Answer to Dodwell and Sherlock, Chapter 5 · Letter 6 – Letter 7

Answer to Dodwell and Sherlock · Chapter 5 · Letter 6 – Letter 7

p. 100July 9. 1677▪ For my much honoured Friend Mr. Henry Dodwell.

SIR,

SINCE the writing of my last to you, your own words have acquainted me, 1. That you take my Principles to have some inconsistence or contradiction. 2. That you think I have not yet told you what Church-Government it is that I would have, or how it can attain its end. 3. That you suppose that denying men the Sacrament of the Lords Supper is a coercive power sufficient to force unwilling men to obey Church-Governours. 4. That you hold that all Religious Assemblies not allowed by the Bishops, are unlawful, and therefore that we must rather use none than such.

I. As to the first, no reason obligeth me to believe you till you prove it; which must be by citing the inconsistent words. How easie is it to tell you or any man, that you speak contradictions? Is accusing, proving? And you have told me by experience that mistaking Hearers and Readers understand not mens words so well as the Speakers or Writers do. When you so widely mistook a speech of mine, when I had told you that as far as I could learn by my own acquaintance, and the report of the Members themselves, there was but one known Presbyterian in the House of Commons when the Wars began, (I named you a credible witness yet living), and you report that I said, there was but one Presbyterian in the Assembly of Divines? May not my writing be as much mistaken by you? Prove your Charge, and I will confe…s my contradictions, and give you thanks.

II. As to the second I was afraid I had used more words than needs; if all that I have said tell you not what I mean, you may excuse me from adding more, which are like to be no more significant; you must name me the particulars that you are unsatisfied in, before I can know what is needful to be added. p. 101One particular you did name, viz. whether I hold a power in the Church to deny men the Sacrament that would have it? I left you no reason to make a doubt of it. If this be it, pardon the repetitions which you make me guilty of, and I shall renew my account.

1. I believe that Christ hath instituted the office of the Sacred Ministry (which the Ancients called Sacerdotium), as subordinate to his Teaching, Ruling, and Sacerdotal office; and that being obliged to Disciple and baptize the Nations, and to teach them Christs commands, and to guide them in holy Doctrine, Worship and Discipline, they are authorized to all that they are obliged to; and that it is their office-work to administer Baptism and the Lords Supper, and that they have the Church-Keys to judg whom to take in by Baptism, what food to feed the children of the Church with, and whom to cast out of its Communion.

2. I believe that this power is limited and regulated by Christs own universal Laws, and that they are not lawless or arbitrary; but he hath bound them by a just description, whom to take in, what food to give them, and whom to cast out. And that he hath given them no power to cross or violate these his Laws. And if they do it notoriously, it is null and worse, and no act of authority but of sin. e. g. If Bishops baptize unconverted Infidels, or give the other Sacrament to such, or to notorious wicked impenitent persons.

3. I believe that if one or many Bishops or Priests do disobey these Laws of Christ, their sin doth not oblige all other persons to rebel or sin with them, or disoblige them from their duty. e. g. If some Bishops should refuse to receive penitent believers and their …eed into the Church by Baptism, others are nevertheless bound to receive them, and not all the Bishops in the world to keep them out because some do it sinfully? so if some Bishops would feed them with un…ound Doctrine, or corrupt Gods Worship, (e. g. with Image-worship, or language unint…lligible, &c.) others must not follow them, but do better. And if some Bishops turn Christs sheep out of his sold and pasture unjustly, denying them Communion, others must not do wickedly with them, but must receive such; else one tyrant might oblige all the Churches to tyranny.

p. 1024. But while the power of the Keys is lawfully used, he that is justly cast out of the Communion of one Church, should not be received to Communion with any other that hath just notice of his Exclusion, till the cause be removed.

5. But the notice of it concerneth not those that living out of reach, are uncapable of Communion with that person. If a woman in this Parish be Excommunicated as a Scold, or a man as a Drunkard, &c. the Bishop is not bound to send notice of their names and case to Ethiopia or Armenia, nor to all the Christian World; no nor to all England. Nor do they use to do it to all the Parishes in the Diocess, but only to that one where the person liveth. But I doubt not but all that Church should know of it, of which he was a Communicating member, (by the way, why is not all the Diocess told of it, but that men are conscious that he hath not Personal communion with them; and therefore need not be so Excommunicated?)

6. Therefore mens limited capacity allowing them Personal Communion but in a narrow compass, there needs no Confederacy of all the Christian World for the rejecting of those that one of them hath first rejected.

7. But in well-ordered agreeing Churches none should be received presently into the Communion of another Church, without due notice of his aptitude or capacity; which regularly should be by the Certificates of the Church whence he came, called Communicatory Letters; or if he was never before admitted to the Sacrament because not at age, his own Personal profession giveth him right; and so it doth in the Countries where through neglect such Certificates or Testimonies are not in use, sobeit there come in no proof against him, that he stands Excommunicate, or deserveth it. A professing Christian hath right to Communion if he travel through all the Churches in the World, till his profession be disproved, or his claim disabled by just testimony. If a man be Excommunicate in, e. g. Lincoln-Diocess in one Parish-Church, above a thousand Parishes more of the same Church Diocesan, may receive him for want of notice, unless they are bound to receive no stranger of another Parish; and that is a kind of Excommunicating of all Christians from the Communion of all the Christian World, except one Parish.

p. 1038. The Legal Excommunication, which is only a general pronunciation that such or such sinners in specie shall be actually excommunicate, is done already by God himself in his Universal Laws. And no man ought to make Laws to Excommunicate any that Gods Laws do not decree to be Excommunicate, save that when there is a difficulty in discerning whether this or that Doctrine or practice be indeed the sin so condemned in Gods Laws, mens Laws may expound it▪ to remove that difficulty. If all were excommunicate that Gods own Laws do require to be excommunicate, alas! how great would the number be? So little need is there, that Voluminous Councils should excommunicate many more; and that Councils should be added to Councils to the end of the world, to make new Laws for excommunicating men.

9. Where God hath commanded all Christians in his Laws, to avoid any sort of wicked men, and with such not to eat, the fact being once notorious, the person is so far, ipso jure, excommunicate, as that all are bound to avoid familiarity with that person, though no Bishop sentence him: But the Pastors having the Church Keys, we must not go out of the Church, because such a man is there; for who shall be in the Church, is at his Judgment; but who shall be at my Table, is at mine.

10. But if the Church it self be essentiated of such as God thus commandeth all to avoid, and this be notorious, every Christian must avoid that Church. The Essentials of a Church are the pars regens & pars subdita, the Pastors, and the Body of the flock. If either be so far corrupt, the Church is corupt: When any one essential part is wanting ▪ or depraved, then the Essence is wanting, or depraved: Therefore where many Pastors make up the pars regens of a particular Church, it is not the heresie, or wickedness of some one only that will warrant a separation; because one is but an integral, and not an essential part: But where one Bishop only is the essential regent constitutive part, there that one mans heresie, or notorious wickedness (such as we are commanded to have no Communion with) will allow us to avoid that Church, as a Church, though not each Member of it, who are parts still of the Universal Church.

If I knew what further explication of my thoughts it is that you desire, I should be ready to give it you.

p. 104III. As to the coercive power which you talk of, it is strange if we can differ about the nature of it; but we greatly differ, I suppose, about the extent of it. Pardon me, if to avoid confusion, I first speak of the Name, and then of the Thing. 1. Though our ordinary use of the words, coactive and coercive, be to signifie that which worketh either on the Body, and its provision only, or on the Mind by force upon the Body, or Estate; yet if you will but tell me what you mean by it, so distinctly that we may not be entangled with Logomachy, take it in what sense you will. The words which you use are the signification of your mind: I desire but to understand, and to be understood: I follow Bishop Bilson (of Christ. Obed.), and others commonly, that distinguish the power of Magistrates and Pastors, by the Names of the power of the Sword, and of the Word ▪ By the first, they mean all power of corporal mul…ts and penalties, directly such (for he that griev…th the mind, consequently troubleth the body). By the latter, they mean all that Official power of Gods Word and Sacraments which worketh by the senses of hearing, seeing and tasting, upon the Conscience, that is, on the Understanding and Will, and by these reformeth practice. The word is thus de…ivered, either Generally, by common Doctrine, which is historical, assertive, precepts, prohibitions, promises or threatnings, or by personal application of these.

1. By meer words, as in personal instruction, precept, threatning, &c. and by declaration, that this person proved and judged guilty of impenitency, in such and such sin, is uncapable of Church-communion, therefore by au…hority from Christ I command him to forbear, and you to avoid him. And such a one being proved innocent or penitent, hath by Gods Law right to Communion with his Church, therefore I absolve him, invite him, receive him, and command you in Christs name to hold loving Communion with him.

2. Or it is the application of words and Sacramental signs toget…er, by solemn tradition and investiture; or the denying of such Sacraments. Briefly, Magistrates by mulcts, prisons, exile, …, &c. work on the body; Pastors have no such power, b…t by General Doctrine and personal application by words and Sacraments (given or denied) work on the mind or conscience; … which some call a Perswasive power; distinguishing (as Camero …) between private perswasion of an equal, &c. and Doct…ral, p. 105Pastoral, Official, Perswasion, whose force is by the Divine authority of the perswader, used in Teaching, Disciplinary judging, and Sacraments. If you will call this last coercive, or by any other name, you have your liberty. I will do my part that you may understand me, if I may not understand you.

2. Now ad rem, can we disagree how far this constraineth the unwilling? Not without some great neglect or culpable defect. I may suppose then that we are agreed of all these particulars: 1. That Gods Laws have told us who must or must not have Sacramental Communion, which we must obey, whatever be the effects.

2. That Excommunication is not only, nor alway chiefly, to bring the person Excommunicated to obedience (no more than hanging) but to keep the purity and reputation of the Church, and the safety of the members, and to warn others.

3. That the way by which it is to affect the offender, is, 1. By shaming him; 2. By striking his Conscience with the sense of Gods displeasure declared thus by his Ministers.

4. So far as the Sacrament is a means of conveying grace, to deny it, is not to reform but to destroy. But when the person hath made himself uncapable of the benefit of the Sacrament, and apt to receive it abusively to his hurt, then it may possibly humble him to be denied it.

5. If the denial of the Sacrament work not on a mans Conscience morally (as threatnings do) it no way compelleth him to his duty, nor saveth him from sin.

6. De facto many hundred thousands of ignorant wicked members of Episcopal Churches are so far from being constrained to goodness by being without the Sacrament, that they are content to be without it, and loth to be forced to it.

7. The more sin and wickedness any man hath, the less true conscience; and the less conscience, the less doth he regard a due Excommunication.

8. The Bishops themselves are conscious of the insufficiency of their Excommunications alone to compel any to obedience, while they confess that without the Secular power of the sword to back it, they would be but laught at, and despised by the most. Nor durst they ever try to govern by their Church Keys alone among us without the enforcement of the sword. And at the same time while they Excommunicate them from the Sacrament, p. 106they have a Law to lay them in Gaol, and utterly ruin them if they will not receive it. How loth are the Bishops to lose this compelling Law.

9. I think few of my acquaintance in England do believe that any great number are brought to holy reformation, no nor to Episcopal obedience, by the fear of being kept from the Sacrament, but that which they fear is the Corporal penalty that followeth; lay by that, and you may try.

10. If you will trust to that spiritual power alone, & valeat quantum valere potest, without corporal force, few that I know of will resist you, (but many thousands will despise you, as the Bishops well foresee) bring as many to obedience by it as you can. But if you mean that you must needs have the Magistrate to second you, as your Lictor or Executioner, and to imprison, fine, banish, burn, &c. it would be too gross hypocrisie to call the effects of this coercive power, the effects of Excommunication, and to call it coercive power to deny a man the Sacrament, because he feareth the sword.

11. De facto, there are supposed to be in the Parish that you dwell in, above 60000 souls, suppose 10000 of these yearly receive the Sacrament (though some say it is not 5000.) Are the other 40000 compelled to obedience by not communicating.

