for my Cure the reading of Bilson and Hooker and named no others I now recited the words of Bilson and Hooker the first as asserting the Principles of the Parliament the second as going quite beyond them on the Principles of them that pull'd down the Parliament I cited page and words at large To all this I have nothing but that you will cover your Fathers nakedness and not own all that they say But doth not this yield that this was their doctrine What need you disown or cover it if it were not so Yet nothing will make some men confess But still Mr. Hooker you admire and so did Camden Usher Morton Hales Gawden King James King Charles I dare not joyn my self to so great Names as one of his Admirers lest I seem too much to value my self I will come far behind them supposing that a long tedious Discourse in him hath as much substance as one might put into a Syllogism of six Lines I said but that it was theirs and such Prelatist's Principles that led me into what I did and wrote His Principles might do it and not he as they were managed by other men But these are Niceties to men that heed not what they read or say What is written Line 1. p. 24. § 10. you seem to defend and 1. you say What is this more than some that writ for the Kings Cause in the late Wars professed Answ And will you defend or own all that then was confessed by them Have you read the Kings Answer to the 19 Propositions Do you know that the Parliaments Adherents drew up a Catechism out of that Answer as pretending to justifie all their Cause by it Know you not that in Fountains Letter answered by Dr. Steward and in Sir Nethersole's Writings for the King and many others those things are supposed or asserted which I would not counsel you now to assert Your Instance is That as to making of Laws our Kings have not challenged a Power without Parliaments Answer God be thanked but that 's none of our Question But what you will not know you cannot understand Seeing you seem to justifie Hooker here who saith That Laws they are not which publick Approbation hath not made so Which I believe of those Countries where such publick Senates have part in the Legislation By this you must say that in the Turks Dominions or any the like there are no Laws But if you say that the Original Grant of the Legislative Power to one is equivalent to an Approbation of his Laws I maintain that Hooker's Principle is false That by the natural Law whereto God hath made all subject the natural power of making Laws to command whole publick Societies of men belongeth so properly to the same entire Societies that for any Prince or Potentate of what kindsoever upon earth to exercise the same himself and not either by express Commission immediately and personally received from God or else by Authority derived at first from their Consent upon whose persons they impose Laws it is no better than meer Tyranny How hard a task then do you put Kings upon to excuse themselves from Tyranny when ever such Prelatists will accuse them of it For 1. I hope you will not put them to prove That they have their Power by an express Commission immediately and personally from God as Saul and David had Shall we obey none but those that fanatically can pretend to a Revelation or immediate personal Commission from Heaven And 2. prove if you can that the People have Regal power to use or to give I grant that originally their Consent may be necessary to the designation of the Person or Family that shall receive it from God But it is God that giveth the power though the people choose the Person or Family no man giveth that which he hath not The People have not legal or governing Power Ergo they cannot give it The Wife chooseth her Husband but Gods Institution giveth him his power If that it be certain as Doctor Hammond hath proved against John Goodwin that the Peoples consent doth give no power but onely let in the person that shall receive it from God and not from them how dare you thus conclude all Kings on earth to be but Tyrants as Hooker plainly doth For no King on Earth hath an immediate personal Commission from Heaven And no King that I know of can receive power from the People that never had it to give Ergo you make all Kings to be no Kings but Tyrants but falsly Will you defend this because Hooker wrote it Were not these the Levellers and Democratists Principles higher than the old Parliament owned Must a Clergy of such Principles put men upon banishing the Non-conformists five Miles from a Corporation as men of seditious Principles Terras astraea reliquit You tell me I take what is for my purpose and leave out the rest Ans Semper idem Do I mai many Sentence Do I pervert any Is the rest contradictory to this What in the great Hooker No not at all I suppose the rest Unrighteous man If you require me to write out all his Book when ever I transcribe a part I own that which you transcribe What would you have more But next you say that I have found other Doctrine in Hookers other Books Answ A silly pretence of which anon You ask Was you led aside by Hooker c. yet you quote passages out of the 8th Book that came out since Ans A man that would turn us to Conformity must be able himself to heed what he readeth 1. I said not that Hooker but such Principles led me 2. I never said that I was led by every word that I now cite but that these words contain the Principles which missed me that is so far and so long as I followed those Principles Do you not see that your heedlesness tempted you to this Error and yet your Ex post liminio and first building the Roof seemed sence to you or you would have them seem such at least to me But it 's well that you disown these three Book of Hookers also But 1. is not this forecited in the first the very sum of all that you are afraid of 2. Will you so give away the sixth and seventh which say far more for Episcopacy than all the rest 3. Will you thus reproach all Bishop Gauden's triumphant Vindication and Dedication to the King 4. Did he not tell you that the Copy was interlined with Hookers own hand as approving it What would you have more 5. I again tell you I can bring you proof of a Concordant Copy the Scribes Errates excepted 6. Mr. Walton could not deny it 7. Dr. Bernard cited by you confirmeth it For to say that a Sentence or two were left doth intimate that the Book was his and leaving out is not putting in And I cited nothing that was left out nor any thing in it that is maimed for want of
