WHET●ER Parish C●●gregations BE TRUE Christian Churches, ●●d the Capable Consenting Incumbents, be truly their Pastors, or Bishops over their Flocks.  
〈◊〉 Whether the old Protestants, Conformists, and Noncon●●rmists, or the Brownists, were in the right herein. And how 〈…〉 our present Case is the same.  
〈◊〉 by Richard Baxter, as an Explication of some Passages in his For●●● Writings, especially, his Treatise of Episcopacy, misunderstood and misapplied by some; and answering the strongest Objections of some of them, especially a Book called, R. Baxters' Judgement and Reasons against Communicating with the Parish Assemblies, as by Law required. And another called, A Theological Dialogue.  
CATHOLIC COMMUNION once more Defended, upon ●●ns necessitating importunity.  
By RICHARD BAXTER  
LONDON: 〈◊〉 in Parkhurst, at the Bible and Three- 〈◊〉, near Mercer's Chapel. 1684.   

Communion with Parish Churches vindicated, In Answer to a Book entitled, The Judgement of Mr. Baxter, against Communicating, etc. Mistaking my writings.  
A Church is not formally, quid Physi●um, but quid morale politicum Relativum, a political Relative being.  
II. The same name signifieth both the Genus and Species, that are divers by use.  
III. The same is true of the name [Pastor.]  
IV. Diocesan Churches are of three sorts. 1. Such as have at present but one fixed Assembly, but design to gather more hereafter: Such, Dr. Hammond thought they were in Scripture times. 2. Such as have one Diocesan Governor, or Superintendent over many inferior Churches, and their Pastors. 3. Such as have one only Bishop or Pastor, having no other true Pastor, Elder, Church-Ruler, or Presbyter of Christ's Institution under him; but Chapels which have no such Ruler or Pastor.  
V. The first sort of Diocesans we have now nothing to do with.  
The second sort is controverible, some holding it sinful, some lawful, and some (and very many) to be of Divine Institution, as Successors of the Apostles, not in the extraordinaries, but in the ordinary parts of their Office: Christ having made an imparity (or a superiority of some over others) they think that to say without proof, that he changed that order in one Age, is 1. to charge him with mutability and levity. 2. And to diminish from his Law (which hath a Curse.)  
The third sort of Diocesans, is either 1. of a Diocese (like a great Parish with Chapels) so small that one Pastor may possibly oversee it. (This is tolerable, when more cannot be had; and when they can, it hurts only ●he well-being of the Church): Or 2. it is of a Diocese so great as that one man cannot do what is essential to a Pastor, and so it is undone: This nullifieth that Species of Churches which is of Christ's Institution.  
VI A particular Church of Christ's Institution of the lowest political order, is, [A competent number of Neighbour-Christians, who by Christ's appointment, and their own expressed consent, are associated with one or more Past●● for the right worshipping of God in public, and the Edification of the Members, by the exercise of the said Pastoral Office, and their mutual Duties to God, to their Pastors, and each others, for the welfare of the Society, and the pleasing and glorifying of God.]  
VII. The Pastoral Office as over this first or lowest Church, and as it is in unfixed Ministers, related yet to no one Church more than another, differeth but as the subject matter (or object) of their charge doth differ, and not in the fundamental Power or Order.  
VIII. This Pastoral Office is essentially Ministerial to Christ as the Prophet, Priest, and King of his Church. 1. A Power to Teach. 2. To Led in Worship. 3. To Guide by the Keys of Reception, Admonition, Exclusion and Restoration.  
IX. It is not Inconsistent with this Pastoral Office to be Governed by Superiors, whether Magistrates, or ecclesiastics (as others were by Apostles, and by Timothy, Titus, etc.) Therefore every limitation, restraint, rebuke, or punishment, for Maladministration, nullifieth not the Office, nor yet allowing an appeal to Superiors.  
X. To hinder a Pastor from forcible excluding men from Church or Sacrament, and allow him only to do it by Application of God's word, is agreeable to his Office.  
XI. It is Power and Obligation to exercise, and not the present actual Exercise, that is essential to the Office in the fundamental Relation: But should the Non-exercise be total and stated, it would not make up a Church in act; No more than a mere Power to Teach, will make a School in act.  
XII. He that hath the entire Power, and statedly exerciseth but one part of it, statedly omitting an essential part, may be in Order an empowred Minister; but his Society is but a half Church: But if it be only an Integral part that he omits, it may be a true Church, though faulty; or if it be an essential part, and not statedly, but only by some present impedition.  
XIII. The name of Church Pastor and Diocesan, being formally Relative in signification, are really divers things, as the Fundamentum, Relate, Correlate, and Terminus, are divers. They are therefore considerable. I. As instituted and described by Christ. II. As understood, described and consented to by sound Orthodox Pastors and People. III. As described by laws and Canons. IV. As esteemed and described by many mistaking Bishops, Clergy and People, some Super-Conformists, and some Misjudging, that the Law saith as they: The word as to these senses is equivocal.  
XIV. Christ's Institution went before men's Corruption; and is to be held to by all Christians, who own him to be the Maker and Ruler of his own Church: And no man hath Power to null his Institution, nor to warrant 〈◊〉 to make his Church another thing.  
XV. By Christ's Institution every Ministerial Elder and Pastor hath Power. 1. To Teach the People. 2. To Led them in Worship. 3. To Receive by Baptism, and to Communion, or to refuse on just cause (though under Government) as aforesaid: (The whole Office I have copiously described in my Universal Concord, 24. years ago.)  
XVI. The Parishes that have capable Christians and Ministers consented to by their sumbmission, are such true Churches; their Neighbourhood and Christianity making them capable matter. Not that a man is of the Church, because he is in the Parish (Atheists, Infidels, Sadduces, Heretics and Refusers, may dwell there, (Its thought that of 60000. that dwell in one London Parish, 10000 Communicate not, and so 40000 or 50000, are not of that Church) but those that are capable Consenters, and Communicants.  
XVII. This sort of Churches we were in Possession of 166●, and till August 24. 1662. And of 9000 Ministers, than 2000 only were put out, the other 7000 continuing in. And of those that were put out, some few gathered part of their old Flock into private Churches, renouncing, and dissuading them from the public: Most gathered no such Churches, but help their old People as they could, not drawing them from the Parish Churches, till the time of the King's Licences for more open Ministry. Many led them to the Parish Churches, and took themselves for fellow Pastors, with the public Ministers, and lived in Love and Communion with them. The People were not by the new Law cast out with the Ministers. Most of the people in the 2000 Parishes of the ejected, and almost all in the other 7000▪ who before communicated, or were capable of it, continuing the Parish Communion. And so are Churches, if they were so before.  
XVIII. The generality of the former Protestant Bishops, and Clergy, took the Parish Rectors to be true Pastors of the Parish Churche●, as Bishop Ʋsher proved them: The Church of England is confessed to be of this mind, before the Wars. It is not certain that Archbishop Laud thought otherwise: If he did, Hey●n names but five that joined with him in his main cause, of whom Montague, if not more, were for the contrary cause in this point.  
XIX. They then took a Curate to be a Pastor, and to have all that is essential to the Presbyters Office; And to be a Presbyter and no Pastor, is a Contradiction in the sense of Protestants and Papists, except what is said for Lay-elders. In France they call all their Parish-Pastors, Curates; the word signifies the Curam animarum.  
XX. No Law since 166●. hath changed any essentials of the Parish-Pastors O●●nce (and so none hath nulled it) from what it was in 1640. They that affirm the contrary, must prove it.  
The Law before, subjected Parish-Pastors to Diocesans: It imposed the Oath of Canonical Obedience, and a promise of the same in Ordination; It was the same to the Ecclesiastical Courts as now. If any pretend to such singular skill in Law, as to say that there was no Law for the Book of Ordination, which made the ordained to Covenant to obey their Ordinaries, nor any Law for the Canons, I hope he will have more reason than to lay the controversy about Separation on his odd conceit, when all the People in England have in the days of the four last Sovereigns, been forced to submit to these as Legal; and no such pretender could at any time deliver them. Books have been written, and Pleas used against submitting to the Courts that declared not that they held their Authority from the King; but the Judges still overruled it against them And they that professed to hold it from the King, did many, if not most, mean but the Liberty of public exercising it, as the Ministry is held under him, or the adjunct Cogent Power, or the Circa sacra.  
XXI. The Law enableth the Parish-Minister to receive into the Church by Baptism, (though under canonical Prescripts, which Dissenters much dislike), and to Catechise Youth, and certify their fitness for Confirmation, before they Communicate: It bindeth them to reject all from Communion, who are not confirmed, or at least are not ready and desirous of it; it tells us who is to be taken for ready, Those that have learned the Catechism, and solemnly own their Baptismal Covenant. The Pastor hereby hath Power to try all the unconfirmed, whether they are thus ready or not. The Canon requireth him to deny Communion to all that live in any scandalous Sin: The Law and Canon bid him to instruct the Congregation, to lead them in public Worship, and in the Name of Christ to Reprove, Admonish, Comfort, Administer the Lord Supper, Visit the Sick with Instruction and Prayers. All which, with the aforesaid Power of judging who shall be Communicants, is full as much as is Essential to a Parish-Pastor. Solemnly to pronounce them Excommunicate, beside refusing Communion, is not Essential. If it were, they have Power to do it, after the Bishop's Sentence. If it were Essential to do it as ungoverned, or finally, or without appeal, than Apostolic, yea and Magistrates Government would null the Pastors Office.  
XXII. The altering some words in Ordination, and putting out the name [Pastors] from most places in the Litturgy, where they were applied to Parish-Ministers, is no change at all of the Office, much less of its essence. It takes no Power from them, which they had: But it was done by the interest of some men, who thought that Presbyters, who swore the three Kingdoms against Bishops, had taken too much upon them, and in opposition they endeavoured to keep them under, and so would diminish their pretences for Parity. But this changeth not the Species of the Office. And it's known who these men were: And though some of them are of Opinion, that Diocesan Bishops only may regularly confer Ordination, and exercise Jurisdiction over the Clergy, and that mere Presbyter Ordination with us is null. 1. These same men had a chief hand in debating and wording the King's Declarations October, 1661. Concerning Ecclesiastical Affairs, and therein the King after debates with Lords and Bishops, distinguisheth the mere Pastoral preswasive Power, from the Episcopal (which is Cogent) and alloweth the Rural Deans with the Presbyters of his Deanery, to exercise the said Pastoral persuasive Power, and the other Pastors also to join with the Bishops. And the Law still calls them Rectors: The Liturgy yet calls them Pastor's; the word Pastors, being a Metaphor, they take to be general, Bishops and Priests being with them two Orders of Pastors. Therefore because it doth not distinguish them, they usually leave it out, and put sometime Bishops and Curates, and sometime Bishops, Priests and Deacons: The common description of a Bishop by them, is, that he hath the sole Power of presiding and determining in Ordination, and Jurisdiction, s●ne quo non, oft alleging Jeroms, Quid facit Episcopus, quod non facit Presbyter excepta Ordinatione. And yet the Law still binds them, not to ordain without Presbyters Imposition of hands with them. And Arch-Deacons and Presbyters, Surrogates, etc. Excommunicate. And in the Ember-week, they are every day to pray by the Liturgy. [So guide and govern the minds of thy Servants, the Bishops and Pastors of thy Fl●ck, that they may lay hands suddenly on no man.] Where Bishops and Pastors cannot be taken for Synonyma, whilst they speak of all that lay on hands. And they distinguish not [Pastors and Curates] where they change the words, but [Bishops and Curates.]  
But nothing more proveth what I say, than that the Law yet bindeth all Priests to all that is essential to an Episcopus Gregis, a Pastor of a particular Church; see the Exhort. in Ord. of Priests, [We exhort you in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you have in remembrance, into how high a dignity, and to how weighty an office and charge ye are called; that is to say, to be Messengers, watchmans, and Stewards of the L●rd, to teach and to premonish, to feed and provide for the Lords Family, to seek for Christ's Sheep, that are dispersed abroad, and for his Children, who are in the midst of this naughty world, that they may be saved by Christ for ever; have always therefore printed in your remembrance, how great a treasure is committed to your charge, for they are the sheep of Christ, which he bought, etc. The Church and Congregation whom you must serve is his Spouse and his Body; and if it shall happen, the same Church, or any member thereof to take any hurt or hindrance by reason of your negligence, ye know the greatness of the fault, and the horrible punishment that will ensue: Wherefore consider with yourselves the end of your ministry towards the children of God, towards the Spouse and body of Christ, and see that you never cease your labour, your care and diligence, till you have done all that lieth in you according to your bounden duty, to bring all such as are or shall be committed to your charge, to that agreement in the faith and knowledge of God, and that ripeness and perfectness of age in Christ, that there be no place left among you, either for error in Religion, or viciousness of life: Forasmuch then as your office is both of so great excellency, and of so great difficulty, ye see with how great care and study ye ought to a●ply yourselves, as well that ye may show yourselves dutiful and thankful to the Lord, who hath placed you in so high a dignity, as also to beware that neither you yourselves offend, nor be occasions that others offend.  
And after their Covenant to preach according to the Scripture, they promise [to give faithful diligence, to administer the Doctrine, Sacraments, and Discipline of Christ as the Lord hath commanded, and as this Church and Realm hath received the same, according to the Commandments of God: So that you may teach the people committed to your care and charge with all diligence to keep and observe the same.  
Here Doctrine, Sacraments, and Discipline, are their Office-works: Gods Commandments are their Rule, though on supposition that this Realm hath received them according to his Commandments.  
Next they covenant with all faithful diligence to banish all erroneous and strange doctrines contrary to God's word, and to use both PUBLIC and PRIVATE Monitions and Exhortations, as well to the sick as to the whole, within your cures, as need shall require, and occasion shall be given: And [to keep quietness, Peace and Love among all Christian people, and especially among them that are or shall be committed to their charge.  
All this is settled by Law, and all Ministers subscribe to it: And is not this enough to the essence of a Pastor's office? What is the Reason? The next promise is [Reverently to obey their Ordinary, and other chief Ministers, to whom is committed the charge and government of them, following with a glad mind and will, their godly admonitions, and submitting themselves to their godly judgements.  
This shows that, 1. It is not a strict Divine Right that is meant over them; for all Ordinaries, and other chief Ministers, pretend not to such right. 2. If others superiority null their office, than none is in office but the King: Was Di●trep●es no Minister, because John threatened him as his superior? It's liker he had been none for resisting John, of the two: Were all degraded that obeyed the Apostles? If it should be an error, that a Parochial Bishop is a Governor over his junior-Presbyters, or a Diocesan over both; that nulleth not the Presbyters office: The Presbyterians give a Classis or Synod as much power over particular Churches, as the Episcopal give to Diocesans; (or near): And yet few Separatists have thence concluded that they have no particular Churches, or that this nulleth them; contrarily, ab est tertii adjecti ad est secundi valet argumentum; Parish Churches are governed Churches subject to superiors; ergo, they are Churches.  
And the Law calls them Churches, 〈◊〉, it taketh them for Churches, (while it taketh no essential from them).  
XXIII. There are some particular Drs. in England indeed, who say that There is no Church without a Bishop of its own, and 〈◊〉 Epi●c●pus, ibi Ecclesia, and that Ecclesia est pl●●s Ep●s●●● adu●ata, and that our Parish Ministers are no Bishops, and that their sole Ordinations are nullities; and consequently it would follow, that their Parish Churches are truly but parts of a Church infimae species: And because these men speak against Reordination, and yet require those to be ordained again, who were here ordained by mere Presbyters, therefore it seemeth plain, that they take the former for no true Ordination: These men I have oft confuted, especially in my Treatise of Episcopacy: And hence some gather, that I charge this error on all the Church of England, and take the Law and Clergy to nullify the Parish-Ministry and Churches: Therefore I am specially obliged to answer such misconcluders, lest they make my writings a means of deceit against my sense, and against my will: for so unhappy is the controversal world, even of men of Worth and Name, that if I do but say that two is less than three, and that four is more than three, they fear not to say, that I contradict myself, and R. is against B. and sometimes I speak for, and sometimes against the same cause; and these being ordinary Disputers and church-guide, What hope have the Christian Flocks of Unity and Peace, but by such men's ceasing their disputes?  
Here therefore it must be noted, 1. That the men of this opinion are not to be called, The Church of England. The most of the Bishops and Clergy formerly were against them, Dr. Hammond, and Bishop Gunning, and a few more, were almost the first that seemed to go so far. 2. And yet even these few do usually except the case of necessity, and of the foreign churches, (as Dr. Sherlock hath lately done at large) so that then they cannot take their Episcopal ordination received, to be essential to the Priesthood. 3. And these men themselves call our Parish societies, Parish Churches, and deny not the Presbyters to be Episcopi Gregis, and to have a pastoral care of the people's souls, for they own the Liturgy, Ordination, and other writings of the Church, which assert it. 4. Their opposition to Presbytery hath carried them to appropriate the name Bishop to the Diocesans, but by it they mean only a Bishop over Presbyters, having the power to ordain and depose them, and to ●● be chief in governing all the flocks; But the controversy de nomine, and de re are not the same: This denieth not all Pastoral Episcopacy in Presbyters over the flocks under them: That these men by running into extremes do ill, many have written to prove: But maiming the Parish Ministry, or too much limiting it, is not nullifying it. 5. Let it be considered, that even the Separatists say not that the Power of Ordination is essential to Pastors: Some of them take Pastors unordained, only elected and received with prayer: Some take men ordained by neighbour Pastors, that have no power over them: Some take men ordained by Bishops, some by Magistrates: And Jurisdiction over neighbour Pastors I am sure the Separatists will say belongs neither to the being or well being of a Pastor. If then it be the Power of Ordaining, and of Jurisdiction over other Pastors, which the Diocesans deny the Parish Pastors, the● deny them nothing hereby essential to thei● office.  
All that can with any colour be said, is, that the Law now seems to be on these men's side, by requiring Reordination. But, 1. The Lawmakers profess to establish the Church, and not to change it to another thing. 2. The Lawmakers were not all of one mind in the Reasons of their Laws; nor had all studied these kind of controversies: Many of them, and of the Clergy to this day, say that it is not a proper ordination that they require, but the giving them Authority to exercise their Ministry in England, and the decision of a doubtful case: Part of the Church taketh them for true Ministers that were ordained by Presbyters, and part do not; and that the Congregations may not divide, they say they require this like Baptising after a doubtful Baptism [If thou art not baptised, I baptise thee.] I am against this: But this proveth not that they take a Presbyter for no Pastor: Yea though they should take his ordaining others to be a nullity; Ordaining not being essential to him.  
XXIV. The Act of Uniformity, or the like Law, cannot make the Church no Church, or of another species, than 1. As it is esteemed by God and his Law. 2. Or as it is esteemed by the greater part of the Christian Clergy and Laity: Tho the Law should speak as the foresaid odd innovators do. For,  
1. All Christians profess that Christ is the only just Institutor of the essentials of his own Churches: All Christians profess Communion with them as Churches of Christ's making by his Law: The present Church of England professeth this in many books; it bindeth all Ministers to hold to Scripture sufficiency, and use Discipiine as well as Doctrine and Worship, as Christ commandeth: It openly holdeth all Laws and Canons about Church essentials, yea and integrals, to be void and null that are against the Sacred Scriptures, and Law of God: There is no Power but of God: God hath given no power to nullify his institutions.  
2. All true Christians who consent to a Parish Minister, and attend on his Ministry, and join in the Assemblies, openly profess to own him first as a Minister of Christ, and to join in Worship and Communion of the church as prescibed by Christ, which no man hath power to overthrow.  
3. The Parliament and Convocations, and Bishops and Clergy, all confess that they have no power to overthrow the Church essentials or offices of Christ's Institution: They have not revoked the Church Writings in which all this is oft professed: They confess that if their Laws mistake and do contrary, they bind us not: They never openly professed a war against God or Jesus Christ: What if one Dr. S. Parker, make Christ subject to the King in his Kingdom; he is not the Kingdom, nor the Church of England: For all his words they never made any Law to command Christ, or to punish him: They never cited him to appear before them, nor did any penal execution on his Person, which Government implieth. They bow at his name, and profess subjection to him.  
Therefore if the law had by error said any thing inconsistent with the essence of Churches and Ministry, it had not been obligatory to Pastors or people▪ but they ought still to take Churches and Pastors to be what Christ hath made them, and described them to be.  
XXV. Suppose a Law should say, All families shall be so under Diocesans as to have no power but from them, and all shall subscribe to this. This doth not null family-power and society as instituted by God, nor make it a sin to live in Families, nor dissolve them all; But all must continue in Families as instituted by God: And if any subscribe to this, it will not make it a sin in all Wives, Children and Servants to live in those families.  
If the Law had said, All Schools in England shall be essentially subject to Diocesans, must we therefore have had no more Schools? Or if the Schoolmaster subscribe to them, is it a sin to be his Scholar?  
If the Law should say, All Christians shall choose their own Pastors, and meet and pray and preach as they please, but only in essential subjection to Diocesans, must all therefore give over Church Communion?  
If the Law had said, All the Parish-Assemblies in England shall henceforth be essentially subject to the Pope, or a foreign Council, We must not therefore have forborn all such Assembling, but have kept to the state and duty appointed us by Christ.  