12. All those forbear your Sacrament without any sense of coercion or loss, 1. Who believe (as you do) that Sacramental Communion is a sin, where it cannot lawfully be had (that is, say you, where the Bishops forbid it; say they, where Gods Laws forbid it, by reason of adherent sin. 2. And that, take the Bishops who forbid it them to be Usurpers, that have no true calling (as all the Papists do of our Bishops, and many others.) 3. Who take it to be more eligible, yea a necessary duty to hold Communion with purer societies. 4. Besides all those Sectaries that make light of Sacraments in general. What Papists, Quakers, Anabaptist, Separatists, &c. are compelled to any good by the Bishops denying them the Sacrament?

13. Nothing but Ignorance or Impudence can deny that the difficulty of knowing whose Excommunication it is that is to be dreaded as owned by God, hath encouraged professed Christians so confusedly to Excommunicate one another, as that this Excommunication hath been so far from constraining most to repentance, that it hath made Christianity a horrid scandal to Infidels and Heathens, p. 107by setting the Christian World in the odious confusion of Excommunicating one another. To give some instances how far Excommunication is not coercive.

1. Who but the Devil was the gainer of Pope Victor's Excommunicating the Asians about Easter-day? Did it compel them to obedience?

2. When the Orthodox Excommunicated the Arrians, did it force them to obey? When they got almost all the Bishops for them, and Excommunicated and destroyed their Excommunicators?

3. When the Cecilians (or Orthodox) and the Donatists for so many ages Excommunicated one another, meerly upon the difference which party had the true Ordained Bishops, did Excommunications force them to obedience?

4. (To pass forty other Sects) when Rome Excommunicated, yea and prosecuted the Novatians, did it compel them to obey? And did not Atticus, Sisinnius and Proclus win more by allowing them their own Communion, and living with them in love and peace? Chrysostome since threatned the Novatian Bishop that he would silence him; but he quickly recalled his word before they parted, and durst not do it.

5. Did Cyril's Counsel against the Ioannites win them, or harden them? Was it not Atticus and Proclus love and lenity that ended that division?

6. Did the Excommunicating of the Nestorians by Cyril, compell them to obedience, when so much of the East are Nestorians to this day, and requite the Orthodox with their Excommunications?

7. Did the Excommunicating of those that rejected the Council of Calcedon, (the Eutychians, and Acephali) compel them to obedience, when many Emperours took their part, and the greater number of Bishops joined with them, and they equally damned those that received the Council for many Princes reigns. And when so great a part of Christians as are the Iacobites, Abassines, &c. own Dioscorus, and condemn that Council to this day?

8. Did the Excommunicating of the old Hereticks, Gnosticks, Basilidians, Valentinians, Paulinists, Apollinarians, Eunomians, Aetians, Photinians, Macedonians, Priscillians, &c. compel them to obedience at all? or did they regard it?

9. Did the Excommunicating of the parties that were for silence p. 108(the Acacians as to the foreign, and those that were for Zeno's Henoticon) compel them to obedience?

10 D…d the mutual damnations of the Phantasticks, Iustinian's and G…mas party, and the Corrupticolae, force either to obedience?

11. Did the Excommunications of the Monothelites compel them to obedience? when in the days of Philippicus they had a Council, saith Binnius, of Innumerable Bishops? And he saith, that the General Council at Trul called Quini…extum was of the same men that were in the approved sixth General Council, and that they were Monothelites.

12 Did the several Excommunications of the Constantinopolitan Bishop, by the Roman, and of the Roman again by them, and the Alexandrian, &c compel either party to obedience?

13. Had the Pope Excommunicated the Africans in the long fraction in the days of Aurelius and Austin, would it have compeled them to obedience?

14. When the Pope (at last) joined with Iu…tinians General Council against the Tria Capitula, and condemned the refusers of it, did it compel his own neighbour-Bishops to obedience, when they so generally forsook him, that there were not three Bishops to Consecrate the Pope, but he was fain to use a Presbyter; and when they set up a Patriarch at Aquileia as their chief, and condemned or forsook the Pope for near an hundred years?

15. Did the Popes Excommunicating of the Goths in Spain and and other parts, compel them to obey him?

16. Did Augustines rejection of the Britains, and the Britains and Scots long refusing Communion with the Romanists, compel either party to obey?

17. Did the Excommunicating of Leo Isaurus, Constantine, and the rest of the Iconoclasts, compel them to obey?

18. Did the Excommunicating of the Albigenses and Waldenses, bring them to obedience? Or was it not (say some Historians) the murder of about two Millions, that solitudinem fecit, quam vocarunt pacem?

19. Did the Excommunications of the Emperours, Frederick, Henry, &c. and their adherents, as the Venetian Interdict, compel them to obedience?

20. Did the Excommunicating of the German Protestants, and Queen Elizabeth, and the English Protestants, bring them to obedience? How many such instances may I give you?

p. 109If you say, To what purpose is all this? I shall say, No doubt so knowing a man can tell. It is to tell you why I expect no more coercive power from meer Excommunication than experience and reason will allow me to expect. And no such perfect obedience and universal concord by it, as your words import.

And some questions I here crave your Answer of.

Qu. 1. The same that you so much urge on me: Seeing this matter of fact is undeniable, and Excommunication hath done no more than it hath done, Is all Church-Government therefore vain? Or what is your own way of remedy?

Qu. 2. Seeing it is Bishops themselves, that for so many hundred years excommunicated one another as Hereticks and Schismaticks, how shall they, or their flocks be certain which Bishops they be, whose excommunications they must take, as Gods act, and which not? I pray answer it plainly. 1. If any say, It must be the Majority, or greater number, then so were the Arrians too long, so were the Eutychians, so were the Monothelites, so were the Iconoclasts; so the Papists say they are now. If you say, The Bishops in a General Council, that's almost all one. What Wars were there between many General Councils; and how long was it the Religion of one side, to be for one, and curse the other; and of the other side, to curse all that did not receive that? How shall we know which Council to obey? If you say as Binnius, that all Councils have just so much power as the Pope giveth them, how shall we know that this is true? But I suppose that will not be your answer. If you say, we must obey that which is Orthodox, who is the Judg? If every man, then they that judg the excommunicating-Bishops, or Councils, not Orthodox, will not obey them. Truly I know not what answer to expect from you.

Qu. 3. Can that man expect, that excommunicating should set all right, and bring men to obedience now in the end of the world, who is constrained (against his will) to be certain, that abused excommunications have been the great means of setting the Christian world into pernicious Sch…sms and Confusions?

p. 110Qu. 4. At this day, when the Papal Church unchurches all the Christian Churches that are not Subjects to the Pope; and when the Greek Church excommunitcateth the Papal, and most continue damning one another, can you think, that even excommunicating is the remedy to cure these Schisms, and set all right?

Qu. 5. If denying men the Sacrament, will constrain men to obedience, why do not the Episcopal Churches through the world, cure the Peoples sins by keeping them from the Sacrament, when so great numbers are prophane, and sensual, and worldlings, and wicked, how easie a means of Conversion were it to forbid them all the Sacrament?

Qu. 6. Is it no contradiction to say, that the Sacrament is Gods means of giving Sanctification? and yet that keeping men from it is the means?

Qu. 7. But if you mean not constraining to obey God, but only to obey the Bishop, and not God, what good will such obedience do the mans soul, that will not save him? I confess the Magistrate that hath the Sword, may compel men to the use of the necessary suitable means of Conversion and Grace; and those means may further Sanctification.

IV. As to the Fourth Point, I have said enough of it to you heretofore.

1. If no Religious Assemblies for Preaching, Praying, and Sacraments, be lawful, but what the Bishops allow, then God hath put it into the Bishops power, whether he shall have any such publick worship, or any shall be obliged so to worship him, or not. But the Consequent is false; Ergo, So is the Antecedent. True Pastors have but the power to promote, and order Gods worship, but not to exclude, or forbid it to any (much less to all, or 1000.) without necessary cause.

2. And then if Preaching, and Hearing, and Sacraments, be ordinarily necessary to mens salvation, then God hath left it to the will, or power of the Bishops, whether any of the people shall be (ordinarily) saved. But that is not so.

p. 1113. And then if the King should license, or command us to Preach, Pray, and Communicate, and the Bishop forbid it, it were sin. But that I will not believe, unless the Cause, more than the Authority, make the difference.

To cooclude, I hold, that just use of the Keys is very necessary, and that it is the great sin of England to reject it: But that a false usurped use of excomunication hath been the incendiary of the Christian world, which hath broken it to pieces, caused horrid Schisms, Rebellions, Treasons, Murders, and bloody Wars.

I. The just use is, 1. When a scandalous or great sinner is with convincing evidence told of his error, and with seriousness, yet with love and compassion, intreated to repent, and either prevailed with, and so absolved, or after due patience, Authoritatively pronounced uncapable of Church-Communion, and bound over to answer it at the Bar of Christ, in terror if he repent not, and this by the Pastor of that particular Church, which either statedly, or pro tempore, he belongeth to.

2. And when this is duly notified to such Neighbour-Pastors as he may seek Communion with, and they agree not to receive any justly cast out by others, but to receive and relieve the injured and falsly condemned.

3. And when the King and his Justices, permit not the ejected violently to intrude, and take the Sacrament, or joyn with the Church by force, but preserveth forcibly the Peace and Priviledges of the Churches.

II. The excommunication that hath turned the Church into Factions, and undone almost East and West, is, 1. When a Bishop, because of his humane Superiory, as Patriark, Primate, or Pope, claimeth the power of excommunicating other Bishops, as his Subjects, whose Sentence must stand because of his Regent power.

2. Or at least, gathering a Council where he shall preside, and that Council shall take themselves to have a Governing power of the Keys over the particular Bishop, not only to renounce Communion with them themselves, but to oblige all others to stand to their judicial Sentence. 3. When Bishops shall meddle causelesly in other Bishops Churches, and make themseves Judges either of distant, unknown persons, and cases, or of such as they have nothing to do to try. Yea, judg men of other p. 112Countries, or so distant, as the Witnesses and Causes cannot without oppression be brought to their Bar.

4. When they disgrace Gods universal Laws of Communion, as ins…ffici…nt, and make a multitude of unnecessary, ensnaring, dividing Laws of their own, according to which they must be mens Judges.

5. When these Laws are not made only for their own flocks and selves, but for all the Christian world, or for absent, or dissenting persons.

6. When men excommunicate others for hard words, not understood, that deserve it not as to real matter.

7. Or do it to keep up an unlawful usurped power over those Churches that never consented to take them for their Pastors, and to rule where they have no true Authority but such as standeth on a forcing strength.

8. When Lay-Chancellors use the Keys of the Church.

9. When men excommunicate others wickedly, for doing their duty to God and man, or unjustly without sufficient Cause.

10. When unjust excommunicators force Ministers against their Consciences to publish their condemnations against those that they know to be not worthy of that Sentence, if not the best of their flocks.

11. And when they damn all as Hereticks, Schismaticks, &c. that communicate with any that they thus unjustly damn.

12. When they dishonour Kings, and higher Pwers, by disgracing excommunications; much more when they depose them.

13. When they tell Princes, that it is their duty to banish, imprison▪ or destroy men, because excommunicate, and not reconciled; and make Kings their Executioners. And so of old, when a Bishop was excommunicate, he must presently be banished: And they say, the Scots horning is of the same nature. If all had been either banished, or imprisoned, that were excommunicate, a…d unreconciled in the pursuit of the General Councils of old, how great a diminution would it have made of the free Subjects of the Empire? And if Princes must strike with the Sword, all that stand excommunicate, without trying, and judging the persons themselves, it is no wonder if such Prelates, as can first so debase them to be their Lictors, can next depose them. He is like to be a great Persecuter, that will imprison or banish all that a proud contentious Clergy will excommunicate.

p. 113As corruptio optimi est pessima, I doubt not but a wise, humble, holy, spiritual, loving, heavenly, zealous, patient, exemplary sort of Pastors is the means of continuing Christs Kingdom in the World, and such are the Pillars and Basis of Truth in the House of God (as it is said of Timothy, not of the Church as is commonly mistaken). So an ignorant, worldly, carnal, proud, usurping, domineering, hypocritical sort of Pastors, have been the great plagues, and causes of Schism, confusion, and common calamity: And that when Satan can be the chuser of Pastors for Christs Church, he will (and too oft hath) ever chuse such as shall most succesfully serve him in Christs Name.