and many Adulteries with Citizens Wives And it is most to be noted That they who after his flight reformed the Civil Government were strong Papists and mainly opposed the reformation of Religion I shall recite no more out of this Episcopal Doctor Prebend of Canterbury but desire you again to read page 23 24. What changed Luther's mind to own the Protestants Arms against the Emperour And page 32 33. What King James saith to vindicate the French Protestants I never knew yet that the French Protestants took Arms against their King c. And that Cap. 3. pag. 64 to 73. He cites the Confessions of all the Churches the Augustane the French the Belgick the Helvetian the Bohemian the Saxonian the Swevian the English as consenting for Obedience to their Soveraigns But all this is nothing to you that can say nothing of worth against it Neither the Vindication of their Principles or Practice But unrighteous Judge I am with you partial and unequal 1. Because I told you that you should not have set down the bare Names of T. C. and Travers as a Charge without citing what they say And is not that true Is that an unequal expectation And what if I had added That had you proved them guilty it had not concerned any of us or our Discipline or Principles till you had proved that we had owned the same And is that unequal O Justice 2. Because I said I will no further believe Bancroft or Sir Th. Aston then they prove what they say No nor you neither Must I believe Adversaries accusing Parties without proof and such Adversaries too Why must I believe them more than Heylin or more than Doctor Moulin afore-cited believed the English Tradition against Geneva Is this the equality of your way § 37. It 's tedious disputing with a man that cannot or will not understand what is said no not the Question no not the Subject of it You cite my words out of the Saints Rest that say not any thing to the Question The Question is not What were the final Motives of the War But what was the Controversie of the warranting Cause and Foundation that must decide the Case whether it was lawful or unlawful The Bonum publicum and the Gospel and Religion and mens Salvations are the great moving ends and Reasons of a lawful War But it is not these Ends that will serve to prove a War lawful Could that be the Cause or Controversie which they were both agreed in Did not the King profess to be for Religion Liberty c. as well as they See yet his Shrewsbury Half-crowns if Coin be any evidence with you private men may not raise War for Religion but the King may The Finis and the Fundamentum are not the same I there talkt but of the Finis and Motives I now speak of the Fundamentum and Controversie which is well known to be whether the King or Parliament then had the power of the Militia rebus sic stantibus and whether the Parliament had true Authority to raise an Army against the Army Commissioned by the King for that Defence and executing the Law upon Delinquents which they then pretended to Now I say still I know no Theological Controversie herein I know no Scripture but Policy and Law and Contract that will tell us whether the King of Spain or the States be the rightful Governours of the Low Countries Or whether the King of France be absolute If you can out of Scripture prove that all Republicks must have the same Form and Degree of Government or how Forms and Degrees must be varied in each Land I resist you not but only confess my weakness that so high a performance is beyond my power Had you understood the Question you might have spared your Citation of my words § 41. You come again to our swearing Conformity and you say That it must reasonably be understood of a tumultuous and armed endeavour Answ 1. And it is publickly known that we are ready to swear against a tumultuous and armed endeavour unless by the King's Command If you would not endeavour it even with Arms if the King commanded you accuse us not of Disloyalty for being more Loyal than you If you would we are of the same judgment as to the thing And so while the thousands of ignorant Souls are untaught men of the same judgment on our part openly professed out must some be Teachers and some silenced some preferred and some in Prison and banished from Corporations c. even while they hold the same thing And why Because one part of them dare take an Oath in a more stretching sence than the others dare And that 1. Because they are taught not only by Amesius where you cite him but by all consciencious judicious Casuists That an Oath is to be taken strictly and not stretchingly in the common sense of the words unless the Law-givers will otherwise explain themselves 2. And the words are universal Not endeavour at any time without the least limitation or exception of any sort of endeavour I should have broke that Oath by this writing to you had I taken it Et non est distinguendum aut limitandum fine lege 3. The Law-makers are to be supposed wise considerate men especially the Bishops and able to distinguish between an universal and a particular or limited enunciation and to express their minds in congruous words 4. The Law-makers knew before and since that we would take the Oath if Endeavouring had been limited as you do and yet they never would limit it by one syllable 5. The Reasons used for that Clause and our acquaintance with the Bishops and other Authors of it leave our Consciences perswaded that their meaning was against all Endeavours and not tumultuous military or illegal only as in the Et caetera Oath 1640. It was that I will not consent which is less than Endeavouring And we are not ignorant what relation this Oath hath to that And we take it to be a sin to deceive our Rulers by taking an Oath in that sence which we believe was not by them intended and seeming to them to swear what we do not mean 6. When twenty London Ministers took the Oath because Doctor Bates told them that the Lord Keeper promised him at the giving it to put in the words Endeavour by any seditious or unlawful means or to that sense the said limiting words were not only left out but when old Mr. Sam. Clark said My Lord we mean only unlawful endeavour Judge Keeling asked Will you take the Oath as it is offered you and refused to add any such Explication and told them when they had done they had renounced the Covenant 7. The Justices tell us when they offer us the Oath That we must take it according to the plain sense of the words 8. The Parliament in the Act for regulating Corporations in the Declaration there imposed and the Oath doth fully satisfie us what is their
