Vindiciæ Calvinisticæ: or, some impartial reflections on the Dean of Londondereys considerations that obliged him to come over to the communion of the Church of Rome And Mr. Chancellor King's answer thereto. He no less unjustly than impertinently reflects, on the protestant dissenters. In a letter to friend. By W.B. D.D.

SIR,

I Have according to your desire perus'd D. Manby's Con∣siderations, and Mr. King's Answer, and shall here give you my thoughts of them.

For the D's Considerations, I never imagined the Protestant Cause in any danger by so weak an Assault. If these be the strongest reasons he has to produce, he seems to be as yet but a Novice in the Roman School, and arriv'd no higher than the young fry of Missionarys whom the Fathers furnish with such Questions as these to accost ignorant people with. There is no∣thing in that Paper but what more learned Champions for the Church of Rome have more plausibly urg'd, and our Protestant Divines both at home and abroad as solidly refuted. So that it seem'd to me a needless expence of time to repeat the An∣swers so often given to those Questions, because Mr. M. was pleased to ask them over again. And I should have been still of that mind, if Mr. K's Answer had not alter'd my thoughts. 'Tis indeed judicious and clear enough wherever he defends the Church of England upon those principles which are com∣mon to her with other Reformed Churches; but where his narrow affection to a Party has byast his judgment, he has un∣happily founded the justice of the Reformation on such princi∣ples as are only calculated for the vindication of the Church of England, and (what is much worse) such as cast disingenuous Reflections upon the rest of the Reformed Churches. I shall therefore in these Remarks suggest such truly Catholick Principles as justify all the Reformed Churches both as to their Reforma∣tion, and their claim to be a true part of the Catholick Church; which, if I mistake not, Mr. K's as well as Mr. M's Paper wou••d exclude some of them from; for the Notions of the one as well as the other turn the Catholick Church into a Sect, and are in∣jurious to Christian Charity in its due extent, tho not both in an equal degree. And I undertake this the more willingly, because 'tis truly Catholick principles must cement the affecti∣ons

of Protestants, and dispose them to as near an union in pra∣ctice as can be expected under the unavoidable d••fferences of our Judgment about matters of less importance. And in pur∣suance of this desi••n, I shall follow the order of Mr. K's An∣swer, who puts D. M's Paper into all the method 'tis capable of, and only take notice of those Answers wherein Mr. K's either Judgment or Charity seems to fail him.

The 1st. Quest: proposed by D. M. in his Preface is,

What is meant by the Catholick Church?

Mr. K's Answer is, 'Tis the whole body of men professing the Religion of Christ, and living under their lawful spiritual Gover∣nors, p. 4.

There is no doubt he intends this for the description of the Catholick Church here on earth, as measured by a judgment of charity, and comprising all credible professors of the Chri∣stian Religion. Here are two characters to distinguish the Members of it, Professing the Religion of Christ, and Living un∣der lawful spiritual Governors.

Now that which I chiefly dislike in this description is, that this latter mark of the Catholick Church [Living under lawful spiritual Governors] gives us a Notion of it not only very ob∣scure, but too narrow. Nor does he find any such mark assign'd either in that Text he quotes, 4 Eph. 3, 4, 5. or in that passage he cites out of St. Augustin. And 'tis the more necessary to in∣sist on this, because every Notion of the Catholick Church, which is too narrow, is so far schismatical; for it cuts off those from their relation to the Catholick Church who are members of it, and Mr. K. himself does afterwards apply it to that ill purpose.

That this Notion of the Catholick Church is too narrow (on supposition Mr. K. mean no better than he speaks) is hence evi∣dent, because there are many who are true members of the Ca∣tholick Church who live under no Pastors or spiritual Gover∣nors at all, nor indeed have the opportunity to do so. What does he think of many Christians that live in some forreign Plantations where they are not furnish'd with them. Nay, to propose an Instance much more considerable. What does Mr. K.

think of all the Protestants who are yet in France, and because they will not change their Religion, are confin'd to Galleys, Prisons, or Convents? Are all these, by the banishment of their Ministers, exc••uded from the Catholick Church? Has the French King's Edict so malignant an influence as to cut them off from the body of Christ, by depriving them of their law∣f••l Pastors? If so, Popish Princes have a very formidable power, and Protestants may well dread their Edicts upon a Spiritual as well as Temporal account more than all the Thunders of the Vatican

But I fear Mr. K. would scarce allow the Reformed Churches in France to be any part of the Catholick Church if they had their Pastors again: if we compare this description of it with other passages in his Answer. For this description is very ob∣scure; and, if I conjecture right, Mr. K's Notion of lawful spi∣ritual Governors much more narrow.

What does he mean by Lawful Spiritual Governors? Are they to be estimated such by the Law of the Land, or by the Laws of the Church, or by the Law of Christ?

Does he mean such spiritual Governors as are establisht in every Nation by the Authority of the Civil Magistrate? If so, then the Arrian Bishops when establisht by the Emperors of their opinion were the only lawful Pastors, and all that part of the people that adher'd to their Orthodox Pastors ceast to be members of the Catholick Church. Then the Popish Clergy in France are the only lawful Spiritual Governors, and the Pro∣testants there are no part of the Catholick Church; because they separate from them. And shou'd the Popish Clergy be establisht in these Kingdoms by Law, all that shou'd adhere to their Pro∣testant Pastors (even those whom Mr. K. now thinks their on∣ly lawful ones) wou'd cease to be members of the body of Christ. So that the supreme Magistrate might make Pastors lawful or unlawful at his pleasure, and make those that are this month members of the Catholick Church cease to be so the next. But this is a Principle I wou'd hope fitter for Mr. Hobbs than for Mr. K. to defend.