And I doubt not, but such holy Discipline, as shall keep clean the Church of Christ, and keep off the reproach of wickedness and uncleanness from the Christian Religion, and manifest duly to the flock the difference between the precious and the vile, is a great Ordinance of God (which one man cannot exercise over many hundred Parishes, and unknown people). But an usurped domineering use of excommunication, to subdue Kings, Princes, Nobles, and people to the Jurisdiction, Opinions, and Canons of Popes, Patriarchs, Prelates, or their Councils, I think hath done not the least part of Satans work in the world.

And I must tell you, that I have lived now near 62. (now near 66.) years, and I never saw one man or woman reformed or converted by excommunication (and I hope I have known thousands converted from their sin by Preaching, even by some that are now forbidden to Preach). All that ever I knew excommunicate, were of two sorts. 1. Dissenters from the Opinions of the Bishops, or conscientious refusers of their commands: And these all rejoice in their sufferings, applying, Blessed are ye, when they cast out your names, &c. say all evil of you falsly, &c. or they take their censure for wicked persecution. The Papists laugh at their Excommunicators, and say, What an odd conditioned Church have you, that will cast us out that never came in, and because we will not come in? 2. Ungodly impenitent sinners: And these hate the excommunicators for disgracing them, and are driven further off from godliness than before: But they will say, they repent at any time, rather than go to the Gaol. I never saw one person brought to publick confession in the Assembly, by the Bishops Discipline; but I heard p. 114I was young, of one, or two, that for Adultery stood in a White Sheet in the Church, laughing at the sport, or hating the imposers. When there were no Bishops among us, about 1650. many Episcopal, Presbyterians, &c. agreed, where I lived, to exercise so much Discipline, as we were all agreed belonged to Presbyters. Hereupon I found good success, in bringing some to repentance by admonition, but never of any one that stood it out to an excommunication (so far as we went, which was only to admonish, and pray for their repentance publickly, and after to declare them unmeet for Christian Communion, and to require the people to avoid them accordingly, till they repent). After this they hated us more than before (and one of them laid hands on me in the Church-Yard, to have killed me). And I am sure that they reverenced those Ministers more than now Lay-Chancellors (if not Bishops) are by such reverenced: So that experience convinced me, that the penalty of excommunication is much more beneficial to others, than to the excommunicate.

And how many thousands in your Parish do now voluntarily excommunicate themselves from the Sacrament, and Church-Assemblies, and find no Remorse, or Reformation by it? And if all of both sorts (conscientious Dissenters, and prophane despisers, and sinners) were excommunicated now by the Church of England, without any corporal penalty adjoyned, what do you think it would do upon them? Would they not laugh at you, or pity you? Do not the Bishops believe this, and therefore will not trust to their excommunications at all without the Sword?

I cannot magnifie the Discipline of such men as count themselves the Power of the Keys to be but a Leaden Sword, a vain thing, without the annexed enforcement of corporal penalties: If it be but outward obedience to their commands, which they drive men to▪ without the heart,

1. Men of no Conscience will soonest obey them, as forced against their Consciences.

2. And why do they abuse the name of the Keys, as if it were the cause of that which it is no cause of, but is done only by the Magistrates Sword? It is the Writ De excom. cap. that doth it, and not the Keys. And they that think unwilling persons have right to the great benefit of Church Communion; p. 115yea, all that had rather come …o Church than lie in Gaol, shall never have my assent.

If really your meaning be to set up the power of the Keys by themselves, to do their proper work, and not expect that Magistrates must joyn their forcing power, to punish a man meerly because he beareth the Bishops punishment patiently, without changing his mind; Let it prevail as far as it can prevail; who will fear it (save for the Schism that it may cause)? But if it be your meaning all this while, that under the name of denying the Sacrament, it is Confiscation or the Gaol that must do the work, I should wish for more of the Spirit of Christianity, and less inclination to the Inquisition-way. Persecution never yet escaped its due odium, or penalty, by disowning its proper name. I am more of St. Martin's mind than of Ithacius's.

V. One word more I add, That I like not your making so light as you seem to me to do, of the badness of some Ministers and People that are in the allowed Churches. I know that the Papists speak much of the holiness of a Pope, when perhaps a General Council saith, he is a Murderer, Adulterer, Heretick, &c. and so call their Church Relatively holy. I deny not that Relative holiness, which is founded in meer profession: But I believe, that Christ came to gather a people to another sort of Godliness, and by his Spirit to fill them with Divine and Heavenly Life, Light, and Love (to God and man). And I believe, that all that have this (though excommunicate) shall be glorified: And that without this, all the obedience to Bishops that they give, will never keep them out of Hell. And I take it to be no great priviledg to march in an orderly Army to damnation, or to be at peace in Satans power. Hell will be Hell which way ever we come to it. I confess, were these Bishops in the right, that Sancta Clara citeth, that say, The ignorant people might merit by hating God, as an act of obedience, if their Pastors should tell them it is their duty; then this external obedience to them were more considerable: But I had rather go in the Company that goeth to Heaven (as all do that are true Lovers of God and man) than in that which goeth to Hell (as do the most Regular of the ungodly). And yet I account true obedience, and regularity, a great duty of the godly, and a great help to godliness.

p. 116And therefore I value the Means for the End, Concord for Piety and salvation. And I cannot think, that there is not now in London, a very laudable degree of Concord among all those that, though in different Assemblies, and with difference of opinions about small matters, do hold one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism, one Celestial hope, and one God and Father of all, and live in Love, and Peace and Patience towards each other: This is far greater Concord than the thousands of people, that deserving excommunication for their wicked lives, do hold in the bosom of the Church, which receiveth them as children thereof. And O! were it not for that uncharitable impatience, which an ill selfish Spirit doth contain, why should it seem to us a matter of such odium, envy, or out-cry, for men to hear the same Gospel from another man, which for some differing opinion they will not hear from us? Or for men to communicate, e. g. standing, or sitting in a Congregation of that mind, that (weakly) scruple to kneel at it with others (the old Canons countenancing their gesture of standing, more than kneeling) What harm will it do me, if (under the strictest Laws of Peace) men worshipped God by themselves, that scruple some word, or action in our worship? E. g. a Nestorian that should think, that it is improper to say, that the Virgin Mary was foreign, and that the denomination should be a ratione formali, rather than a materiali: Would Liberty in such matters, with Love and Peace, do more hurt to the Churches than Schismatical excommunications have done?

And indeed it is hard to make people able to reconcile a Conjunct earn…stness, in driving the same men into the Church, and casting them out; yea, of excommunicating them, ipso facto, by divers Canons (sine sententia), and accusing them for not communicating. If it be for not repenting, 1. Can you bring all the sinners about us to repentance, by excommunications? Why then are the openly wicked so numerous? 2. Do you think men can change their judgment, meerly because they are commanded, or excommunicated? If a man study, and pray, and endeavour to the utmost, to know the truth, and you say, that yet he erreth, will a censure cure his understanding? E. g. a Nestorian, a Monothelite, an Anabaptist, &c. much less when a man knoweth that he is in the right, and the censurer fighteth againd truth and duty.

p. 117Men in some diseases will rage at the sight of certain things, which would not much trouble them, if the disease were cured. Macedonius, and Nestorius, that were judged Hereticks themselves, could not bear the Bishops, and meetings of the Novatians; But Atticus could, and they lived together in Christian Love. I know those places now in England, where a Conformable and Nonconformable Minister, live in so great love, and the latter go still to the Parish-Churches, and the former sometimes come to them, as that no considerable trouble ariseth by their difference: And I know other places, where the publick Ministers cannot bear any that hear not themselves, yea, or that constantly hearing them, hear any other that dissenteth. But they seek to win Dissenters, as Fowlers would bring Birds to the Net, by showting, and throwing stones at them; and Anglers would catch Fish, by beating the Waters.

VI. I will tell you also, that I much dissent from you, in that when I told you, that the Tyranny of Prelates hath done more hurt than the disobedience and discord of the People towards them, you said, you do not think so.

Qu. Do you think that Thieves have killed as many men as Wars have done? If it be true, that Iulius Caesar, and his Armies killed 1192000. persons, besides those that he slew in the Civil Wars. That Darius lost at once 200 000, and abundance of such instances in lower degrees may be given; sure poor Thieves and Murderers come far short of this account. And so it is in the present case. Gregory Nazian ▪ was a wise, and good man, who saith, the people were factious, and too unruly, but (at Const.) were honest, and meant well. But how sadly doth he describe the Bishops, as rage…ing even in their Councils, and as the far greater causes of all calamity! Judg by the Twenty instances that I before gave you, about their excommunication: How few Heresies, or Schisms, were there of old, that the Bishops were not the notorious causes of? The Samosatinians, Apollinarians, Macedonians, Nestorians, Acephali, the Monothelites, yea, the Donatists, Novatians, the Phantasiasticks, and almost all: The Arrians began by a Presbyter; but if Petavius cites them truly (as he doth) too many Bishops led him the way, and most of the Bishops followed, and were the men that kept up, and increased the Heresie, far beyond the people, or the Presbyters. Eutychus, a Monk, began his Cause; but he was quickly contemned by his followers, and did p. 118little in comparison of Dioscorus, Severus, and many hundred more Bishops.

And is it the People, or the Bishops, that now keep East and West in mutual damnations? Have the Peoples divisions done more harm than the Papal Schism, and Usurpations, and Cruelties, killing about 2000000. as is said of Albigenses and Waldenses, the Inquisitions, bloody Wars against the Germane Emperors, and many English Kings, the Rebellion against the Greek Emperor, Leo Isaurus, and destruction of the Eastern Empire, our Smithfield Bone-fires, and innumerable other Cruelties, Desolations, Heresies and Schisms? Are all these less than the abuse of Liberty by Inferiors, in Praying, Preaching, or Disorders? Judg Hale saith, That he had a friend that stored a very great Pond of Three or Four Acres, with a great number of Fish, and at Seven years end only put in Two very small Pikes, and at the draught of his Pond, there was not one Fish left, but the Two Pikes grown to an excessive bigness, and all the rest with their millions of fry devoured by the pair of Tyrants. Hale of the Orig. of Man, Sect. 2. cap. 9 pag. 208. The Block had been a better Ruler. The Lord forgive the Presbyterians their over-keenness against Sects, before the Pikes have made an end of them. Pardon truth to

Your Servant, Ri. Baxter.

For the Learned Mr. Henry Dowell (after a personal Conference with him).

SIR,

COncord and Peace are so very desirable to the ends of Christianity, that I am glad to hear you speak for them in the general, though I take your way to be certainly destructive of them; and because you think the like of mine, and so while we are agreed for the end, we greatly differ about the means, I shall here perform what I last offered you, viz. I. An explication p. 119of my own sense of the way of Church-concord (because you said I am still upon the destructive part) viz. 1. My fundamental Principles. 2. The way of concord, which I suppose to be sufficient, and only likely (as appointed by God) to attain that end. II. The reasons of my utter dissent from your way. III. A Proposal for our further debating of these differences.

I. I hope if you are a man of charity or impartiality, it will be no hard matter to you to believe that I am willing to be acquainted with healing truth (that I say not as willing as you); and if I be unhappy in the success of my Enquiries, it is not for want of searching diligence. And your parts assure me, that it is so with you. But it is the usual effect of one received error, to let in many more; and it is so either with me or you. And lest it should prove my unhappiness, I shall thankfully accept your remedying informations.