sense about this matter 9. It is not true as far as any London Ministers can know that ever the Judges declared their sense as you say for that limitation That is that ever they did by any Consultation and Concord give any judgment in the Case whatever any single Judge as the Lord Keeper might say privately or any one alone when another may say the contrary 10. If they had it 's a known thing whatever their judgment may do to make Cases in the Common Law yet as to Statute Law only the Law-makers are the Law-Interpreters as to any Interpretation which shall be as the Law it self a Rule universally to the Subjects And that Judges and Justices who here are made the Judges do only interpret the Law for the decision of particular Controversies that come before them And if all the Judges and Justices in England should meet and agree of this Statute it would only shew how they resolve in particular judgments to expound it and not what is the true obliging sense to the Subjects Conscience Otherwise the Judges would be equal to if not above the King and Parliament For he hath more power who determineth what sense and soul the Laws shall have than they that only make the words and body which others may put what sense they please on Nor can all the Judges make it lawful to take up Arms against the King if they so expounded any Law They have a deciding Expositors judgment as to the Case before them but not the regulating universal expounding power at all 11. We think that Divines that preach against sin above al◠men must not stretch their Consciences in so dangerous a point as publick swearing 12. And we think that if men be once taught to equivocate and play fast and loose with the sacred Bond of Oaths Conscience is quite debauched no sufficient Bar is left to keep out any the greatest sins Preachers and People become incredible humane society is endeavoured to be dissolved and the King's Life secured much by his Subjects Fidelity and Conscience of an Oath is exposed to the wicked wills of men We charge no others with all this but we will avoid it our selves though it cost us yet more You may swear not to endeavour and mean particularly not by Tumult or Arms but by some other endeavour but so cannot we Therefore do you enjoy your Liberty Maintenance and Honour and we will be without them and to morrow at death we shall be as free and as high as you But fie Sirs why will you talk of straining Oaths and turning plain Oaths into Snares ana◠allowing no Interpreters Are your ways here equal too 1. What is the plain sense but an universal sense of an universal enunciation If by All or None I understand All or None and you understand not All but Some who is the Strainer of the Oath And I pray you tell me if once any endeavour shall be excepted who shall determine how much it must be The first part of the Oath saith Not on any pretence whatever That is we must not take up Arms against any Commissioned by the King What if a bold limited Expositor will here come in and say Except King John deliver up the Kingdom to the Pope Or except the King's Commissions through the Officers fault should be contradictory Or such Exceptions as Wil. Barclay and Grotius make Should not this man rather be the Equivocator and Strainer of the Oath than he that thinketh so plain a Phrase as not any pretence whatsoever is exclusive of any pretence whatsoever Never trust the man that feareth not an Oath 2. But why talk you of none being Interpreters we cannot give the Power to whom we please The Law-makers think it best as it is and will not interpret as you do when they can and know all the Reasons that you can give them The Justices are made our Judges I told you that the Justices when they sent me to the Gaol refused to Expound it and told me I must take it according to the proper sense of the words Yet do you go on as if none of all this had been said to you As to what you say of Obligation by the Covenant and leaving a gap c. I answer Melancholy men by fearing bring the thing feared on themselves It was the Et caetera Oath 1640 that forced me who else had lived quietly in my ignorance to read and study many Authors to know the truth before I swore who turned me not against Episcopacy but against the Italian and Diocesan frame The Covenant is not the thing that they are in danger of but their own Diseases we firmly believe that the Covenant bindeth us to nothing but what we were bound to if we had never taken it as being not a primary Bond to make new Duty but a secondary to bind us to that only which is antecedently a duty and that no Vow or Covenant bindeth us from obeying the King in any thing indifferent much less a duty before These are our Principles however you nauseate them But without respect to any Vow or Covenant we hold that we are all bound not to any Treason Rebellion or any illegal means but in our true Place and Calling to endeavour that those things may be reformed in the Discipline which my first Dispute of Church Government hath proved to be evil After which so long unanswered you need not so loudly have called for my Reasons And if this be it that maketh you think my Retraction not sincere think what you please I never retracted any of this § 44. First They that exercise the Keys of Excommunication and Absolution in the ordinary open Judicatures of the Land are Church Governours But Lay Chancellors exercise the Keys of Excommunication and Absolution in the ordinary open Judicatures of the Land Ergo Lay-Chancellors are Church-Governours 2. Who doubts but the Et caetera included them If it included None it was superfluous If Any how exclude you them And is it not said As it standeth and ought to stand But were it but Deans and Archdeaeons I would not swear that if the King commanded me by Writing or Petition to endeavour some alteration I will resist or disobey him you may do as you will 3. It were too long now to tell you how far I take my Conscience obliged to a Lay-Chancellor and how far not 4. But what 's next That no Learned men so much as maintain in the Schools the Lay-Chancellors Church Government And yet have we hot and feaverish heads if we will not swear to that which no man will maintain Well! let it go for our Crime or Folly while such men judge 5. Add p. 20. The fear of God is the beginning of wisdom a good understanding have all they that do them Fools make a mock of sin See that ye walk circumspectly not as fools but as wise To fear an Oath is a mark of the fear of God and