Is it then the Laws of the Church that must determine who

are the lawful Pastors? If this be his Notion of them (as his following discourse wou'd incline one to think); What Church does he mean, whose Laws must determine this great debate? If the Ʋniversal Church? I know none can make Laws to ob∣lige all the members of it but Christ himself, whom Mr. K. grants to be the only Head of it, p. 55. And how shou'd we know the sense of the universal Church in this matter, when there has been no General Council these many hundred years, nay when there never was any such thing at all. The largest Councils that Church-History records, being summon'd by the Roman Em••erors, whose Mandates cou'd not reach the extra-Imperial Churches. What is this Church then whose Laws or Judgment must determine who are lawful Pastors? Is it every National Church? If so, 'tis a difficult matter to know what that is. For unless Mr. K: wou'd give such a schismatical No∣tion of it, as the Papists give of the Catholick Church, it must include all the particular Christians and particular Societies of such within the bounds of that Nation, who profess the true Christian Religion in all its essentials, (for all true Churches do not profess it in equal purity). Such a National Church is not of divine Institution, and is indeed only a combination of Churches as united under one Civil Sovereign. Its true No∣tion lyes not in any combination purely Ecclesiastical and In∣trinsecal, but Civil and Extrinsecal. As the true National Church of England (unless we will confine the name to a Sect or Party) denotes all the Churches in England as united under one King that has a civil Supremacy over them. But what if in the same Nation there be a division about some disputable Doctrine as betwixt Lutherans and Calvinists in the dominions of several German Princes, or about Church-Government and modes of Worship, &c. as in these Nations? What if the seve∣ral particular Churches according to these differences in their judgment fix under different Pastors? Who are the Church whose Laws must decide this debate about lawful Pastors? Is it such an Assembly of the Clergy as our Convocation? But what if both Parties have such Assemblys? Is it that Party of the Clergy which the Civil Magistrate does establish and not the

other, then the Civil Magistrate may in Germany make both the Lutherans and Calvinists lawful Pastors, and here both the Conformists and the Nonconformists, nay and unmake them at his pleasure, and so make their Churches a part or no part of the Catholick Church. Nay, if this be true, then in France the general Assembly of the Popish Clergy must determine who are lawful Pastors, and were the Protestant Ministers there now, for the people to adhere to them wou'd not only be unlawful, but (what is worse) such a Sin as would cut them off from the Catholick Church. And does Mr. K. really think so? What, wou'd they cease to be the subjects of Christ because they prefer those Pastors who teach his Doctrine, and admi∣nister his Sacraments, and discipline according to the Rules of the Gospel, before those who grossly corrupt them, and impose those corruptions? He must have a very odd understanding that can assent to so senseless, not to say so wicked, an assertion: For this were no better than to set up a point of meer human Order in opposition to the interest of Truth and Holiness. I might here instance again in the Arrian Bishops, who had not only the countenance of the Emperors, but got Imperial Coun∣cils (call'd General, as that of Armini and Syrmium) on their side; and according to this Principle, they were the only law∣ful Pastors, and those that separated from them were no part of the Catholick Church.

I know not how Mr. K. will like these consequences; But he cannot avoid them, unless he will say, That where there are in a Nation two divided parties of Christians fixt under different Pastors, those are the only lawful Pastors who are on the side of Truth in the Points controverted betwixt them, whether they have the Civil Magistrates countenance or no. And if he say this, 'twill follow on the other hand, that in those Popish Kingdoms where there are any Protestant Ministers, they are the only lawful Pastors, and the Popish Churches that live not under them no part of the Catholick Church. Nay, in those parts of Germany where there are Lutherans and Calvinists, if the Calvinists be in the right, the Lutherans for separating from the Calvinist Ministers, forfeit all relation to the Catholick

Church. And to add no more, if the Non-Conformists be in the right in the matters debated betwix them and the Conformists about Church-Government, &c. they are the only lawful Pastors, and the Prelatical Churches no part of the Catholick Church.

Or lastly, Must the Laws of Christ determine who are law∣ful Pastors? then those are the only lawful spiritual Gover∣nors in his Church whose Office he has instituted, who have all the Qualifications requir'd, 1 Tim. 3. ch. 1 Tit. Who are or∣dain'd to their Office by such as he has entrusted the power of Ordination to, (where such Ordination can be had) and who have the consent of that Flock they take the oversight of. If these be the laws of Christ (as it were easy to prove if that were deny'd) then all Diocesan Prelates must be cashier'd from the number of lawful Pastors, unless they can prove their Office instituted by Christ, and so must all the Parish-Ministers who want the Qualifications mention'd, 1 Tim. 3. or who are im∣pos'd on the people without their consent, nay, too often against it. And if Mr. K's Notion of the Catholick Church be true, then all the Churches that live under Diocesan Prelates as their spiritual Governors, or such unqualifi'd obtruded Pa∣rish-Ministers, are no part of the Catholick Church. So that if he retract not this new description of the Catholick Church, 'tis like to fall heavy on his own Party; and because I would not be so uncharitable to the Church of England, as he is to the Churches of Dissenters, I advise him the next time he un∣dertakes to define the Catholick Church, to leave out this dan∣gerous mark of it. At least he ought to apply this mark to the Papists as well as Dissenters; whereas among the Latin Questions; The 14th is, Whether that be a true Church which has not lawful Pastors? And Mr. K. thus answers, It may be a true Church, witness the Church of Rome, which has had so many haeretical, schismatical, simoniacal ones, who were not all lawful Pastors; But did there therefore cease to be a Chureh at Rome? But I perceive this is a true mark when he would vent his spleen against the Presbyterian Churches at home and abroad, but a false or un∣certain one when it would unchurch the Papists. The best of it is, if it be a true mark, the Papal and Diocesan Churches are most concern'd in the dangerous consequences of it.

All therefore I shall add on this Head, is a brief Answer to Mr. M's Question, What that Holy Catholick and Apostolick Church is which we profess to believe in the Creed?

Answ. We need go no farther for the resolution of this Que∣stion, than the Text quoted by Mr. K. 4 Eph. 3, 4, 5. Only I must premise, that the Catholick Church in its true extent in∣cludes the Church Triumphant as well as the Church Militant; nay, all the Saints that have been, are, or shall be on earth to the end of the world; see Mr. Claud's Reponse au livre de Mon^sr: l'Eves{que} de Meaux, &c. p. 7, 8, 9, &c. But if we speak of the Catholick Church as militant on earth, it must be con∣sidered either as measured by the judgment of God, which dis∣cerns the truth of things from all hypocritical disguises, or as measur'd by the judgment of humane Charity. As measur'd by the judgment of God, 'tis according to the fore-quoted Text, One body or society animated by one holy Spirit, having one hea∣venly hope, subjected to one Lord Jesus, believing the same re∣vealed Doctrine as to all necessary Articles, and devoted by one Baptismal Covenant to one heavenly Father. This Body is call'd Invisible, or Mystical, from that internal Faith and Holiness which are invisible; and 'tis also Visible by the external pro∣fession of that true Faith and Holiness. And this is that Church which we profess to believe in the Creed, in which alone we can expect to find the true Communion of Saints; And to this Church alone all promises of saving Blessings are made in the holy Scriptures. But the Catholick Church, as measur'd by the judgment of human Charity, comprizes all that make a credible profession of Christian Faith and Holiness. For we are incapable to distinguish the true and living mem∣bers of the Church from those that only appear to be so. And therefore the Catholick Church, as estimated by our charity, is more large and comprehensive than the real Body of Christ. For Hypocrites are no true members of his Body, tho mixt with them in the same external Society by their external Pro∣fession; or as St. John distinguishes, they are among them, but not of them, 1 Joh. 2. v. 19. They are but blasted Ears, not the true Wheat; they are members of the Church Catholick