1. The Principles which I presuppose, are such as these. 1. As God as Creator, so Christ as Redeemer is the Universal King and Head over all things to the Church, which is his body, Ephes. 1.22, 23. Ioh. 17.2, &c.

2. He hath made Vniversal Laws to be means of this Universal Government.

3. His Universal Laws are in suo genere sufficient to their proper use.

4. There is no other Universal King or Ruler of the world, or of the Church, whether Personal or Collective. And therefore none that hath power of Universal Legislation, or Jurisdiction.

5. Much less any that hath a superiour power to alter Gods Universal Laws by abrogation, subrogation, suspension, or dispensation. Nor will God himself alter them, and substitute new ones. As Tertullian saith, We at first believe this, that no more is to be believed.

6. These Laws of our Universal Governour are partly of natural Revelation, and partly of Supernatural, viz. by himself, and by his Spirit in his Apostles given in an extraordinary measure to this end, to lead them into all truth, which is delivered to us in their Scripture-records.

7. Some local precepts, whose matter was narrow and temporary, p. 120even the mutable customs of that time and place were also narrow and temporary; (as the washing of feet, anointing, vailing women, the kiss of peace, &c) which maketh nothing for the mutability of the Universal Laws.

8. No Pastors since the Apostles, are by office or power appointed to make any Universal Laws for the Church, nor any of the same kind and reason with Gods own Laws, whose reason or cause was existent in the Apostles times, but only to explain the word of God, and apply it to particular persons and cases, as Ministers under Christ in his Teaching, Priestly and Governing office; nor have the Apostles any other kind of Successors.

9. Christ made not Peter or any one of his Apostles Governour of the rest: But when they strove who should be the chief, rebuked that expectation, and determined, That among them Preeminence should consist in excelling in humility and service.

10. When the Corinthians were sick of the like disease, Paul rebuked them for saying, I am of Cephas, and determineth that Apostles are but particular members of the body, of which Christ only is the Head; and not the Lords, but Ministers and helpers of their faith.

11▪ No Pastors (as such) have forcing power, either to touch mens bodies, or estates, or inflict by the sword corporal penalties, or mulcts. But only by the word (by which the power of the Keys is exercised) to instruct men, and urge Gods precepts, promises and threats upon their Consciences.

12. The Apostles were Bishops eminenter, in that they called, gathered, and while they stayed with them, governed Churches. But not formaliter as taking any one particular Church for their proper charge: But setled such fixed Bishops over them. And though they distributed their labours about the world prudently, and as the Spirit of Christ guided them; yet we find not any probability that ever they divided the world into twelve or thirteen Provinces, or ever setled twelve or thirteen chief Metropolitical seats in the world, which their proper Successors as such should govern in preeminence. Nor doth any History intimate such a thing; nor yet that any Apostle took any City for his proper Diocess, where another Apostle might not come and exercise equal Power.

p. 12113. It seemeth that Christs sending out his seventy Disciples by two and two, and the Apostles staying together much at Ierusalem, and Paul and Barnabas's going forth together, and after Paul & Silas, and Barnabas and Mark, & Peter and Paul (supposed) to be together at Rome, &c. that the Spirit of God did purposely prevent the intentions of any afterward of being the Metropolitical Successors of single Apostles or Disciples of Christs immediate sending, in this or that City as their proper seat.

14. As Grotius thinks that the Churches were instituted after the likeness of the Synagogues, of which one City had many; so Dr. Hammond endeavours to evince, not only that Peter and Paul were Bishops of two distinct Churches of Rome, one of the Iews, and the other of the Gentile Christians; but also that it was so in other Cities. Dissertat.

15. The Patriarchs were not 12 or 13, but three first, and five afterward; and none of them pretended to any power as especial Successors of any one Apostle, but Antioch and Rome of Peter; (and that was not their first claim or title, but an honorary reason why men afterward advanced them.) Alexandria claimed Succession but from St. Mark, and Ierusalem from Iames (no Apostle, if Dr. Hammond and others be not much mistaken) and Constantinople from none.

16. The 28 Canon of Calcedon tels us enough of the foundation, title and reason of Patriarchal power, and all Church-History that the Metropolitical Powers were granted by Emperours, either immediately, or empowering Councils thereto.

17. These Emperours having no power out of the Empire, neither by themselves, nor by Councils, gave not any power that extended further than the Empire, or that could by that title continue to any City which fell under the Government of another Prince.

18 A… the…e never was a Council truly Universal, so the name Vniversal or Oec…menical was not of old given them, in respect to the whole Christian world, but to the whole Empire; as the power that called them, and the names of the Bishops subscribed, &c. fully prove.

19. Before Christian Princes did empower them, Councils were but for Counsel, concord and correspondency, and particular Pastors were bound by their Decrees only: 1. For the evidence of truth which they made known: 2. And by the General Law p. 122of God, to maintain unity and peace, and help each other. But afterward, by vertu… of the Princes Law, or Will, they exercised a direct Government over the particular Bishops, and those were oft banished that did not submit to them.

20. While Councils met but for Counsel and Concord, and also when afterwards they were but Provincial, or National under Kings, where none of the Patriarchal Spirit and Interest did corrupt them, they made excellent Orders, and were a great blessing to the Churches: Of the first sort, e. g. were divers African, and of the latter divers Spanish, and French, when neither Emperor, nor Pop… ▪ did over-rule them, but the Gothish, and French Kings moderately govern them. But though I deny not any good which the Councils, called General, did, especially the fir… Nicene; yet I must profess, that the History of the Patriarchal Seats, and the History of the General Councils, and the Church-Wars then, and after them managed by Four of the Patriarchs especially, and their Bishops▪ the confusion caused in most of the Churches, the Anathematiz…ng of one another, the blood that hath been shed in the open streets, of Monks▪ and common people; yea, the fighting, and fury of Bishops at the Councils, to the death of some of them, their …iring out the endeavours of such Emperors, and their Officers, that would have kept Peace and Concord among them, do all put me out of hope, that the Peace and Concord of the Christian world, should ever be setled by Popes, Patriarchs, or such kind of Councils, which all have so long filled the Christian world with most calamitous divisions, contentions, and blood-shed, and made the snares, which continue its divisions and distractions to this day.

II. I conceive, that the means of Church-concord, appointed by God, is as follows▪ But I premise,

1. It must be pre-supposed, That no perfect Concord will be had on earth; yea▪ that there will unavoidably be very many differences, which must be born. So great is the diversity of mens natural Capacity and Temper, their Education, Company, Teachers, Helps, Interests, Callings, Temptations, &c. that it is not probable that any Two men in all the world, are p. 123in every particular of the same mind: And every man that groweth in knowledg, will more and more differ from himself, and not be of the same mind as he was when he knew less.

2. Yet must our increase in knowledg, and Concord, be our continual endeavour; and it is the use of teaching to bring these differences, caused by ignorance, to as small a number as we can.

3. There is scarce a more effectual means of Division, and Confusion, and Church-ruin, to be devised, than to suppose a more extensive Concord to be possible, and necessary, than indeed is; and so to set up an impossible End, and Means, and to deny Concord and Peace to all that cannot have it on those terms. If all should be denied to be the Kings Subjects, who dare not profess Assent, Consent, and approbation of every law, and part, or word of the laws, or that agree not of the meaning of every law, or that differ in any matters of Religion, what a Schism, Confusion, and Ruine would it unavoidably make in the Kingdom? and how few Subjects would it leave the King? Even as if none but men of the same stature, visage, or wit, should be Subjects.

4▪ The necessary Union and Concord of Christians, is a matter of so great importance, that it cannot be supposed, that Christ is the sole Universal Lawgiver, and yet hath not ordained, or determined what shall be the terms of necessary Christian Unity and Concord: And indeed he hath determined it. Viz.

I. He hath ordained Baptism himself, to be our Christning, or our visible Investiture in the Church Universal; that is, our Relation to Christ, as the Head of his Universal Kingdom, or Body. And every rightfully baptized person (till by violating that Covenant he forfeit his benefits), is to be taken by us as a Member of Christ, a Child of God, and an Heir of Heaven; and we are bound to love him as a brother, and use him accordingly, in all due Offices of Love. And because the Church, into which Baptism entereth us, consists of Christian Pastors and People, Apostles and Prophets, having been as Foundations, infallibly delivering us, now recorded in Scripture the Word of Life; and ordinary Pastors being appointed to teach, and guide the people in holy Doctrine, Worship, and Conversation; therefore it is implied, that the baptized person at Age, p. 124understandeth this, and consenteth thereunto; that is, to receive, as infallible, the recorded sacred Doctrine of the infallible persons, Apostles and Prophets, and the ordinary Ministry of such ordinary Pastors and Teachers, as he shall discern to be set over him by the Word and Spirit of Christ. Whether this consent to the Pastoral-Office, be necessary to the Being of a Christian, or only to the Well-being, is a controversie with which I need not stop, or length…n in this account. But Baptism, as such, doth not enter us into any particular Church.

II. 1. Christ (by himself, and his …pirit in the Apostles) hath ordained, that Christians shall be associated into particular Churches, consisting of the aforesaid Ordinary Pastors and their Flocks, for Personal Communion in holy D…ctrine, Worship, and Conversation; in all which these Pastors are their Guides, according to the Laws, or Word of Christ, already delivered by the in…allible Ministry of the Apostles and Prophets; against, or beyond which, Christ hath given them no power. Their Office is of his own making, and describing; and their power to determine undetermined useful circumstances in Gods Worship, and Church-discipline, is but a power to obey Christs general commands (to do all thing… in Love, Peace, Order, Decency, and to Edification), which they may not violate.

2. Every Christian that hath opportunity, should be a Member of some such particular Church; Statedly, if it may be; if not, yet transiently: But some may want such opportunity (as single persons converted, or cast among Infidels; Travellers, Embassadors, Factors, and other Merchants, (among Infidels) or where Christianity is so corrupted by the P…stors, as that they will not allow men Communion without sinful Oaths, Covenants, Professions, Words, or Practices.

3. No one at Age can be a Member of the Universal, or of any particular Church (and so the Subj…ct of that Pastor) against his will, or without his own consent (however Antecedent Obligations may bind men to consent).

4. Every such Church should have its proper Bishop; and in Ignatius's time, its Unity was describ…d by One Altar, and One Bishop, with his fellow Presbyters, and Deacons.

5. Such B…shops, or Pastors were to be ordained by Senior Bishops, or P…stors, and received by the E…ection, or Consent of the whole Church; and for many hundred years no Churches p. 125received their Bishops on any other terms. The Ordainers, and the People or Church receiving him, having each a necessary consent, as a double Key for the security of the Church; to which afterwards the Christian Magi…rates consent was added according to Gods word, so far as protecting and countenancing of the Bishop did require, The senior Bishops must consent to his Ordination, the people must consent to him as formally related to themselves as their Pastor; and the Magistrate as to one to be protected by him.

6 As without mutual consent the relation of Pastor and flock is not founded; so Gods Providence must direct every man to know what particular Church he should be of, and whom by consent to take for the guide of his soul. In England men may freely chuse what Church and Pastor they will stand related to; every man having liberty to dwell in what Parish or Diocess he please, without asking leave of the Bishop to remove.

7. The individuating or distingu…shing of particular Churches by peculiar Circuits, or proper spaces of ground, is no further of Gods institution, than it is the performance of the general commands of doing all in order to edification, &c. And as in prosperous times under godly peaceable Princes, it is greatly convenient and desirable; so in several cases of Division, Church-corruption by Heresie, or Tyranny, Persecution, &c. it is inconvenient, and it becomes a necessary duty to gather Churches in the same space of ground where only some other Pastor had a Church before. The cases in which this is lawful, and the cases in which Separation is unlawful, having written largely in another paper, I shall offer it to you when you desire it.