all Religion Christianity the Gospel the Church all Government Introducing Popery c. Especially for asserting 1. That Christ hath Instituted one Universal Church of which he onely is the Head and particular Churches as parts of it of which the Pastors are Subordinate Heads or Governours and so formally differenced 2. That neither of them is Constituted without some signification of consent which he never before heard one Christian deny CHAP. I. PREFATORY § 1. COntending though Defensive and made necessary by Accusers is an unpleasant work As I would choose a Prison before a Defensive War were it for no greater interest than my own so I would choose to be in Print proclaimed an Heretick Schismatick Atheist or any thing rather than be at the unpleasing labour of a Confutation of all Accusers were it not for a higher interest than mine For though we must contend for the Faith yet the servant of the Lord must not needlesly strive 2 Tim. 2. 24 25. And experience tells us the good seldome answereth the bad effects § 2. And there are few that call me to a publick Account that I answer less willingly than Mr. Cheney because his Accusations are such gross Mistakes that I cannot Answer them in the gentlest manner according to truth without opening that which will bring him lower in the Readers esteem than I desire and I much fear will be to himself a temptation which he will hardly overcome as I see by this his 2d Book Had he that was my familiar Neighbour thought meet to have spoken with me before his Publications I am past doubt that I could have convinced him of multitudes of Untruths and Errours so as to have prevented such a publication of them for in private he would easilier have born the detection of them than in the hearing of the World which he has chosen But whereas some cast away his Book as a fardel of Dotage and shameless Lyes I must remember such that I am confident he wrote no falshoods with a purpose knowingly to deceive and therefore they are not strictly Lyes but as rash untruths are such in a larger sense which ignorant men assert for want of due tryal It is a great errour to over-value such poor frail ignorant men as we all are Mr. Ch. and I have both over-valued one another and this errour now we have both escaped but not laid by our Christian love And as God will not take Mens Diseases for their Sins his bodily temper is to me a great excuse of his strong confident mistakes § 3. The very Introductory Preface of his Books disowning Cruelty and uncharitable dividing Impositions enableth me to forgive him the multitude of rash untruths and slanders and instead of a Mentiris I shall put but a Putares or Non-putares I have just such a task in dealing with Mr. Ch. as with one that is hard of hearing when I speak to such a one that heareth but one half and mis-heareth the rest he answereth me as he heard and when I tell him his mistake his last reply is I thought you had said thus and thus but if I should dispute a whole day with such a man I should be sharply censured if I printed the Dispute and told the World how many hundred times the man mis-heard and so mistook me And I fear neither he himself nor the Reader that valueth his time would thank me for such exercise of my Arithmetick with Mr. Cheney § 4. For his Preface I thank him It tells me that all our Accusers do it not in meer Malignity and that he hath a few steps further to tumble before he come to the bottom of the hill His Book consisteth partly of a handsome considerable discourse for Prelacie and other Church-Offices of Humane Invention and partly of a new singular Doctrine about Church-Forms partly in a critical discharge of his fancy and unpacking his preparations against the Independant Covenant and Church-Form and partly in detecting my many Atheistical Infidel Impious Errours by which he supposeth I am deceiving the world and partly n a multitude of falshoods of me and others in matter of fact and partly I hope an ignorant plea for the Pope To open all these fully would tire the Reader and me CHAP. II. What the Doctrine is which he accuseth of Atheism Impiety c. § 1. THE Reader that hath well perused my Writings knoweth it but I cannot expect that all should do so that read his Book The abstract is this I. That Jesus Christ is Head over all things to the Church Eph. 1. 22 23. II. That the Mosaical Law as such never bound other Kingdoms and is ceased with their Commonwealth and is abrogated by Christ and that he as King of the Church hath established a sufficient Law for all that is universally necessary for Doctrine Worship and Church-order or Government and was faithful in all his house as Moses and Commissioned his Apostles to Disciple Nations Baptizing them and teaching them what Christ himself had commanded them Matth. 28. 19. III. That he setled the Ministry and Church-Form before he made any Magistrate Christian and that no Magistrate hath power to change them IV. That what his Apostles did by his Commission and Spirit he did by them V. That Church-Forms being so Instituted and Constituted he hath not left them so much to the will of Man as he hath done the Forms of Civil Government VI. That Christ hath One Universal Church of which he is the onely Head and Law-giver and no Vicar personal or collective as one Political person or power of which professed believers and consenters in Baptism are the visible Members and sincere Believers and Consenters the Spiritual saved Members VII That the World and Church are not all one nor Heathens and Infidels the same with Christians nor any parts of the Church properly called VIII That Christs Ministers first work to which they were Commissioned was not on the Church or any Member of it but the Infidel world to gather them into a Church and the first Baptized person was not Baptized into a pre-existent Church but the Church existing Baptism entereth men into it IX That the first Baptizer was no Pastor of such an existent Church but an Organical Minister to gather a Christian Church X. That though at Baptism one may enter into the Universal and a particular Church yet Baptisme qua talis entereth us onely into the Universal being our Christening or Covenant-uniting to the body of Christ XI That a Pastor in the Scripture and usual sense is a Relate to Oves the Sheep or Flock and not to Infidels And a Ministry to Infidels and an Episcopacy or Pastorship of the flock are different notions but if any will use the terms otherwise we contend not de nomine though you call him a Pastor of Infidels or what else you can devise XII To explain my self when I mention a Bishop or Pastor I mean the Bishop or Pastor of
