor the Controversies about them 2. But we have a Catholick Visible Church Organized as I have oft proved against the Papists viz. under one Christ the Head and his Ministers as his subordinate Officers Obj. V. Page 3. If you touch a mans finger you touch the man we have communion with an integrum perpartes and with a Genus by the Species and with both by individuals Nay as every part of the Scripture one verse or sentence of it makes up sence so every part of the Liturgy as in form and manner therein contrived is Liturgy and worship thereafter is according to the Liturgy tho it be but part of the wâ—rship Page 20. As for the falseness in Integrals it gives the denomination to the whole for an Integral part is an essential part of the whole Much more there is to the same purpose making him guilty of all that useth a part Ans 1. You have the freedom of using words at your pleasure but not imposing them on mankind when necessity hath taught the World to distinguish essential and integral parts you have no authority to confound their Language by the quibble of calling Integrals essential causes of the whole A totum per aggregationem as a heap of Sand or a field of Grass is not constituted of a proper essentiating form and so homogeneous matter aggregate is all the being it hath And if you make contiguity an essential cause or how else you will you have liberty of speech But we will not be cheated by it to believe that it causeth any more than Totality or Integrality and the absence of it is a privation of no more And all mens Graces Obedience and Worship are defective in point of Integrality and degree and I hope you will not say that they need no favour or pardon or amendment 2. All human actions have their faults must we therefore do nothing or converse with no men England is one Kingdom If there be one or many faults in its Laws or officers may we therefore obey none that are faultless The Laws are the Rule of National Justice may a Judg Justice Officer or subject use none of them because some are faulty Doth that make him guilty of all Bonum est ex causis integris The fault of a part may indeed denominate the whole faulty so far But the whole Law or Liturgy may be called faulty for a part and yet he that useth either not be guilty of any of the bad part for using the good The Law and Liturgy are one thing and the use is another Its faults are no further his than he owneth them your Bread or Meat may be called bad if part only be bad and yet if you eat none but the good part it will not hurt you 2. But if it must be otherwise no man may hear you or joyn with your Churches And do you think as aforesaid that Mr. Faldo and all his Church at Barnet lived not in a sinful communion very many years that omitted at least an integral part of publick worship the singing of Gods praise Christ with his Disciples sung a Hymn after the Sacrament The Jews Church made it the chief part of their Worship James prescribeth it us in all our Holy Mirth such as the Lords Day is appointed for 1 Cor. 14.26 Every one had a Psalm and with them no one had a Psalm tho his Judgment was for it the question was Whether he should forsake them for refusing it I thought not because it was better that they had something that was good than nothing But your argument would not only unchurch them but make all sinners that communicated with them for omissions of great duties are faults and greater faults than tolerable failings in performance He that prayeth not at all doth worse than he that prayeth by a Book and he that preacheth or teacheth not at all doth worse than he that readeth a Sermon so that their total stated omission and opposition to singing by your false rule denominated them no worshippers of God if the whole must be denominated from a part How many private Meetings in London never sing a Psalm for fear of being discovered Yea how many seldom read a Chapter but only preach and pray and sometime administer the Sacrament Must we needs say therefore that they omit all Worship VI. On such occasions I argued That if we must not communicate with any Parish Church because of the faults of the Liturgy it will follow that we must not communicate with any Church on Earth that hath as great faults and that by this we must renounce Communion with all Christs Body on Earth All the Armenians Nestorians Eutychians Copties Abassines Georgians Greeks Russians Papists yea Lutherans have a more faulty Liturgie or manner of worship than the English Yea the Churches called Calvinists have their Liturgies and faults And I instanced in Switzerland because as God hath of late most preserved their peace so they are taken to be the honestest sort of Protestants that in poverty serve God with soundest doctrine and least scandal of Life but yet have no proper discipline but the Magistrates Is it a sin to have confederacy or Communion with their Churches To this he plainly saith Page 11. It is That is all that confederate with them as Churches are guilty of their error called Erastian For subjection tâ— such discipline is the condition of their Communion Ans Subjection is an equivocal word If it were by profession or subscription of consent it were indeed to be guilty of that error tho not by a fauâ—t of the Part denominating the whole to make their worship unlawful or their Churches none but