in appearance, not in reality. The Church Catholick, as mea∣sur'd by our charitable judgment, is I know commonly call'd the Church-Catholick•• Visible, i. e. the Church Catholick, as esti∣mated by an external or visible profession. But I wou'd choose rather for avoiding confusion, to call it the Visible Church Ca∣tholick mixt: For the Church Catholick in the proper sense, (as constituted of its living, or as the Schools speak, its univo∣cal members, real Saints) is also Visible, because its members not only believe with the heart, but confess with the mouth to salvation, as the Apostle Paul speaks, Rom. 10. v. 10. But these real Saints do not make up one distinct external society by themselves, but as mixt with a crowd of Hypocrites, who joyn with them in the same external profession of Christianity; Nor are they exactly distinguishable from Hypocrites in our Judgment, which cannot pierce into the hearts of men, and only looks at the credibility of their external profession. If therefore it be enquir'd, what is the true Catholick Church? We must answer, All sincere Christians, who are one body or society by their belief of, and subjection to Jesus Christ their common Head and center of Unity. If it be enquir'd, whom should we in charity judge to be members of the Catholick Church, the Answer is obvious; All that make a credible pro∣fession of that Faith and that subjection. If it be askt further, what is a credible profession? 'tis answer'd, A profession not contradicted by notorious ignorance of the essentials of Chri∣stianity, by fundamental Errors, or by notorious wickedness. And he that would prove any particular Church or Churches, that call themselves Christian, to be no parts of the Catholick Church, must prove that they deny, or at least do not profess some essential Article of the Christian Faith, or are notoriously ungodly. (I add notoriously ungodly, because subjection to the laws of Christ is as necessary to our being the true mem∣bers of his Church, as belief of his Doctrine; and consequently a credible profession of that subjection, as requisite to our be∣ing esteemed such). And therefore D. M. has very little rea∣son to value himself upon this Question: And the Church of Rome has so little reason to arrogate to her self the Title of

the Church Catholick, that a man must be very charitable to allow her to be a part of it; but no wise man will allow her to be any other than the most corrupt and unsound part of it. For that Church has gone so near towards the subverting the essential truths and laws of Christianity by their dangerous corruptions in Doctrine, Worship and Practice, that it wou'd be the best service D. M. can do her, to demonstrate clearly that there is a credible profession of Christianity left amongst those that practically hold all the Decisions of the Council of Trent, exagr. To reconcile that Doctrine of their Council, that imperfect Contrition or Attrition is sufficient to dispose a man for Absolution in the Sacrament of Penance, Council of Trent, Sess. 4. cap. 4. with that necessary Doctrine of the Gospel, Wihout Re∣pentance there is no Remission of Sins. To reconcile the worship of the Church of Rome with the second Commandment, is a task well worthy of D. M's pains. But I hope in many that live in the communion of the Church of Rome, the common principles of Christianity which they retain, prevail against the poysonous additions of Popery; and all the Doctrines of that and other Councils are not practically held by them. But their claim to be a part of the Church Catholick is not near so clear and indisputable as that of the Reformed Churches, whose Doctrine and Worship compar'd with the holy Scrip∣tures, evidence them to be an incomparably sounder part of it; tho even all the Reformed Churches are not equal in their soundness and purity.

This Catholick Church hath only one universal Head Jesus Christ, and is one Body only on the account of its union with, and subjection to him. Nor is there any Vicarious universal Head under Christ to which the Government of the Church Catholick is committed, whether Pope, General, Council, or Colledge of Prelates; Nor can any such humane Head make Laws obligatory to the universal Church. For any to pretend to it is an usurpation of Christ's Legislative power; and 'tis chiefly on the account of that Ʋsurpation, and employing that usurped power to deprave the Church, and destroy its soundest members, that the Protestants have call'd the Pope Antichrist.

Particular Churches are the chief integrating parts of the Church Catholick; (I speak of it here as measur'd by the judgment of charity). As to any of these particular Churches, if the Quest. be, Are they a part of the Catholick Church? It must be resol••'d by the credibility of their Christian Pro∣fession. If th•• Question be, Are they Churches regularly con∣stituted or organiz'd? 'Tis in the reso••ution of this Quest. We must consider, whether they be a society of Christians united under one or more such Pastors as Christ has appointed, for personal communion in Faith, Worship and holy living; and whether their Pastors were in a regular manner set over them. And here the dispute about lawful spiritual Governors must come in. F••r that a particular Church have a lawful Pastor, is not absolutely necessary to its being a true Church, and con∣sequently a true part of the Catholick Church (as Mr. K. him∣self acknowledges in the fore-quoted place, p. 90. tho how he will reconcile that Concession with his description of the Ca∣tholick Church, I do not understand): 'Tis only necessary to its being a Church regularly constituted. And who are such lawful Pastors, there will be occasion to discuss in answer to the 4th Quest.

The s••cond Quest. is, Whether by the Church Catholick be meant the Church of England alone, or the Church of England in communion with other Churches?