XXVI. Here the mistaking Opponents say, 1. That indeed de jure none can change the Essence of Christ's Ministry and Churches, but de facto they may, and have done.  
Ans. What is meant by [changing it, de facto?] Have they de facto, nulled Christ's Power, Law▪ or Offices and Churches? What? Nulled it by a Nullity of pretended Authority, and overcome his Power without Power? De jure and de facto, to be a true Church or Pastor, is all one Christ made true ones: De facto they cannot unmake them, but by destroying matter or form, because they cannot do it de jure: They have destroyed neither matter or form of such parish churches as I plead for, and which Christ instituted; for they had not power to do it: Indeed they may de facto make other sort of Churches and Ministers to themselves, (though not de jure) but not to us▪ who stick to Christ's institutions.  
XXVII. But say they, We confess, if the Law did bid all assemblies in England meet in dependence on Diocesans, private and public; this would not alter the species of our separate Churches, because man hath not power, and we consent not.  
Ans. Very good. And I pray you what altars the case, as to the Parish-Churches? Is it that they have Steeples and Bells, or that they have Tithes? It's the Calamity of Dissenters, that they either cannot consider, or can feel no strength in the plainest truth that is said against them; but thoughts and sense run all one way, which they think right.  
XXVIII. Obj. But say they, Constitutive and Declaritive Laws must be distinguished. They can but declare our Meetings to be Diocesan, which is false▪ 〈…〉 the Parish-Meetings such.  
Ans. 1. Remember that declaring the Parish-Churches to be such, doth no more constitute them such, than yours: Why then talk you so much of the words of Bishops, and Clergy, and Books, as if their declarations made them such? 2. But how doth a Law constitute one (the Parochial) to be Diocesan, (or null), more than your separate meetings, if by a Law of toleration it should say the same of them? The truth is, They are such to consenters that judge them such: But they constitute them not such to any that consent not to such a constitution, but hold to Christ's.  
XXIX. But it is said, that our thoughts alter not constitutions, they are our own immanent acts, that nihil ponunt in esse; and therefore the Pastors and Churches will be what Law maketh them, whatever we think.  
Ans. Are not Churches formally relative societies; what maketh them such, but thoughts and wills of men expressed? God's mind expressed in his Institutions is his premised consent; our consequent obedient consent maketh Christians, Pastors, and Churches: If a Law cannot make the Parish consent to null Christ's Officers and Churches, it doth not null them to them. If a Law say, All marriages shall be void unless the Bishop remarry them: This maketh them not void to any that consent not, but say, we stand to the valid marriage we had What doth another man's consent do to constitute me a Christian or Church-member (except Parents for Infants)? And if my thoughts and consent put nothing in esse, than the thoughts and consents of the conforming Clergy altars not their Churches; and what then is that constituting cause you talk of? Is it only the law? for shame say not so; Gods own Law as commanding us to be Christians, Pastors or Churches, maketh us not such, without consent: And can man's Law both null God's Law, and make us of what species it doth but bid us be, without our consent?  
XXX. But here our Disputants think they expose me to derision: What? Do I intimate that one and the same Congregation, may be two Churches of different species?  
Ans. I think to be such by open profession, is disorderly and unusual: But I think he that denieth this, is unfit to deride the ignorance of another.  
1. If the people in one Kingdom may be, in specie, two Kingdoms, the people of one Assembly may be two Churches; but Bishop Bedle in his printed Letter said, that Ireland was then two Kingdoms, the King being Sovereign to some, and the Pope to other: And I think Hungary is so now, between the Emperor and Turks.  
2. When Paul ordinarily held his assemblies in the Jewish Synagogues, where half were Infidels, and half Christians, (before he separated his Christians from them) I think they were two Churches.  
3. If Independents had leave to meet in the Parish churches, where the Parish Minister, and their own Minister should preach by turns, and the Parish only heard theirs as a lay preacher, or none of their Pastor, and so they heard the Parish Preachers; I doubt not, but they would be distinct church▪  
If one Parish church have two Pastors, and one of them be professedly for an essential subjection to the Pope, and the other against it, and half the people of one mind, and half of the other, I think they are two Churches in one place.  
If those Anabaptists who take none but the rebaptized for Church-members, should with their Pastors join with Independents in worship, though esteeming them no churches, I suppose you think they would be distinct churches in one place.  
But I think none of this is the case of the churches that I join with; for I suppose they null not Christ's species of Ministers to themselves or me. But if they did it to themselves, that would not do it to me.  
XXXI. Obj. But one and the same Minister cannot be of two species, and therefore relation to him cannot constitute distinct Churches.  
Ans. 1. One and the same man cannot be a Minister of Christ, and no Minister of Christ; so much is true, nor of any two inconsistent species: But if you will call any circumstantial difference a distinct species, that will no● hinder the consistence: The same man may be Christ's Minister, and the King's Chaplain, or a Dean, or Prebendary, or a Diocesan Bishop, or Subject to a Diocesan, such Bishops as Chrysostom, Augustine, Ambrose, 〈◊〉, Parke●, Grindal, Ush●r, Davenant, &c and their Chaplains did not cease to be Christ's Ministers.  
2 Relation to one of these men may make two sorts of consistent churche●, if the same man have a Parish and a Diocese, as the Germane superintendents have, and many other Bishops; the warrantableness we are not now disputing.  
3. Yea, one and the same Parish Minister may be Pastor of two Churches in one Assembly: If he openly profess himself Orthodox, the people that so own him are a church; and if he secretly to a party of them profess himself an Anabaptist, or a Papist, and they unite with him as such, they are another church, such as it is; Vespae habent favos, & marcionitae ecclesias: Tertul.  
XXXII. Obj. But the grand Objection is, No man can be a Pastor of Christ against his will: The Parish Ministers have all by conforming, renounced the essence of the Christian Ministry, and subscribed and sworn this renunciat●● by subjecting themselves to Diocesans, and swearing never to endeavour any alteration of the Diocesan Government, and the Vestries who represent the churches, have sworn the same; and you have of●en said that the Diocesan form of Government, 1. Deposeth the Parish Bishops, and maimeth the Ministry. 2. Dep●seth the Parish Churches. 3. And maketh Parish Discipline impossible.  
Ans. It is impossible to write that, which no man can misunderstand, and make an ill use of. I have oft told you,  
1. That I am in doubt, whether Arch-Bishops as Successors of the Apostles, only in the ordinary continued part of their Office, be jure divino, or not.  
2. That Congrational Bishops over Presbyters, being ejusdem ordinis, are an old venerable and lawful humane Institution.  
3. That Congregational Bishops, only over the Laity, are all Presbyters as such, and of Christ's Institution.  
4. Hereupon I have oft distinguished Diocesans into two sorts. 1. Those that are but the Governors of true particular Churches, that depose them not, but Rule them by the word perswasively: These are called Bishops, being really Arch-Bishops: These I never charged of the Consequents forenamed: And if the King make them Cogent Magistrates also, I will obey them. I take the judgement of the Church of England manifest in Ordination, Liturgy, Articles, etc. to be for such Diocesans only, though I vastly descent from many things in the Canons by which, and the Mode in which some exercise their Government.  
2. The other sort is the Innovators form of Diocesan Government, which hold that there is no Church without a Bishop, and no Bishop but Diocesans, (either Bishop of Laity or Presbyters) and so that the Parish Churches are no Churches, but part of the lowest sort of true Political Churches: These I take to be Super-conformists, yea Nonconformists, and Dissenters from the Church of England, though they may strive to get the name of the Church to themselves. Now, what I say of these Innovating Nonconformists, and their designs and attempts, our mistaking Separatists say, I speak of the Laegal Church frame, and so of all the Bishops and Parish-Churches. And I see no hope of delivering the Church of God from the trouble of incogitant confident erroneous Dissenters, that are not able to distinguish.  
XXXIII. I further answer this great Objection (being concerned in Conscience to do it, when men father their mistakes and Separation on me.) 1. The Parish-Ministers that I join with, (and I think the most that ever I knew) have not (that I know of) renounced any thing essential to a Parish-Pastor: I before said, Ordination and Jurisdiction over Presbyters or other Churches, is no part of its essence. To be obedient to a Diocesan, is no such Renunciation. Therefore it is no such Renunciation to promise to obey them in lawful things, subordinate to obeying Christ. If it prove a mistake in them, and that they owe no such Obedience, every such mistake doth not degrade them. He that said, that (he that will be greatest, shall be servant of all) thought not that to obey an equal, did null the Ministry. Nor he that said, Be subject one to another. Christ and Peter paid tribute to avoid offence, though the Children be free.  
But what if a man be in doubt, whether such Obedience be not his Duty: Is it not the safer side much more if he verily think it his Duty?  
2. To take Diocesans to be Jure Divino, is said by some to be destructive of the Pastoral Office, and Churches, and a change of the English Church-Government. But it's error. For 1. It is not the Destructive Diocesan Government, which acknowledge no Church and Pastor under them, that those in question consent to; but the Governing Diocesan, who ruleth subject Pastors and Churches.  
2. This Question of Divine right, is threefold. 1. Of that which by D●●ire right is necessary, ad esse. 2. Of that which is by Divine right, best and m●st eligible, or needful, ad melius esse. 3. That which is by right of Divine Concession lawful, but not necessary. The Church of England never determined, which of these was the Diocesans Case: All Conformists judged it Lawful; multitudes judged it Better than other forms: Many judged it necessary when it might be had. But no Law determined for any of these alone. Unless you will say, the Preface to the Book of Ordination doth it, by saying [It is evident to all men diligently reading holy Scripture, and Ancient Authors, that from the Apostles time, there have been these Orders of Ministers in Christ's Church, Bishops, Priests, and Deacons. Which Offices were evermore had in such Reverend Estimation, etc.]  
Here some say, That the Church of England took not these for three distinct Orders before 1640, but now: Therefore by the word [these Orders] is meant only two.  
Ans. At this rate, he must have the bette●, whom the hearer best trusteth, whatever he say: If [these Orders of Ministers, Bishops, Priests, and Deacons,] speak not three Orders, I cannot understand them. Here note partiality; the same that refuse to subscribe them, because they speak three Orders; yet say, they speak but two] when they argue that Church-Government is changed 1662., from what it was 1640.  
Indeed Aelfricks' Laws in Spelman, make Bishops and Priests the same Order, and so do a great part of Schoolmen and other Papists; but the English Bishops and Clergy were some of one mind, and some of another about it, and determined it not. Unless this Preface be a Determination, the Name [Order and Office] being both used.  
And (to instance in no other) Saravia (though no English man, yet of the Church of England) wrote more strongly almost than any that I ever read, for Diocesan Episcopacy (against Beza, etc.) and that upon this ground of Divine right, that they succeeded the Apostles, and such as Timothy, Titus, etc. in the Government of many Churches. (And the King's Divines at the Isle of White went all on that Ground).  
To say then, that to plead a Divine right for them, is new, is to contradict large Historical Evidences. And were it true, that this had been never before Imposed or Subscribed; surely it is not an Opinion of the Divine right of governing of many Churches, that renounceth the being of those Churches; it asserteth them to be by Divine right. For that which is not, is not governable. Non entis, non sunt accidentia.  
But where and how hath the Law or Church altered the case since 1640. These words were in the Book of Ordination before, and I know of none plainer that way since. It's destructive Diocesan Government, which renounceth the Government of any subject Churches, but of one only, and of any Pastors that I argue against, and not Governors of such Churches.  
XXXIV. But it's objected, That they swear [not to endeavour any alteration of Church-Government; therefore they renounce the Pastoral Office, because the present Government excludeth it.  
Ans. 1. This is to dictate, and not to prove: The Diocesan Government hampered and fettered it by the Canons in the time of Whitgift and Bancroft, but nulled it not: He that reads the Canons, or knows the Church, and thinks that its Government hath no need of Amendment, is far from my mind: But governing is not nullifying.  
2. It is not true (that ever I heard) that they swear what this Objection saith: The Ministers do not swear, but subscribe it, and swear Obedience in licitis & honestis: (And I could never learn what Law commands that Oath). And if it should extend to obey all the Canons, it's that which I would be full loath to swear; but I know no Canon that utterly nulleth the Parish-Churches and Ministers▪ And a Justice that sweareth to execute the Laws, is not supposed thereby to justify every Law, nor to execute any, if it should be against God's Law, that exception being still supposed.  
3. Their Subscription never to endeavour alteration, engageth them never to endeavour to destroy the Parish Churches and Ministry, and so is for them: For that would be a great alteration indeed.  
4. If you should think otherwise; yet if the Subscriber, or Swearer think himself, that it is not destructive, but governing Diocesans, that he subscribeth to; it is not your Opinion or Exposition, that bindeth him against his own; No, though you were in the right, as to the Imposers sense: For, Ignorantis non est consensus. It's unjust to face them down that they mean what they profess they do not. Ask forty Conformists, whether they think the Government which they promise not to alter, be that Diocesan form which ruleth Parish Churches and Pastors, or that which denieth their being, and I think few will profess the latter sense.  
5. And suppose the worst, that any Parish-Priest were of that mind; yea, and were really no true Pastor, as to his own acceptance with God; he may yet be a Pastor so far true, as is necessary to the Essence of the Church, if the People know it not: For the Innocent suffer not for the guiltless sin. If a man be a secret Atheist, or Heretic, or do sergeant Ordination and Election, and really had none, and the People be deceived by him, and know it not while he possesseth the place, and doth the work; his Baptisms and Administrations are valid to the Church, as a Church, though not to himself and his Ministry. The Jews Church was not null, when the high Priests had no lawful call, but bought the Office of R●man Heathens.  
XXXV. Obj. But the Vestry swears never to endeavour any alteration.  
Ans. 1. The Vestry was never empowered to give the sense of the Church herein. 2. I never lived where any such things as Vestries were, but in London; unless you will call the Ministers and Churchwardens the Vestry. And what's London to all England? 3. If they are so sworn, it is as a new thing since 1661. But then they are sworn, (whoever is for it) never to end 〈…〉 in Popery, nor destroying Dioce●ans, but only not to alter 〈…〉 I doubt with more Officers than we wish continued)  
4. And whereas those that I now deal with, say, That indeed before 1640. 〈…〉 Church's and Pastors, but now it doth by 〈…〉; Let it be considered, that the Lawmakers are so far from professing any 〈◊〉 al●●rat●n, that it is only the Long-Parliament, and the 〈◊〉 Alterati●●, that they complained of; and therefore swea● Corporations, Vestries, Militia, Nonconformists (by the Oxford Oath) and engage all Conformists never to endeavour any alteration So that they thought that it was the old Government that they settled. And now all this great part of the whole Kingdom is sworn, as I said, against Popery and foreign Jurisdiction, against Patriarches, and against putting down parish churches and pastors, that they will never endeavour it (by consent or execution of any men's commands). The alterations made before these oaths, were not essential.  
XXXI. I add one more argument, That owning subjection to governing Diocesans, as such, nulleth not the subject Churches and Pastors; else by parity of Reason, Subjections to Arch-Bishops would null the Diocesan Churches and Bishops, which it doth not do; nor do you think it doth; yea, though all Diocesans solemnly promise to obey their Arch-Bishops in their Consecration.  
XXXII. If you do know of any Minister that is for destructive Diocesans, that will not nullify the Offices of all the rest, that never were of that mind or consent: Yea, if the Law so meant (as you say, but prove not) you know how commonly Conformists say, that the meaning of the Subscription and Oaths, is only against [Seditious or unlawful sorts of endeavour to alter.] Be this true or false, it proveth that those men consent not contrary to their sense of the Subscription, and so renounce not their Churches.  
XXXIII. Indeed the new Laws have made Ministerial Conformity much harder than it was before 164●. And also Lay Conformity with u● the Church-do●rs, by the aforesaid Oaths; and also Lay Conformity within the Church seemeth very hard in some particular Offices, especially Baptismal Circumstances. But I think the ordinary Communion in the Liturgy, is better than it was before: For 1. The ●pistles and Gospels are used after the new Translation, which were used after the old. 2. Divers Collects have some mistakes changed [As on this day] at Easter, Whitsuntide, when it was not on that day. 3. The Minister is newly enabled and required to keep all from the Sacrament, who are not ready to be confirmed, (that is, that are not Catechised, and ready understandingly, to renew their baptismal Covenant) which is a very great addition of power: And if any practice it not, that's his fault, and a neglect of execution of his power; and when he puts scandalous Sinners from the Sacrament, he may say, [As a Minister of Christ and Rector of this Church, I judge you unmeet for its Communion, and forbid it you.] And no more is essential to his Church Discipline in Excommunication. It's too true, that the Exercise of this it clogged with further Prosecution by him, in the Chancellor's Court, which I think few will undertake. And it's true, that such Ministers are required to publish the Excommunications of Laymen, passed in the Bishop's names, though it be according to such Canons, as the 6 th', 7 th', 8 th', etc. But a man in Fetters, is a man: It changed not the Pastoral Office, when Heathen Emperors persecuted it, and when such Christian Emperors, as Anastasius, Zeno, Basilicus, Theodosius 2d. Constantius, Valens, etc. vexed or cast out those that were not of their Opinions. It nulleth not the Office in Switzerland to have none but the Magistrate's Discipline.  
XXXIV. The Objectors grant, that, If any Parish-Church shall by Minister and People consenting, be form according to the Rules of the Gospel, they are true Churches, though the Law should be against them, or command the contrary.  
Ans. 1. Much more then, if the Law be for all that is essential. 2. And doth not this say as much as I am pleading for? Name me, if you can, any thing essential, which all Ministers promise not at Ordination? If any after renounce it, the crime is personal: Prove it before you say it, and forsake him, and charge not his fault on others.  
I think you are not of their minds, that say, [The Law bindeth every Subscriber and Swearer to the sense of the Imposers, when he took it through mistake in another sense, because they refused to explain it; especially, if he declared his sense: Much less doth it bind him to your sense, against his own.  
XXXV. But then (say the Objectors) such Churches are Dissenters; as such you join with them, and not as settled by Law, and so it is but a Conventicle, and is excommunicated by the Canon, or you excommunicated for saying it is a Church, and joining with it.  
Ans. 1. What if all this be true? Doth it follow, that I must separate from it? Are not your private Churches more unquestionably Excommunicate, etc. by the Canon, and yet you separate not from them? Can you see but on one side?  
2. But your Affirmation proveth not that the Law nulleth such Ministers, or Churches, as use the Liturgy, and subscribe in the favourable sense, though it should prove a mistake. It must first be tried and judged to be a mistaken sense, and even where they (strangely) Excommunicate, ipso facto, the fact must be proved and declared by the Judge, before Priest and people are bound to Execution, (though the Law be loco sententiae; the 〈◊〉 being proved and declared), no man is bound to do Execution on himself.  
3. I would seriously advise these Brethren to think, Whether all good Christian Men and Women are bound to study the Laws of England, before they may resolve what Church to communicate with? yea, whether they must be all so well skilled in Law, as to decide these Law-controversies, that you and I are not agreed in, and Lawyers themselves do ordinarily differ in; that is, Whether by Law the Parish-Churches and Pastors be changed and n●lled, and Dioceses be made the only Churches, ●●simae species? Must all forbear Communion till they are so good Lawyers? Why may it not suffice to know Christ's Law, and to profess to obey it, and to do nothing against it willingly? He that will promise to Communicate with th● Church, but as it is established by Law, should have more skill in the Law than I have to know, how it is established; and every Communicant hath not so much more than I  
XXXVI. But (say they) than you are bound to av●●d scandal, by professing openly that you Communicate 〈◊〉 a Dissenter, and not with the Church as established by Law.  
Ans. 1. Then I should falsely say that which I either think is otherwise, or am not resolved in. I tell you, Few can truly say this, if any.  
2. What need this, when the open Profession of all Christians is, That it is a Church and Worship of Christ's making, which they own and intend, and none that is against them? And when the Articles of the Church of England, and the Ordination covenant own Scripture-sufficiency, and disclaim all that is against God's word: Must we be supposed to renounce Religion, when we meet to profess it? And surely for disowning any thing which the Nonconformists judge unlawful, all the Books written by them, and all the notorious sufferings in twenty two years, Ejection and Prosecution, are no obscure Notification of their Judgements, without speaking it at the Church ●oors, or before the Assemblies: Must I openly protest against Independency, Anabaptistry, or Presbytery, (if I descent) before the face of their Congregations, if I will Communicate with them?  
3. But to stop your demand before I Communicated in the Parish church, where I now am; I went to the Incumbent, and told him that I would not draw him into danger, or intrude against his will: I had been ●●iled by the King's Commission, and after by the Lord Keeper, to debate about Alteration in the Liturgy and Worship, and Discipline; and I thought that thereby I wa● by 〈◊〉 6, 7, 8. ipso facto Excommunicate, but not bound to do Execution on myself; and therefore if I were separated, it should not be my act; but I left it to his will: He took time, and upon advice admitted me.  
Obj. But you must tell them that the Parish Church hath no dependence on the Bishops, but as the King's Officers; and that it is Independent, and then you fall not under our opposition.  
Ans. 1. How many Lawyers and Civilians do openly say (as Crompton before Cousin's Tables) that all Church Government floweth from the King. And doth that satisfy you? 2. And why must the Parish Church and Pastor needs be Independent? Will you have no Communion with Presbyterians? 3. And what if it be dependent on the Diocesan, as governor (though not as destroyer)? Is it any more destructive of its Essence, than to be governed by a Classis or Council?  