a Church and I take not Heathens for the Church XIII I believe that in this Universal Church are thousands of particular Churches and this by Christs Institution XIV I believe that there is no particular Church or Christian on earth who is not respectively as Visible or Mystical a part of the Universal Church XV. As every worshipping Assembly is a Church in a larger sense so a Church in a political sense is essentially constituted of the Pastor and People or the Sacerdotal guiding and the guided parts and of such a Church it is that I am speaking XVI As such meeting in transitu are an Extemporate transient Church so fixed Cohabitants ought to be a Church accordingly fixed related to each others as such for longer than the present meeting XVII Every such Political fixed Church should consist of a Pastor at least accordingly fixed to a cohabiting people and as their Pastor more specially related by obligation and authority to them than to strangers or neighbour Churches He is not bound to do that for all as he is for them nor may go into other Pastors Churches with equal power nor officiate where he please XVIII If there be no Church but the Universal than there is neither Parochial Diocesan or National nor are Assemblies Churches Nor is our King the Royal Governour of any Church for of the Universal he is not XIX Christian Princes must do their best to settle faithful Pastors in all Churches that is according to the Laws of Christ but not against them But as they must do their best that all their Subjects may have good Phycisians Schoolmasters Wives or Husbands Servants Dyet Cloathing c. but yet are not trusted by office to choose all these for every one and impose them on Dissenters because the same God that made Kingly power did first make personal and paternal power which Kings cannot dissolve so every man is so nearly concerned for his own Salvation more than for Wife Servant Dyet Phycisian c. that though he must thankfully accept of all the Rulers lawful help he is still the most obliged chooser Nor is it any part of the office of a King to choose and impose on every Subject a Guide or Pastor to whom only he shall trust the Pastoral conduct of his Soul any more than a Physician or a Tutor for him XX. Parish-bounds are not of Primitive or Divine Institution but cohabitation or propinquity is a needful qualification of setled Members gratia finis And Parish-bounds are a useful humane determination according to the general Rules Do all to edification and in order XXI No one is a Church-member merely because he dwelleth in the Parish for unbaptized Infidels Heathens Atheists may dwell there XXII Nor is a stranger a Church-member for coming into the Assembly for such as aforesaid or Jews Mahometans may come in XXIII A Pastor oweth more care and duty to his flock than to the rest of the world as a Physician to his Hospital Therefore he must know who they are better than by knowing that they dwell in the Parish nor may he Baptize them or give them the Lords Supper only because he seeth them in the Assembly or in the Parish else Jews and Heathens must have it XXIV Nor is he to give it to every one that demandeth it for so may Jews and Heathens that take it in scorn or for by-ends XXV Yet a Christian having a valid Certificate that he is such hath right to transient Communion with any Church of Christ where he cometh but for order the antient Churches used not to receive them without some Certificates from the Churches that they came from lest Hereticks and Excommunicates unknown persons should be every where received XXVI No man can be an adult Christian without signified consent nor a stated member of any particular Church without such consent no nor a lawful transient Communicant without consent For so great benefits none but consenters have right to nor can such relations be otherwise contracted XXVII Consent not signified nor known is none to the Church XXVIII A man may be obliged to consent that doth not but that makes no man a Christian or member of the Universal Church else Millions of Infidels and Heathens are Christians And so it maketh no one a member of a particular Church that he is obliged to be one nor am I a Pastor over any men as a Church because they are obliged to take me for their Pastor no more than that is a Husband Wife Servant who is obliged to be so and will not To say that I am a Pastor to Heathens as a Church is a contradiction or that I am their Pastor as my special Christian flock and particular Church-members that consent not XXIX But the same man that liveth among such may be to consenting Christians a Pastor and to Refusers Infidels or Heathens a Teacher The Church ever distinguished the Audientes and Catechumene Candidates from the Fideles who were the Members of the Church XXX No Pastor or people should impose any Covenant on any adult to be Christened but consent to be Christians signified by Baptism nor on any in order to transient Communion among strangers but just notice of their Christianity and understanding consent to that Communion nor on any in order to their being the stated Members of this or that flock and particular Church but due notice of their Christianity and of their understanding consent to what is essential to such members that is to the relation as essentiated by the correlate and ends XXXI No one should be obliged by covenant to continue one year or Month in the station of that particular relation because they know not when Gods providence may oblige them to remove or change it XXXII Though the Peoples consent be necessary to their relation their Election of the Pastor which signifieth the first determination who shall be the man is not absolutely necessary though of old so thought An after-Consent may serve ad esse relationis XXXIII Much less is it necessary that the people choose who shall be ordained a Minister unfixed and only of the Universal Church XXXIV 1. Mutual consent of the duely qualified Ordained and Ordainer determineth who shall be a Minister in the Church Universal as consent of the Colledge and the Candidate do who shall be the Licensed Physician 2. The Peoples consent and the Ministers instituted determine who shall be the Pastor of this particular Flock or Church 3. The King determineth whom he will tolerate countenance and maintain XXXV Though a man may be Ordained but once to the Ministry unfixed in the Universal Church to which I said the Peoples consent is not necessary yet may he be oft removed from one particular Church to another on just cause to which the peoples consent if not Election is still necessary Though to avoid Ambition the old Canons forbad Bishops to remove XXXVI It 's lawful to be ordained sine titulo