8. It is not of absolute necessity that all the members of a particular Church, do always or usually meet in one place, (though it be very convenient and desirable where it may be done); for Persecution may prohibit it, or want of a large capacious place, or the great d…stance of some of the Inhabitants, or the age, or weakness of others; and therefore in the ancient Churches, though at first they usually were all assembled in one place, yet after when they encreased, the Canons required all the people to assemble with the Bishop but at certain chief Festivals in the year, having Chappels or Oratories in the Villages where they m…t on other days. And with us many Parishes of great extent have many Chappels of ease.

p. 1269. But that the end of the Association be not only for distan… communion by Delegates or Letters, or meer relation to one common Ruler as all the Empire had to the Emperour, but for PERSONAL COMMVNION of Pastor and Flock, so that they may at least per vices meet together, or live within the reach of each others personal notice, and converse, and Communion in Doctrine, Worship and Discipline, this is essential to a partiicular Church, primi ordinis, of Divine Institution, of which I now treat.

III. 1. As Christians must gather into particular Churches, under their proper Bishops; so these Churches must hold a certain Communion among themselves, so much as is necessary to their mutual Edification and Preservation, of which Synods, and Communicatory Letters and Messengers, are the means.

2. An association of several Churches for Communion of Churches, doth tota specie differ from an association of individual Christians into one Church primae speciei. And it differeth in the matter, end, and kind of Communion.

3. If these several Churches agree in the same Baptismal Covenant, in the same ancient Creed or Articles of Faith, and in the same love and holy desires summed up by Christ in the Lords-prayer, and in taking the commands of Christ for the Rule of their conversation, and receiving Gods Revelations recorded in the holy Scriptures so far as they understand them, renouncing all contraries to any of this so soon as they perceive them so to be, this should suffice to their loving and comfortable communion, without any desires of Domination or Government over one another. And though I will not do any thing unpeaceably against Patriarchs, Metropolitans, Archbishops or Diocesans, if they govern according to the Laws of God; yet I know no Divine right that any of them have to be the Rulers of the particular Bishops and Churches. Though a humane presidency for order we deny not, nor that junior Bishops do owe some respect and submission to the Seniors.

4. Though the General Laws of Christ (for concord, edification, &c.) do enable Magistrates by command, or Pastors by contract to chuse and make new Officers of their own (which God p. 127never particularly instituted) for the determining and executing such circumstantials as God hath left to humane prudence, (as Presidents, Moderators, Churchwardens, Summoners, &c.) yet I deny, 1. That any Officer of meer humane Institution hath a superior proper Ecclesiastical Power of the Keys, to be a Bishop of Bishops, and to govern the Governou…s of the particular Churches by Excommunications, Depositions, and Absolutions, seeing ex ratione rei, it belongeth to the same Legislator, who instituted the inferiour order, to have instituted the Superiour, if he would have had it. 2. And I peremptorily deny that any such pretended Superiour (Patriarch, Primate, Metropolitan, Archbishop, &c.) hath any power (save Diabolical) to deprive any particular Churches, Bishops, or Christians, of any of the Priviledges setled on them by Christs Vniversal Laws, or to disoblige them from any duties required by Christ.

IV. It belongeth to the Office of Princes and Magistrates only to Rule all, both Clergy and Laity, by the sword or force; even to drive Ministers to do their certain duty, and to punish them for sin. And they are to keep peace among the Churches; and (as bad as the Secular Powers have been) had they not kept peace better than the Bishops have done, I am possest with horrour to think what a field of blood the Churches had been throughout the world, since the Exaltation of the Clergy.

V. Christ only is (as the Universal Legislator, so) the Universal final judg, from whom there is no appeal.

VI. Every Christian as a Rational Agent hath a Judgment of discerning, by which he must judg whether his Rulers commands be according to Christs commands or not. And if they be, must obey Christ in them. If not, must not obey them against Christ, but appeal to him. And if any do this erroneously, it is his sin; if justly, it is his duty.

These six Particulars I take to be the sufficient means which Christ hath appointed for the concord of the Church; and that the seven points of Concord mentioned by the Apostle should satisfie us herein, viz. 1. One body. 2. One Spirit. 3. One hope of our calling. 4 One Lord. 5. One Faith. 6. One Baptism. 7. One God and Father of all. And they that agree in these, are bound to keep the Unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace; as knowing that the Kingdom of God consisteth not in meats and d…inks, but in Righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Ghost. p. 128And he that in these serveth Christ, is acceptable to God, and (should be) approved of men, Rom. 14.17, 18. Ephes. 4.6, 7, &c. Nor is it lawful for any to hate, persecute, silence, or Excommunicate their Brethren that agree in these; or to divide, distract, or confound the Churches for the interest of their several Preeminences, or Provinces, which have no higher than humane authority, perhaps questionable, at least unquestionably below the authority of God, and null when it is against it.

I am sure by the Church-History of all ages since Christ, the great divider of the Christian World hath been the Pride of a worldly (too ignorant) Clergy.

1. Striving who should be greatest.

2. Striving about ambiguous words.

3. Imposing unnecessary things by their Authority upon the Churches; to be ignorant of this, is impossible to me when once I have read the History of the Church; which warneth me what to suspect as the causes of our distractions; for the things that had been, are.

And how unexcusable these three evils are, and how contrary to Christ, these Texts do tell me: I. Luk 22.24, 25, 26 1 Pet. 5.1, 2, 3, 4. 1 Cor. 3.5, 6, 7, 22. 2 Cor. 1.24. II. 2 Tim. 2.14, 16, 23, 24, 25. 1 Tim. 1.4, 5, 6. III. 2 Cor. 11.3. Act. 15.28. Revel. 2.24, 25, Mat. 15.8, 9. Rom. 14, & 15, throughout.

To tell you, that I am not only as you say, on the destructive part, I have thus told you briefly what I assert as the way to peace. And now I shall destructively tell you why I differ from your Principles as truly destructive of truth, unity and peace.

Some of the Principles which I have heard from your mouth, which I dissent from, are these:

I. That the Church must have some Ecclesiastical Governours that are absolute, from whom no man may appeal to an invisible Power.

II. That Diocesan Churches are the first in order of Divine Institution▪

III. That Diocesan-Bishops by consent may make other Church-forms, as National, Patriarchal, &c. And that such Churches are not made by Princes, but by the consent of Prelates.

IV. That these Church-forms of mans making, stand in a Governing p. 129Superiority over those of Gods making.

V. That where by such consent of Diocesans such superior Jurisdictions are once setled, it is a sin for any to gather Assemblies within the local bounds of their Jurisdiction without their consent.

VI. That you cannot see how those that do so, can be saved.

VII. That if I preach on the account of my Ministerial office, and the peoples necessity, to such as else would have no Preaching, nor any publick worship of God, (e. g. in a Parish where there are 40000 more than can hear in the Parish-Church), though I must conclude that according to the ordinary way of Salvation such could not be brought to Faith, Holiness and Salvation, for want of teaching, it is yet my sin to preach to them, and my duty to let them rather be damned, if I have not the Bishops consent to teach them; and that because it is the Bishop and not I that shall answer for their damnation.

VIII. That it is disputable with you whether those to whom Church power is given (viz. Diocesans) may not change (not only the local temporary circumstances, but) the very Church-forms, and suspend Laws of Christ.

IX. That Baptism entreth the Baptized into some particular Church, and consequently under this fore-described Church-Government.

X. That in the case of Preaching the Gospel, Ministers may in many cases do it, though Emperours and Kings forbid them, (as in the days of Constantius, Valens, yea and better men); but not if the Bishop forbid them, or consent not.

XI. That circa Sacra, if the King command the Churches for Uniformity, one Translation of the Bible, one Version or Meter of the Psalms, one Liturgy, one Time, or Place of Worship, &c. and the Bishop another, we ought to obey the Bishop against the command of the King.

XII. That the required Subscriptions, Declarations, Rubricks and Canons, are primarily the Laws of the Church, which the King and Parliament do confirm by their Sanction; and therefore the Church is the Expounder of them.

These are some of your Assertions, which I cannot yet receive.

p. 130I. My Reasons against the first are these: 1. Because this maketh Gods of men, and so is Idolatry, giving them Gods proper Power and Prerogative.

2. Yea, it taketh down God (or his Laws), and setteth them above him: For there cannot be two Absolute Governors that have not one Will. If I must not appeal from them to God, then I must appeal from God to them; that is, I must break his Law, if they bid me, or else they are not Absolute.

3. This maketh all Gods Laws at the will of ma…, as alterable, or dispensible: Man may forbid all that God commandeth, and I must obey.

4. Then all Villanies may be made Virtues, or Duties, at the will of man: If they command us to curse God, or Blaspheme, or be perjured, or commit Fornication, Murder, or Idolatry, it would become a Duty.

5. Then the Power, and Lives of Kings would be at the Clergies mercy; For if their power be Absolute, they may make Treason and Rebellion a Duty.

6. And all Family-Societies, and Civil Converse, migbt be overthrown, while an Absolute Clergy may disoblige men from all duty to one another.

7. Then the Council at Lateran, which you have excellently proved in your Considerations, to be the Author of its Canons, doth, or did oblige Princes to exterminate their Reformed Subjects, and disoblige Subjects from their Allegiance to Princes that obey not the Pope herein, and are excommunicate. So of Greg. 7th's Council. Rom.

8. Then did the Church, or Kingdom of England well, to disobey, or forsake the Roman Power, that was over them?

9. Were not our Martyrs rather Rebels, that died for disobeying an Absolute Power?

10. How should two contradicting Absolute Powers (viz. General Councils) be both obeyed? E. g Nicen. 1. and Arimini▪ Sirm. and Tyr. or Ephes. 2 and Calced ▪

11. How will this stand with the Judgment and practice of the Apostles, that said, Whether it be meet that we obey God, or man, judg ye?

p. 13112. How will it stand with Conformity to the Church of England, that in the Articles saith, that General Councils may err, and have erred in matter of Faith? &c.

13. Is it not against the sense of all mankind, even the common Light of Nature, where utter Atheism hath not prevailed?

Say not, that I wrong you, by laying all this odium on your self. I lay it but on your words: And I doubt not, but (though disputing Interest draw such words from you) on consideration you will re-call them by some limitations.

II. My Reasons against your second, must pre-suppose, that we understand one another as to the sense of the word, Diocesan Church, which being your …erm, had I been with you, I must have desired you first to explain. The word, Diocess of old, you know, signified a part of the Empire, larger than a Province, and that had many Metropolitans in it. I suppose that is not your sense. Sometimes now it is taken for that space of ground which we call, a Diocess; sometimes for all the people in that space. And with us, a Diocesan Church, is a Church of the lowest Order, containing in it, a multitude of fixed Parochial Congregations, which have every one their stated Presbyter, who is no Bishop, and Vnum altare, and are no Churches, but parts of a Church, and which is individuated by one Bishop, and the measuring-space of ground, whose inhabitants are its Members. Till you tell me the contrary, I must take this for your sense; For you profess to me, that you speak of such Diocesan Churches as ours (and they have some above a thousand, others many hundred Parishes), and you say our Parishes are not Churches, but Parts of a Church, and so Families are.

2. Either you mean, that a Diocesan Church is the first in order of Execution and Existence, or else in order of Intention, and so last in Existence and Execution. I know not your meaning, and therefore must speak to both.

I. That a Diocesan Church is first in Intention, is denied by me, and disproved (though it belong to you to prove it).

p. 1321. Intentions no where declared of God in mature or supernatural Revelations, are not to be asserted of him as Truths. But a prime intention of a Diocesan Church is no where declared of God: Ergo, not to be asserted of him as truth.

2. It is the end or ultimum rei complementum, which is first in intention (where there is ordo intentionis.) But a Diocesan Church is not the end or ultimum rei complementum: Ergo, not first intended.