XXXVII. As for your telling us, W●●m the Canons excommunicate, or 〈◊〉 Lay-chancellors, Officials, Surrogates, Archdeacon's, &c. excommunicate, what Oaths they impose, etc. tell them of it, and not us, who are not responsible for other men's deeds. It no more concerneth our cause of Parochial Lay-communion, than to tell us how bad men some Ministers are, nor so much neither: For I that willingly join in the Liturgy, will not willingly, if I know it, so much as seem to own the Ministry of any man that is notoriously Insufficient, Atheistical, Heretical, or so Malignant, or Wicked, as to do more hurt than good▪ Avoid such, and spare not.  
XXXVIII. Obj. They want the People's consent, and so are no Pastor's.  
Ans. The People show their consent by ordinary Submission and Communion.  
Obj. The People must be supposed to consent to the Law, which maketh them no Pastors, but the Bishop's Curates.  
Ans. Both the Suppositions are before confuted; both that the People are supposed to consent to any Law against Gods, and that the Law maketh Curates to be no Pastors.  
XXXIX. To conclude the Objections about the Essence of Parish Churches. 1. The question is not. Whether there be not a sort of Diocesan Prelacy, which nulleth them? 2. Nor wh●ther there be not some men in England that write and plead for such Diocesan Churches as have no true Episcop●s pregis, much less Episcopus 〈◊〉 under them, but are 〈◊〉 Bishops in that Diocese? Nor of what number, power, or interest these men are of (against whom I have oft written)? 3. But whether the Law be on their side, or against them? for the old Diocesan Government of subordinate Pastors and Churches, is to me n●w uncertain: I did once incline most to the fi●●t sense of the Law; but on sec●nd thoughts hope better of it, and am not Lawyer good enough to be certain 4. But if it should be so, I verily think ●●e main 〈◊〉, of the 〈…〉, and therefore 〈◊〉 not to renounce their P●rish government, ●ut only to use it in subordination to the Bishop. 5. And I am p●st doubt that all the Communicants of England, are neither ●ound to decide this Law-doubt, nor to understand it, nor to believe that the Law hath altered the Government. 6. And if they did believe it, they ought to keep on in Church Assemblies▪ according to Christ's Law, taking all that's against it, as void, as long as they are put ●n no sin themselves, nor the Church notoriously renounceth its essentials. 7. And if they were stated Members of other Churches (e.g. the Greek, the Dutch, the French); they might occasionally Communicate in our Parishes transiently (without examining the Pastors call and discipline, but judging by possession and practice). 8. And if they should prove no lawfully called Ministers, their Office would be valid to those that blamelessly were deceived and knew it not. 9 And if they were sure that they were no true Ministers, they may join with them in all Worship belonging to Lay-Christians. 10. But if they prove able, godly Ministers of Christ (though faulty) settled by Law to the advantage of Religion in a Christian Kingdom, where all are commanded thus to maintain national Concord; and the upholding those Churches, is the very National possession of the Protestant Religion, and it goeth for public Disobedience and Scandal to forsake them, and that at a time when many forsake them too for unjust grounds, and by suffering for it, stand to unwarrantable Accusations of them, and sharply Censure those that do not as they, and oppugn Peacemakers, and all this after the old Nonconformists full Confutation of the Separatists unwarrantable way, and the doleful experience of Subversion of all sorts of Government; by the Prosecution of such mistakes, I say, If all this should be the case, it is deeply to be considered.  
XL. But the most effectual hindrance, is the opinion of unlawfulness in joining in the Liturgy; yet my last Objectors confess that [It is lawful to some, and that it is n●t Communion in it, much less in all forms, which they call unlawful t● all: And the sober sort are loath to say t●at the Millions of Christians in England, and Scotland, who live where they can be in no other Churches, should rather like Atheists live without all Church-Worship and local Communion.  
And in gaining this, I have gained the better half of what I pleaded for. And they confess, and so do I, that public Communion may be one men's duty, and another's sin, as circumstances vary. I confess one man may possibly live under so intolerable a Minister, as is not to be owned. And even some of the high adversaries of Nonconformists seem of this mind, and break the Canon; and having Pastors, who they think do not heartily conf●rm, ●ut plead for Peace and Moderation; they revile them as Trimmers, and will not Communicate wi●h them, but go out of their own Parishes (and thousands seldom any where. Other circumstances also may vary men's cases.  
●ut some Objectors at last t●ll us, that the great difference which they mean, is different light: T●e ●ld Martyrs, Reformers and Nonconformists, had not so much light as we, and so it w●s not th●●r sin; but greater light being now m●r● common, it will be a common sin to join in the Liturgy▪  
Ans. 1. It is ordinary and easy for men to magnify their own understandings; but God's Law was then the same as now; and they were bound to know it; Their ignorance might make sin less (and stripes fewer) but could not make it none.  
2. I have many Reasons to think that it is your light that is l●ss, and the old Nonconformists and Conformists (in this) that was greater.  
1. That is the greater light that most agreeth with God's Word, and th● universal churches practice accordingly.  
2. The writings of the old Nonconformists yet extant, give better reas●ns than the separatists did, and therefore had clearer light. What vast difference is there in the writings of Ball, Hildersham, Am●sius, (Manuductions) Gifford, Paget, Bradshaw, etc. on that part, and Jonson's, Cans, Penrys, etc. on the other?  
3. The Theological writings and labours of the Nonconformists in all other points showed, that they were men of incomparable more light than the Separatists; and is it like that God would give men such rare light only in church▪ communion, that had so little comparatively in the rest of Divinity; except Ainsworth's skill in Hebrew, (in other things by Paget laid too naked) how few old Separatists have left any considerable fruits of great light unto the church? Read the writings of Cartwright, Dudley Fenner, Hildersham, John Reignolds, Dod, Perkins, Bai●, Parker, Ames, Bradshaw, etc. Besides Scots▪ and all Foreigners, such as Calvin, Beza, Zanchy, Sadeel, and hundreds more; and compare these with the Writings of the Separatists, and judge who had greater light.  
4. Since 1660. all the London Ministers, and others with them t●at offered the King to set up in the parish churches the old Liturgy with some alterations, were men (except myself) who showed in their Writings and preaching▪ as much light as the Separatists have showed, even Brown, or John Goodwin himself, (that wrote Prelatical Preachers are no Teachers of Christ): Where do they now show greater light than others? this boast to me deserveth pity more than confutation: Anabaptists, and others say the same, but I find much less light in them both, when I read and hear them; though I truly love and honour all that is good in them: If you have so much more light than we and all the Reformed churches, show it us in other excellencies.  
XLI. But I must more particularly consider of this Author's Allegation of my own words against me, especially my Treatise of Episcopacy: And I do heartily thank him for calling me to review it. For, 1. I profess to write nothing which may not be amended. And 2. If men's misunderstanding turn my writings to a snare and scandal, it greatly concerneth me to remove it by explication, or by retractation of any thing that needeth it.  
And 1. I do find that I have incautelously given some occasion to the mistake; for thol entitled my Book, not against Diocesan episcopacy, but against that sort of Diocesan churches, Prelacy and Government, which casteth out the Primitive church species of episcopacy, Ministry, and Discipline]; and though to avoi● mistake, I said in the Preface, I ●ere give notice to the Reader, that whenever 〈…〉 me speak as against the English Diocesan Prelacy, I mean it as described by Cousins and Dr. Zouch, and as relating to the Et c●tera Oaths and 〈◊〉▪ and not in opposition to the laws of the Land; Yet all this was not enough to avoid misunderstanding! Indeed I took the church Government to be described and judged of by the churches own sentence, more than by the ●●w; and I had read the said Et cetera oath and canons with the words that so it ●ught to stand, which I think could mean nothing less, than that so by God's Law it ought to stand; and I had read the old canons, 6 th', 7 th', and 8 th'. Which excommunicate, ipso facto, all men, without excepting L●rds or Parliament M●n, who affirm that any thing in the church Government, by Arch-Bishops, Bishops, Deans, Arch-Deacons, and THE REST that bear office therein, is repugnant to the Word of God: And I read the canons that forbid Ordained Ministers to preach till they are further licenced by Bishops; yea, and in the church or elsewhere so much as to expound any Doctrine or Matter, but only to r●ad Scripture and Homilies, etc. with much more like this. 3. And then I took the stated restraint of the Ministry, with Lay-chancellors, and officials decretive power of Excommunication, and absolution, and the foresaid Civilians denying all G●venment to Presbyters, to have been quoad exercitium quantum 〈◊〉; at least an overthrow of parish churches, Rectors and discipline. 4. And I thought that the Bishops and Chancellors could never have so long done all this, and ruled by these canons, if the Law had not been on their side. 5. And I thought that the Authors of the canons of 1640 being a c●nvo●a●i●n, it was to be called the Church of England: and specially when I found the most highly honoured Doctors pleading, there was no Bishop but Diocesan, and no church without its proper Bishop.  
By all these inducements (with long sad experience) I oft speak so incautelously calling this, the English diocesan frame, that the Reader might easily think that I meant it was that frame that was settled by law; whereas having read ●ryn, H●ntley, Leigh●●●, and others that deny the law to be for it, and being myself a stranger to that case of Law, I should have more fully separated the Law case from the new convocation case, and much more from the destructive Innovators case, who nullified the foreign churches, with whom it was that I disputed; and specially considering that the canons and oath of 1640. were a●ter cashiered by Parliament, and never since restored, no not by the Parliament of 1662.  
Upon all this, 1. I retract all words that seem to determine the case in Law, (if any such be there) or that by darkness tend so to the Readers error. 2. And all words that make the writings of superconformists and subver●ers, or chang●rs of the church government, or the canons of the convocation 1640 to be the sense of the Church of England, when it is said, that before its sense was otherwise and alteration is now abjured, or disowned by most of the Land; and conformists usually profess another sense: Upon this very reason I write this short Debate to avoid the injuring of the Re●ders of my Writings, about the English Diocesan frame.  
XLII. The Book I animadvert on, is called, Mr. Baxters' Judgement and Reasons against communicating with the Parish Assemblies as by Law required.  
Ans. I am for communicating with them in the essentials of Christianity, and Communion, as the Law requireth, if I understand it, because the Law of Christ requireth it: But in whatever circumstances any law shall ●e against Christ's Law, I communicate not according to such a Law.  
XLIII. All that he citeth out of my writings, p. 2, 3▪ is against his cause, which he thought was for it, as I have proved. What he citeth § ●. the first is unproved, the second I own, and is nothing for him.  
XLIV. P. 5. And oft throughout, he allegeth, that I make the Par●shes not complete particular Churches.  
Ans. No wonder; those may be true churches, that are not complete in integrity or degree; will you separate from all churches that are not so complete? I know not of any strictly complete on earth: many true churches are incomplete as to integrals, much more as to ornament, order, and strength: And all particular churches are less complete than the universal; and that on earth, alas how far from complete: Believe him not Reader, that R.B. is against your joining with all churches, which he proveth to be not complete, yea, or to be very faulty and defective in point of holiness, Love, or Order of Ministers or people: But they are true churches in essentiality, though parts of a Diocese, as that is of a Nation; not mere parts of the lowest single Church. P. 6. § 2. What I say of suspending the power, is not nulling it in the office; and what I say of practice by canons, and visitation Articles, is not said of Law; much less of all the Churches and Pastors consent to them; and what I say of misgoverning in exercise, is not said of a national profession, that so it ought to b●.  
P. 7. He citeth my words further against restraint of the Ministers power. But 1. That nulleth not Christ's Institution of it. 2. More Power is given. As 1. To deny the Sacrament, as is said, to all that are not ready to be confirmed. 2. To deny absolution to all the sick, who do not humbly and earnestly desire it, etc. And the Power of doing it by Ministerial Application of God's Word, is all that is properly ministerial, though they take all cogent power from us: Man's taking away our power, is but hindering the exercise quantum in se, but the Power is of Christ, which they cannot take away.  
P. 8. They cannot suspend our commanded act, (but only our doing it with liberty and advantage): I can refuse the Sacrament to the unfit, though it be to my trouble.  
P. 9 I say there are many additions to the old conformity▪ that make the case harder to Clergy and Laity than of old: But I there maintain that none of these additions do make Parochial Communion now pleaded for, unlawful.  
XLV. P. 10. He saith, If we might not endeavour to restore the old Prelacy, than not to give strength to it being restored: And (say others), lest we be perjured, having sworn and covenanted against it.  
Ans. This needeth impartial Consideration: They say, That our covenant engagement maketh that unlawful to us, which was lawful to the old Nonconformists.  
But 1. Did not God's Law make it unlawful to them, or to us before? Then you think we covenanted to do somewhat th●t ●ods law bound us not to; if so, it was superstition; and is not adding our selfmade vows and duties, as bad as adding Ceremonies?  
2. Yea, they then thought Brownism a sin; and if they mistook not, we cannot by covenanting turn sin into duty.  
3. Ad hominem, the Author professeth Independency: And I suppose he knoweth, that the chief of that way, did some write, to prove that the Covenant bound not (at last), and some likened it to an Almanac out of date; and some said, it was a League which was dissolved, and so bound not; and how great a party thought that it bound them not from pulling down both King, and many Parliaments, and conquering Scotland, res ips● loqunta ●st: And even King and Parliament, Lord Spiritual, Temporal and Commons, have declared it their judgement in the Corporation Act and Declaration, which bindeth all the Corporation Officers to declare without exception, that there is no obligation on them, or any other from the Oath, called the solemn League and Covenant: It's true indeed, that the Presbyterian Ministers, and Soldiers▪ and People, thought that this Covenant bound them to restore the King; and said, Let us keep our covenant, and trust God with the issue; and G. Monk's Army Officers in their address to him, glory in it, not doubting but the King would find such his best subjects; but the Law that bindeth men to declare that there is no obligation on them or any other, tells them they did err when they thought it bound them to restore the King: Whether this be true or not, I meddle not with; but by this you see, that there are few in the land of any party, save Presbyterians, that can charge us with Covenant breaking (herein) for going to the Parish Churches, without contradicting themselves or guides; but this is but ad Hominem.  
4. But what words be they in the Covenant that we violate? did it mean, If power restore the Liturgy, and Bishops, and will suffer no other Churches, we will rather all give over all worship of God in churches, than we will join with them? This were a wicked Oath, and could no more oblige us, than to give over all family worship; I hope few sober men ever so swore.  
5. I so little consent to the corporation declaration, that I do believe that I was bound by that vow to do as I have done in going to the Parish Churches. For 1. I am bound by it against Profaneness, and all that's contrary to sound Doctrine and Godliness: But to forsake all public Worship of God without necessity, is profaneness, and contrary to Godliness. 2. I am bound in my place and calling to oppose Popery; But to tell all the Protestants in England, that they sin if they forsake not all the Parish Churches, is to prepare them for the reception of Popery, seeing that will be the National Religion which possesseth those Parish Churches: By deserting our Garrisons we shall deliver them up. 3. I am bound by it against Schism; and I am not able to excuse it from being Schism, if under all the obligations that now lie upon us, I should by my constant avoiding the Parish Churches, even unto sufferings declare, that I take their Communion for absolutely unlawful, and so slander so many Churches of Christ, and seduce others with me into the same error and sin: This would be Schism and Covenant-breaking in me; whatever it is in others.  
XLVI. Obj. But you swore against Prelacy and Liturgy, and now you strengthen them.  
Ans. 1. As the Covenant was made the terms or test of national Church Union, excluding all the Episcopal, who were half the Kingdom and more, I think it was a rash sinful Engine of unavoidable division: But when I took it, it was not so imposed, but offered to them that were of that mind, and I saw not then that snare.  
2. I never swore against the Common-Prayer, nor against the Englsh frame of Prelacy, (much less, all Episcopacy (any further, than in my place and calling to endeavour Reformation according to the word of God, and the example of the best reformed churches: And this I have endeavoured to the utmost of my power, perhaps more than my accusers.  
And 3. There is much good in the Liturgy, Parish Order, and Government: I never did covenant against that; and therefore the Ministers who laboured for Reformation and Concord 1660 and 1661., thought they kept their covenant by craving some amendments, and not an abolition; and if we did think any thing to be bad that was good, we must not be obstinate in that error; forsaking the good which is our duty, is not the way to amend any sin or error; avoiding Gods public Worship, and living like Atheists (save in private) is not the way to amend the faults of public Worship or Government: Praying to God for what we want, and owning the Scriptures, and Christian Religion, and communicating with Christians on lawful terms, is not encouraging any sin in church Priests or Prelates, unless men by our duty will be encouraged to sin; and we must not forsake duty to avoid such men's encouragement: the sons of the Coal are most angry with those that come nearest to them in all things save their sin and error; and say, those that stand afar off cannot hurt them: I do not justify all that is in every Assembly that I join with; must I needs renounce Local communion with every Independent, Presbyterian, or Anabaptist church, that I descent from, for fear of strengthening them: I covenanted as much against Schism as faulty Prelacy; and yet if I must join with no church that is guilty of Schism, alas whither shall I go?  
4. I humbly desire you to examine, whether your way be not a breach of the covenant you plead; not only as it advantageth Profaneness, Popery, and Schism, but as it strengtheneth that which you say I strengthen; he knoweth not England, who knoweth not that perceiving the error of unwarrantable separation, and the unjust accusations of the Liturgy and churches, used by very many (besides some failings in some private churches) hath been, and is a grand cause of encouraging too great a number, even to superconformity, and to the fierce opposition of us, and to the utmost confidence in their own way: and as you charge me more than others as drawing more to the communion of Godly Protestant Parish Ministers (that is, to christian catholic love, peace, and communion): So do the Sons of the Coal, the superconformists more fiercely revile me as stopping more, than you have done from their extremities.  
God's Word is a sufficient rule, keep to that, and fear not breaking any selfmade laws.  
XLVII. Obj. But by this latitude you may join with Papists, and say, you judge of them according to Christ's description.  
Ans. I answered this in the former book: When I join with any church as a church, I join with them as meeting to profess and practice christian faith and worship, their by faults I own not: But if they openly profess Idolatry or Heresy, instead of Worship and Faith, or if they meet to practise any sin which renders the whole church or worship rejected by God, I must not assemble with them, but avoid them; which I must not do for tolerable failings, lest I avoid all the world: I say again, I will cast away my Wine or Broth for Poison in it, which I will not do for a fly: If the church renounce Christ's description in the essentials, notoriously, I will not call it a church against their own consent: But if they do it only in some Accident or Integrals, I will only disown those faults.  
XLVIII. Obj. But, say they, (p. 13.14.) It is impossible there should be two national churches, at least in one nation; therefore by joining with a Parish you can be no part of the national church; though we confess that if you join with a Parish Assembly that forms itself into a complete single church, and the people consent to take the Parish Minister for their Pastor, and the Minister should exercise the whole power of a Pastor in this Parish church, Mr. B. may hold communion with this Parish church, and not own the Diocesan constitution.  
Ans. Of two churches in one assembly I spoke before. 1. Doth this Author think that exercise of power is as essential to a Minister as Power: Yea, that it must be the whole power that is exercised; and so that no one is a true Pastor among the Presbyterians, when the Classis exerciseth the highest part of the Power; nor in Helvetia, where Discipline is unexercised; nor in England from the first Reformation: Were all the Conformists that submitted to Diocesans no Church-Pastors? nor no Independents, whose Churches having many Pastors and Elders, no one exerciseth (no nor hath) more than part of the power? Integrity and essentiality, office and exercise, are not all one.  
2. All good Ministers that I know in the Parish Assemblies, do consent to the Pastoral Office, and the people love them, and show their consent by ordinary Communion; and they exercise all essential to the office, though under the restraints of Government, not owning (in consent) destructive, but governing Diocesans, some as the jure divino, lawful; some as best, some as necessary, many as merely impowered to a cogent Government by the King; and doth not your concession imply, that these are true Churches? of intolerable men I speak not.  
3. What you confidently deny, is certainly true: There may be two national churches in one nation, if not three; that is, the word is equivocal, and hath divers senses; and it is not called national, because all persons in the nation are of it, but because that the diffused parts of the Nation own it formally in a public national relation.  
1. A Christian Kingdom as such, is by many called a national Church; thus England is such.  
2. A coalition of the most, or all the public Ministers in a Nation in Synodical Agreements for Communion as such, is called a National Church; such also is England.  
3. The subjection of the most of the Clergy in a nation by consent to some Ecclesiastical Primate, Patriarch, or other constitutive, governing Head (as a Bishop is in his Diocese) may make a national Church in another sense.  
The same men may be of divers of these equivocal Churches; or if part be for one form, and part for another, yet agreeing in the same ordinary, external Communion; one part may be called national as well as the other. The question is de ●omine, the name equivocal from diversity of relations: I own, 1. A Christian Kingdom. 2. I own a national association of Parish Churches and Pastors. 3. Tho these submit to Diocesan superiority, and be parts of a Diocese, but true single Churches, I do not therefore separate from them. 4▪ A national Church, headed by one constitutive, pastoral Head, I disown; call which you will the national Church.  
But (saith he of his approved parish Church), P. 14. Such a Church affirmeth to itself all that pastoral p●wer that in pursuance of Canon and Statute Law, is fixed in the Bishop.  