only to the Ministry in general but in settled Churches it is usually inconvenient And he that is ordained to a fixed Church doth at once become a Minister in the universal Church and may act as a Minister and not as a Layman when called elsewhere and also a fixed Minister of a particular Church even as he that is baptized into a particular Church is a member of both Though Baptism and Ordination qua tales enter but into the Universal XXXVII It is not this or that mode of signification of consent that is necessary to either relation of Pastor or Flock but Consent signified intelligibly where Laws and Custome order it that actual ordinary attendance in publick worship and communion and submission to necessary ministration shall be the signification all that so do express consent by it And therefore our ordinary Parish-Assembling and Communion being express consent to the mutual relation have that which is necessary ad esse to true Churches and they slander them that say they are not such But ad melius esse more may oft-times be profitable 1. Because that is the best means which is best fitted to the end But the end of Signes being Notification that is caeteris paribus the best which is most notifying as that is the best Language which is most significant and intelligible Why should playing in the dark or dealing under-board be preferred in the greatest things 2. It oft falls out that some that live in the Parish are known Church-Papists Church-Atheists Infidels will tell in their meetings to their companions I believe not the words of the Parish-Priest It is his Trade to talk for gain I will do what the Law requires of me for my safety but I will have no more to do with him nor do I take him for a true Pastor that hath any Authority but by Law nor for any Pastor to me And 3. there are many Hereticks and Schismaticks engaged Members of other Churches who yet to avoid suffering will do that in the Parish-Church which the Law requireth 4. And the Antient Churches used express Consent yea and Election So for the Minister he is no Pastor without his signified consent but actual Ministration may be such a signification This is enough to reconcile the difference about Church-covenants XXXVIII They that rail against a more express consent in cases truly dubious as if it were tyranny and destructive to Christianity do suppose that if the King and Law commanded such a thing they commanded Tyrannically that which destroyeth Christianity and contradict themselves when they say that Rulers may make various orders of Church-governours and determine of undetermined Modes XXXIX As it is not needful and usual to set up a Coordinate Imperium artificum vel Philosophorum in Imperio Civili so it seemeth also of an Imperium Religiosum The first Question is whether Christ hath Instituted such The second whether he hath given power to Men to make it There is not in any Kingdom that I hear of but somewhat towards it in China such a Society of Physicians Astronomers Navigators Lawyers Schoolmasters Philosophers c. who set up a Co-ordinate Empire or Government that shall have all degrees of self-governing power as a National Socity with one Supreme either Monarchical Aristocratical or Democratical Head according to the order of Civil-government Nor doth any reproach Schools Colledges Hospitals or any trading Societies that they are confused Independent and ungoverned because they have no common Governour but God and the King nor any particular Governour but the Principal or Master and Fellows of the Society nor any National association besides their subjection to one King and their voluntary correspondence for concord and mutual assistance with one another And much less is there any Co-ordinate Political Regiment of any of these through all the world under one visible humane Head personal or collective And yet many think that there is such a Society and Regiment for Religion National say some Universal say others That all that will serve God and be saved must be under one Co-ordinate power over all the Kingdom or World besides Christ and the Supreme Magistrate and they contend whether this power be Monarchical or Aristocratical c. I am so far Independent as to think that Christ hath Instituted no such Universal or National Power and Head of Religion but that 1. his own Universal Kingdom 2. And particular Churches under their several Bishops and Teachers 3. And Synods for concord and mutual help 4. And Christian Magistrates to rule all by the Sword 5. With the improvement of Mens eminent gifts and opportunities that these be Instituted by Christ I doubt not 6. And whether some should succeed the Apostles excepting their extraordinary powers in having a visiting instructing ordering care of many Churches and their Bishops and Teachers I confess my self uncertain and therefore will never strive against such nor deny due obedience to them who shew a true call to such an employment Nay if Christ have made no such Institution yet 1. if the Christian Magistrate 2. or the Churches by consent choose some faithful Ministers to such a power onely to direct instruct guide admonish reprove exhort the Bishops and Teachers of the particular Churches without any other force than the Apostles used and not destroying any of their proper power and duty or that Church-order which the Apostles setled I am no opposer of any such though my uncertainty disables me from subscribing and swearing to the right of their Authority The Scots themselves even by Knox's consent set up Super-intendents over many Churches John Spotswood Super-intendent of Lothian and so others And the power of a President Principal or Rector of a Colledge of Physicians Philosophers or Divines doth not make him of any other Order or species of Office and Profession than the rest But if any affirm more than this I will learn but cannot yet swear or subscribe it XL. Those that are for the obligation of the Jewish order I have fully spoke to in my first Plea for Peace Those that are only for the power of man to make such several Orders or Ranks of Governours in the Church as are in Armies and Kingdoms 1. Must tell us what sort of power may be given them 2. And who must give it And 1. No men can Institute a power of the same species or another species from that which we call the Sacred Ministry or as the Fathers the Sacerdotal but what is subordinate about the Accidentals of Religion and the Church 1. Not the same species because it is Instituted by God already No Man can create a creature already created 2. Not of another supra-ordinate or co-ordinate for 1. they can prove no power given them to do it 2. And that were to accuse Christ of insufficient doing his undertaken work and being less faithful in his house than Moses 3. And it will infer Mans introduction of a new co-ordinate