Mr. K. well replys, The Church of England is no more the Catholick Church, than the British Seas are the whole Ocean. But he does ill to found its being a part of the Catholick Church on its subjection to Catholick Bishops. I suppose he means Diocesan Bishops. For it wou'd not cease to be a part of the catholick Church, if it shou'd disown Diocesan Prelacy. And if Mr. K. think otherwise, he has these two difficult Pro∣positions to prove; First, that Jesus Christ has instituted the Office of Diocesan Prelates in his church; and secondly, that he has made such Prelates the center of catholick Unity, and subjection to them necessary to our being members of the ca∣tholick church. Now if Mr. K. will undertake the defence of these two Propositions, he not only unchurches all the Re∣formed

Churches that want Diocesan Prelacy, but even the Catholick Church it self for a Century or two at least, as I of∣fer to evince, if Mr. K. please to demand it. For communion with other Churches, it must be understood in the essentials of Christian Religion; for it can scarce be expected in all its in∣tegrals in this imperfect state, but much less in unnecessary hu∣mane additions to Christianity: And we must not confound com∣munion with subjection; the former may be due where the latter is not.

The third Quest. is, With what other Church does the Church of England communicate in Sacraments and Liturgy?

Mr. K. well answers, That Ʋnity in Liturgy is no part of communion of Churches; and that the Church of England (and had his charity been wide enough, he might safely have added also, the Churches cal••'d Presbyterian and Independen••) is united with all other Christians in the participation of the same Sacraments: And I doubt not the Presbyt. and Indep. Churches administer them as agreeably to our Saviours Insti∣tution as any other. I come therefore to the

4th. Quest. Whether by the Catholick Church be meant the variety of all Protestants, since they want her essential mark, Unity?

Before I consider Mr. K's answer to the Quest. I shall offer one that is very obvious, and (I doubt not) more agreeable to the temper of every true Catholick and charitable Chri∣stian, viz.

That all the Reformed Churches whose publick Confessions of Faith are extant, are true parts of the Catholick Church; tho some of them may be more, others less pure and uncor∣rupted. (Of Quakers we can make no judgment, because we know not what their ••pinions are, and 'tis well if they do so themselves. For Fifth-Monarchy men, I know no distinct Chur∣ches constituted of them; and if they hold no other Notion of a Fifth-Monarchy than the learned Mr. Mede on the Rev. seems inclin'd to believe, I hope Mr. K. will not think it incon∣sistent with salvation.)

If D. M. ask where is the essential mark of the Church Ca∣tholick,

viz. Ʋnity among the Episcopal, Presbyt. Indep. and Anabapt. Churches?

Answ. What Ʋnity does he mean? If an Unity in the essen∣tials of Ch••istian Faith and Holiness, let him name me one of these Churches that denys any essential Article of the Christian Religion, or one Precept of the moral Law; nay, or one essen∣tial part of Divine Worship, as Praise, Prayer, Preaching; or one Sacrament instituted by Jesus Christ. For tho the Anabaptists deny the Baptizing of Infants, yet they do not deny Baptism it self; and however I may judge them mistaken in that point, I should think him more dangerously mistaken that should on the account of their Error in so intricate a controversy con∣demn them as no part of the Catholick Church. I will not pa∣tronize all the irregularities that may be objected in some of these Churches, but my charity does oblige me to add, that they are not such as invalidate the credibility of their Christian Pro∣fession, nor the thousandth part so gross as the corruptions of the Greek and Roman Churches.

Or does Mr. M. mean by Catholick Unity, an Ʋnity in an humane universal Head of the Church, as Pope or Council? This is no better than an Ʋnity in owning a gross Usurper that invades the Prerogatives of our blessed Lord, the only Head of his Church, that claims an universal power over his Church, without any commission from him. Or does he mean, an Unity in all the Errors, Idolatry, Superstition, and corrupt practices that have by degrees crept into the Church, and over-run any considerable part of it? I hope he will not make this the mark of the Catholick Church's Ʋnity, no more than he wou'd make mens diseases a mark of their unity in the humane nature. This is an Unity to be avoided, not courted or desir'd. Or does he mean an Ʋnity in humane unnecessary Canons that shall reduce all Christians to an exact uniformity in the external modes of Religion? This is an Unity never to be effected, but either by reducing mens judgments to an uniformity about those matters, or by forcing them to comply with what their judgments condemn. The former is morally impossible, con∣sidering the different degrees of our knowledge in this imper∣fect

state on earth; and one might as wisely attempt to bring all Nations to affect the same civi•• customs, ceremonies, or garb. The latter is a lo••ding it over God's heritage, and exercising a dominion over the Faith of Christians in the higest degree, which the Apostles themselves disclaim and forbid, 2 Cor. 1.24. 2 Pet. 5.3. An uniformity in humane rites is no unity prescrib'd in the word of God; and consequently not necessary to the con∣stitution of the Catholick Church. The laws of Christ, which alone are obligatory to the Catholick Church, have made suf∣ficient provision for its Unity as far as 'tis attainable on earth; (for perfect Unity is the effect of the perfect light and love of Heaven). And for any single person, or collective body of Pastors to prescribe other terms of Unity to the Catholick Church than Christ has done, is not only an usurpation of his legislative power, but one of the most effectual methods that Hell has found out to raise Schisms and Divisions in it, and thereby to destroy Christian love. And he that knows not how fatal an Engine the needless and corrupt impositions of ambitious Prelates and their Councils have been above these 1300 years to deprave and tear the Christian Church, under pretence of reducing it to an impossible Uniformity, is either a stranger to Church History, or has too deep a tincture of that wretched pride and ignorance that has animated imperious Patriarchs and Popes.

I proceed now to consider Mr. K's Answer to D. M's Quest. which I shall transcribe at large.

Neither are all Protestants Catholick Members of the Church, nor they only. Those among Protestants that embrace the Catho∣lick Faith, and make no separation from their lawful Governors, and that live in Ʋnity of Faith and Charity with their neigh∣bour Churches, are catholick members; and have that unity which is essential to the catholick church. But these are not to be con∣founded with Presbyterians, Independents, Anabaptists, Fifth-monarchy men, Quakers, &c. since these have separated themselves from their lawful Governors, as much as Mr: M. himself; though their crime be less than his; as he is less guilty that makes a re∣bellion, than he who joyns with a Forreigner to enslave his coun∣trey.

I did not expect a man of Mr. K's abilities cou'd have be∣traid so much ignorance or uncharitableness, or both, in answer∣ing so easy a Question. If the Dissenters be guilty of Schism, I am sure 'tis n••t half so gross and palpable as what this one Paragr••ph contains, nor so opposite to true christian love.