Ans. Incogitantly spoken; Do all Independents assume the power of Ordination, Jurisdiction over others, Citations, licensing, Subspending, Degrading, silencings, instituting, inducting, etc. which are so fixed on the Bishop: If none of this be pastoral power, than the appropriating it is no depriving parish Ministers of pastoral power; and to be under Magistrate's power nulls not the pastors.  
XLIX. What he saith about unlawful terms of Communion, p 21. etc. in the instances of kneeling, putting off the hat, standing up, etc. I answer, 1. The Author all along seemeth to forget, that I am not accusing him, not telling every man his duty, but only giving the Reasons of my own and such others practice: so they make a long ado, to vindicate him whose Manuscript I answered, and say, His question was only, whether it be lawful to communicate with the churches as settled by Law, and not in other respects? When I ever told them, I meddle with none of their Questions, but my own, viz, 1. Whether I and such other do well or ill in that communion we hold with the Parish Churches? 2. Whether all Protestants in England are bound in conscience to renounce and avoid Communion in the Liturgy with all Parish Churches and Chapels, and rather to give over all church worship?  
I only gave my Reasons, why that Manuscript (divulged and boasted of as unanswerable) changed not my Judgement; and I answered that in his Arguments, which went further than the question put by them, and assaulted my own assertions; having before in my Christian Directory, and cure of Church divisions (without naming him) fully answered his printed Reasons, to prove it unlawful to use an imposed form or Liturgy, especially because Ministers must use their own gifts.  
But if any man believe that it is a sin to communicate kneeling, or standing, or sitting, unless he lie down as Christ did; or at any time, save at a feast or supper; or any where save in an Inn or an upper room, or with any women, or more than twelve, or if they think it sin to kneel at prayer, or be uncovered, or to sing Psalms in our Metre and Tunes, whether these men should separate from all the Churches that will not receive them in their own way, or how far they do well or ill that will not let every man do what he will, is none of the case that I have before me: It will not follow, that I must separate from a Church that bids me kneel, and be uncovered, etc. because you take it to be sin: put not your measures on all others.  
And here because same maketh Mr. Faldo the Author of the Vindication, which I answered, that I may so far vindicate him, as to show, that it's ●earce likely; I ask, whether if Mr. Faldo did well as a pastor to keep up a church at Barn●● many years, which would not endure the singing of a psalm of praise to God, but constantly forbore it, though his Judgement was against them▪ (besides that many of them were not only against Infant Baptism, but f●rther differed in other things)? was this communion more lawful or laudable than with honest parish Ministers in the Liturgy? Did he the whole office of a pastor: What if the Bishop had forbid him to sing psalms? Is not the Church State more concerned in the whole congregation▪ than in an absent Bishop? what greater omission or defect is there in many Parish-Churches?  
I again say, that I am so far of the Judgement of Hildersham, John Ball, etc. that I had rather join (caeteris paribus) in a Church that useth the Psalms, Chapters, and all the Lordsday Prayers in the Liturgy, before Sermon, than one that only giveth us one Psalms (or none) and a Pulpit-prayer and a Sermon without all the rest of Church Worship.  
L. I will conclude all with repeating a little of the Explication of my misused writings▪  
I. The pastoral Oversight of the Laity by the Elders, or Bishops of the several Flocks, is of Christ's Institution, and belongs to all true Presbyters: And though in necessity it may be done by divers transient Ministers, pro tempore, most regularly, every Church should have it's stated Pastors.  
II. Where such Churches are large, the work requireth many Ministers, where each one hath but part of the Charge.  
III. Reason and Church-consent among these, made one a Precedent over the rest, and called him the Bishop pecularly, (if it were in Marks days, as Hierom saith, it was in John's). And though this be not essential to a Church, it is lawful, and fit; and at last it grew to so great a Reputation and Opinion of necessity, that all Churches had such Bishops, and gave them a Negative voice, and ordained not without them, and defined Churches as essentiated by Relation to them, Ecclesia est plebs Episcopo adunata. If now such men as J.O. Mr. Nye, Dr. Goodwin, etc. should have in one Church six or seven young men of their own training up to be their Assistant-presbyters, I do not think an Independent Church would take it for any crime that he should have a Negative voice in acts of Order and Discipline, or that they should ordain Ministers therein without his Consent.  
IV. By degrees single Congregations increased to as many as our great Parishes that have Chapels, and though still they communicated in the chief Church at some special times of the year; they ordinarily met in divers places, and the Presbyters officiated some in one meeting, and some in another; at first, whosoever the Bishop daily sent; but after their particular Tyths or Chapels were assigned to each; yet all together were esteemed but one Church, governed by one Bishop, and his College of Presbyters.  
V. When they increased yet more and more, fixed Chapels were assigned to fixed Presbyters; but not as distinct Churches, but parts of the Diocesan Church, though at last they were larger than one Bishop and College could guide, according to the first Institution.  
VI Yet long every Christian City had a Bishop and Church, and every incorporate big Town, like our Corporations or Market-Towns, was called a City (not because it had a Market, as a reverend Slanderer feigneth me to lay, but because Custom the master of Language, called all Corporations and great Towns by that name●: But at last the Bishops being loath to diminish their Jurisdiction, decreed that very small Cities should have no Bishops, ne vi●c●eat nomen Episc●pi. And in process of time in some Countries, the name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or City, was appropriated at the Prince's pleasure to some very few Corporations, peculiarly privileged above the rest: So that a King that would have had but one Bishop in his Kingdom (as it's said that all the Aba●●ian Empire hath had but one) might have done it by calling but one Town a City.  
VII. Yet the People and Bishops being sensible that there was more work For a Bishop in a City-Diocess, than one could do; in many Countries they had Rural Bishops set over P●pul●ns country Churches: And though these were subject to the Diocesans, yet hereby the Churches were multiplied: But the Bishops soon grew jealous and weary of these Rural-Bishops, and most places put them down, and set up instead of them a kind of Itinerant visiting Presbyters, empowring all Arch-Bishops and Ache▪ Deacons, till at last to save themselves the labour, and yet not diminish their Dominion, they set up the Courts of Lay-Chancellors, Officials, and many such Offices, besides the Arch-Deacons, Surrogates, etc.  
VIII,▪ In England (as is agreed by most Historians▪) at first one Bishop had but one Church or Temple. (And at Luindisfarne saith Bede, It was so po●● a thing, that it was a house thatched with reeds.) The Pastor of this one Church was to convert as many as he could in all the Country about him. The Heathen Country might be his Diocese, but not his Church. The converted Christians got into several Monasteries, and not into Parish-Churches. These Monasteries were partly for Society in Religious Exercise, and partly for Studies, like Schools to Educate Youth for the Ministry▪ So that long a Diocese was only the Bishop's Church with divers Monasteries. At last, Gentlemen for their convenience built and endowed Parish-Churches; the Bishop's old single Churches being called the Cathedrals: And finally, by the help of Princes, all the Land was divided into Parishes, subject to the Cathedral-Bishops, to whom Deans and Chapters were added in imitation of the old Bishop's College of Presbyters in every single Church.  
IX. When the Rural-Bishops were put down, the Presbyters power in their several Parishes was somewhat enlarged: And the Dioceses at last became so great, that the Bishops were said to commit more of the oversight to the Presbyters: Tho they kept them under by severe Canons, Lay-Deputies, and the Cogent Sword.  
X. It grew then a controversy among the Papists themselves, whether the Parish Incumbents were proper Pastors, and had any Power of Government, and how much. And my Objectors confess, that they were reputed Pastors among the Papists, and that Linwood calleth them Pastors, and the Laity Oves: I have cited in Treat of Epis. ●ilesa●us, and many more that prove it. Ant. de Dom. Spalatensis, is large and full in it. Sp●lman in R. A●l●ricks Law, shows that the Bishop and Presbyter made but one of their seven Orders: A great sort of the Schoolmen say the same. Most Drs. say, That the Presbyters essentially as Sacredetes, have the power of the Keys, inf●ro interi●re; by which they mean not, a power that must be kept secret, but that which consisteth in the persuasive use of God's word on Conference, privately or publicly, as distinct from Magisterial and Cogent Power. And if they ●e of one Order, then if one be a Past●r, the other is so also. That they are taken, but in partem curae, is nothing against it, but for it. For equal Presbyters in one Church, have each but partem curae.  
The Reformation finding th●ngs in this case, determined none of the disputes, de nomine, Whether Parish Rectors shall be called ●pis●op●s Gregis, or Pastors, or Rectors, or I●cumb●nts; but use these names promiscuously. Nor did they dispute whether the Parishes are Political Churches. But the Definition, and not the Name, is the thing now before us in debate. God hath given every such Minister the essence of a Pastoral oversight of his Flock: Men may hinder the Exercise, but can no more alter the Christian Office Power, than they can deprive a Husband of the power over his Wife. And the Diocesans at last have been necessitated to permit the essential Pastoral power (by the word) to the Incumbents, having none else to use it by. But Lawyers have taught many to call nothing Government, that is not Cogent on the unwilling; and so to say, that Government is not in the Presbyters, but the Bishops; and that all is derived from the King; which is all true, of Cogent Government by the Sword, in f●ro exteriore; but not as to Pastoral Government of the Flock by God's w●rd. As Bishop Bilson of Obedience hath distinguished, and applied well at large.  
XI. Now to come nearer our Case, Diocesan Bishops have put down the ranks of Bishops which of old was settled as Precedents over the Presbyters in every Church, in Cities, and of the lowest Order (described by Ignatius, and Cyprian, and others): Every lowest Church hath not now a Bishop over the Presbyters, as it had for divers hundred years. And by this they have unchurched all the old sort of Churches in the sense of them that say, There is no Church where there is no Bishop over Presbyters: And they have set up a Diocesan Church and Bishop, only w●●re should be many Churches and Bishops; and thus, 〈◊〉 homonym, I argued with them, etc.  
But indeed this Parochial Episcopacy, or Presidency being wrongfully said to be Essential to the Church (being at most b●t useful to peace, ad melius esse) and the Epicopacy or Pastoral care of the Laity without any power over the Clergy; being it that is essential to single Church Pastors, In truth no man can alter this. In Consent and ●●putati●n, it is altered by those that think Parish Curates no Pastors, and deny any Essential power over their Flocks. But it is not in Consent and Reputation destroyed by them that acknowledge their Essential power, and subject only themselves as Pastors to the oversight of Diocesans and Magistrates. They do but destroy the 〈…〉 of Episcopacy of humane Institution (which was over Presbyters in 〈◊〉 Ch●rch●●▪ but not the Episcopacy over the Flock which is of Christ's Institution▪  
XII. 〈◊〉 whether most in England are of this Opinion, or of that, for 〈◊〉 or for mere governing Episcopacy, and which way the Laws go, and 〈◊〉 may be called the sense of the Church, when Convocations and Bishops seem to differ, and men change their Opinions with the Age and Interest, it is impossible for me to be sure.  
But I know how they govern, by what Canons, and by what Courts; and as all their Cogent power is from the King, it is no wonder if they be chosen by him: But the old sort of Bishops that had no forcing power, was so constantly otherwise chosen, that their Canons nulled the Magistrate's choice. And our present Canons since 1604, though they null not the Parochial Pastorship, do so far restrain it, as I hope my Conscience shall never approve. But yet, for that I will not forsake what is of God, nor make man's failings a pretence against my duty to God and Man, to the Violation of Love, Unity and Peace.  
Yet I will try by distinct speaking to make both the Case and my meaining plainer, if I can: And thereby to show, that our case differeth but gradually from the old Nonconformists, as to laymen's Parochial Communion, where there are honest Ministers. And that the old Nonconformists had better Evidence, Scripture and Reason on their side, than either those Innovators, who make Parish-Pastors to be but de specie, of humane Institution, made by Bishops, and changeable by them, having just so much power as they please to give them; or the Brownists, that are so much of the same Principles, as to think that men's Laws or Canons can change the form of the Office, or that judge it nullified by tolerable Imperfections, and Communion made unlawful by such faults, as are found in almost all the Churches on Earth.  
Qu. Whether according to the description of the Scripture, and the exposition of Dr. Hammond himself, all qualified Parish Ministers be not true Pastors and Bishops of the Flocks, and with their consenting Christian Communicants, true particular Churches; and de facto all be not in the power given them by God, which is essential hereto, and in the power generally acknowledged by the legal Church?  
Ans. I have spoken to this so largely in my Treatise of Episcopacy, (and there added the testimonies of Writers, old and new, Protestants and Papists (that I will give but a breviate of it here.  
The essence of the Church Ministry consisteth in POWER and OBLIGATION FROM CHRIST, to teach, to guide in Worship, and to oversee and guide the Conversation and Communion of the Flocks; If it were not of Christ, they were but officers of men, de specie, even of an office of man's making.  
Dr. Hammond saith, that Christ gave the Keys only to the Apostles, and they only to their Successors: That there is no evidence that there were any of a second order of Presbyters in Scripture time; that this order was after made by Man, Mr. Dodwell showeth how and why; and more fully than Dr. Hammond, asserteth, that such Presbyters have no more power than the ordaining Bishops intended to give them: Or saith Dr. H. If they have a first power, it is such as may not be exercised without a second; so that it is indeed no true power to act: And the Dr. plainly tells the London Ministers p. 80, 81. There is no manner of incongruity in assigning of one Bishop to one Church, and so one Bishop in the Church of Jerusalem, because it is A. CHURCH, not Churches: being forced to acknowledge that where there were more Churches, there were more Bishops.  
And he denied our Presbyters, that were not Diocesans, to be Bishops (both City and Country Presbyters): And consequently that our Parishes were no Churches.  
And on these grounds he and Bishop Gunning, and such others, judged Presbyters Ordination null, because they were no Bishops.  
And the said Dr. (though I thought he had been next Petavius, one of the first that had expounded the new Testament Elders, to be all Bishops of several Dioceses) yet tells us that he thought most of his brethren were of his mind herein:  
And when we in Worcestershire form a Pacificatory Association of the Epicopal, Presbyterians, Independents, and Peacemakers, agreeing lovingly to practice so much in Doctrine, Worship and Discipline as we were for, according to our several principles, forbearing each other in the rest, and Dr. Warmst●●●, and Dr. Tho. Good, being for Bishops, subscribed to it, Dr. Peter Gunn●●g wro●e largely against so doing to Dr. Warmstrie, and took him off, upon these aforesaid principles; and they then called their Judgement, the Judgement of the Church of England, and wrote as if the Church had been of their mind, and gone their way.  
I wrote alarge Answer to Dr Gunning's Paper, (not printed) and proved that the old Protestant Bishops and Doctors were of another mind, largely citing their testimonies in my Christian C●nc●rd, and plainly warned English Protestant's to take heed of these Innovators, and that the name of the Church and Episcopacy deceive them not against the Church and Protestant Cau●e; many ●ose against me for this with great indignation, especially Archbishop Bramhall, and two or three learned Writers, and would make the world believe, that it was the Church of England which I sought to defame and bring under suspicion, and which owned Gr●tius and his way of Reconciliation with Rome, when as it was for departing from the professed principles of the reformed Bishops and Doctors, and from the book of Ordination, and other writings of the Church that I blamed them: Yet would they needs claim the name of the Church of England.  
And it is not here seasonable for me to tell, how many and how great men in 1661., and 1662. seemed by their w●rds and doings to be full (at least) as high as they, nor how they expressed it, nor how many strongly conceited by the Act th●● requireth reordination of men ordained by Presbyters, and by the number rejected who refused it, That the Parliament had been of th●ir mind, and much more the convocation called the church-repr●sentative; especially when they heard men call the old Bishops and Arch-Bishops (such as ●sher, Downame, 〈◊〉, etc. in I●eland, and G. Abbot, Rob. A●b●t, Grindal, and many such in England) Puritan and Presbyterians: And when P●●. H●l●● maketh Arch bishop Abbot. and the Bishops and Clergy in his days to ●e of one mind (vilified by him) and Archbishop Laud and his Clergy after, of another: In this case I gave the name of the present Diocesans, to those that thus claimed it, and pretended so confidently to the present possession of it; but I thought not their claim just: And when I sometimes used the name of English Di●cesans, for this sort who nullify the Parish Churches and Pastorship, it was but to notify them that so claimed it, supposing I had oft sufficiently opened my sense, and usually added that they nullify them not effectively, but quantum in se, and by their consequences.  
But I again now tell the Reader, that I think the Judgement of the church of England, considered as humanely constituted by public professions, and by Law, (much less as divinely constituted) is not to be measured or named from any innovators, or any that most confidently claim it, or think they are uppermost at the present, and thereby have that right; but (as Divine) by God's word, whose sufficiency we all profess; and as humane, by the published Church professions; that is, the Liturgy, the book of Ordination, the 39 Articles of Religion, the Apology of the Church of England, the Defence of that Apology set in all Churches, the book of Homilies, Nowel's Catechism, the R●f●rmatio Legum Ec●les▪ the Canons, and the licenced books of the Protestant Bishops and Doctors, such as Arch-bp. Cranmers, Bp. Hampers, Arch-bp. parkers, Arch-bp. Grin●als, Arch-bp. Abbots, Arch-bp. Edward Sandys, Arch-bp. Whitgift, Bp. Pilk●nton, Bp. Jewel, Bp. Ally, Bp. Babingt●n, Bp. M●rt●n, ●p. Hall, Bp. Davenant, Bp. ●rideaux, Bp. Br●wn●ig, B. ●otter, Bp. Miles Smith, Bp. Carl●on, Bp Bayly, Bp. Parry, Bp. C●wper, and many more such, (besides those in Ir●land aforesaid): And such ●rs as Dr. Wh●taker, Dr Field, Dr. Crakenth●●pe, Dr. Sutlive, Dr. Mas●n, Dr. White, Dr. ●i●y, Dr. Chaloner, Dr. Ward, Dr. Willet, Dr. Holland▪ and abundance more; besides all other old licenced Writers: I think that all these do fitlier notify and denominate the Church of England's Judgement, than the Writings of one Irish Arch-Bp. and Dr. Hammond, and Dr. Gunning (since Bp.) and a few more such in the points wherein they differ from the rest, (though Grotius and their Chaplains be added to the number.)  
And now I will add this further evidence in the conclusion, (besides that as I said before) the present Laws put us to abjure alterations, and therefore sure they never thought that they so altered the Government themselves, that even while they say that the Parishes are no Churches, but parcels of Churches, and the Priests are no Bps. of the Flock, most really acknowledge them the thing, that deny the Name. And the argument from the definition is stronger than from the Name.  
And here I will but name first, the Scripture descriptions of a Bp. and 2. Dr. Hammonds exposition of those Texts. 3. And the matter of fact among us.  
The first part of the Bps. office is teaching the flock.  
Under this teaching part, 1. the Bishop's office is to preach to them, 1 Pet. 5.2, 3. Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight (Or Episcopacy) thereof, etc.  
Dr. Hammond: The Bps. of your several Churches I exhort.— Take care of your several Churches, and Govern them, etc.  
Qust. Whom doth the Law require to do more in feeding and guiding the flock? The Incubment that preacheth daily, or the Bp. that never seeth the most, nor ever preacheth to one Flock of many? Who are they [that are among the Flock] the Incumbent that dwells with them, or the Bp. that is a stranger to them?  
1 Thes. 5.12. We beseech you brethren to know them that labour among you, and are over you in the Lord, and admonish you, and to esteem them very highly in love for their work sake, and be at peace among yourselves.  
Dr. Hammond. Pay your Bps. as great a respect as is possible, for the pains they have taken among you.  
Qust. Who Laboureth among them most in the several parishes, publicly and privately? The Bp. that never saw them, or the Incumbent that layeth out all his Study and Time on them? Who are most among them? Who most admonisheth them? What is meant by [among themselves?] Is it that Lincoln shire, Leicester-shire, Northamtonshire, Buckingham-shire, be at peace among themselves, from Gainsborough to Oxford-shire? or is it not rather that neighbour Christians that see each other, so live in peace?  
1 Tim. 5.17. The elders that rule well, are worthy of double honour; especially they tha● labour in the word and doctrine.  
Dr. Hammond: Let the Bps. that have discharged that function well, receive for their reward twice as much as others have; especially those that preach the Gospel, to whom it was news, and continue to instruct congregatons of Christians in settled Churches.  
Quest. On whom doth the law impose most preaching? On Bps. or on parish Priests? And who doth most of that work? Heb. 13. Remember them who have the rule over you, who have spoken to you the word of God.  
Dr. Hammond: Set before your eyes the Bps. and governor's, who have been in your Church, and preached the Gospel to you.  
Quest. Ask the parishes who those be?  
2 Tim. 4.2. I charge thee before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the qui●k 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 d●●●rine.  
Not only Dr. Hammond, but all that are for Prelacy expound this of a Bps' office.  
Quest. Ask the people who most performs it.  
2. The Bps' Office is also to watch over all the Flock, personally, by conference, instruction▪ counsel, admonition, exhortation, reproof, comfort, as every one shall need Saith Bp. Jer. Tayl●r Pref. to Treat of Rep. No man can give account of th●se that he knoweth not.  
Acts 20.10, 28, 31. I taught you publicly, and from house to house.— Take heed t● yourselves, and to all the flock over which the Holy Ghost hath made you Bps, to ●eed the Church of God which he hath purchased with his own Blood.— Therefore watch, and remember that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears.  