may command all that consent to signifie it by such a sign as standing or lifting up the hand or subscribing c. And they are bound to obey them 6. I have oft enough instanced in Translations Metres Tunes Utensils Ornaments and many such like Obj. The Pastors make no Laws Ans Dally not with names Any thing is a Law which ruling authority maketh duty If Writing it maketh a Law they may write it But a verbal-Mandate is one species of a Law And imposeth and determineth and obligeth to obedience and it is sin to disobey because God commandeth them to obey Heb. 13.17 And even by the 5th Commandment It doth as truly limit and oblige when Pastors command as when Magistrates do it tho they force not by the Sword Obj. But these are but natural circumstances and belong no more to worship than to any other things Ans It 's a sad thought to me to think how many seem satisfied with such an answer as this All substances have their accidents quality time place c. But yet the accident of one substance is not the accident of another The quantity and quality of a man is not the quantity and quality of a Toad c. When these accidents are adjoyned to worship they be not accidents of other things Is Speaking no part nor accident of worship because speaking is used in common things Kneeling is used in other cases But kneeling in prayer to express reverence is not common to other things Putting off the hat sheweth Reverence to a Prince But to be uncovered at Prayer or Sacrament is the Accident at least of that Worship and not of other things Metre and Tunes belong to Ballads But the Metre and Tune of Psalms doth not but is appropriate to those Psalms Time and Place belong to all natural actions But the Time and Place separated to Gods Worship is an accident only of that It is not the natural specification of an act or circumstance or the generical nature that we speak of but the individual accident or circumstance as appropriate to a religious work Is love to God no worship because love is a natural act Is praying no act of Religion because we may pray to men Is eating and drinking no part of the Sacrament because we use them as natural acts for our daily sustenance Is washing no part of Baptism because we wash at other times Thinking is a natural act but holy thinking is more Were Davids sorts of Musick no part or accident of Worship because Musick is natural or artificial It magnifieth these acts to be applied to worship and it is a commendation of Worship-Ordinances that they are suited to nature and advance and sanctifie it Now at last I come closer to my question Have you no Church Rulers among you No Elders that rule well Is it unlawful to communicate with you if those Elders by Mandates which are obligatory to the flock do prescribe Days and Hours Temples or publick places for ordinary Worship and if they command you to use the new Translation rather than the Geneva publickly or prescribe the same Metre and Tunes rather than your Congregation shall sing some one Psalm and some another Or if they command them to be uncovered at Sacrament and Prayer or to kneel at prayer c. If you take this power from the Pastors and will separate from them for such obliging Laws or Mandates you do that very thing which you fiercely talk against you destroy or resist Christs Kingly Government by his Officers Oh what is Man What are the best of Men What doth the Church and World suffer by them The same men that cry up Christs Kingdom call it rebellion against him to obey his Officers As if we must depose or disobey the King unless we disobey all his Judges Justices and Officers All the obligatory decisions that the Apostles made about their Love Feasts anointing the sick the Kiss of Love long Hair covering or uncovering order of prophecying and of collections c. were not standing Laws to us nor done by uncommunicable power but were temporary Laws and local and such as their Successors when fit may make If you have no such Rulers in your Churches you should queston whether your Churches have the true order of Pastors as well as you question the Parish Ministers Do they not want ruling power as well as theirs specially if you deny the very power and they be but hindred in the exercise Obj. But some may be forced to say Our Pastors do nothing but by the peoples consent Ans They are their Pastors by consent and rule them as voluntary and not by force But their rule and precepts are never less obligatory on Conscience by vertue of Gods command to obey them Must they prescribe none of the things forementioned till all have voted it or consented They must command them to consent and they sin if they disobey tho they can force none to obey Object But some may be driven to say We allow such prescribing power to Pastors but not to Magistrates Ans 1. What Power the Kings of Judah used in Worship David Solomon Asa Jehosaphet Hezekiah Josiah I need not tell 2. Christ came not to put down Kings but to sanctifie their office All power is given him By him Kings reign The Kingdoms of the world are his by right Rulers are his Ministers for our good They must punish evil doers and promote well doing He commands us to honour and obey them They are keepers of both Tables They may drive Ministers to their duty and punish them for mal-administration Tho they may usurp nothing proper to the pastoral office nor forbid them any such thing yet such circumstances as belong to the nation or to many Churches and not to this or that in peculiar the Magistrates may determine It is of great use that all the approved Churches in a Nation signifie their consent in the same Confession of Faith the same anniversary days of Humiliation and Thanksgiving as is done about the Powder Plot and the same Translation of the Scripture if not also the same Psalm Books God strictly commandeth Concord and to serve him with one mind and mouth and to avoid confusion and division and discord What reason can any man give why Christs Officers appointed to rule by the sword may not thus discharge their trust Shall we sin if the Law impose a Translation Psalm Book or reverent gesture unless we separate Is commanded obedience become a sin And yet not if a Pastor or a ruling Majority of people injoin it or unless we leave all to confusion X. Here therefore I utterly renounce the opinion that shall hold that such things being lawful when uncommanded become unlawful when commanded by such as in Ministry Magistracy or Families or Schools are Rulers Yea if the Ruler misdo his work the sin is his I must not separate from every Kingdom Church or Family that is ill governed Nor am I