Experience Why is it not done if it be morally possible Have you not had near twenty years Trial by your Reasonings Preachings Writings Reproaches Allurements Threatnings Canons Fines Jails Informers crying out for execution of the Laws c. and is it yet done Have there not since more of the Laity turned from you than have turned to you Will not Experience convince you 9. Judge by the great diversity of mens conditions and capacities which I have elsewhere opened Will ever men of such different Capacities Educations c. agree in such and so many things 10. Judge by the requisites to such a Concord It must be by bringing all the Ministry to a higher degree of Knowledge or Conscience and Honesty than all the Nonconformists For it can be nothing that you think keeps us from Conforming but Ignorance or Badness Dr. Asheton undertaketh as going to the bar of God to prove that it is Pride and Covetousness And how can you hope to make us all so much Wiser and Better than we are Do you believe that the seven Thousand that had Conformed to the Directory and staid in by Conforming to your Law 1662. were so much Wiser and Better than the two thousand that were cast out Or that the greater part of your Countrey-Priests now if the lamenting people wrong them not do Conform because they know more or are Better men than we If it be so he is unworthy to be a Pastor that knoweth not how hard a matter it is to make all the Ministers of a Nation so much wiser and better He is blinde that seeth not that it is Fines Jails and Death that our Prosecutors trust to And will true Conscience be convinced by such Arguments Would you your selves change your minds in Religion if you were but Fined and Imprisoned If so you are men of no true Religion If not why expect you it from us § 13. But what am I doing Will it not more tire than profit the Reader if I should number abundance more of his Untruths I will step to his concluding Farewel to me and then see how he justifieth the trade by pleading for Equivocation Pag. 128. You gave several intimations that the King was Popishly affected as Bishop Bramhal affirms Mend. 15. Answ Why did not the man tell where and when I have Printed the contrary in the time of highest Usurpation that the King was no Papist Is he not a Calumniator unless he prove it But he saith Bishop Bramhal affirms it Answ A man that never saw me why did he not cite Bishop Brambal's proof But see what this sort of men are come to Do they think it enough to warrant their slanders of us because one of their Archbishops hath slandered us before them What Credit then is to be given to such mens History or Reports Is this it in which the Authority of Archbishops consisteth that they must be followed in slanders No It is not their Obedience to Archbishops but their Conformity to a calumniating Spirit For Brambal's Predecessor Arch-Bishop Usher a man honoured by all good men that knew him for Learning Piety and Honesty was of no such Authority with them but we are scorned for conforming to his Judgment But you see that a Calumniator with you is no singular person They are not ashamed to tell the world that their Archbishops lead them and are as bad as they § 14. Impl. p. 128. You applauded the grand Regicide as one that prudently piously and faithfully to his immortal Honour did exercise the Government Mend. magn 16. Answ Reader Do not wrong this man so much as to think he is the Father of this He taketh it up but in Conformity to his Fathers and Brethren that have oft printed it before him and he must keep company and be Conformable Alas It is not one or two such men as are the Guides of Souls in England But what Had he no pretence for it Yes more than for many of the rest He that undertook to be a Lying Spirit in the mouth of all Ahab's Prophets never undertook to deceive them without any pretence I have somewhat else to do than to write the History of my actions in those Times as oft as any such man will tell such a Story as this In short I thought then that both sides were faulty for beginning the War but I thought the Bonum Publicum or Salus Populi made it my Duty to be for the Parliament as Defensive against Delinquents and as they profest to be only for King Law and Kingdom When at the New Moddle they left out for the King and changed their Cause I changed from them and was sent by two Assemblies of Divines to do my best though to my utmost labour and hazard to disswade them Cromwel having notice of it would never let me once come near him or the Head-Quarters I continued on all occasions publickly and privately to declare my judgment against him as a rebellious Usurper till he died But being at London a year or two before he died the Lord Broghil since Earl of Orery would needs bring me to him where I dealt so plainly with him in demanding by what Right against the Will of almost all the Kingdom he pull'd down our lawful English Monarchy that we were sworn to and the Parliament as cast him into such Passion as broke out in reviling many of the worthiest Parliament-men that he knew me to be familiar with The last time the Earl of Orery saw me he told me he had told the King of that Conference and that he should love me the better while he lived for my Faithfulness He and Lambert and Thurloe were silently present A Twelvemonth after Sir Francis Nethersole would needs dispute me into Repentance for being for the Parliaments Cause by way of Writing I told him that the sad effects were enough to make us all suspicious but I would give him those Reasons that had moved me with a true desire to know the full truth that if I had erred I might not remain through Ignorance without Repentance He wrote to me that in the mean time seeing I was satisfied against Cromwels Usurpation I should go to London to set it upon his Conscience to perswade him to restore our present King I sent him word that as he took me for his Adversary so his Conscience was not so easily perswaded to give up such a prey and that this was not now to do I had been lately with him and I and others had tried such perswasions or the like in vain While I was preparing my Papers for Sir Francis Nethersole cometh out Mr. Harrington's Oceana contriving the Settlement of a Democracy which they called a Commonwealth and Sir H. Vane was about another Model I wrote somewhat against them and Mr. Harrington printed a Paper of Gibberish scorning at my Ignorance in Politicks Against him I wrote my Political Aphorisms called A Holy Common-wealth in the beginning pleading for the Divine