Dr. Hammond. Instructing both in the Synagogues, and the private Schools, and in your several houses whither I also came.— Wherefore ye that are Bps. or governors of the several Churches.— Look to yourselves, and the Churches committed to your trust, to Rule and order all the faithful under you.  
Quest. Is this done more by the Diocesans, or by the Incumbents? Do Diocesans teach from house to house, from Southwark to Christ-Church, from N●wark to Alesbury or Tame? Who doth the law appoint to warn every one in the Church, from house to house, and night and day, & c.?  
Col. 1.28. Whom we preach, warning every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom, that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus; Heb. 13.17. Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves, for they watch for your souls, as those that must give account.  
Dr. Hamm●nd: Obey those that are set to rule over your several Churches, the Bps. whose whole care is spent among you, as being to give account of your proficiency in the Gospel.  
Q●st. Is it the Diocesan or the Incumbent that the law requireth to preach to, and warn every man, & c.? And that watch for their Souls as those that must give account? Is not the incumbent of this or that parish fitter to watch and give account of each Soul, than the Diocesan for a whole Country, or many Counties, who never saw them? Can he do as Ignatius' Bishops, that must take notice of all the Church, even Servants and Maids?  
3. The bishop's office is to be a visible example to all the flock, of Humility, Meekness, Patience, Holiness, Charity and good Works. Heb. 13.7. Remember them who have the rule over you, who have spoken to you the word of God, whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversations.  
Dr. Hammond: Set before your eyes the Bishops— observe their manner of living.  
Quest. Who can observe his example whom he never saw nor know? Or who can make an unknown man his pattern? Do the flocks see more the Incumbents example, or the Diocesans? It is their example that sak to them thword of God, that the Apostle sets before them: And who be those?  
Perhaps it will be said, that Fame may tell the Di●cess of the example of their Diocesan, though they see him n●t. I answer, 1. But the Text speaketh of those that preach to them. Fame may as well tell us of the good works of any other bishop, as of the Diocesan: Many bishops in London live near us; it may tell us of any other good man's life. What is this to the Text?  
1 Pet. 5.3. Neither as being Lords over God's heritage, but being examples to the flock.  
Dr. Hammond: Walking Christianly and exemplary before them.  
Q. What? Before them that never knew them, nor could do? Doth the Diocesan or the Incumbent more walk as a known example before the Parish flock, for their imitation?  
4. It is part of a bishop's office as a general Minister, not only to teach the Church, but to preach to those that are yet no Members of the Church, Matth 28.19. Go and disciple me all nations. 1 Tim. 5.17. They that 〈◊〉 in the word and doctrine.  
Dr. Hammond: To preach the Gospel to whom it was news.  
Acts 26.17, 18. To whom I send thee, to ●p●n their eyes, and turn them from darkness to light, and from the pour of Satan unto God, etc. Not that fixed Pastors must wander to do this, as un●ixed Missionaries; but within their reach.  
Hence Dr. Hammond noteth out of Clemens R●m. That they are made Bishops over the Infidels that should after believe●: And bishop D●wname saith, that the City and Territories are their Dioceses, when the Christians were but few; and as Dr. H. saith, But one Congregation, whic● one bishop only with a Deacon or two served: So that either a Diocese was no Church, or it was a Diocesan Church of Heathens save that Congregation.  
Our great Parishes, that have 70000, or 60000, or 40000, or 20000 souls, have not the sixth part (that I say not the tenth) so many Communicants. Who is it that preacheth most for the Conversion of the rest, Atheists, Sadduces, Infidels, Heretics, Bruitists, and impious ones? Is it the Diocesan or the Incumbent? Who doth the Law most require it of?  
5. It is part of the Boshops office to Catechise or Teach the Novices that have need of milk, and are as Children in danger of being tossed up and down and carried to and fro with every wind of Doctrine. See Eph 4.14, 15, 16▪ Heb. 5.11, 12. With Dr. Hammonds Paraphrase.  
Quest. Doth the Law and Church lay more of this on Diocesans▪ or parish Pastors?  
6. It is the Bishop's work to defend the truth against gainsayers, and confute adversaries, and stop the mouths of Heretics, Infidels, and other enemies; as is confessed by Dr. Hammond, on many Texts to Timothy and Titus, as 2 Tim. 2.24, 25, etc. Not by force, but by evidence of truth. And doth not the Law and Church lay more of this on the Incumbents, than the Diocesans (who are not Ubiquitaries)?  
II. The Second part of the Bps. office, is Guidance, and officiating before the Church in public worship; in subordination to Christ's Priesthood. 1. By confessing sin, and to be the subintercessor, or the mouth of the Church in public prayer, thanksgiving, and praise to God. 2. In Consecrating, and Distributing, and giving in Christ's Name, the Sacrament of Communion. 3. To bless the Congregation in the name of the Lord, etc. All these Dr. Hammond maketh the Bps. office, and so doth the Scripture, and so did Justin Martyr, Tertullian, etc. Citations in a confessed case would but be tedious.  
Quest. And who doth this most in all the Churches? Who confesseth sin, prayeth for mercy, praiseth God, administereth the Lord's Supper, blesseth the people, etc. The Bp▪ to many hundred Churches, or each Incumbent to each Church? And on whom doth the Law most impose it? And what doth the Diocesan in it, more than any one of the rest?  
2. Dr Hanmond, on Acts 2. And Acts 4.33, 34, 35. Shows that it was the Bps. part, to receive all the offerings of the Communicants, and all the tithes and first fruits, etc. Who doth this most? The Diocesan in all the Parishes of his Diocese, or the Incumbents?  
3. Dr Hammond, (and many old Canons before him) tells us, that the Bp. was out of the Church flock, to take care of all the poor, orphans, widows, strangers; Deacons were herein but servants under them▪ Dr. Hammond, on 1 Cor 12.28. The supreme trust and charge was reserved to the Apostles and Bps. of the Church. But the poor will starve if the Incumbent with his assistance do not more in this than the Diocesan.  
4. It is the Bps. office to visit the sick. Jam▪ 5. Call for the elders of the Church, and let them pray over him, etc. Dr. Hammond, in v. 14. Because there is no evidence, whereby these may appear to have been so early brought into the Church (that is Subpresbyters) and because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the plural doth as way conclude that th●re were more of these elders than one in each particular Church, and because elders of the Church was both in the Scriptures style, and in the first writers the title of Bps. and lastly, because the visiting of the sick is anciently mentioned as one branch of the office of Bps. therefore it may very reasonably be resolved that the Bps. of the Church, one in each particular Church, are here meant.  
Quest. Is it the Diocesan (perhaps 50 Miles off) that the sick must send for, or that the Law and Church impose this on, (to visit the sick, and pray over them, etc.)? or is it the Incumbents?  
III. But the great doubt is, who hath the Power of Government, and who actually governs, (not by the sword) but with the Ministerial Pastoral Government?  
And here it must still be remembered. 1. That this particular power of the Keys or Government, is only by the word of God opened and applied; as Bp. Bilson hath proved, and is commonly confessed; some call it Persuasive, some Directive, some Doctrinial; But it is not such mere direction or persuasion as any man may use to another; but such as is the part of one commissioned to it as his office; An Authoritative persuasion, and a Judicial decision, as by an entrusted steward of Christ: but only on Conscience, and on Volunteers, and not by any power to exercise force on body or purse. 2. That Governing, and unjust restraining this power, is not taking it away from the Pastor; and laying penalties on men for exercising some part of that which Christ hath given, doth but bind men to bear that penalty when the exercise is necessary. Now let us consider wherein the Governing Power doth consist.  
1. It primarily consisteth in judging who is capable of Baptism and so Baptising them. This is the first and great exercise of the Keys, and that 〈◊〉 foro exteriore. To judge who shall be taken publicly for a Christian, and in Christ's Name to invest him solemnly in the number of the faithful, delivering him a sealed pardon of all his sins, and a grant of right to grace and glory. Can there be a higher exercise of the Keys?  
Matth. 28.19, 20. It is the Apostles work [Disciple me all nations, baptising them, etc.] And Dr. Hamm●nd thinketh that in Scripture-time there were no Baptising Presbyters, but Bishops; and indeed it is so great a use of the Keys, that this chiefly condemneth Laymens' and women's Baptising; at least the trying the Catechised, and judging of their capacities must needs be the prime great act of Church-Power, whatever be said of the execution.  
Now Papists and Protestants generally place this Power in Parochial Incumbents, yea, and in all other presbyters: Even those that convert Countries of Infidels, and are under no particular Bishop, must baptise and judge of the Catechumen capacity for baptism; and are Parish Incumbents denied this Office▪ power of the Keys? and is it the Diocesan or they that use it by baptising?  
Obj. The Canon requireth them to baptise all Infants brought according to law, and so not to be the Judges.  
Ans. You should say, and so command● them how to judge. The Magistrate may command men how to do their office-work, and yet neither be the maker nor unmaker of the office, (though he mistake:) If Rulers misgovern, that's their sin, but the office of Pastors is still the same, and we must not misobey, but suffer, and as B●shop Bilson saith, Go on with our work as long as we can. 2. And to bid them do more than they would, is not to null their power of doing less. And to punish a man for his duty, is not to disoblige him from it, till it truly disable him.  
2. A second great exercise of the Church Keys, is Ministerially as from Christ to declare his Laws▪ and charge men to obey them, both the Church together, and particular persons singly. As Legislation is the first and great part of Christ's Government [before Judicature] so the Ministerial declaring Christ's commands, and demanding obedience, is the great act of Government.  
The same word therefore comprehendeth feeding and ruling, 1 Pet 5.2, 3. etc. Matth. 24.45, 46. Who then is a faithful and wise servant, whom his Lord hath made ruler over his household, to give them meat in due sea●●n? It is ruling by seasonable feeding. 1 Thes. 5.12. To be over them, is exercised by labouring amongst them, and admonishing them, 1 Tim. 5.17. Ruling well, is nothing greater than labouring in the word and doctrine, 1 Tim. 3.2. A Bishop must be apt to teach: Dr. Hammond, One that is able and ready to communicate to others the knowledge that he himself hath. Heb. 13.7, ●7, 24. Ruling the fl●ck is by teaching and watching over th●m. To be the greatest is to be most serviceable to all; to be ruled by them, is to know them, to esteem them highly in love for their works sake, to obey God's word delivered by them, and their conduct in mutable circumstances, Heb. 13.7. 1 Thes. 5.12 And to imitate their good examples, 1 Pet. 5.3.  
And what law forbids Incumbents to promulgate Christ's commands, and charge men to obey them? Or to go to any negligent person of his Flock with the same charge? or to go to any Drunkard, Fornicator, Railer, and to tell him from God of h●s sin and danger, and exhort and command him to repent and amend? And who most doth this work among us?  
3. Another part of Government is to judge professing Christians capable of Sacramental Communi●●, and admit them, and deliver it them as Christ's Ministers, b● his com●●●si●●, an● from him; And therein to renew their public absolution, and the●r Co●enant p●i●●ledg, and their delivered part in Christ, and right to life: No●e dare d●●y that this is a high part of the power of the Keys, and proper Government, to judge who is capable of Church Communion, and receive them, and deliver them from Christ, the pledge of life.  
And all Papists and Protestants almost, judge this power essential to the Priesthood, and common to all Parochial Incumbents: And the Church of England (as I said before), 1. Delivereth it to them in Ordination. 2. Requireth them to catechise and cert●fie for such as shall be confirmed; and methinks the Diocesan here useth less of the judicial power than the Incumbent, for he doth but lay his hands on them and say a prayer over such as come to him; for no man can dream that he can examine all the people in his Diocese so far as to judge whether they are fit for Communion: Therefore he is supposed but to execute the judgement of the certifying Incumbent (If he take all at a venture, without a certificate, or knowledge, or if the Incumbent be unfaithful, I cannot help or excuse that). 3. They are required to keep away all that be not confirmed, or ready, and desirous of it. 4. They may hear any just accusation of the scandalous. 5. They may admonish him, (if he will speak with them). 6. They may refuse him if obstinate and impenitent. 7. They may declare the reason why they do so, as Christ's Ministers by his Authority, and tell the Church their duty to avoid the Communion of such. 8. They may bind him over to answer his contumacy at the Bar of God; and what of this is denied by the Church, to belong to the Incumbents Office? and who else is capable of doing this in Parishes that have multitudes of ungodly persons?  
If all this should be made so difficult by the multitude and badness of delinquents, or by bad Canons, or bad Government of the Church by Diocesans, Officials, etc. and thereby be almost all left undone, I cannot help that, nor excuse it; but what I have said against such doing is too little: And if Priests be so bad, that they will (any where) sooner scorn it than practise it, at the rate that it must cost them, I am as much against such Priests as others are: But I will not therefore make the Office of Christ● Ministers, the creature of man, and mutable at his will▪ nor will I forsake faithful Ministers for the sake of the perfidious; no nor for their own tolerable faults or imperfections.  
And now consider seriously, 1. Whether there be any essential part of the office of a Pastor, denied by that which may justly be called the Church of England, to the Parish Incumbents. 2. And whether incomparably more of it, even of the government of the flocks, by the K●ys of Christ's Institution, be not by Law and Canon required, and in fact performed by the said Incumbents, than by the Diocesans. And whether any use it, if they do not.  
If it be alleged, that I have in my Treatise of Episcopacy, named many instances in which they are deprived of the exercise of the very essentials; I still answer, that if any shall by misgoverning Canons or practice lay penalties on them that will perform their office, these do their part to destroy it; but their sin may consist with the true office that is hindered: If we cannot pray without penalty, we are yet bound to pray: And if any such penalties should prevail with any Ministers to cast off so much of Discipline as is indeed their duty, their office is so far destroyed as to its exercise: But it is not every ill Council, Canon, Bishop or Priest of old when they began to be corrupted, that changed and nullified the Pastoral Power and Office as from Christ. I have repeated things over and over here, because I would not be misunderstood, nor leave a snare behind me to misled men.  
The sum again is, 1. The Pastoral Office in specie is instituted by Christ and his Spirit, therefore the essence of it is unchangeably fixed by him; and no Bishops or Churches may change it, by pretending they may give Presbyters as their servants what degree or kind of power they please; or make the office another thing.  
II. The said office in mutable accidents or circumstances may be altered by Prince's Laws, or the several Church's Agreements, and thus far it is humane.  
Of the Divine sort was the Apostolic and other extraordinary Prophetic offices: And the ordinary Presbytery, commonly called Priesthood, and Elders settled over particular Churches, were Episc●pi Gregis; Bishops, over the flock.  
And of the humane sort is the Presidency of one in every single Church over the rest of the Presbyters, who was the Episcopus Presbyterorum, a Bishop over the Presbyters of one single Church as well as over the people: This was the old Episcopacy of the first three Centuries; this is it which I say our Diocesans have put down; and we that would have them restored, and would have such a Bishop and Assistant, Elders in every Church, are by the height of impudence, said to be against Bishops, because we would have them restored to each Church (though not as essential to it, as hath been thought of old) yet as a way of peace, to comply with Antiquity, and avoid singularity; and they that put down many score or hundred Bishops and instead of them would have but one, call themselves Episcopal.  
III. Whether Arch-bps. (Diocesans.) as successors of the Apostles in the ministerial care of many Churches (by the word and not the sword) be of Divine or Human Institution, I am in doubt.  
IV. The cogent Power by the Sword is only the Magistrates; and if Diocesans appropriate this only, they are Magistrates; and thereby take none of our office from us.  
V. The ●ssence of the Parish ministerial oversight being of God, de specie, and the accidents that are mutable from man, the existence of the office in individual persons, is not without consent of the Pastors; so that no man can be a Pastor against or without his will; (nor yet without a capacity in qualification; so that if you prove any person to be uncapable, or else to have truly disclaimed and renounced the essentials of his office: I am not about to persuade you, that such a man is a true Pastor.  
VI But then we must know, that indeed it is such an incapacity, or renunciation, and not a tolerable defect; nor subscriptions and Oaths, which by unseen consequences may seem to renounce it, when the man took them in a sense which renounced it not: For though such a man may greatly sin by taking Oaths or subscriptions in a forced sense, which plainly taken would infer worse, yet his sin is not a renunciation of the office, if he declare that he meant it in a better sense, and took it on such mistake; for we must not for bare words against men's meaning, quibble or dispute ourselves into unwarrantable separations out of Christian Communion, especially when it is specially necessary.  
VII. And if any lay-men, or men unauthorised will usurp the Keys, or any Councils will make hurtful Canons, and hinder men in the work appointed by God, we must be faithful and patient, and God in due time will judge and decide all causes justly.  
VIII. The office-power is essentially related to the work; so far as Parochial Incumbents are allowed the work as of Christ, they are acknowledged to be Pastors and Bishops of the flocks, though the name were denied them; and so far as the Bishop's office may be delegated to Laymen, or to Clergymen of another Order; so far it is Humane, and not proper to them by God's Institution. They therefore that say, All Diocesans Jurisdiction may be so delegated to them that are no Bishops, but that the Pastoral Rectorship by Word, Sacraments and Keys cannot be delegated to any men that are not of the same office; do thereby say as much, as that the Diocesan government is of men (and may be changed by men) but the Pastoral Incumbency is of Christ, and cannot be changed.  
The Lord that instituted it, protect it; and save it from Satan's most dangerous assault, which is by getting his own servants into it by error, and malignity, and strife, and cruelty, to do his work as the Ministers of Righteousness, and as by Christ's Authority, and in his name.  
London Aug. 13. 1684.   

POSTSCRIPT Aug. 25. 1684.  
HE that gave me notice of this Book which I answer, did withal send me a Manuscript to be privately answered, containing the very same things, but somewhat enlarged: His displeasure against my former mention of his private Writings to me, and the Contents, made me confident that he would not have any thing Published which I should answer to his last: By which I found myself in a notable strait: For if he at once privately sent me his reasons, and also in another Book Printed them, if I should answer his private papers (which reason forbade me doing in my condition, for his use alone) I should judge myself forestalled from answering the Printed Book, because the matter being the very same (and 'tis likely by the same man) I should be supposed to have broken the Laws of Civility, to have answered his private papers. But (having no Amanuensis, or Scribe to take any Copy of his papers, or my own) I thought it the best way to return his unanswered (they being Written for my use, which Reading will as fully serve as answering them) but supposing the Printed papers must be answered, I inserted also an answer to the strength of all his additionals in the Manuscript.  
And at last he giveth me some notice of his thoughts of publishing the Manuscript, or a vindication of it. Which falls well for the Readers use, that I have answered that Manuscript before it is Published, without taking notice of it, and s● avoiding wordy altercations.  
The Author professeth himself my great acquaintance. Who he is, I know not; but he seemeth to be a very rational sober man. God forbid that I should ever contribute (unless duty do it accidentally) to the grievance of such men. I doubt not but he speaketh as he thinketh. And I doubt I have given him occasions by some uncautelous words in my writings. I truly thank God and him, that I am called to review them, and to clear my sense before I die. And I adjure the tearing persecuting sect, to think no more strangely and odiously of our differences in this case, than of the sharp contention of Paul and Barnabas; or that men should scramble if Gold and Pearls were scattered in the streets, where dogs and swine would never strive about them. God's servants would please him: we are all of weak understandings: The Wisest best know their weakness: The rest are nearest the state of the Fool, who rageth and is confident. It is impossible but offence must come, Luke 17.1. But woe, woe, woe, to any who will make canons so extreme hard for men to agree in as terms of their Union and Communion, and excommunicate all that say a word against any word, ceremony, circumstances or office of their train; and when they have done, cry out against men for not agreeing to every syllable, which a thousand to one are uncapable of understanding, and the better men understand them, the more they dislike them.   

A Short Answer to the Chief Objections in a Book ENTITLED: A Theological Dialogue, etc.  

§ 1.  THE chief matter of this Book is already answered by the Holy Ghost, 1 Cor. 1.10. 1 Cor. 3. Rom. 16.16, 17. Eph. 4.4. to the 17. Phil. 2.1, 2, 3. 1 Thes. 5.12, 13. John 17.22, 23, 24. And 1 Cor. 12. And Acts 20.30.  
The Spirit and Style of it is answered in the third Chapter of James throughout.  
I have nothing then to do but to answer the pretended argumentation of it: For the Author shall not draw me from my Defensive part, to play the part of a plaintiff against others, or to waste my time in altercations, and spend many sheets to tell the world that another man hath not skill to speak sense, and that he seduceth others by ambiguous words, and by confusions.  
Obj. 1. To prove us sinful for being members of the Church of England, he saith Pag. 15. [Is he not by Communion in the Sacrament of Baptism made a member? Page 13. Is not Baptism (according to the Liturgy) a symbol of incorporation into the Church of England? Confirmation another? receiving the Lords Supper another symbol? etc.  
Ans. 1. Baptism as such incorporateth no man into any particular Church, but only into the universal, as it did the Eunuch, Acts 8.  
2. The ceremonies or circumstantials of Baptism, only show what men submit to, rather than to be unbaptised, and not what particular Church they are of.  
3. This objection would insinuate that all that are Baptised in the public manner in England, were thereby incorporated into an unlawful Church, which they must by being rebaptised, or by open renunciation disclaim, And so that it is not Lawful to Communicate with any that were Baptised in the Parish Church, till they have repent it, or are Rebaptised, or Penitent openly. And if you must have all in England renounce their Baptism before you will take their Communion for lawful, the same reason will hold against your Communion with all the rest of the Churches on Earth. And when you cut off yourself from all, saving a shred, are you a Member of the undivided Body of Christ?  