Mr. K. who charges D. M: for talking of things without clearing them, would do well to take his own advice. 'Tis hard to imagine what he means by Catholick members of the Church. Does he mean the same by it, as members of the ca∣tholick church, or no?

If he do not, what signifies his Answer to D. M's Question, which was, Whether the church catholick contain all the variety of Protestants who want her essential mark, viz. Ʋnity? Nay, why does he assert those Protestants only, whom he here de∣scribes to have that Unity which is essential to the Catholick Church? For none can be members of the Catholick Church, but such as are united with their fellow members in those things which essentially constitute them one Church or Body. Catholick members of the Church is no very proper expression, 'tis like total parts, and can have no tolerable sense distinct from that plainer expression, Members of the catholick church. If Mr. K. make any distinction betwixt these two phrases, it must be founded on the supposition of some vicarious Head of Unity to the Catholick Church, which we condemn the Church of Rome for setting up, and Mr. K. himself seems to disown, p. 55. Nor wou'd that Hypothesis it self justify the distinction; because if Christ have made any Vicarious Head or center of Unity to the Catholick Church, we cou'd not be united to him as his members without union with that Vicarious Head. So that to be Catholick members of the Church, and members of the Catholick Church, are the same thing.

And if Mr: K. use that expression in this sense, let us consider a little the description he gives of those who are Catholick members of the Church. Here are three characters to know them by; Their embracing the catholick Faith, their making no separation from their lawful Governors, their living in charity with their neighbour churches.

The first is, Embracing the Catholick Faith (and he shou'd have added, Professing catholick holiness of life). For this cha∣racter 'tis undeniable, and I hope Mr. K. will not exclude any of the forementioned Protestant Churches from being Catho∣lick members of the Church on this score.

The two latter Mr. K. himself will find too dangerous and too schismatical to own upon second thoughts.

For from the third, viz. living in charity with their neigh∣bour churches, I infer;

1st. That this character does exclude all the Papists from being catholick members of the Church; for they are so far from living in charity with their neighbour Churches, that their Trent-creed does assert its Articles to be that catholick Faith without which no man can be saved, and consequently damns all the Churches in the world besides their own.

2. On supposition the Reformed Churches abroad which have not Diocesan Bishops, be true Churches, this character ex∣cludes all those of the Church of England from being catholick mem••ers of the Church, who do, with Mr. Dodwell unchurch all those Reformed Churches that want Prelatical Ordination. For to unchurch them, is not to live in charity with them.

3. If the Churches of the Presbyt. and Indep. here be true Churches, (as I shall in this Paper evince they are), then Mr. K. and all that are of his mind, are no catholick members of the Church, because they live not in charity with their neighbour Churches. (And I hope there is not the less charity due to them for being of the same countrey or Nation): for Mr. K. makes subjection to lawful Pastors a mark of the members of the catholick Church, p. 4. and declares the Presbyt. &c. de∣stitute of that mark, p. 6. And consequently denys them to be members of the catholick church, which is the highest breach of charity imaginable. And what if the Presbyt. shou d treat Mr. K. according to his own principle, and declare him no ca∣tholick member, because he lives not in charity with them? They would but use his own weapons against himself. But (however they have been misrepresented) they are not of that schismatical humour as some are, who have long made a loud outcry against Schism.

4. Nay, if this character be true, then in all those conten∣tions that have happen'd in the Church where the contending Parties have been so uncharitable as to excommunicate one another' tho sometimes about meer trifles; the one Party or both have ceast to be catholick members of the church. And so when Pope Victor excommunicated the Eastern churches for not keeping Easter on the same day with him, He and all that joyn'd with him ceast to be catholick members of the church. And if to be catholick members of the Church, and members of the catholick Church be the same, what a vast part of the chri∣stian wor••d has been unchurch'd in every age by the unchari∣table censures of proud contentious Prelates!

I suppose Mr. K. never considered these consequences, or else he would never have made living in charity with neigh∣bour Churches a necessary mark of the catholick members of the Church. As if the legitimate children of the same Father might not in an angry mood call one another Bastards, or the subjects of the same King in a pievish humour nickname their fellow subjects Rebells without any just cause. I am sure, the Presbyterian Churches both at home and abroad are the least concern'd in this character; for they have never unchurcht the Prelatical Churches, even when they have met with the most harsh and unreasonable treatment from them.

But Mr. K. has given us another character to distinguish the Catholick members of the Church by, which he imagines will exclude all the Presbyterians, Independents, &c, from that num∣ber, viz.

That they are such as make no separation from their lawful Governors.

All this is founded on his schismatical mark of the catholick Church, viz. That its members live under their lawful spiritual Governors. Here therefore all those difficulties occur about the meaning of lawful spiritual Governors which were propos'd, p: 3, 4, 5▪ 6, 7. And which sense soever Mr. K. chooses, he will find it does oblige him to unchurch a great part of the Catho∣lick Church, i. e. to be a schismatick of the worst sort. And if the laws of Christ must determine the debate, he will give the

Dissenters such an Argument against Prelatical Churches be∣ing members of the Catholick, as he will never be able to an∣swer: And Mr. Baxter's Treatise, which proves the unlawful∣ness of Diocesan Prelacy, has, according to Mr. K. done what that charitable man never intended, unchurcht all our Diocesan Churches, and cashierd them from being any part of the Church-Catholick.

There is no doubt but unjust separation from any lawful spi∣ritual Governors is a sinful practice: And particular Churches gather'd by such a sinful separation, are not gather'd in a re∣gular way. And therefore an unjust violation of due Order, is all that Mr. K. can justly pretend to charge the Presbyterians and Independents with, and perhaps will find it a more difficult task than he imagines, to make good that charge.

And therefore to clear this matter, let me premise; Parti∣cular Churches are the chief integrating parts of the Church-Catholick. These Churches consist of one or more Pastors, and a Christian Flock associated under his or their oversight for personal communion in Faith, Worship, and holy living. These Churches are obliged by the very dictates of the light of na∣ture, and general rules of the holy Scripture, to endeavour the preservation of all necessary Unity, by the amicable consultati∣ons of their associated Pastors. The judgment of such associ∣ated Pastors should be submitted to by the people under their care, when 'tis not repugnant to the Word of God, and con∣trary to the interest of Religion. But the people do not owe them a blind obedience, nor have such Pastors any power but for edification. Much less can such Bishops pretend to an higher power, whose very Office Christ never instituted, whose pre∣tended relation to their Diocess is not founded on the peoples consent to it; and if such Bishops should claim the sole power of Church-Government in a Nation, and exercise it against the will of Christ to the n••torious detriment of souls, (as by unjust silencing of faithful Pastors when their labours are highly con∣ducive to the Churches good, by imposing on the people sinful conditions of Church-communion, by obtruding unqualifi'd Pastors on the people against their consent, &c.) To separate

from such Bishops so far as to disobey these unjust commands, is no separation from our lawful Governors; and is no more a Rebell••on in the Church, than 'tis a Rebellion in the State to dis∣obey one that usurps a Power he never receiv'd from the King, and which he exercises against the laws and interest of the Kingdom.