The Major is not deniable: The Minor hath the consent as far I as know, of all the world. For they are all either for the Hierarchy, or against it. They that are for it, say that a Metropolitan is above a Diocesan, and a Provincial above a Metropolitan, and a Patriarchal above a Provincial, and a National (which hath Patriarchs, as the Empire had) above that; and …ay the new Catholicks, an humane universal above a National Church, as the complement or perfection; and therefore must be first intended.

But those that are against the Hierarchy, think that all these are Church-corruptions, or humane policies set up by Usurpation, and therefore not of prime Divine Intention.

3. If you should go this way, I would first debate the question with you, how far there is such a thing as ordo intentionis to be ascribed to God. For though St. Thomas (as you use to call him) assert such intentions, it is with many limitations; and others deny it, and all confess that it needeth much Explication to be understood.

II. But if it be a priority of Existence in order of execution. that you mean, it disproveth it self. For,

1. It is contrary to the nature of production, that two, or twenty, or an hundred stated Congregations, should be before ont; as it is that I should write a page before a line, and a line before a word, and a word before a letter.

2. It is contrary to the Scripture-History, which telleth us that Christ called his Disciples by degrees, a few first, and more after; and that the Apostles accordingly converted men; from the number of 120, they rose to 3000 more; and after to 5000, &c. And that ordinarily the Churches in Scripture-times were such as could, and often did meet in one place, (though that be n…t necessary as I said before) hath so copious evidence, as that I will not here trouble you with it.

p. 1333. Either the Apostles Ordained Bishops before subject Presbyters, or such Presbyters before Bishops, or both at once. If both at once as two Orders, it's strange that they called both Orders promiscuously by the same names, sometimes Bishops, sometimes Presbyters, and sometimes Pastors and Teachers, without any distinguishing Epithete or notice. And it's strange that we never find any mention of the two sorts of Congregations, one the Bishops Cathedral, and the other the Parish Presbyters Congregation. If you say that they were the Bishops themselves, and first Ordained only subject-Presbyters under them, that cannot hold. For doubtless there were more than twelve or thirteen Churches (the number of Apostles in their times; nor were they fixed Bishops, but indefinite gatherers and edifiers of the Churches. And either those Elders first Ordained by the Apostles were Bishops, or else there were Churches without Bishops, for they Ordained Elders in every City, and in every Church. And either the Elders first Ordained by the Apostles had the power of Ordaining others, or not. If they had, then either they were Bishops, or else subject-Presbyters were Ordained to be Ordainers; yea to Ordain Bishops (if such were to be after ordained.) And so indeed it would be suitable to your concei…, that the inferiour order of Diocesans do by consent make superior Metropolitans, Provincials, Nationals, and Patriarchs to rule them; and with Hieromes report ad Evagr. that the Alexandrian Presbyters made the Bishops, as the Army doth a General. But this making of Children to beget Fathers, is so commonly denied, that I need not more dispute against it.

3▪ But I think most of the Hierarchical way will say, that the Apostles first Ordained Bishops, that those Bishops might Ordain subject-Presbyters. And if so, the Churches could be but single Congregation at the first till the subject-Presbyters were Ordained Yea, Dr. Hammond (as aforesaid) asserteth (in Act. 11. and in Dissert. &c.) that there is no proof there were any of the Order of subject-Presbyters in Scripture-times; and he thinketh that most of his party were of his mind; and that the name Bishop, Elder and Pastor in Scripture signifie only those that we now call Bishops. And in this he followeth Dion. Petavius, and Fr. a Sancta Clara de Episcop. who saith that it came from Scotus. And if this be so, then in all Scripture-times there was no Church of more than one worshipping Congregation. For we are agreed that p. 134Church-meetings were for the publick Worship of God, and celebration of Sacraments, and exercise of Discipline, which no meer Lay-man might lawfully guide the people in, and perform as such assemblies did require. And one Bishop could be but in one place at once. And if there were many Bishops, there were many Churches. So that according to Dr. Hammond and all of his mind, there was no Church in Scripture-times of more than one stated ordinary Worshipping Congregation, because there were no subject-Presbyters.

If you say that yet this was a Diocesan Church, because it had a Diocesan Bishop; I answer, why is he called a Diocesan Bishop if he had not a Diocesan Church?

If you mean that he was designed to turn his single Congregation into many by increase: 1. That must not be said only, but proved. 2. And that supposeth that his one congregation was first before the many. And I hope you …ake not Infidels for parts of the Church, because they are to be converted hereafter. Those that are no members of the Church make not the Church, and so make it not to be Diocesan. One Congregation is not an hundred or a thousand, because so many will be hereafter.

If you mean that such a space of ground was assigned to the Bishops to gather and govern Churches in. I answer,

1. Gathering Churches is a work antecedent to Episcopacy.

2. The Ground is no part of the Church. It is a Church of men, and not of soil and houses that we speak of.

3. Nor indeed will you ever prove that the Apostles measured out or distinguished Churches by the space of ground. So that the first Churches were not Diocesan.

III. As to your Third Opinion, 1. Officers are denominated from the work which they are to do. There are works to be done, circa sacra, about the holy Ministerial works, as Accidental: as to … to Church buildings, Utensils, and Lands, to Summon Synods, and Register their Acts; to moderate in disputations, and to take votes, &c. These the Magistrate may appoint Officers to pe…orm; and if he do not, the Churches, by his permission, may do it by consent.

p. 135And there are works proper to the Magistrate, viz. to force men to their duty by mulcts, or corporal penalties. I deny none of these.

But the works of Ordination, Pastoral Guidance, Excommunication and Absolution, by the power of the Keys, are proper to the sacred Office, which Christ hath instituted. And I shall not believe, till I see it proved, that any men have power to make any new Order, or Office of this sort, which Christ never made by himseelf, or his Spirit in his Apostles; much less that Inferiors may make Superior Offices: For 1. It belongeth to the same power to make one (especially the Superior) Church-Office, which made the other of the same General nature. If without Christs institution, no man could be Episcopus gregis, and have the power of the Keys over the people, then by parity of Reason, without his institution no man can be Episcopus Episcoporum, and have the power of the Keys over the Bishops.

2. Dr. Hammond's argument against Presbyters Ordination is, Nemo dat quod non habet; which though it serve not his turn on several accounts (both because 1. They have the Order which they confer. 2. Because Ordination is not giving, but Ministerial delivery by Investiture); yet in this case it will hold; For 1. This is supposed to be a new institution of an Office. 2. And that of an higher power than ever the Institutors had themselves: The King giveth all his Officers their power, but all of them cannot give the King his power. The Patriarch cannot make a Pope, nor the Metropolitans a Patriarch, that shall have a power over them, which they never had themselves.

And what I say of Superior Orders, and Offices, I say of Synods; For whether the power be Monarchica…, or Aristocratical, or Democratical, there is need of the same power in the Cause that maketh it: No man can give that which he hath not to give.

If you should fly to such popular Principles, as the Episcopal Champion, Richard Hooker, doth, and the Jesuites in their Politicks, and many; yea, most other Writers of Politicks, and say, That as the people are the givers of power to the Soveraign, though they are no Governours themselves, so the Bishops give power to the Episcopi Episcoporum (personal, or Synodical), I answer, The Principle is false about Civil Policy, as p. 136I have proved against Mr. Hooker, in my Christian Directory, and as Dr. Hammond hath proved in the Kings Cause, against Iohn Goodwin. The power every man hath over himself, doth so specifically differ from the power of Governing-Societies, that the latter is not caused by all mens Contribution of the former; and much more in Church-Government, which God hath left less the Will of man (as Mr. Dan. Cawdr…y hath proved).

To conclude, I grant the Superiority of Magistrates, and of their Officers, circa sacra, but not that Inferior Clergymen may by consent, make a Superior Species of Rulers (or Episcopos Episcoporum) by the Keys, in eodem genere.

But I confess, that how far Christ himself hath made Apostolick Successors, or Archbishops, as to the ordinary part of governing many Churches, is a question to me of much more difficulty, and moment.

As for the Patriarchal, and other Superior Church-power in the Roman Empire, that it was made partly by the Emperors themselves (as the instances of the two Iustiniana's, and many others shew), and partly by Councils, Authorized thereto by the Emperors, is past all doubt.

IV. As to your fourth Opinion, I include the reason of my denial of it, in the description of it. Whether you confess particular worshipping Churches, that have each unum altare, to be of Divine Institution, I cannot tell: but that you take the Diocesan to be so Divine, you have told me; and that you take the Superior Ruling-Churches, to be made by them. Now that Churches of mans making (Universal, or National, or Patriarchal, &c) should be the rightful Governors (by the Keys) over the Churches of Gods making, must be either jure Divino, or humano: not jure humano; For 1. Man cannot give the power of the Keys without God. 2. And mans grant cannot over top Gods. Indeed there is no power but of God.

2. Not jure divino; For if God give them the power, God maketh that Species that containeth that power. For God not to make the Office, and not to give the power, is all one.

3. At least, what satisfying proof you will give us, that indeed God giveth power to Church-Officers of his own making, themseves p. 137to make nobler superior Officers or Churches than themselves, I cannot foresee. And till it's proved, it is not to be believed. 4. Yea it confoundeth the Inferiours and the Superiors. For the Diocesans are so far the Superiors to the Provincial, National, Patriarchal, &c. in that they make them▪ or give them their power, and yet inferior in that they are to be subjects to them.

More Nonconformists do deny the power of men to make new Species of Churches, and Church Rulers, than their power to make new Ceremonies.

V. Your next mention'd Opinion, (that it is a sin to preach and congregate people within the local bounds of Diocesan or Provincial, or other superior Jurisdictions without their consent) falleth of it self, if those foregoing fall, which it is built upon.

1. If it prove true that they that made these superior Jurisdictions had no power to make them, but gave that which they had not to give, then your foundation faileth.

2. If it be proved that neither Christ nor his Apostles ever made a Law that Bishops Jurisdictions shall be limited, measured and distributed by space of ground, as our Parishes and Diocesses are, so that all in such a compass shall be proper to one Pastor, much less did ever divide our Diocesses or Parishes; (which me thinks none should deny) then Preaching in that space of ground is no sin against such an Order of Christ.

3. If it be proved (as I undertake to do) that this distribution by spaces of ground, is a work that the King and his Officers are to do, (or the Churches by his permission by way of contract, if he leave it to them), and this in obedience to Gods General Laws (of Order, Peace, Concord and Edification), then these things will follow,

1. That if the King give us Licenses to Preach within such a space of ground, we have good Authority, and break not the restraining Law: And yet such as you accused us of schism as well when the King Licensed us, as since.

2. That this Law of local bounds doth bind us but as other humane Laws do; which is, say many Casuists, not at all out of the case of scandal, when they make not for the bonum publicum. p. 138But say others more safely, not when they notoriously make against, 1. Either the bonum publicum, which is finis regiminis: 2. Or the general Law of God which must authorize them, (being against edification, peace, &c.) 3. When they are contrary to the great, certain and indi…pensible Laws of God himself. And that in such cases patient suffering the penalty which men inflict is instead of obedience to the prohibition, (and as in Daniels case, Dan. 6 and …he Apostles, &c.)