4. If our Baptism in England doth incorporate into their Church (which you suppose is no Church, being a false Church), doth not Baptism into your Church incorporate Persons into yours? And what then, if your Schism prove a Sin? What if Rebaptising prove a Sin? What if the Covenant described by your Client, (to obey none but Christ, in matters belonging to Worship) prove a Sin? are they all guilty of all these, and such others?  
Obj. II. All that are liable to a Church Excommunication when they have offended, are declared Members of the Church. But all Communicants and Native Inhabitants are so. Therefore the Law hath excepted none.— How comes it to pass, that the Church hath power of excommunicating any Person, but by virtue of Incorporation, which she hath by the same Law? He that is not in the Church, how comes he to be cast out?— Is he not by Communion in the Sacrament of baptism made a Member?  
Ans. 1. Doth their esteeming you a Member, prove that you are so?  
2. You know that they excommunicate Papists, and Atheists, who deride them for it and say, It's a strange Church that will cast us out, because they cannot compel us to come in.  
3. If this be a good▪ argument, that all are of their Church that are excommunicate, than you are either safe from Excommunication; or of their Church, whether you will or not: If to make good your argument, you will aver that no Separatist, Independent, Presbyterian, Anabaptist, or Quaker, was ever▪ excommunicate, or imprisoned as such, you will change the Current of Intelligence, and comfort many that can believe you, and teach them how to escape a Prison for the time to come. But if not, you make yourself and all these parties, incorporate Members of the Church of England, as well as me.  
4. Do you think a Lay Civilian by Excommunicating, can prove or make a man a member of any Church against his will? Then men's Argument against Parish Churches, for want of consent, is void. They may be made such against their wills.  
5. But though few men dislike the Lay-Excommunicators and absolver's more than I do (nor grudge more at the Bishops and Deans who use them, and let them put their names to the Excommunications; especially of the poor Churchwardens for not swearing, etc.) yet let us not render them causelessly ridiculous. I imagine that they excommunicate not known Papists, Anabaptists, and such like, out of their Church (who they know were never in it) but out of the Universal Church: If this be not their sense, let them give it you themselves, for I am not bound to be their Interpreter.  
And yet to moderate our Censures of them, I'll tell you a wonder: Within this hour I received a Letter of credible Intelligence, of a Chancellor who hearing of a Conventicle not presented by the Churchwardens, and being told that they met to repeat the public Sermon, said, God forbid that they should be hindered.  
Obj. III. Page 8. A Church in a sense is a Christian Kingdom, that is, a Royal Nation under Christ their King. But there is no such Gospel-Church in your sense; for there was neither Christian Kingdom nor King in the Apostles days.  
Ans. The Institution may be in the Gospel before the existence: Christian Kings and Kingdoms are neither unlawful, nor needless, because there were none then. The Prophets not only foretell that Nations shall come in to Christ and serve him, but that all Nations that do it not, shall perish. And Christ's Commission to his Apostles was, To go and Disciple all Nations (as much as in them lay) baptising them. Nations as such, were, first to be discipled, and then baptised, (Infants are part of Nations). And Matth. 23. Christ would have gathered Jerusalem's Children (all the Jewish Nation) into his Church, as a Hen gathereth her Chickens under her Wings. And Rom. 11. Only their own unbelief broke them off from being a National Church, (including Infants). And it is part of the Saints triumph, that the Kingdoms of the World are become the Kingdoms of the Lord, and of his Christ. If you will read Mr. Beverlys' Book, called The whole duty of Nations, it will give you full proof of this.  
Where hath the Gospel extensively much prospered where Princes and Rulers were not Christians? The Turks give liberty of Religion. And yet the sometime famous Greek Churches, (Corinth, Philippi, Coloss, Ephesus, Laodicea, Philadelphia, and more than all the West, are Apostatised, or withered to a few ignorant vicious scandalous Christians.  
Obj. IU. 8. If such a confederation in lawful Circumstantials, as well as Integrals, will make a Church, I know not why we may not have a Catholic Visible Church organised, if this be a due acception of a Church.  
Ans. This is as much as to say, If the name Church may be used equivocally (as all words must) of several sorts, than all those sorts may be the same. I deny it. If you dislike the use of the name, you have your liberty as a Grammarian to forbear it. But sure the Name and the Thing are not all one, nor the Controversies about them. 2. But we have a Catholic Visible Church Organised, as I have oft proved against the Papists, viz. under one, Christ the Head, and his Ministers as his subordinate Officers.  
Obj. V. Page 3. If you touch a man's finger, you touch the man: we have communion with an integrum perpartes; and with a Genus by the Species; and with both by individuals: Nay as every part of the Scripture, one verse or sentence of it makes up sense; so every part of the Liturgy as in form and manner therein contrived, is Liturgy; and worship thereafter is according to the Liturgy, though it be but part of the w●rship.  
Page 20. As for the falseness in Integrals, it gives the denomination to the whole; for an Integral part is an essential part of the whole. Much more there is to the same purpose, making him guilty of all that useth a part.  
Ans. 1. You have the freedom of using words at your pleasure, but not imposing them on mankind; when necessity hath taught the World to distinguish essential and integral parts, you have no authority to confound their Language, by the quibble of calling Integrals essential causes of the whole: A totum per aggregationem▪ as a heap of Sand, or a field of Grass, is not constituted of a proper essentiating form, and so homogeneous matter aggregate is all the being it hath. And if you make contiguity an essential cause, or how else you will, you have liberty of speech: But we will not be cheated by it to believe that it causeth any more than Totality or Integrality, and the absence of it is a privation of no more. And all men's Graces, Obedience, and Worship, are defective in point of Integrality and degree, and I hope you will not say that they need no favour, or pardon, or amendment.  
2. All human actions have their faults: must we therefore do nothing, or converse with no men? England is one Kingdom; If there be one or many faults in its Laws or officers, may we therefore obey none that are faultless? The Laws are the Rule of National Justice; may a Judge, Justice, Officer or subject use none of them, because some are faulty? Doth that make him guilty of all? Bonum est ex causis integris: The fault of a part may indeed denominate the whole faulty so far. But the whole Law or Liturgy may be called faulty for a part, and yet he that useth either, not be guilty of any of the bad part, for using the good. The Law and Liturgy are one thing, and the use is another: Its faults are no further his, than he owneth them; your Bread or Meat may be called bad, if part only be bad, and yet if you eat none but the good part, it will not hurt you.  
2. But if it must be otherwise, no man may hear you, or join with your Churches: And do you think (as aforesaid) that Mr. Faldo, and all his Church at Barnet, lived not in a sinful communion very many years, that omitted at least an integral part of public worship, the singing of God's praise? Christ with his Disciples sung a Hymn after the Sacrament. The Jews Church made it the chief part of their Worship. James prescribeth it us in all our Holy Mirth, such as the Lords Day is appointed for, 1 Cor. 14.26. Every one had a Psalm, and with them no one had a Psalm, though his Judgement was for it; the question was, Whether he should forsake them for refusing it: I thought not, because it was better that they had something that was good, than nothing. But your argument would not only unchurch them, but make all sinners that communicated with them: for omissions of great duties are faults, and greater faults than tolerable failings in performance: He that prayeth not at all, doth worse than he that prayeth by a Book; and he that preacheth or teacheth not at all, doth worse than he that readeth a Sermon; so that their total stated omission and opposition to singing, by your false rule, denominated them no worshippers of God, if the whole must be denominated from a part.  
How many private Meetings in London, never sing a Psalm for fear of being discovered? Yea, how many seldom read a Chapter, but only preach and pray, and sometime administer the Sacrament? Must we needs say therefore that they omit all Worship?  
VI On such occasions I argued, That if we must not communicate with any Parish Church because of the faults of the Liturgy, it will follow, that we must not communicate with any Church on Earth that hath as great faults; and that by this we must renounce Communion with all Christ's Body on Earth: All the Armenians, Nestorians, Eutychians, Copties, Abassines, Georgians, Greeks, Russians, Papists, yea Lutherans, have a more faulty Liturgy, or manner of worship, than the English. Yea the Churches called Calvinists have their Liturgies and faults: And I instanced in Switzerland, because as God hath of late most preserved their peace, so they are taken to be the honestest sort of Protestants, that in poverty serve God with soundest doctrine, and least scandal of Life, but yet have no proper discipline but the Magistrates? Is it a sin to have confederacy or Communion with their Churches?  
To this he plainly saith Page 11. It is: That is, all that confederate with them, as Churches, are guilty of their error, called Erastian: For subjection t● such discipline is the condition of their Communion.  
Ans. Subjection is an equivocal word: If it were by profession or subscription of consent it were indeed to be guilty of that error (though not by a fau●t of the Part denominating the whole, to make their worship unlawful, or their Church's none) but if by subjection you mean but joining in their Churches as Christian and Protestant for doctrine and worship, notwithstanding the defect which they cannot help, yea which they disclaim, bare accusation will not prove this a sin; but by this we see how much of Christ's Church you are for separating from.  
2. For my part I have oft published, That it is not the least part of my charge against Popery, that they unchurch almost all the Christian World save themselves: But yet they are about a 4th or 3d part of professed Christians themselves; and divers of them do not unchurch the Greeks; But to unchurch or forbid Communion with all that are as faulty, as the Helvetians and all other Protestant Churches that have Liturgies or partial faults, is that which I dare not be guilty of: I think that to say, That a thousand parts to one of Christ's Church, are none of his Churches, is next to deposing him from his Kingdom: Much like as it would be to say, no part of London is the Kings but Amen Corner, nor any part of England but Barnet or Brentford.  
3. And is it not one of our just accusations of the Papists, That they say all the Protestant Churches are no true Churches, and the Ministers no true Pastors; and that Communion with them is unlawful? and shall we now justify them and say as they (though not on the same Reason, but for a far smaller difference)? Is this our running from Popery?  
4. Yea, is it not the great thing that we accuse the superconformists for? That they make us to be no true Ministers or Churches? and are we indeed of the same mind? One side saith, We are no true Ministers for want of Bps. Ordination, etc. Another side saith, You are no true Ministers for having Communion with the Bishops and Churches, etc.  
VII. I mentioned the Judgement and Practice of the old Nonconformists and Presbyterians, not as a rule, but as a comparative example. To this he saith, p. 11. You and they might as well own the Church of England in the form and constitution as it is established as the Parish churches to be particular Gospel churches, etc.— P. 12. To say you join with a quatenus, and own not the very constitution and standing of the church, with which you join in the sense the church asserts it, is the greatest equivocation in practice that is: The old Nonconformists nor you are to be no precedents to us in this case— So far as the old Nonconformists, and the old reforming conformists went forward with Reformation to bring the church out of the wilderness, we honour them; but when they turn back again, and entice the people so to do, we are afraid to tempt God in that manner— P. 14. Those ●ld Nonconformists that did so, are no precedents to 〈◊〉; If they halted and were lame, must we be so? such communicants are not acceptable to any Church, and I know what Church would never admit them, were it not to punish and expose them and their profession, as ridiculous and inconsistent with its self: And as for FRENCH and DUTCH, what are they to us, etc.— P. 16▪ He calls Mr. Fens joining in the Liturgy with exception of some part [The sul●en practice of a half-paced doting Nonconformist.  
Ans. First to the Cause, and secondly to the Persons.  
1. To call any practice, Equivocation, or by any ill name▪ is no proof that it is so; nor is here a word of true proof given us: I ask the Considerate; Is it in the power of a Lawmaker, to make all Worship and Duty to God unlawful by commanding to do it for an unlawful end, or upon false principles? What if a Law said, All people shall worship God, not because the Scripture commandeth it, but because the State commands it? Would this make it unlawful to worship God? I would disown the Principle, and go on.  
What if the Law should say, The Pastoral Office is not of Divine Right, but humane, must the office therefore be renounced? And why can such a Law any more bind me to judge of Church-constitutions by the Lawmakers words, rather than by God's Word?  
Suppose that the Anabaptists say, That rebaptising is the true way of Church-gathering: Is it a sin to communicate with them, if they will receive me when I profess the contrary.  
I am against the Covenant which you defend, as making an Independent Church: Is it therefore a sin to communicate with them, because it is not as constituted by that Covenant?  
What do Parties more differ in of late, than Forms, Orders, Modes and Circumstances of Church Government; and if they be of many contrary minds, were it twenty, there can be but one of them in the right: And is it unlawful to join with all the rest? Must we needs be sure which of these is in the right?  
Almost all the Churches that I hear of in the world, have their agreed professions published; the Protestants are gathered in the Corpus confessionum; the English Church Principles and Orders are expressed in the Book of Canons, the Liturgy, Ordination, the 39 Articles, the Homilies, the Apology, etc. Must every one stay from their Churches, till he hath read and understood all these Books, and be sure that there is no fault or error in them? What if it be poor men or women that cannot buy all these books? and what if they cannot read? whom shall they get to read them all? and how shall they have time to study them, or capacity to understand them, when we can hardly get them to learn a Catechism and anderstand it?  
You will say, That is their crime that make all these Confessions and Books: They will answer, but that's none of our fault: We made them not, and yet must we not communicate with any Church that maketh such? The old Separatists, called Brownists, published their confession, and therein owned many Parish Churches in England, and Communion with them: I recited their words in my Reasons, etc. But you are gone beyond them: The New▪ England churches printed their confession, and all there agreed not to it: The English Independents published their Principles and Confessions: And the Presbyterians and they agreed in the Westminster Synods confession, catechism and Directory: Is every poor Man and Woman bound to stay from all their churches, (when for 14 years they had no other) till they understand all these, and know that they are faultless? Or if there be any fault in any one of all these books, is every one guilty of them that cometh to the churches?  
The Anabaptists published their confession: The Dutch have theirs: Many churches agreed with them in the Synod of Dort. The French have theirs; the Saxons, the Helvetians, Geneva, the Bohemians, the Protestants in general had the Augustane, and many more have theirs. Reader, See with whom these Writers will hold communion, who make it unlawful to join with any church that have any fault in their constitutions, or agreed Doctrines or Orders.  
Let us rise upward, till we come to the Apostles days: None of all these churches named, dare profess all their agreements and confession to be without fault, that ever I heard of, except the English, who bind Ministers to assent and consent to all things commanded and prescribed in three Books and excommunicate those that say their Books or Ceremonies and Government hath any thing contrary to the Word of God; but no Layman is bound to believe them; Wickliff, and John H●s, the Waldenses, and the Bohemians Confessions, are not faultless: Of the Papist, and the S●cinians, we will make no question; the forenamed churches of Greeks, Russians, Armenians, Abassines, Nestorians, Jacobites, etc. are, alas, past question faulty: the general councils upward from that of Trent, Basil, Constance, etc. to the six first, yea, the four first, which some equal to the four Gospels, are far from▪ being faultless in the Judgement of these Objectors, and of myself: the Arrian and other heretical councils are past question; even that of Nice, the first and best, I suppose he and I think did not well in settling church-power as they did, and forbidding all kneeling on the Lords days, in Adoration, and other the like: The Donatists and the Novatians, called the Puritans of those times, had faulty agreements; were it but for Bps. and Arch-Bps. ●e will think them so: this Writer can name no one church on the face of the Earth Orthodox or heretical (though Aerius called Presbyters equal with Bps.) that was not for Bishops over Presbyters from the year 100 after Christ, t●ll the Reformation, that ever I could read of: Yea, consider whether they were not in the Apostles days, when Jerome, who most depresseth this degree, saith, That there were such at Alexandria chosen by the Presbyters from the days of Mark: and Mark died long before John the Apostle: But Episcopacy is not all: Not only Epiphanius but all Church History that speaketh of such matters, agreeth, that (besides the crowd of latter Ceremonies) there were certain ceremonies called the customs of the Universal Church, which all the known Churches agreed in, (even those that differed about Easter-day, and other such) that is, 1. Clothing the Baptised in white Garments. 2. Giving them milk and honey to taste. 3. Anointing them with Oil. 4. Not kneeling in adoration on any Lord's day, or any other day between Easter and Whitsunday. There is no notice when these began, so ancient were they, nor of any one Church or Christian that refused them; but they were commonly called the Traditions Apostolical, or customs of the Universal Church.  
Now I agree with this Author, that these things were indeed a deviation from the Apostles practice, and ought not to have been thus used: But the question is, whether every Christian was guilty of the fault that had communion with any of these churches? and whether had he then lived, he should have separated from all the Churches on earth?  
By this you see, that this opinion must needs make men seekers, who say, that the church was in the wilderness, and lost all true Ministry, (and, say they, particular churches, and Scripture) after the first (or at most the second) century: and so that for fourteen hundred years Christ had no visible Kingdom on earth: And consequently, that we have no wiser answer to the Papist [where was your church before Luther] than to say that it was Invisible; that is, that we cannot prove that there was any such thing on Earth; and consequently, that we cannot prove that Christ had any Kingdom on earth, and was its King; that is, whether there was any Christ in actual church-administration? And doth separating from the whole visible church-communion agree with the prophecies and precepts of union? Was this church like a grain of Mustard seed in its growth? Was all the wonderful works of redemption wrought for no visible society after one or two hundred years, in which a few persecuted ones were visible? Is not this the next step (and a temptation) to utter infidelity? If Christ have now no visible church on earth, but the people called Brownists or Separatists, doth it answer the Scripture description of him and his church? And is it not exposing christianity to the scorn of infidels, so to say? Would not almost all rather turn Papists, than believe this? And be rather of their church, than of none.  
2. But let us next speak of the persons. I may speak my thoughts without imposing on you. I think that the Major vote is no rule to the Minor, nor always is in the right. If a hundred men that understand not Greek or Hebrew, Translate a Text one way, and a good Linguist another way, I will more suspect their judgement than his. And so in the like case. But if I hear a few odd persons condemn the judgement of the generality that are far better acquainted with matters of the same nature, [as if Schoolboys that are but in their Accidence, should oppose all the upper Forms in expounding Horace, or Hesiod, or Homer], which, think you, should I most suspect?— I say again to you, compare the writings of Bucer, Peter Martyr, Calvin, Beza, Melancthon, Chami●r, Blondel, Dailee, and a abundance such; and also greenham's, Perkins, Dr. J●●n R●ignolds, Cartwrights▪ Dods, Hildershams, Hieroms Amesius', Payne●, R●l●e●ks, and many such, yea with such conformists as Jewels, Bp. Downames, John Downames, Davenants, Bp. Halls, Arch-Bp. Ushers, Bp. Rob. Abbots, Dr Field●, Dr. chaloners, Dr. Airys, etc. I say, compare these with the Theological writings, of Mr. Penry, Mr. Can, and all other called separatists or Brownists in their times, and tell me whether these later did manifest more Holy Wisdom in Heavenly things, more skill in all other points of Divinity, than the former: If their writings (giving Mr. Ainsworth his due honour in Hebrew and Piety) were as far below the other, as the lower forms of Schoolboys are beneath the highest, which should we most suspect to have had the greater or the lesser light, specially when the lower condemn and cut off themselves from communion with all Christ's known Churches on earth for thirteen hundread years. When Mr. Smith (and lately a very good man here) thought none fit to Baptise him again, but Baptised himself; was not that singularity a just cause of suspicion? Yet I make not the old Nonconformists your rule.  
VIII. I argued also, from the common frailties of us all, that it will be unlawful to communicate with any Church on earth, even with those of the objectors mind, if we are guilty of the sins in Doctrine, worship and discipline, of all Churches that we communicate with. I will aggravate none, nor render that odious which God accepteth: My work is to confute those that do so. But I say, that 1. we have all many errors; And men use to put their errors into their prayers and preaching 2. Do not men use to deliberate more, and study what to write, than what to preach? And have men reason to be confident that our preaching will be more sounder than our writing? This Author exclaims against me, as Popish, Arminian, for Justification by works, for merit, etc. May it not be expected that I preach as bad as I write? And is it not then a sin to be my hearer? Can I think that he will not preach as ill as he writeth in this book? And are all sinners therefore for hearing him? I promise him that if I know of any Parish Minister that will usually preach with as much error, reflection and gall as he here writeth, I will be none of that man's hearers, or usual Communicants.  
But to this he saith, P. 19 We distinguish between the rule of worship, and the administration and performance:— 1. It is not sins of ordinary infirmity. 2. Nor sins not foreknown, so as to prevent joining with them, but them that worship God by a false rule, etc.  
Ans. 1. This is the great strength of all his Book, That we sin by a false rule, but they sin only against a true rule; but I think nothing is sin indeed, but that which is against a true rule, even God's word; making and using a false rule, is therefore sin, because it is against the true rule. Most hypocrites are supposed to own a true rule while they are false to it, and sin against it. To sin against knowledge, and an acknowledged rule, is an aggravation of the sin, and such shall be beaten with many stripes: Paul opens it to the Jews, Rom. 2. at large, therefore this will not excuse our communion with such.  
2. This Reason crosseth the business of the opponent; for whereas the greatest reason against Communion with Parish Churches is the badness of the Communicants, and Ministers lives; these are not the obeying of the Law or Canons, but disobeying them: The Law, called the Rule, bids no man swear rashly, lie, be drunk, unclean, slander, rail, etc. Nay it commandeth the Minister to deny the Sacrament to such: Ignorance, unbelief, hypocrisy, are not commanded, but forbidden by that Rule: Ministers break the rule, i● they preach error, or heresy, or against Love and Peace, and promote not Godliness, and men's salvation, with all holy diligence, by Doctrine and Life; so that no sins against this is cause of separation, if it be only using a false rule that is, just cause.  