And therefore I would propose these two Questions to Mr. K. in reference to this Head.

Q. 1. On supposition the Presbyt's and Indep's have made an unjust separation from their lawful Governors whom they should have subm••tted to, Whether ••his be such a crime as will exclude them from being Catholi••k members of the Church?

To resolve that, We must consider the nature of their sepa∣ration. Their Ministers separate from the Bishops, i. e. they are not willing to obey them in what they account a sin∣ful and dangerous usurpation, viz. the assuming the sole power of Church-Government, and depriving the Pastors of particu∣lar Churches of an essential part of their Office, and suspending them unjustly. Their people separate from the Parish-Mini∣sters, but 'tis not by disowning them, as no true Ministers, but by refusing to receive them as theirs, because they judge they have a right to choose a Physician for their Souls as well as for their Bodies; and therefore think not themselves bound to acquiesce in the Patrons or Bishops choice, when con∣trary to their own edification; especially when there are terms of Parish-communion impos'd, to some unlawful, to others greatly suspected; and all true Church-discipline is cast out or neglected. They separate not from the conforming Churches as no true Churches, but as preferring the ordinary commu∣nion of purer; because they judge the laws about Parish-order do not oblige, when injurious to the interest of Religion and Souls. Now suppose them mistaken in these matters through the weakness of their judgment; will this sort of separation make them cease to be Catholick membe••s of the Church? 'Tis not a separation from any thing Christ has made necessary to the unity of his Church, 'tis only a separation from some hu∣mane order, which they dare not comply with, because they

apprehend it contrary to the laws of Christ. And is this to be compar'd to a Rebellion in the State? (as he is pleas'd to do, p. 6.) Is the convocation, Christ? or their Canons equally ob∣ligatory as his laws? or do those that disobey the Canons of the Convocation, because they judge them opposite to the laws of Christ, renounce their Allegiance to him as the Head of his Church? Are their Canons even about things they call indif∣ferent, as necessary to be obey'd, as the undoubted Rules of the Gospel, by all that wou'd be Catholick members of the Church, when those that are requir'd to obey them, fear the things commanded are unlawful? When I read such expressions as this about Church-Rebellion, I cannot but lament the effects of hu∣mane ignorance and pride, and observe in such as Mr. K. some degrees of that spirit that has acted Papal Councils, who made no scruple of treating all that would not pay them a blind obe∣dience with such characters as these. And I know no better way to convince Mr. K. of the folly of this Principle I am op∣posing, than by shewing him how pernicious the consequences of it are to his own Party.

For if this sort of Schism which he supposes the Dissenters guilty of, prove them to be no Catholick members of the Church, then sure more heinous Schism will prove those to be in the same condition who are gui••ty of it. Greater Schism is more opposite to Catholick Ʋnity than lesser. But the Pre∣lates are guilty of more heinous Schism than this of the Dis∣senters supposing it to be Schism); and consequently if Mr. K's principle be true, are no Catholick members of the Church. That the Prelates are gui••ty of more heinous Schism, I offer this Argument to evince. Those who impose unnecessary and and doubtful terms of Church-Commun••on, nay, who declare many thousands of true Christians ipso facto excommunicated, are greater Schismaticks than those, who only scruple those terms, tho through mistake, and who unch••rch not those Churches which they are thus forc'd to separate from. For the Schism of the Imposers is more voluntary and curable by for∣bearing to prescribe such terms of Communion as are more likely to prove engines of Division; The Schism of the Refusers is

more involuntary, and in doubtful cases often incurable. And 'tis more opposite to Christian Love to excommunicate thou∣sands of sincere Christians, than 'tis to prefer those Churches which we upon the best enquiry judge more pure before those that seem more corrupt without unchurching them; even tho in so doing we should be guilty of some breach of the Chur∣ches peace, by v••olating a tolerable humane order: So that all Mr. K. will gain by excluding Dissenters from the Catholick Church on the account of their Schism, will be, That by the same reason, our Convocation were no Catholick members of it; and if so, I am sure they are no lawful Governors in it.

For what I have here asserted, that the Convocation have ex∣communicated thousands of sincere Christians, and that ipso fa∣cto, I appeal to their Canons, and to the consciences of any that peruse them, and know the Nonconformists in these Kingdoms, few whereof are not by some of these Canons ipso facto excom∣municated. See Mr. Baxter's English Schismatick detected, who from p. 42. to the 50th. recites the particular Canons.

Nay, if all that are guilty of equal Schism with that of the Dissenters (supposing them guilty) be no Catholick members of the Church, I fear there are few such in the World. Sure the Schism of the Papists is of a more monstrous nature, who un∣church a••l the Churches on earth besides themselves. And the Greeks pay them in the same coyn. And if other of the Ea∣stern Churches do not unchurch one another, they have lost their old wont. What dreadful work Councils have made in hereticating and unchurching one another upon very unjustifi∣able grounds, fills up both pages in Church-History. And as such were more heinous Schismaticks than those that are guilty only of passive separation, (i. e. separation occasion'd by mens scrupling the lawfulness of some humane Canons); so according to this notion, they were no Catholick members of the Church: And at this senseless rate we may soon reduce the Catholick Church to a small compass. And what would become even of the Christian World, if the compassions of our blessed Lord were as narrow as the charity of such censorious Christi∣ans.

The 2d. Quest. I wou'd propose to Mr. K. is,

Ʋpon what grounds does he assert that the Presbyterians, In∣dependents, &c. have made a separation from their lawful spiri∣tual Governors?

This Quest. relates to the regular constitution of their Chur∣ches; Who then are the lawful Pastors of these Presbyterians, &c. from whom they have separated? Does he mean the Bi∣shops, or the Parish Ministers?