Therefore I am … to give you, 1. My Concessions in what cases it … to … the Magistrate in Preaching where he forbiddeth …. 2. … in what cases it is a great duty. But to say that it is a sin because that the Clergy forbiddeth it, must have better proof …an I have seen, even, 1. That such Clergymen are truly called by God. 2. And that they have from him the assignation of this space of ground. And 3. are by him empowered to forbid all others to preach on their land. 4. And that even when Gods general Laws do make it our duty, that they can suspend the obligation of such Laws, even the greatest: I am ready upon any just occasion to prove to you, that I were a heinous sinner, if I should have ceased such Preaching as I have used upon all the reasons that you alledg against it. And wo to them that make our greatest and dearest duties to pass for sin, and our greatest sin, Isa. 5.20. Were it but one of the least commands, I would be loth to break it, and teach men so to do, much less one of the greatest; when men whose consciences tell them, that they are totally devoted to God; as Christians and as Ordained Ministers, deny their worldly interest and preferments, and serve him in poverty, beholden for their daily bread, and to the ruin of their worldly Estates, and the hazard of their lives in the Common Goals, endeavour nothing but to Preach Christs Gospel to save mens souls from ignorance, unbelief, sensuality, worldliness, &c. in case of the peoples undeniable necessity; I say, when such meet with men of the same profession, who think not the Common Goals among Rogues, and the forfeiture of Forty pound a Sermon, as Enacted by Law, to be enough to restrain them, but also as in the name of Christ they will charge us with heinous sin unless we will perfidiously break our obligations to Christ, and sacrilegiously alienate our selves from the work which we are devoted to (many of us under the Bishops hands) and unless we will be cruel to miserable souls, and shut p. 139up the bowels of our compassion from them, while we see them in need and in danger of damnation, what fortitude do we need against such kind of Tempters, and such Temptations? If Drunkards and boys in the street only scorn'd me as a Puritan, or Precisian, it were less. If Turkish Rulers did persecute me for my Preaching Christ, it were less. If mistaken Christian Rulers made me the scorn of the Nation, and stript me of all my worldly maintenance, and laid me with Malefactors in Prisons, it were a less temptation, than for a man to come in the name of Christ, to tell me that I sin against him, unless I will forsake my Calling, break my Vows, cease Preaching his Gospel, betray thousands of souls to Satan and damnation, and encourage all that endeavour it by yielding to all their temptations, and giving them success. But as Christ must be accused of sin, as well as crucified, and not allowed the honour of suffering as innocent, so must his servants.

I will venture upon one argument on the by that may be somewhat by others, though nothing to you for the invalidating of your accusation. I saw from the hands of a Noble Lord,The Earl of Orery. an excellent truly Learned Manuscript said by him to be the Bishop of Lincolns, to satisfie you who are said to judg it unlawful to subscribe to Athanasius's Creed. What else you refuse I know not; but by that much I perceive you are a strange kind of Nonconformist. Now if it be unlawful for you to subscribe and conform, or unlawful for me, (which I here undertake to prove before any equal competent Judges) then it is unlawful for all the Ministers of England;☜ for none of them may do evil that good may come by it. And then all the Ministers in England ought to cease Preaching, if I ought to cease, when they are forbidden. The consequence will be denied by others, though not by you. (And by the way, How can you take the Bishops for Absolute, from whom there is no appeal to an invisible power, and yet disobey them, if they bid you subscribe Athanasius Creed.) If it be a sin in me not to cease Preaching when I am silenced for Nonconformity, and yet Nonconformity be a duty, then it is a sin in all the Ministers of England not to be Nonformists, and so not to cease Preaching. But the latter part of the consequent is false: Ergo, so is the Antecedent.

2. Yea, directly your assertion puts it in the power of one superior to put down the Preaching of the Gospel, and all Gods publick Worship, in whole Countries or Kingdoms, (if not in the world), and so Christ must be at their mercy whether he shall have p. 140any Church, and so whether he shall be Christ; and God, whether he shall have any publick Worship In Ethiopia (though Brierwood saith that yet after the decay of the Abassine Empire, it is as big as Italy, Germany, France and Spain) they have but one Bishop, called their Abuna And if he forbad all Preaching or publick Worship in the Empire, it is a sin to obey him. And it is a great duty to gather Churches within his Church. It is a sin in the Empire of Muscovie, that all their Clergy obey their Patriarch and Prince in forbearing to Preach. If all the Bishops of England should agree to reduce the Kingdom to one only Bishoprick, and one Church, and turn all the rest into Parish-Chappels, it were a duty to disobey them, and gather Churches in that one Church. If the Patriarch of Alexandria, Antioch, or Constantinople, had forbidden all in their limits to Preach and worship God publickly, it had been a wickedness to obey them. When Severus Antioch, the Eutychian, forbad the Orthodox to Preach in his Patriarchate, it had been their sin to obey him, (yea or if Theodosius or Anastasius the Emperours had done it): yea, though a General Council of Ephes. 2. (if not Ephes. 1.) was on his side. If the Pope (whether as Pope or as Patriarch of the West), Interdict all the Preachers and Churches in Venice, or in Britain, it were a sin to obey him.

The reasons are, because their power is derived and limited (to pass by the no power of Usurpers) the greatest have it for edification, and not for destruction. None of them have power to make void the least (continued) Law of God by their Doctrines, Precepts or Traditions. All men must take heed of the leven of their false Doctrine, and must beware of false Prophets, and must prove all things, and hold fast that which is good. There is no true power but of God, and therefore none against him. It is better to obey God than men. But of this you may in season have larger proof, if you desire it.

VI. Your excluding us from Salvation, that will not cease Preaching the Gospel of Salvation, and worshipping God, remembreth us:

1. What a mercy it is that neither Pope, nor any such condemner is made our final Judg.

2. How most Sects agree (Papists, Quakers, &c.) in damning those that dance not after their Pipe.

p. 1413. What various wiles of temptations Satan useth to hinder Christs Gospel, and mens Salvation.

At once I have, 1. A backward flesh, that is the worst of all, that saith, Favour thy self, and expose not thy self to all this labour, obloquie, hatred, suffering, loss and danger of death for nothing, but that work which thy superiours think needless, and forbid.

2. I feel Satan setting in with the flesh, and saying the same.

3. Carnal and worldly friends say the same (as Peter to Christ, Mat. 16.)

4. Displeased Sinners and Sectaries wish me silent.

5. What Superiors say and do, I need not mention.

6. And to perfect all, some Preachers in Press and Pulpit, and you in Discourse, declare us in danger of damnation, as Schismaticks, unless we will give over Preaching the Gospel. O how easie were it to me to avoid that damnation! And if I incur it, how dearly do I purchase it! It is a sad case that such poor souls as we are in, that would fain know Gods will whatever study or suffering it cost us, and after our most earnest search and prayers, believe that if we forsook our trust, and office, and the peoples souls, we should be judged as sacrilegious, perfidious hypocrites, and yet we are told by wiser and greater men, that our labours and sufferings do but damn us; may not a man be damned at a cheaper rate than Forty pound a Sermon, or the loss of all his worldly Estate, and lying with malefactors, and perhaps dying in a Goal, under the published sacred infamy of being Schismaticks and enemies of the publick Government and peace, &c? But this also we must be fortified against. For Satan is sometime utterly impudent, and will say, Damn your selves by perfidiousness, and let the people be damned quietly, or else you shall be damned for Schismaticks. But the long noise of damning Papists and Quakers have somewhat hardned or emboldened us. It was an early trick, Act. 15. Except ye be circumcised and keep the Law of Moses, ye cannot be saved. When lands and livings will not prevail; when profit, pleasure and honour fail; when poverty, reproach and prisons will not serve, then comes, You cannot else be saved. How many Sects say, Say as we say, and do as we do, and follow us, or you cannot be saved? But saith St. Paul, It is a small thing with me to be judged of man, or at mans day: I have one that judgeth me, even the Lord, (to whom we will appeal whatever you say against it.) But you must give me leave to think, that to draw men from their great duty, and the saving souls, to heinous p. 142sin, as in the name of Christ, and to frighten men into Hell with the fear of damnation, and the abused Word of God, hath heinous aggravations, which enticing men by sensuality to drunkenness, whoredom or theft, hath not.

VII. To the next, the matter of fact, and antecedent Suppositions cannot be denied, viz. 1. That it is probably supposed that there are inhabitants more than can hear the Preachers voice in the Parish-Churches, in Martins Parish about 40000, in Stepney Parish near as many, in Giles Cripplegate 30000, in Giles in the Fields near 20000, in Sepulchres, Algate, White-chappel, Andrews Holborn, and many other Out-Parishes very many thousands. The last Bill of Mortality that I saw, saith there died in Stepney Parish as many wanting one, as in all the Ninety-seven Parishes of London, and in Martins as many within six, and in Giles Cripplegate as many within eight, or thereabout.

2. How shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe if they hear not? and how shall they hear without a Preacher? If the Gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: Where Vision faileth, the people perish, even for lack of knowledg.

3. Yet people by our Church Laws must be presented and prosecuted as Recusants if they come not to Church, and so 40000 or 30000 should be presented and punished for want of room; but it is a greater punishment to be strangers unto the Gospel.

4. The Canon forbiddeth them going to, and communicating in other Parishes, and forbiddeth the Ministers to receive them.

5. The Children of Christians are born with no more knowledg than the children of Heathens; and need teaching as well as theirs, to bring them to knowledg when they grow up.

6. God will not save any adult person that is an Infidel, impenitent, unsanctified, because he is bred up among Christians, and Churches, or born of Christians, and Baptized; but it will go worse with such unholy persons in the day of Judgment, that have had the greatest means.

7. If you can cast the fault on the people, and say that they might remove their dwellings, or (break the Law, and) go to other Parishes, or read at home, &c. that excuseth us not. For the worse they are, the more need they have of help. If they were faultless, what need had they of us?

p. 1438. As to my own case whom you condemn, I have told you, that I have the Ordination of a Bishop, and the License of the Bishop of this Diocess (not nulled or recalled) which by your principles one would think might serve if it had been against Gods own Laws. And yet Gods Law and the Bishops License will not serve.

9. Some other may say, What's your case to many others? I answer: To pass by a great deal not now to be said, Let it be understood that the case is this. Men are first silenced and excommunicated, and so forbidden the publick Churches, and all publick worship of God; and then the Excommunicate are prosecuted and accused for not coming to Church. Divers Canons do ipso facto (that is, sine sententiâ) excommunicate all that do but say that any thing in the Liturgy or Discipline is unlawful, or may not be done with a good conscience (which all Nonconformists hold). And it is not possible for us to repent of that as a wicked Error, which after all means that we can possibly use, appeareth unto us an undoubted truth, that so our Excommunication may be taken off. Now these silenced men are assured, that God disobligeth them not from the duty of Preaching; and these excommunicate men are assured that God doth not disoblige them from the duty of publick worship and Church-communion. Therefore they must use it as they can, when they may not use it as they would. Men say the Papists should not call us Schismaticks, because they cast us out, and went from us; and will you silence and excommunicate men, as they undertake to prove, for obeying God, and then call them Schismaticks for not communicating with you, or for worshipping God in such Church-communion as they can? Indeed many of us communicate with you, because we think not our selves bound, tho' you excommunicate us ipso facto, to do execution on our selves, or to go further from you than necessity compelleth us (tho' I must profess that Cyprians 68. Epistle, p. 200. and St. Martin's Separation from the Bishops, confirmed by Miracle, sometimes sticks in my stomack). But I cannot make so light as you do, 1. Of such Texts as 2 Tim. 4.1, 2. I cha…g… thee before God, and the Lord Iesus Christ, who shall judg the quick and the dead at his appearing, and his kingdom, preach the word, be instant in season, out of season, reprove, rebuke, exhort, with all long-suffering and doctrine.

p. 1442. Nor of the murderous famishing of thousands of souls, when to murder one child by famine deserveth death and hell.

3. Nor of Christs Law of preferring Mercy before Sacrifice, necessary Morals before Rituals, Circumstantials or Ordinals, which are all but propter rem ordinatam. I remember you have told me, That if the Bishop forbad all Gods publick worship in the Assemblies, we must forbear. Such sayings, and this, That I must let so many souls be untaught though they be damned, because it is the Bishops fault and not mine, do make me ready to tremble to think of them. If Christs works be saving, whose work is it to make so light of mans damnation? Is it any wonder if such Principles be called Antichristian? I cannot but perceive from whom they come, when the damnation of poor people must be so easily submitted to, if the Bishop do but command the means. Methinks you wrong the Bishops by such odious Suppositions and Assertions, as if you would make men believe that they are the Grievous Wolves that spare not the flock, and the thorns and thistles that are made to prick and rend the people. But I believe that the Bishops faultiness in mens damnation would be no exeuse to me if I be accessory.