3. But what is the false Rule? The word Rule maketh all this excuse and accusation of his a mere equivocation: In general, a rule is any thing to which we purposely conform our actions, that they may be right: Of this there are divers sorts.  
1. The Primary Rule is the absolute Law of God, to which all men's actions should be conformed.  
2. Subordinate humane Rules: These are of divers sorts. 1. The obliging commands of Authority. 1. Of Magistrates. 2. Pastors. 3. Parents and Masters of Families. 4. Schoolmasters and Tutors of Youth, etc. 2. Contracts or Agreements of men for concord.  
1. God's Law is never a false rule, but an erring Expositor may make the words the matter of a false rule by putting on them a false sense.  
2. Just subordinate rules are not false, justly used. 1. Magistrates rule either by common Laws, or temporary and particular Mandates, both being obligatory to duty, and indeed but several sorts of Laws, while they use but that authority which God gave them. Laws or Mandates are just rules.  
2. Pastor's can make duty by ruling-authority for none but the Flocks committed to them: They may command what God authorizeth them to command; whether it be by word or writing, is all one: And whether you will call it a Law or not, the name altereth not the case: Tho indeed in the general notion, all is true law, which authoritatively by command maketh a subjects duty. It's a true rule when the Ruler goeth not beyond his authority▪ Heb. 13.7, 17, 24. 1 Thes. 5.12, 17, etc.  
3. The same must be said of Parents, Masters, Tutors, etc.  
4. Agreements or contracts are rules made for Concord by the self-governing power that all men have over themselves: and they are just rules when justly used.  
5. Besides all these, most make a man's own reason, judgement or conscience, the immediate subordinate rule of his actions. Indeed it is more fitly called the discerner of his rule and duty, as the eye is to the body: For it maketh not duty, but discerneth it made: But if any will call the Understanding a Rule to the Will, instead of a Guide, we may bear with the impropriety. All this is clear truth.  
Now the question is, how any of these subordinate rules are just or false?  
1. Two things God hath not only allowed, but commanded them all to do about Religion. 1. To command subjects as God's officers to obey God's Laws, and in just cases to punish the breakers of them, in matters within their jurisdiction. And to do this by Laws, Mandates, Judgement and Execution. 2. To make subordinate Mandates or Laws for determining such Circumstances as God hath commanded them to determine, by the General Law of Governing or Ruling, and of doing all to unity concord, edification, peace, order, and decency. These things Christian-Magistrates may do Nationally. Pastors to their Flocks, Masters to their Families and Scholars; and equals (Pastors and People) may make fit agreements where they are free:  
And these rules may be called false or true, in several degrees.  
1. It's gross falsood and usurpation, to set up an office forbidden of God, and false in its very nature.  
2. It's next in degree false, for men of an office of God's institution, to command things utterly out of their calling and jurisdiction, in which they have no power from God mediately or immediately. Conscience binds none to formal obedience (propter authoritatem imperantis) to either of these; though material obedience, and nonresistance, may be duties.  
The lower degree, is when the office is of God, and the matter is in their power, and not only belonging ad alienum forum; But they mis-determine it in the manner, not usurping another's office, but doing their own amiss: Tho herein conscience is not bound to obedience; gratia materiae sub ratione indebiti modi; yet if the matter be not forbidden of God, obedience may be a duty herein, sub ratione medii, necessary to several ends; that is, to concord, to honour the governor, to avoid offence, and to avoid greater hurt to the Church, others, or ourselves.  
But if the thing commanded be forbidden of God, no man must do it. But divers things commanded unlawfully in the manner, may become duties by that command, because they be made thereby needful means of Unity, Peace, Honour to Rulers, etc. as aforesaid, which else would have been sin (as to meet at an inconvenient time or place, to use a Translation, metre, etc. less fit.)  
Now all these being subordinate rules, they bind only subordinately by virtue of God's supreme rule, who made them rulers (and he is no ruler that can give no rule); even as corporation By Laws bind only by virtue of the Sovereign's higher Law.  
And though this Author would be the Ruler of Language so far, as to say that all sinful Worship is not false Worship, they that use words, as greater Masters have long stated the sense, do know, that the falseness is the disconformity to God's supreme Rule, and that may be in all the degrees forementioned: And Rules or Worship are both false so far as they are disconform to the Law of God.  
And now wherein is our Rule, false and theirs true? 1. We own no Rule of direct immediate obedience to God, nor of any universal or unchangeable duty to God, but what his Law (of Nature, or supernatural) doth make us. We hold that no man hath power to alter God's word, to command any thing against it, nor any thing which God hath appropriated to himself, as to make new conditions of salvation, new Sacraments, new Laws, as Gods, or new duties for themselves, necessary to Salvation; no, nor any thing but what Gods own General Law doth command or allow them to determine, being left by him undetermined, to their Power and Rule.  
We hold that if any Ruler go contrary to, and beyond those Rules of God, it is their sin, and not ours, and we openly disown it: And so do our Rulers in general themselves most expressly in the Books of Articles, Ordination, Homilies, Apology, etc. Binding all Ministers to the Scripture for the Rule of their Preaching and Living, only infallible, sufficient in all things necessary to Salvation; and that if Councils, or any men err or disagree with Scripture, they are not to be followed.  
We openly renounce all false Rules, and Canons; but if for such sin against their own profession of Scripture-sufficiency, we must renounce Communion with all that are guilty, we scarce know the Church on Earth which we must not renounce. And the opponents in Particular.  
2. For let us try now whether you have no Rule which you call False, as well as false or sinful practice. But I will first take in his fuller explication, left I mistake him.  
IX. Page 37. I roundly assert against you, That though every Church of Christ hath the liberty and privilege to act prudentially, or make prudential determinations concerning the present use of indifferent things pro hic & nunc, yet to make any standing or binding determination and Laws for themselves or other, is altogether unlawful, as highly derogatory to the Kingly office of Christ, and robbing themselves or others of their granted privilege, and so a forfeiture of their Charter: And so all your by-standing laws and subordinate Laws for worship which you talk of, are unwarrantable additions to the word of God.  
Ans. 1. This indeed is round assreting; but your word is no proof, and here is no better.  
Contraily, 1. Those whom Christ maketh Rulers of his Church, and commandeth to do all things, not particularly determined by him, as shall conduce to peace, concord, order, decency, and edification, may Rule accordingly by such determinations.  
But some such there are whom Christ maketh Rulers of his Church etc. ergo, etc.  
Maj. Prob. Matth. 24. Who then is a faithful and wise Servant, whom the Lord hath made ruler over his household to give them meat in due season, etc.  
1 Thes. 5.12. Know them who are among you, and are over you in the Lord, etc.  
1 Cor. 4.12. Let a man so account of us, as of the Ministers of Christ, and Stewards of the mysteries of God, etc.  
Heb. 13.7, 17.24. Remember them who have the Rule over you, etc. Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves, for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, etc. Salute all that have the rule over you, etc.  
1 Tim. 5.17. The Elders that rule well are worthy of double honour:  
1 Cor. 14.26. Let all things be done to edifying. 4. Let all things be done decently and in order. 33. God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all the churches of the Saints.  
By all this, it is evident that Church Rulers there must be; and such successors of the Apostles in the ordinary parts of their office as Christ will be with to the end of the World, Matth. 28.20. And also in what their Rule consisteth.  
Now to the question of Imposing: (I premise, that though this usurper of a Magistry in Language will have Imposing taken still in an ill sense; I leave that to him, it is enough for me to tell him that I take it according to the prime signification [to put a thing on others] without respect to well or ill doing it.)  
1. I know not whether by every Church, he intent a mere voting body of People and Pastors by consent, or the Pastors alone as the Rulers of a voluntary People.  
2. I know not whether he take [prudential determinations] as distinct from Governing Obligations, or not.  
3. I know not whether by [present use] he mean it only for one present meeting, or for more, and for how many and how long: And [by standing] how long he meaneth.  
I grant to him that no man may make universal or unchangeable Laws, but temporal and mutable, and only for his own subjects. But I maintain,  
1. That Pastors may by word or writing make binding commands or determinations to their Flocks of the foresaid modes and circumstances of Religion and Worship. For 1. They are such as are necessary in genere, and the determination to this or that sort disjunctively necessary: Somebody must determine them (and that for more than the present meeting, even statedly): And it belongs to the Ruler's office to do it: None else is fit or hath any other power, than by contract.  
I have oft enough instanced in particulars. It is not meet that every meeting the People be put to Vote where to meet next: And there is no certainty that they will agree; but some be for one place, and some for another: An ordinary capacious place is necessary: It is the Ruler's office to appoint it. It's no sin against Christ for him to require them to come to the same place, from year to year, while it is fit.  
2. The same I say for a commanding determination of the Lecture-days, or times of meeting, which the Pastor may prescribe statedly by his office, without the People's votes.  
Or if all such things were imposed by a Major Vote on the Minor, their Vote would be a Governing Rule to the Minor part.  
3. While Praying with the Hat on, is by the custom of the country a sign of unreverence, the Pastors (or Elders that Rule well) may command the Flocks by their authority, ordinarily, and not at the present only, to be uncovered at Prayer and Sacrament in the assembly, without wronging Christ's Power, unless obeying it be wronging it.  
The same I say of usual kneeling at Prayer.  
5. If the Congregation be called to confess their Faith, or renew their Covenant with God, the Rulers may command all that consent, to signify it by such a sign, as standing, or lifting up the hand, or subscribing, etc. And they are bound to obey them.  
6. I have oft enough instanced in Translations, Metres, Tunes, Utensils, Ornaments, and many such like.  
Obj. The Pastors make no Laws. Ans. Dally not with names: Any thing is a Law which ruling authority maketh duty: If Writing it, maketh a Law, they may write it: But a verbal-Mandate is one species of a Law: And imposeth and determineth, and obligeth to obedience; and it is sin to disobey, because God commandeth them to obey, Heb. 13.17. And even by the 5th Commandment.  
It doth as truly limit, and oblige when Pastors command, as when Magistrates do it, though they force not by the Sword.  
Obj. But these are but natural circumstances, and belong no more to worship, than to any other things.  
Ans. It's a sad thought to me to think how many seem satisfied with such an answer as this. All substances have their accidents, quality, time, place, etc. But yet the accident of one substance is not the accident of another; The quantity and quality of a man is not the quantity and quality of a Toad, etc. When these accidents are adjoined to worship, they be not accidents of other things. Is Speaking no part nor accident of worship, because speaking is used in common things?  
Kneeling is used in other cases: But kneeling in prayer to express reverence, is not common to other things.  
Putting off the hat showeth Reverence to a Prince: But to be uncovered at Prayer or Sacrament is the Accident at least of that Worship, and not of other things: Metre and Tunes belong to Ballads: But the Metre and Tune of Psalms doth not, but is appropriate to those Psalms.  
Time and Place belong to all natural actions: But the Time and Place separated to God's Worship is an accident only of that.  
It is not the natural specification of an act or circumstance, or the generical nature that we speak of; but the individual accident or circumstance as appropriate to a religious work.  
Is love to God no worship, because love is a natural act? Is praying no act of Religion, because we may pray to men? Is eating and drinking no part of the Sacrament, because we use them as natural acts for our daily sustenance? Is washing no part of Baptism, because we wash at other times: Thinking is a natural act, but holy thinking is more: Were David's sorts of Music no part or accident of Worship, because Music is natural or artificial?  
It magnifieth these acts to be applied to worship, and it is a commendation of Worship-Ordinances that they are suited to nature, and advance and sanctify it.  
Now at last I come closer to my question: Have you no Church Rulers among you? No Elders that rule well? Is it unlawful to communicate with you, if those Elders by Mandates which are obligatory to the flock do prescribe Days, and Hours, Temples, or public places for ordinary Worship, and if they command you to use the new Translation rather than the Geneva, publicly, or prescribe the same Metre and Tunes, rather than your Congregation shall sing, some one Psalms, and some another: Or if they command them to be uncovered at Sacrament and Prayer, or to kneel at prayer? etc. If you take this power from the Pastors, and will separate from them for such obliging Laws or Mandates, you do that very thing which you fiercely talk against; you destroy or resist Christ's Kingly Government by his Officers  
Oh what is Man! What are the best of Men! What doth the Church and World suffer by them! The same men that cry up Christ's Kingdom, call it rebellion against him to obey his Officers: As if we must depose or disobey the King, unless we disobey all his Judges, Justices and Officers.  
All the obligatory decisions that the Apostles made about their Love Feasts, anointing the sick, the Kiss of Love, long Hair, covering or uncovering, order of prophesying, and of collections, etc. were not standing Laws to us; nor done by uncommunicable power; but were temporary Laws, and local, and such as their Successors, when fit, may make.  
If you have no such Rulers in your Churches, you should question whether your Churches have the true order of Pastors, as well as you question the Parish Ministers: Do they not want ruling power, as well as theirs; specially if you deny the very power, and they be but hindered in the exercise.  
Obj. But some may be forced to say, Our Pastors do nothing, but by the people's consent.  
Ans. They are their Pastors by consent, and rule them as voluntary, and not by force: But their rule and precepts are never less obligatory on Conscience by virtue of God's command to obey them: Must they prescribe none of the things forementioned, till all have voted it, or consented? They must command them to consent, and they sin if they disobey, though they can force none to obey.  
Object. But some may be driven to say, We allow such prescribing power to Pastors, but not to Magistrates.  
Ans. 1. What Power the Kings of Judah used in Worship, David, Solomon, Asa, Jehosaphet, Hezekiah, Josiah, I need not tell.  
2. Christ came not to put down Kings, but to sanctify their office: All power is given him: By him Kings reign: The Kingdoms of the world are his by right: Rulers are his Ministers for our good: They must punish evil doers, and promote well doing: He commands us to honour and obey them; They are keepers of both Tables: They may drive Ministers to their duty, and punish them for maladministration: Tho they may usurp nothing proper to the pastoral office, nor forbid them any such thing, yet such circumstances as belong to the nation, or to many Churches, and not to this or that in peculiar, the Magistrates may determine: It is of great use, that all the approved Churches in a Nation, signify their consent in the same Confession of Faith▪ the same anniversary days of Humiliation and Thanksgiving (as is done about the Powder Plot) and the same Translation of the Scripture, if not also the same Psalm Books; God strictly commandeth Concord, and to serve him with one mind and mouth, and to avoid confusion, and division, and discord: What reason can any man give why Christ's Officers appointed to rule by the sword, may not thus discharge their trust? Shall we sin if the Law impose a Translation, Psalm Book, or reverend gesture, unless we separate? Is commanded obedience become a sin? And yet not if a Pastor or a ruling Majority of people enjoin it, or unless we leave all to confusion?  
X. Here therefore I utterly renounce the opinion that shall hold that such things being lawful when uncommanded, become unlawful when commanded by such as in Ministry, Magistracy, or Families, or Schools, are Rulers: Yea, if the Ruler misdo his work, the sin is his; I must not separate from every Kingdom, Church, or Family that is ill governed: Nor am I discharged from obedience in lawful things by the addition of some unlawful commands that destroy not acceptable Worship, and turn not our food to Poison: I tell those Ministers that publicly charge this on Nonconformists, that they must not charge any Doctrine of Seekers or Anabaptists, or such separatists, to be the Nonconformists Doctrine: I know not one mere Nonconformist of that mind: What we of this Age thought of Episcopacy, Liturgy, and Magistracy, all that would come in and own that cause openly with us, have told the world in our published Proposals of 1660 and 1661.: To which we refer them that would know their minds.  
XI. But when I oft alleged the example of Christ and the Apostles, this Objector and Answerer saith, p. 19 We make not Christ and his Apostles Hypocrites; for we have proved, that Christ never joined with false worship, so much as with his presence at the place of it, unless with this intent, to bear witness against it; nor did he ever advise his disciples so to d●: As for Moses Chair, it was then Christ's own Institution, and he had th●n no other Church or Institution on earth.  
Ans. It was cautelously done to pass by the instances of the Apostles that neither separated, nor commanded one man to separate from all the faulty Churches, Rev. 2.3. Notwithstanding the Woman Jezabels Doctrine, and that of the Nicolaitans, which God hated, and the evil practices; nor from the Church of Corinth, where were carnal Schisms, Defraudings, Lawsuits before Heathens, incest unlamented, Sacrament disorders, even to excess of drink, disorder in Church Worship, etc. Nor from any other faulty Churches.  
Methinks th●y that are so strict against any additions in Modes of Worship, should not so much add or alter Scripture, or accuse it of defectiveness, as to suppose the Apostles to have culpably communicated with such Churches, as Co●inth, Coloss, Ephesus, Sardis, Laodicea, Smy●na, etc. yea and with the Jews, who by falsifying the Rules, called it unlawful to eat with the Gentiles, or to eat what Moses Law forbade, and not to keep their days: Paul's accomplishing of his Vow in the Temple, and becoming a Jew to the Jews, was fully contrary to the opponents Doctrine.  
And as to Christ's practice; we said before you, that he conformed not to any evil, nor should you But did he not send the Lepers to a false ill-called corrupt sort of Priests, to do by, and with them, what the Law required? Did he not ordinarily join in the Synagogues in their worship? Could he have leave constantly to teach there, if he had there used to cry down their ordinary worship? Had the Ceremonious Pharisees no ill forms nor ceremonies in their Worship? Again, I say, Their long Prayers which were the Cloak of their oppression, were either extemporate, or forms of Liturgy. If extemporate, than the worst of Hypocrites may constantly use long extemporate Prayers, and it had been no injury to the Spirit in them, to have persuaded them to use Christ's form instead of them.  
If they were Liturgies▪ then Christ did not separate from such; no nor reprove them at all, when he reproveth the hypocritical abuse of them: Yea, seemeth to commend them, while he nameth them, as a Cloak to cover evil, which nothing is fit for, that is not good.  
Obj. He had no other Church? Ans 1. Then most in England m●y go to the Parish Churches, where they have no other Church to go to. 2. But Christ had twelve Apostles, and 70, or 72 other Teachers, and many more Disciples; Were these no Church, nor matter for a Church?  
XII. Obj. Page 4. God hath not left it in our power to communicate with any society, when they make that the condition of my Communion, which I am convinced of to be sin to me, that I question whether it be lawful or no, etc.  
Ans. How oft have I answered this, without any reply? 1. If they make your consent to any sin, the condition of your Communion, you must avoid it: But if they put no sin on you, to be present when they sin, is a condition to all Church Communion, and to your own praying, who sin in all yourself; you before excepted sins of ordinary infirmity, as not warranting separation: And when did you ever prove that the composing and imposing of the Liturgy, (much more the Obedient use of the Lordsday part) is not a sin of infirmity, as much as slandering it and the Churches, and writing such Books as yours? Accusing is not proving.  
2. If your taking it for sin be true, you must forbear it: If you mistake it for sin, which is duty, (per se or per accidens) you sin against God, and truth, by your mistake, and by your Omission. God bindeth you to alter your Judgement; and so he doth, if you take an indifferent thing for sin, though here it is safest to forbear. An erring Conscience is no Lawmaker (less than a Magistrate), but a misconceiver, and doth, ligare non obligare.  
XIII. Obj. But none of the things are indeed Worship, which you say men may command?  
Ans. That man shall be none of my guide, that makes questions of bare names to seem to the people, as if they were about the matter named. [They are such accidents of the Worship, which God himself commandeth, as are done in the outward expression of reverence and honour to God, and the more decent and edifying performance of his own Institutions.] This is the description of them, (Kneeling, being uncovered, swearing with outward signs, singing in Tunes, Meter, etc.). Agree to the thing, and call these Worship or no Worship, as you please. You say, False Worship is no Worship; If so, it is no bad Worship; but all faulty Worship is not null.  
XIV. As for his general talk of me, how much I have promoted Popery, and being for Justification by works, and merit, etc. I give him leave to ease his Stomach without an Answer, and all those to be deceived by him that will take his word, and not read mine; especially, my Treatise of imputed Righteousness.  
Page 9 He saith, When the Scripture speaks of justification by faith: Doth any sound Divine or Christians understand it of the act of believing, but that its the object of faith that justifieth?  
Ans. See how strictly these men stick to Scripture, that will have it the sole Law of Circumstances, and yet can deny it, as Expositors, at their pleasure; when Paul over and over so often saith, That we are justified by faith, and faith is imputed for righteousness; and Christ saith, Thy faith hath saved thee. It is not faith that they mean, but Christ. It is faith in Christ. There is no faith, but the act or habit of believing, Rom. 3.21. The righteousness of God, which is by faith of Jesus Christ, on all that believe. 25. Through faith in his blood. 26. The justifier of him which believeth in Jesus: Many ways such will be odiously perverted, if you put Christ instead of Faith; we are justified by no meritorious cause, but Christ's righteousness: but that righteousness justifieth not Infidels, nor any but qualified Receivers; and Faith is that qualification. Is not this true? And is it not enough? If you would preach or write censorious disputes, whether it be the Physician, or the Medicine, or the Patients taking it, that cureth him; or the Meat, or the Giver, or the eating it, that feedeth men, take your course: I had rather answer that, and most of your Books w●th groans and tears, than with disputing.  