If the Bishops, they must be consider'd either as the King's Officers, to execute that civil power which he has circa sacra; And so the Presbyterians submit to them, and separate not from them; Or they must be consider'd as Christs Officers, to exercise that spiritual power which his Charter gives; and as such, the Presbyterians are very ready to submit to them, when they have prov'd the divine Right of their Office: Or they must be consider'd as the Churches Officers; and if so, 'tis requisie, that Church should obey them, who assign them their Office, or consent to be their subjects; not those who account their Of∣fice a sinful usurpation, and are the more unwil••ing to become their Subjects, because they cannot be so without complying with sinful Impositions, and even approving their usurpation. And that any Church may lawfully constitute new Officers whom Christ never appointed, and su••ject his undoubted Of∣ficers to their Authority, especially such as Diocesan Prelates, who by engrossing the power of the Keys, render Church-discipline impracticable, is a proposition Mr. K. will hardly prove.

If the Parish-Ministers be the lawful Governors they separate from, I would willingly know how they come to be the law∣ful Governors or Pastors to those that consent not to their Pa∣storal relation, and have sufficient reasons why they do not? Will Mr. K. say, that all persons ought to commit the conduct of their Souls to that Minister whom the Bishops or Patron chooses? and that 'tis sinful separation not to do so? I wou'd then enquire; What does he think of those Parishes that are so large, that scarce the tenth part of the people can enjoy the la∣bours of the Parish-Ministers, as Stepney, Giles, Martins, and

Cripplegate Parishes in London, which have one with another 30000 or 40000 souls in each of them? Does he think it an un∣lawful separation for that part of the people that cannot have room in the Parish Churches, to attend the Ministrations of other pious and judicious Pastors? Is this such a separation too as will exclude them from the Catho••ick Church? To assert t••is, is to prefer a point of humane order (or rather disorder) about Parish-bounds b••••ore the salvation of souls; and in effect to say, that 'twere better all those peop e should want the or∣dinary means of salvation, and live like Pagans or Atheists with∣out any publick worship of God, than such a point of Church-orde•• be violated. And if any can believe all this, 'tis very much to be doubted whether they know what souls and their salvation are.

Again, What does Mr. K. think of such Parish-Ministers as want the necessary qua••ifications, such as are notoriously igno∣rant, or scandalously wicked? Do those in their Parishes, who after having sought redress in vain, choose other Ministers of eminent lea••ning and ho••iness, make a sinful separation, even such as will argue them no Catholick members of the Church? If he say this, he still prefers a meer point of humane order before the end of it, the edification of souls; and had rather ha∣z••rd their damnation, than have a scandalous Parish Minister disown'd, whose Life is more likely to debauch, than his Do∣ctrine to reform his Hearers.

I might ins••st on many such Questions as these; but because Mr. K. has not thought fit to give us any reason why he takes the Parish-Ministers for the only lawful Governors, even to those Nonconformists that consent not to their pastoral relation, I sha••l f••r their vindication offer this argument, to prove that the Nonconformists live under their lawful spiritual Governors or Past rs, and consequently make no separation from them.

I instance in the Presbyterians;

Those are the lawful spiritual Governors of particular Christian Flocks or Churches, who have all the qualifications requisite, a va∣lid Ordination, the consent of those Churches, and who in taking the oversight of them violate no law of God, nor any just law of man.

But such are the Pastors of the Presbyterian Churches in these Kingdoms; E. they are the lawful Pastors of those Churches.

The minor Prop. alone needs proof, viz. That the Pastors of the Presbyt. Churches are such as are here describ'd.

For their Qualifications, and the consent of the people; that is matter of fact, concerning which, they may safely appeal to those that know them: ••nly I would here suggest, that a con∣siderable number of Ministers who prescribe various difficult exercises to a Candidate for the trial of his abilities, are as like∣ly to judge of them as one single Bishop, who usually commits the examination of them to his Chaplain. For the validity of their Ordination, I undertake to make that good in answer to the Questions about Mission. The only doubt then remaining is, Whether these Pastors in taking the oversight of their Flocks, do violate any law of God, or any just law of Man?

1. For the laws of God, I cannot understand any that they should be supposed to violate, but either that law that enjoyns us to obey Superiors, or such as enjoyn the preservation of the Churches peace.

For the former, it falls in with what doubt may arise concer∣ning the laws of men.

For the latter, the precepts of God which concern the Churches peace, I need only say these two things to clear them from the suspicion of violating them.

1. That the great duties recommended in the holy Scriptures in order to the preservation of the Churches peace, are a mutual forbearance in things indifferent, and a charitable judgment of each other in lesser differences.

This is evident from the 14th Chapt. of the Ep. to the Rom. to the 17th ver. of the 15th. where these duties are at large prest from great variety of Topicks, and urg'd on those that had Pastors among them. And to say, this great Rule on y oblig'd Christians to these duties till the Clergy had determin'd those indifferent things, and by their imposing them, cast out all Dissenters, is too like the confidence of those Gentlemen who own Christ instituted the Communion in both kinds. But te••l us his Institution obliges not, now the Church has pleas'd

to command it shall be otherwise. And I do appeal to any im∣partial judg, whether the Convocation or the Presbyterians have better observ'd this great Rule that concerns the Churches peace; But,

2. No Law of God enjoyns us to do any thing sinful for the Churches peace.

But for the Pastors of the presbyterian churches to desert their ministerial Office when never just••y forbidden, and when their labours were highly conducive to the Interest of Religion and the Salvation of souls, were sinful. Methinks those Men that are so zealous to exclaim against all alienation of church∣lands and utensils as Sacriledg and a very horrid sin, shou'd see somthing equally hainous if not more so, in mens alienating those excellent gifts God has endued them with for the Churches Edification, when never justly forbidden the exercise of that Ministery to which they are devoted. They who are justly call'd to that office by men, are call'd by Christ, and are bound to be true and faithful to him. And where there is a true ne∣cessity of their labours, they may answer their unjust silencers, as Peter & John did; Acts 4.19 Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judg ye. Timothy, who was ordain'd by men, yet has that solemn charge given him, 2 Tim. 4.1, 2. that is sufficient to deter Ministers from denying their Lord the service they have vow'd him, to please the unjust will of men. I know but one case that will excuse a Minister un∣justly silenc'd in forbearing the exercise of his Ministry, viz. when there is no necessity of his labours, and the exercise of his Ministry would by violating pub••ick order do more hurt than good in his present circumstances. But 'tis too evident, this was not the case of those 2000 Ministers si••enc'd by the Act of Ʋniformity. To that purpose, let the consequences of their continuing or forbearing their Ministry be compar'd. What was the inconvenience of their Preaching more than this, that a point of humane order was violated; some needless imposi∣tions (to speak the mildest) not comply'd with, (which were design'd to promote an impracticable uniformity, but were more likely to prove engines of corrupting and dividing the