may see that his Charity and his Veracity are proportionable he hence inferrs p. 57. Did ever any Bishop aspire to such Tyranny as this the Pope only excepted Is not the King and whole Nation greatly culpable not to trust themselves with the ingenuity of this people c. Answ Reader which is liker to be guilty of Tyranny 1. We that desire no power but to plead God's Law to mens Consciences 2. And that but with one Congregation And 3. with no constrained unwilling persons but only voluntary Consenters 4. And to rule over none of our Fellow-Ministers 5. And only to be but Freemen as Schoolmasters and Philosophers be in their Schools of Volunteers that we may not against our Consciences be the Pastors of the unwilling or such as we judge uncapable according to God's Laws but to use the Keys of Admission and Exclusion as to that particular Church 6. And to do all under the Government of the Magistrate who may punish us as he may do Physicians Schoolmasters or others for proved mal-administration and drive us not from but to our Duty 7. And to be ready to give an account of our Actions to any Synod or Brethren that demand it and to hear their Admonitions and Advice Yea and to live in peaceable submission where Archbishops or General-Visitors are set over us and upon any Appeals or Complaints to hear and obey them in any lawful thing belonging to their Trust and Power 9. And if we be judged to have worngfully denied our Ministerial help and Communion to any we pretend to no power to hinder any other Church or Pastor from receiving him 10. And if we be by Magistrates cast out or afficted for our Duty we shall quietly give up the Temples and publick Church-maintenance of which the Magistrate may dispose and without resisting or dishonouring him endure what he shall inflict upon us for our obedience to God This is our odious Tyranny 2. On the other side our Accusers 1. Some of them are for power in themselves to force men by the Sword that is by Mulcts and corporal Penalties to be subject to them or be of their Church and Communion 2. Others are for the Magistrate thus forcing them when the Bishop Excommunicates them 3. They thus make the Church like a prison when no man knoweth whether the people be willing Members or only seem so to escape the Jail 4. They would be such forcing Rulers over many score or hundred Parishes 5. They would have power to Rule Suspend and Silence the Pastors of all these Parishes when they think meet 6. They hinder the Pastors of the Parish-Churches from that exercise of the Keys aforesaid in their own Parish-Churches which belongs to the Pastors Office 7. They would compel the Parish-Ministers to Admit Absolve or Excommunicate at least as declaring other mens Sentences when it is against their Consciences 8. They would make Ministers swear Obedience to them and Bishops swear Obedience to Archbishops 9. Some of them are for their power to Excommunicate Princes and greatest Magistrates though contrary to the fifth Commandment it dishonour them 10. Some of them say that if the King command one Church-Order or Form or Ceremony and the Bishop another the Bishop is to be obeyed before the King As also if the King bid us Preach and the Bishop forbid us 11. And they say that their Censures even Clave errante must be obeyed 12. And that he whom a Bishop cuts off from one Church is thereby cut off from all and none may receive him 13. And that it is lawful to set up Patriarchs Metropolitans c. to rule the Church according to the state and distribution of Civil Government Look over these two Cases and judge which party is liker to Church-Tyrants and then judge what Credit is due to such Accusers of the Non-Conformists in this Age. § 43. II. As to Reordination I have answer'd to Mr. Cheny what he saith He deceitfully avoideth determining the first Question whether they intend a Reordination or not Whereas I have proved 1. That the Church of England is against twice Ordaining 2. That they call it and take it for a true Ordination which is to be received from them by such as Presbyters had Ordained 3. And therefore that they suppose the former Null 4. And this is much of the reason of mens doubting whether they should receive the second which is given on such a Supposition But this man is little concerned in the true stating of the case § 44. III. What he saith of the Ministers power for Discipline is answered already to Mr. Cheney that hath the same § 45. About the Covenant 1. he falsly makes me say that the King took it Whereas whether he did or not I only say that he was injuriously and unlawfully drawn to seem to owne it and declare for it 2. Next he aggravates this Injury And who contradicteth him 3. He pleadeth That the King is not obliged by it to make any alteration in the Government of the Church Answ I will not examine your Reasons The King never made me his Confessor nor put the question to me Why then should I make my self a Judge of it And why must my Ministry lie on a thing beyond my knowledge But am I sure that no Parliament-man that took that Vow is bound there in his place to endeavour a Reforming Alteration when I am past doubt that much is needful He would 1. make it doubtful Whether it was a Vow to God I think it not worth the labour to prove it to him that doubteth of it after deliberate reading it 2. He saith Any lawful endeavours are not denied Answ But the Obligation to lawful endeavours are denied Are not the words universal 3. He saith The Covenant condemned as unlawful cannot lay an Obligation Answ A Vow to God unlawfully imposed and taken may binde to a Lawful Act. 4. He calls it unnecessary alterations against the Law of the Land Answ I suppose I shall prove some reforming alteration necessary And it is not against Law for a Subject to petition for it or a Parliament-man to speak for it Yet when the man seems to me to be pleading Conscience out of the Land he saith Would not this cause the Christian Religion in a short time to be exploded out of all Kingdoms Alas poor people what uncertain Guides have you 5. He concludes that the power of Reforming being in the King the Vow was null Answ The Regal Power of Reforming is only in the King To change Laws without him is Usurpation But Parliament-men may speak for it and Subjects petition and on just causes write and speak for needful Reformation And I speak for no other § 45. IV. About not taking Arms against those Commissioned by the King He plainly professeth that we must not distinguish where the Law doth not And if it be an unlimited Universal Negative it will quite go beyond Mainwaring or Sibthorpe And for all