XV. As for his threatening to open my faults as fast as I discover them. I may save him the labour, and lament them myself. Two I will confess now, besides all heretofore.  
1. I fear I did sometime by connivance, and by too oft preaching against the faults of the Bishops about 1640, encourage some that were set upon accusing and separating, over much. Tho I ever disliked and opposed that Spirit, and fore●●w what Divisions and Sins attended.  
2. Tho, when I took the League and Cov●nant, it was not imposed, but offered to Volunteers, (and I never gave i● but to one, and kept the Country from taking it); yet seeing now, what I saw not then, I repent that I took it. (Tho being taken, I dare not say that it bindeth not as a secondary Self-Obligation to that which God bound me to before.)  
My reasons are; 1. Because, as after imposed, no knowing man can believe that the thousands of ignorant people that took it, who never understood the controversies of Prelacy, could take it in Truth, Judgement, and Righteousness, and so must sin.  
2. Because it cut the Nation in two parts, on pretence of Union, and engaged us against such excellent Persons, as Usher, Davenant, and against the greatest half of the Land, when we should have united on the terms of the Baptismal Covenant.  
3. Because, being before by God and our Allegiance sufficiently ●lliged to the King, by a further Vow of men's own making against his will, they entangled the consciences of the people about the meaning and the obligation of it; some thinking it bound them not to him; and other, that it bound them to fight for him, and yet to oppose the Prelacy that he was for. And now the Law for Corporations binds men to declare that there is no obligation at all from that O●th (either for the King, or against any sin).  
XVI. There are also more than one of my Opponents, who tell me, That because I live in prosperity myself, and suffer not, therefore I am insensible of the case of suffer●rs, and add affliction to the afflicted, and have not due compassion on them.  
Ans. If this be true, it is a great sin. But 1. why do the same men accuse me for persuading men to avoid sufferings, as they think, by ill means? It is indeed to save men from suffering by mistake for that which was their duty, to the injury of others, and to reserve their patience for better uses, being like enough to have need of it all.  
2. I thank God I am so far from being insensible of the sufferings of the church of Christ throughout the world, that I may say with Paul, Rom. 9.1. I have continual sorrow in my heart for the wars, blood, cruelties exercised on them, and much more for their own sin. And sure all the wrath that is against me for labouring to save this Land from division, self-destroying and suffering, 1661. and since, might have been avoided, had I been so self-saving as the accusers feign me.  
3. I thank God my sufferings have been far less than I expected or deserved of God, and not worthy to be called sufferings in comparison of thousands in foreign Lands. And I humbly thank the King that they have been no greater; but if they had, all had been now almost at an end. I am not willing to name them, lest it seem to savour of impatience, but remembering Paul's example to such accusers (to the Corinthians) I will briefly say, 1. From 1639. to 1660. I suffered more assaults and opposition than some of them, by divers penalties for divers duties against iniquity.  
2. I think I was the first silenced since the bishop's return. And the hot displeasure against me for my pacificatory labour 1660. and 1661. is not unknown.  
3. Inquire whether there be more virulent and voluminous accusations printed against me, or any one of them.  
4 I have had no P●storal maintenance these 23 years, and no Church to maintain me, nor any stipendiary Lecture; and for about 15. years I received no gift of money from any, but one man, which I could not without incivility refuse.  
5. When I went twice a day to their Church at Acton, I was sent to the common Gaol (accused for a Sermon for meekness and obedience, and submission to Government) and when I built a Chapel, it cost me about 20 l. to get a Minister out of the prison (that had formerly been imprisoned for the King's service) for preaching but one Sermon there, when I was twenty miles off.  
6. All that I had, was distrained on, and taken from me, all my books, and the very bed I lay on, for preaching after (though, bona fide, they had been on just considerations given, or made over to another, and were not mine, but the present use of them only reserved to me) and this by many warrants, as convict by the oaths of I know not whom, nor when, nor could ever know my accuser or witness, nor was ever summoned to speak for myself, much less to examine the witnesses.  
7. I have been put in city and country to remove my habitation about twelve times, and my person twenty, in the midst of my pains, to my great cost and trouble.  
8. How many thousand pounds my conscience hath cost me in the loss of a bishopric (by the Lord Chancellor offered) since 1661. besides all other losses and charges, I leave you to compute, and ask you which of you hath lost more? though I acknowledge with thankfulness to God that I never wanted food or raiment.  
9 And while I am now writing for Parochial churches and communion, and know no Law of the land that I break, I am hated; and while I keep my bed in pain, or my couch, there are new assaults which I think not fit to publish.  
10. And all this is but as a flea-biting in comparison of the sufferings which I carry about me by continual pain or langour through age and many uncurable diseases: And under the expectations of death, how small a matter is it to me, whether I die in a Gaol for my duty to God, or in my hired house, out of which I have very few times gone these two years, but it hath been a prison to me. What difference but conceit and consent? If our Rulers think it for the interest of any cause or party that I die in prison, I shall acknowledge God's will in the effect of theirs, and it shall not be in their power to make me suffer for any thing but my duty to God (besides faults long ago pardoned, and common humane infirmities). And it is not men's calling duty by the name of the most odious sins, that depriveth Martyrs of their reward with God. The false imputation of sin by men, was not the least part of the sufferings of Christ and his Apostles, and the Martyrs in all ages.  
XVII. And because others as well as I, have need of such admonition, I will tell my Brethren, that our chief work is (the same with J●bs) to frustrate the Tempter, and see that in all this we sin not, nor charge God foolishly: And he that only triumpheth in suffering in conscience of his innocency, and doth not know that suffering hath its proper temptations, and studyeth not wisely how to escape them, will suffer more by himself than by all his enemies.  
I will therefore tell you what are the temptations here which I fear and watch against.  
1. Lest the injuries of men should destroy my due charity to them: Tho its true that the settled Study and labour of some, for factious or carnal ends, be to destroy Christian Love, and serious Godliness, and the Souls, Bodies, and estates of the most innocent who they think stand in their way, (and falsehood, hatred and destruction are the Devils work and image) and no man must extenuate such crimes, John 8.41, 42. Yet Diabolisme is not to be imputed to all that men suffer by; much less to our Govornours, whom we must honour: Paul himself persecuted in ignorance; and Christ said, they know not what they do? Much less must we blame others, if truly the cause be only in ourselves.  
2. Much more must we watch against desires of revenge, or call for fire from Heaven, or imitate any that injure us, by requiring evil with evil, but see that we forgive as we would be forgiven. If they be impenitent, and God forgive them not, their suffering will be heavy enough.  
3. We must watch against blinding passions, that it carry us not into contrary extremes, that we may be far enough from sin; and so lest we fall into sin on the other side. Too few can keep to the line of truth; most reel like drunkards from side to side.  
4. We are much in danger of biased study; never studying impartially what may be said against us, and for our opposers, but only all that may be said for us against them.  
5. Men that have a good cause are too apt to betray and spoil it by an ill manner of defending it, by mixed errors, ill arguments or passions, to the hardening of the adversaries and afflictors.  
6. We must take heed that we fear not suffering wrong, more than doing wrong. He that doth the wrong is a far greater sufferer or loser, than he that is wronged. Our study must be, that we neither think, wish, speak, or do any wrong to our adversaries and afflictors.  
7. We must watch lest the great wickedness of any adversaries should be so much in our eye, as to tempt us to make light of our own sin, because it is not so great as theirs.  
8. And we must watch lest the conscience of our good cause or innocency to man, should make us foget our many sins against God, for which he may permit men by injury to afflict us.  
9 We must watch lest we judge of the Cause by the Person, and should take truth to be falsehood, and good to be evil, because bad men or adversaries own it; or lest we take falsehood to be truth, and evil to be good, because good men hold it; and lest in Love or Pity we justify the s●n of any sufferers.  
10 But we must specially take heed lest fleshly interest and love of r●ches, liberty or life, should bias and blind our judgements, to take any thing to be Lawful which we think is necessary to our quietness and safety, and to use sinful means to avoid danger and sufferings.  
These are my Studies, and I think them necessary to all.  
And the rather when (it grieveth my heart to see, so) many carried by suffering so far from unity, charity, and moderation, that they even join with those whom they sharpliest accuse, (though by other reasons) to do their very work, and to destroy that which they think they are promoting. For instance,  
1. They blame the Papists and such conformists for saying that the Ministers of the Reformed Churches are no true Ministers: And they say the same.  
2. They blame them for saying their Churches are no true Churches. And they say the same.  
3. They blame them for recusancy, and saying it is unlawful to communicate with them; and they say the same.  
4. They blame them that silence Ministers, and forbid and hinder them from worshipping God. And they themselves dissuade all the land from all public Church-worship, where none but with those that use the Liturgy can be had.  
5. They justly blame Love-killing reproachful Sermons. And they write Love-killing reproachful Books.  
6. They justly blame false accusers of particular persons, and they falsely accuse almost all the Churches on Earth, as no true Churches.  
7. They are justly for mutual forbearance, and against cruelty; and they unjustly aggravate the faults of almost all Church-worshippers on earth, as so odious that it must be separated from; and in a sort excommunicate them  
8. They fear Popery is ready to take possession of the Land and Church, and they exhort all Protestants to forsake all the public churches, which are the Garrison of the Protestant cause, that so the gates may be set open, and the Adversaries may find the houses ready swept and garnished, or the Garrison emptied for their coming.  
9 They are against the ejecting of the Ministers 1662. and yet crying down a Comprehension, they would not have them restored, unless it were on terms that will take in them also (and who knoweth whom?)  
10. Yea, the very top of Popery is to appropriate all power of church-government and worship to the Clergy, and to make Magistrates therein but the Clergies Executioners, saying they are only for civil government, for the body, but the Pope and Clergy only for Religious government of the church, and for the souls. And some called by dividing names among us, say, That Christ only and his Ministers have power in such matter●, and that Prince's sin if they command but a Translation, a reverend gesture, a church-ornament, and such circumstances; and that it's a sin to obey them.  
When I see that exasperation by afflicters hath cast some sufferers into such self-contradicting ways, I will set on my heart and judgement a double watch in sufferings and abuse.  
And now Reader I again say, That though I was dragged to this sort of work as against my will, I thank God (and my sober sort of Opponents) for calling me to it, that before I die I might explain my Writings, and not by writing only against one extreme, leave them behind me as snares to tempt men to the other extreme.  
And I here leave my testimony again against all malignity that would charge these errors on the innocent for a cloak of hatred, and cruelty, and oppression, that I know not one mere Nonconformist that holdeth any of these errors; and I verily believe that the Independents that I am acquainted with, are true servants of Christ; and many called Anabaptists, sober, godly Christians; and that some called Separatists retain Christian charity, and merely for fear of sinning, fly too far from others.  
And as for all the rest, it is not men's calling them all Dissenters, nor their suffering together, that can make the innocent responsible for the faulty, who perhaps do more against their mistakes, than ever such Accusers did (to cure them).  
And I must tell the abaddon's, that the opposition that hath been raised against them among those that I was acquainted with before 1641, and 1642, was caused chiefly by the badness of those that made it their trade to preach against strict and serious obedience to God, as Puritanism, and Hypocrisy, and made it the Ladder of their aspiring Ambition to make such odious, and to hunt with jealous severity those that used for mutual help in the ways of Salvation, to pray together (especially if they fasted) or consulted how to obey God's Law: Justacting over the part of the Bps that Martin separated from, described by Sulpitius Severus, rendering all suspected of Priscillianism that were more than others in reading the Scripture, Fasting and Praying) and clapping on the back with encouragement the Drunkards and profane ignorant rabble, who in every Town were the haters of the godly Conformists and Nonconformists; and making these the instruments of their malice, and praising them, and the multitude of ignorant, reading Priests, as more worthy Subjects, than men fearing God. Ri. Hooker in his Preface describeth these; and he that readeth his Europae Speculum, may know that it was no better Conformists that his most beloved Pup●l, Sir Edwin Sandys was against, while he was one of the zealous Parliamentarians.  
It's true that many were very hot against Bishop Laud and the Arminians, and against Dr. Heylin, and Dr. Pockington, for proving Sunday no Sabbath, and calling the Table an Altar, and the Ministers, Priests, and the Sacrament a Sacrifice.  
Blame not men that had read of their principles and practice, how Rome is a Leech that must live on blood, and cannot stand without it, if they were afraid of coming thither again, or drawing too near it. Upon my knowledge, the debauchery and malignity of many that hunted them, and would not let them stay at home in peace, and the terror of two hundred thousand murdered in Ireland, was it that drove most that ever I knew into the Parliaments Army: And fear doth often drive men to seek for self-defence to that which seemeth next at hand. Had those whom they feared been such as their functions obliged them to be, men of Holiness, Love and Peace, they would have been less prejudiced against the rest; they bore easily with Dr. Chappel, Mr. May●en, and some other godly charitable men that were reputed Arminians.  
I here adjoin it to my confessions: 1. That I thought worse of that called Arminianism than I should have done: (and have proved in my Catholic Theology, (not yet writ against by any that I know of) that the difference is not in any great and intolerable error on either side). 2. That the practice of them that profaned the Lords day, and the malignity of their abettors, made me too much offended at the books that called the Lords day no Sabbath, and the Ministers, Priests, and the Table, an Altar, and the Sacrament, a Sacrifice: For I now know that these allegorical Names were usual with the best of the ancient Churches without contradiction: And that the Lords Day is indeed never called the Sabbath in the New Testament; and that the word Sabbath in the Bible signifieth a day of ceremonial Rest, which was a Jewish Ceremony; and that all such are by Paul said to be put down, and that the Lords Day is a day of holy Assemblies and rejoicing in spiritual, Evangelical Worship.  
Ignorance and prejudice in these controversies prevailed, not from argument, but from the experience of the quality of too many that opposed them: They thought it a most improbable thing, that God should illuminate vicious, worldly haters of Godliness, and desert those that most desired to please him.  
And of late times, what abundance have been driven from the public Churches, by those that rail at them when they come there, and would get the Birds into their Net by throwing stones and bawling at them; and would get the fish to take the bait, by beating the Waters.  
The Bishop of Worcester's silencing me, and preaching as he did, and the imprisonment of many of the people after, affected my old hearers with so much distaste of that sort of men, that all the Writings and persuasions I could use, would not reconcile them, nor scarce keep them from falling out with me for my persuasions: And now they have a Worthy, Pious, preaching Bishop, a Man of Love and Peace, and a good Minister, they all crowd the Church, and are like to fall in love with such Bishops.  
And I must testify, that with the generality of the Nonconforming Laity, I never found, but it was good preaching and good living that won their Love: And they will honour and follow such men, whether Bishops, Conformists, or Nonconformists.  
XV. Since the writing of this, I understand that some timorous persons have been afraid to communicate in public, or join with the Liturgy, by hearing that some that have done it, have been so troubled in Conscience, that they have fallen into despair, and a doleful state of trouble.  
To this I answer, 1. You shall never prove that I have persuaded any Minister, to give Christ's body and blood as a Drench to the unwilling, or to make the Sacrament of Love, the Instrument of Malice or Cruelty, or a snare to strangle Souls. It must be that Offence must come, but woe to them by whom it cometh. The old Church made men beg for Church-Communion; if any withdraw from it, and excommunicate themselves, they did not send them to Goal for their Conversion, to force them to say, that they repent, and to force them to Communion.  
2. But I must say, that these Ministers or people that have so ill taught these troubled Souls (by Doctrine or Example) as to tempt them to take their Duty (or a lawful thing) for so deadly a sin, are far from being guiltless of their Trouble, Distraction or Destruction. If any should make them believe that it were such a dangerous thing to pray by a Book, to sing David's Psalms, to Communicatie with Presbyterians, not to be rebaptised, not to keep the Saturday Sabbath, etc. And then, when he hath affrighted one to make away himself in melancholy despair, should use this instance as an argument to affright away others also from their duty; I should think that he were too blame: This were not by good words and fair speeches, but by bad words and deeds, to deceive the hearts of the simple, in causing divisions and offences.  
3. I believe I have had with me in my time many scores that have had such melancholy terrors, without any such cause; and must the matter of their trouble therefore be proved faulty? I have known those that for many years could have no peace of mind, while they continued Orthodox and Religious; and at last hearing Irreligious Sadduces, turned filthy, and ranters, and were never under trouble more (that could be perceived) but boasted of their peace. Who knoweth not that Melancholy maketh many of the most sound and blameless persons, like Spira, a weary of their lives, through desperation.  
4. I can tell these Objectors of eminent ancient godly men, that long forbore public Communion, and at last used it, and have had more comfort and edification, than ever they had before; and the more for breaking through all the sharp Censures of their former company, in obedience to their Consciences herein: And when they have seen a scandalous person with them at the Sacrament, have gone with Humility, Love, and Tears, and told him of his sin and danger, and had such success as hath comforted them more than avoiding that Communion ever did: yea, I know those that being threatened by violent Pastors, that use Dissenters with rigour, have humbly and submissively so pleaded with them from Scripture and experience, against that Spirit and Way, as hath overcome them, and melted them into a more tender and peaceable mind and course.   

A Postscript on a Book of Mr. J. F's.  
SINCE the Writing of all foregoing, I have received another Book sent me by J.F. Whether he will be angry if I expound this J. Faldo, I cannot tell; I read it over to see if there were any thing in it that should change my Judgement: But I will not promise to do so by any more such. Nor will I so much as tell the Reader what my Judgement said of it in the reading; much less write down the Answers which readily offered themselves to my understanding as I went on; for it would but more provoke him, I see, and do the Reader little good, unless by helping him to lament the church's case through the infirmities of such as I and he are; And the more patiently to bear all our present sufferings, by considering how unable we are to agree what to choose for ourselves, if we had our wills, and how far we should be from desired concord.  
I will not write a Book to contend on the question, Whether Mr. Faldo or I be the wiser or better man: I am conscious of so much ignorance and badness, that if it may edify the Reader, let him think of me as ill, as Mr. Faldo and all such men would have him: If he have a good cause, I wish the Reader may be of his mind: If not, I find not myself obliged to talk on against such Writers any further, for his rescue; nor do I think I can say any thing herein, which at his rate Mr. Faldo cannot answer.  
I only say, that he and such other have satisfied me, That the Liturgy-worship in the common Lords Day office is comparatively purer than the Worship of many is like to be, who oppose it. His Counsel is good, to know what the Worship is before I consent to it: I have tried what is in the Liturgy; I concurred with many better men, 1661. in telling the World, how far we could approve or use it. I find in it much good, and in the ordinary Lords Day common service, no fault that should alienate me from conjunction with the Church therein.  
To talk of faults in Baptising, Burial, Marrying, &c▪ is to say nothing to this point; I never saw any of these used since I joined with the Church in the Lordsday Worship: But how to try Mr. F. his Worship beforehand, I know not He saith, that if we will be at the cost of it, we may have better worship. And though he seem displeased for being called a consenter to my catholic communion, either he consented that the Parish-Church-Worship should rather be used than none, or else (which I suspect▪) when I have read his Book, I cannot understand so much as what he is for or against; what he meaneth by a Meeting of four, whether he take it for a Church, I know not: I take it not for a Church, that hath no Minister or Sacrament: And if he know of so many score, or hundred thousand Nonconformable Ministers as may guide all the People in England, as such Churches of four, I do not: And if Communion in the Liturgy be simply unlawful, it is so to all the Land. I think there are millions in the King's Dominions, that can have no other Church-Worship than with the Liturgy, at what rate soever they would purchase it.  
If his conceits of myself contradictions were as true as they are false, I will tell him other reasons of what he counteth unaccountable, than that I wrote one Book in 1659., and another in 1684. I am now 25 years elder than I was then; and it's a shame to learn nothing in so many years: I am more above all worldly hopes than he is: I am passed all capacity of them. I have less cause of fear than he: They will hardly confine me to a Prison narrower than my Bed and Couch. My glass is almost run: If I be not more apprehensive of my speedy account, and it awe me not to own nothing but the truth, without daubing with one extreme or other, I am much to blame. And I have seen some more of the experience of both extremes (though alas I saw too much before).  
And after all, comparing all together, I leave posterity my thoughts.  
1. That I had rather the Church had a Liturgy (to make all foreknow what Worship they meet for) with free prayer also in its place, than to have either alone.  
2. If they must be separated when the Minister is of tried soundness and ability; I had rather have his free prayer alone. But for many others, I had rather have the Liturgy alone.  
And for instance, Mr. Faldo hath oft told me, that his Church at Barnet (as I twice said before) not only omitted, but renounced or opposed all singing of Psalms for many years; that many of them were of such ill opinions, that he was put to much work to save them from being Quakers (and at what cost they can now have Church-Meetings when he hath left them, I know not).  
For Mr. Faldo to hold up such a Church even to suffering, and to write against Communion with the Liturgy, where there are able godly Ministers, is either erroneous partiality in him, or I am blind in my unwilling ignorance.  
To which I further add again, that I cannot expect that men Preach sounder Doctrine than they studiously Write; nor that they pray more sound than they preach; and if Mr. Faldo, and all such Writers, so pray, and so preach, and so live, (much more if also their Churches have such Maimed Worship as aforesaid, and some of them unordained Ministers, and many Church's men of many contrary doctrines) I take the Common-prayer Book Worship and Communion, to be much purer than theirs. The Lord make our successors wiser, better, and more peaceable than we are.  
FINIS