4. And I doubt not but if you unjustly ipso facto Excommunicate men, it neither depriveth them of the right, nor absolveth them from the duty of publick Worship, and Church-Communion. And I am ashamed to read and hear Preachers publickly reproaching them for not holding constant Communion with the Parish-Churches, when it's notorious that the Canon hath thus Excommunicated them, yea though it were their duty sometime to intrude.

And I beseech you judg as a Christian or a man, whether you can think such Arguments should draw the people themselves to be of your mind: Go to them and speak out, Neighbours, I confess that while you live in ignorance and sin for want of teaching and publick worship, you are in the way to damnation; but it is the Bishop, and not the silenced Preacher that shall answer for it. Will they not reply, And shall not the Bishop then he damned instead of us, as well as instead of the silenced Preacher?

p. 145VIII. Your doubt about mens power to change Christs setled form of Church-government, is but a consequent of your first, of mens absolute power.

But 1. if they change Gods Laws, or instituted Church-forms or Government, may they not change their own? And if so, there is some hope of a Reformation. But why then did the Canons of 1640. in the Et caetera Oath, swear the Clergy never to consent to change? And why are we now to swear in the Oxford Oath, That we will never endeavour any alteration of Church-Government (tho' the keys be in the power of Lay-Chancellors, and tho' the King may command us to endeavour it) must the Nation or Clergy swear never (in their own places) to endeavour any alteration of the Bishops Institutions (as you take them), and yet may the Bishops alter the very Form of Government, and Churches made by our Universal King?

2. What an uncertain mutable thing may Christs Laws or Church-Government prove, while mutable men may change it at their pleasure.

3. To what purpose is Antiquity and Tradition so much pleaded by Hierarchical Divines, as if that were the Test to know the right Government and Church, if the Bishops may alter it?

4. If thus much of Christs Laws and Institutions may be altered by Prelates, how shall we be sure that all the rest is not also at their will and mercy? or which is it that they may alter, and which not?

5. Doth not this set man so far above God, or equal with him, as will still tempt men to think that more are Antichristian than the Pope? If you say that it is by Gods own grant, I wait for your proof, that God granteth power to any man above his Laws: Those that he made but Local or Temporary himself, are not abrogated or changed by man where they bind not; for they never bound any but their proper subjects, e. g. The Iewish Laws, as such, never bound the Gentile world; and the command of washing feet, bound only th…se where the use of going bare-leg'd with Sandals in a hot Country, p. 146made it an office of kindness; and so of other Temporary precepts.

6. How contrary is this to the common Christian Doctrine, that we must obey none that command us to sin against God? For by the first assertion, and this, it seemeth that it cannot be a sin which the Bishops command.

7. I pray you put in an exception for the Power and Lives of Kings, and the Laws of the Land, and the Property and Liberty of the Subjects; and one word for the Protestant Religion. For we English-men think God to be greater than the King, or St. Patrick; and Gods Laws to be firmer than the Statutes of King and Parliament. And yet I doubt that the King and some Parliament will be angry if you do but say that the Bishops by consent may change their Statutes, or lawful Officers and Powers; And Bishops, if you say that Episcopacy may be changed.

IX. Baptism, as such, entereth not the Baptized into any particular Church, but only into the Vniversal, headed by Christ; yet a man may at the same time; be entered into the Vniversal, and into a particular Church, but that is by a double consent, and not by Baptism as such. In this I know none that agree with you but some few of the Independents in New-England, and some of the Papists. I confess Bellarmine saith, That by Baptism we are virtually obliged to the Pope, being baptized by a Ministry, and into a Church, of which he is the Head. But the contrary is proved,

1. From the express form of the Baptismal Covenant, which only tyeth us to Christ and his Universal Church, and maketh us Christians. But to be a Christian dedicated to the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, is one thing, and to be a part of the Pastoral Charge of A. B. or N. N. is another thing.

2. What particular Church was the Eunuch, Act. 8. baptized into? Not that of Ierusalem, for he was going from it, never like to see it more. Not that in Ethiopia, for there was none till he began it. If you say, of Philips Church: 1. I pray you, where was that? 2. And how prove you it? 3. Specially p. 147if it was Philip the Deacon that had no Church, being no Bishop.

3. May not men be baptized in Turkey, or among other Infidels, or Indians, where there is no Church? And is the first baptized man among them, a Church himself? Paul thanketh God that he baptized no more of the Corinthians, lest they should think that he baptized into his own name. And doth every Baptizer baptize to himself, or to his Bishop? A man may baptize out of all Diocesses, or in another's.

X. As to your next Assertion, I grant, that when a Bishop or a beggar speaketh the Commands of God, and a King speaketh against it, we must follow that Bishop or beggar, rather than the King, because this is but obeying God before men. But supposing that it is a thing indifferent, and but circa sacra, and not a proper part of the Agent Pastors Office, I confess to you, I will obey the King before the Bishop.

1. Because it is a thing that is under the Power of the King to command; and if so, the King is the Supreme, and not the Bishop.

2. Bishops themselves are Subjects of the King, and owe him obedience. Therefore rule not over or before him in matters belonging to his Office.

3. Bishops are chosen by the King, (for I suppose no man takes the Dean and Chapters choice for more than a Ceremony, that knoweth it); if the King command me to Preach at one hour, or one place, and the Bishop at another, or to use for Uniformity such a Translation, Metre, Liturgy, Utensils, Garments, &c and the Bishops others, I will obey the King before the Bishop. But if either or both command me to sin, I will obey neither so; and if they would take me off from that which Christ hath made a real part of my own Office (as commanding that I shall preach and pray in no words but such as they prescribe, &c.) I think neither hath power to do this.

But Bishop Bilson of Christian Obedience, and Bishop Andrews in his Tortura Toetis, and Buckeridg of Rochester, and Grotius de imprrio sum▪ Potest. circa Sacra, have said so much of the Power p. 148of Kings about Religion, as that I think I need not add any more.

And by the same Arguments that you will absolve me from obeying if the King forbid me to Preach, by the same you absolve, if the Bishop forbid me. If I may disobey Constantius and Valens, I may disobey Eusebius Nicomed. Theognis Maris. If I may disobey Theodosius junior, Anastasius, Zeno, Iustinian, I may disobey Petrus Moggus, Dioscorus, Severus, &c. But you will much cross your …nds if you tell the Londoners that they may preach and worship God though the King forbid them, but not at all if the Bishop forbid them. For he that exalteth himself, or is sinfully exalted by others, shall be brought low. If the reverence of the King were not greater in England than of the Bishops, the consciences of many thousands would stick but little at disobedience. There are so many cases first to be resolved. As,

1. Whether such Diocesans deposing all Parochial Churches (and Bishops) and reducing them to Chappels or parts only of a Church, be not against Christs Law?

2. Whether they destroy not the ancient order of particular Churches (Bishops) and Discipline?

3. Who made their office, and by what power?

4. Who chose and called them to it?

5. Whether their Commands be not null, as contrary to Gods?

6▪ How far Communion with them that silence hundreds of faithful Ministers, and set up in their stead— &c. is lawful? Many such questions the people are not so easily satisfied in, as you are.

XI. And the three last all set together, look with an ill design: The Preface to Dr. Rich. Cousins Tables, tells the King, That the Church-Government here is the Kings, or derived from him, and dependant on him; and Grotius de Imperio sum▪ potest. proveth at large the Power of Kings circa sacra, as doth Spalatensis, and many more; and that Canons are but good counsel, till the King make them Laws. And we know no Law-makers but the King and Parliament. But if the Church be the Expounders of the Liturgy, Rubrick and Canons, Articles and Acts of Uniformity, and out p. 149of Convocation-time, the Bishops be the Church, and the Archbishops be the Rulers of the Bishops, (that swear obedience to them) this hath a dangerous aspect: For then it is in the power of the Bishops (if not of the Archbishops only) to put a sense upon our 39 Articles, Rubricks, &c. consistent with Popery or Heresie, and so to change the Religion of the Kingdom, without King or Parliament, or against them at their pleasure.

And thus Officers of mans making, who become a Church of mans devising, may have advantage by this and the former Articles, to destroy Godliness, Christianity and Humanity.

Indeed by the Preface to the Liturgy, the Bishop is made the Expounder of any thing doubtful in the Book; and by the Index the Act of Uniformity is made part of the Book. But this affrighteth me the more from declaring:

1. Because I must consent to all the Penalties and Impositions of the Act it self.

2. And the Bishop, Exposition is limited, so that it must be contrary to nothing in the Book.

Thus I have given you the reasons of my destructive Conference.

If I had been with you, and we had been to enter upon any dispute that tendeth to satisfaction, I would have endeavoured to avoid the common frustraters of Disputes, 1. By ambiguous words: 2. And subjects that are no subjects: Therefore if you desire any such dispute:

I. I intreat you to write me down your sense of some terms which we shall frequently use, (and I will do the like of any at your desire): As what you mean, 1. By the word Bishop. 2. By a Church. 3. By a particular Church. 4. By a Diocess and Diocesan Church. 5. By a National Church. 6. By the Vniversal Church. 7. By Church Government and Iurisdiction. 8. By Schism. I shall dispute no terms unexplained, lest one take them in one sense, and the other in another, and so we dispute but about a sound of words.

II. I desire that the denied Subject of the Question may not be taken for granted, instead of being proved.

On these terms (supposing the common Laws of Disputation, especially avoiding words that have no determinate sense) I shall p. 150not refuse whenever you invite me; and I am able to debate with you any of these points that I am concerned in; especially, whether my Preaching Christs Gospel as I do, be my sin, or my duty? And if our great distance in Principles put either of us upon r…sons that seem dishonouring to the person opposed, we shall I hope … that it is the opinion only that is directly intended. But … opinion is the persons opinion, if it be bad, is a dish…n…r, whi… the owner only is guilty of, and the opponent ca…not … must not forbear to open the evil of the cause, for avoiding the dishonour of the owner; but must the rather open it, in hope that the owner will disown it, when he understandeth truly what it is. For I suppose it is evidence of Truth that we desire.

In Conclusion, remember I pray you, 1. That it is not the ancient Episcopacy (which was in Cyprians days; yea, which agreeth with Epiphanius's Intimations, and Petavius excellent Notes thereon, in Haeres. 69.) which I deny. And I conjecture that at this day in England there are more Episcopal than Presbyterian silenced Non-conformists.

2. That what sort of Prelacy or higher Rulers I dare not subscribe to, yet I can live quietly and submissively under, though not obey them by sinning against God, or breaking my Vows of Baptism or Ordination, and perfidiously leaving souls to Satan. Nothing more threateneth the subversion of the Church-Government than swearing men to approve of all th…t's in it. Many can submit and live in peace, that dare not subscribe or swear Approbation. It was the & caet…ra Oath 1640, that constrained me to th…se searches which … me a Nonconformist. It is an easie ma…er for Overdoers to add but a cla…se or two more to their Oaths and Subscriptions, which shall ma…e almost all the conscionable Ministers of the Kingdom Nonconformists.

3. Whenever notorious necessity ceaseth by the sufficient number and q…ality of Conforming Preachers, I will cease Preaching in England (But death is liker first to silence me.)

Though I take my Conforming to be a Complex of heinous sins, p. 151should I be guilty of it; yet till I am called, I perswade none to Nonformity for fear of casting them (occasionally) out of the Ministry, preferring their work before the change of their judgment till such endeavours are clearly made by duty.) But all your endeavour, as far as ever I perceived, is not so much to draw us to Conformity, as to persuade us to give over Preaching Christs Gospel, so contrary are our designs. 1 Thes· 2.15, 16. Methinks is a fearful Text. And so are the words of the Liturgy before the Sacrament, If any of you be a hinderer of Gods Word—repent—or take not this Sacrament, lest Satan enter into you, as he did into Judas, and fill you, &c.

FINIS.

End of the text · Richard Baxter, Answer to Dodwell and Sherlock (1682)