Church); and the unjust will of the Silencers disobey'd. What was the advantage of their continuing their Ministry? It may be justly said to the honour of God, that many thousands of ignorant souls have been instructed in the truths of the Gos∣pel, and by true conversion or repentance added to the num∣ber of Christ's mystical body; the honour of Christianity has been promoted by the purity of their societies through the faithful exercise of Church-discipline; the serious practice of Religion has been more effectually maintain'd in a profane and debauched age; And (what I would chiefly recommend to your consideration) a vast number of souls have enjoy'd the su∣table and succesful means of their Edification and Salvation, who either through the irregularity of Parish-bounds, or through their own scruples about the terms of Parish-commu∣nion, must else have wanted them; or through the ill provision of Parish-Ministers must have sat under such Pastors as no man concern'd for his own ••ternal happiness should be satisfied with where he may have better. For the truth of these things, the silenced Ministers may freely appeal to those that know them, and have any serious sense of these matters. But they will not much regard the judgment of those who think there is no need of any other conversion than from the external profession of a false Religion to the profession of a true; And no Regenera∣tion but external Baptism, who account all sufficiently qualified to take a pastoral charge of souls who have got into holy Or∣ders; and think the people bound in complaisance to the Pa∣tron, or the Bishop to acquiesce in their choice, tho it deprive them of the most probable means of their salvation, and oblige them to sit under those as their Pastors, from whose labours little succe••s can be rationally expected. But for such as under∣stand the real necessities and value of souls; and know how much the success of Ministers does ordinarily depend on their moral aptitude and abilities for that sacred Office; and have learnt to prefer the Edification and Salvation of Souls before external order, when inconsistent with it: Let them judge, whether the foresaid Ministers had not sinned, had they in those circumstances deserted their Ministry, and denied their help to

those that needed, and ear••estly crav'd it? i. e. Whether it were better that in our large Parish-Churches thousands should live without any publick worship of God, or means of salvation; Or th••t all who scruple the imposed conditions of lay-com∣munion shou'd live without Pastors till they can change their judgment; Or that the people in a vast number of Parishes should live under such as their Pastors as no serious Christian would commit the conduct of his soul to, where he may have better; Or that irreligion should prevail through the total neg∣lect of Church-Discipline: In a word, whether it were better all the souls whom the Nonconformist's Ministry has been the Instrument within these 25 years to enlighten, sanctify, and prepare for Heaven, had never enjoy'd their labours, than the external order of Parish-bounds should be violated, and the suspected impositions (of things own'd by the Imposers for indifferent) disobey'd?

Now if it were sinful for the silenc'd Ministers to desert their office in such circumstances, because of an unjust prohibition; then no law of God that concerns the Churches peace, does ob∣lige them to it. And that they were unjustly prohibited the exercise of their office, belongs to the next Head.

2. The foresaid Ministers do in the exercise of their Ministry violate no just law of man.

The humane Law which they violate, enjoyns such condi∣tions of their office as these among others.

1. A Declaration of unfeigned Assent and Consent to all things contained in and prescribed by the Book entituled the Book of Common-Prayer and Administration of the Sacraments, and other Rites and Ceremonies, &c. and in the form and manner of ma∣king, Ordaining, and Consecrating of Bishops, Priests and Dea∣cons.

2. The Oxford Oath, or swearing never to endeavour any al∣teration of the present Church-Government.

3. Reordination as to those that had not Prelatical Ordina∣tion.

4. The Oath of Canonical Obedience, &c.

Now if these conditions of the Ministry be sinful, I would

gladly know whether any humane law be just, that forbids the Minist••rs of our Lord Jesus to preach his Gospel, unless they will comply with sinful terms, or that makes sinning the con∣dition of the exercise of their Ministry? I hope none will pre∣sume to say that which sets up the authority of Man against God's. I would therefore enquire further, Ought all to forbear the exercise of their Ministry who are forbidden by an unjust hu∣mane Law? If so, why did not Christian Pastors forbear it un∣der Pagan Emperors. or the Orthodox under the Arrian, or Re∣formed Pastors under Popish Princes, where the law ••or••ids them? Or will Mr. K. say, all these ought to have forborn and deserted their office. What! has God left it at the will of men whether he shall be publickly worshipt, whether his Gospel shall be preach'd, whether the Office he has call'd men to shall be discharg'd, whether souls shall enjoy the sutable means of their Salvation, or the number of Ministers shall be propor∣tionable to the real necessity of souls? Has he given men any power against his own interest, or to promote the damnation of souls by imposing such terms of the Ministry as Christ's own Laws forbid his Ministers to obey? If all ought not to forbear their Ministry who are forbidden by an unjust Law, What is there in the case of the silenc'd Ministers that sh••uld oblige them to it? I know nothing can be imagin'd but this, That obedi∣ence to that Law, tho unjust, would in their circumstances tend more to the good of the Church and sou s, than all their mini∣sterial labours. And if any can make this good, I doubt not but they will forbear. For proof of the contrary, see p. 27, 28. under the former Head.

All the Quest. therefore will be concerning the conditions of the Ministry, that by the foresaid Law were impos'd upon them.

For the first mentioned, the Declaration of Assent and Con∣sent, &c.

Are there not many thousands of sincere and upright Chr••∣stians in these Kingdoms, who do really judge kneeling at the Sacrament unlawful, because they account it a symbo izing with the Church of Rome in a ceremony abus'd to Idolatry?

who judge the Cross in Baptism unlawful, because 'tis a new Tessera or symbol of our Christian Profession of hum••ne Institu∣tion, to which those very duties and blessings of ••he Gospel are annext, which our Lord has annext to Baptism, ••special••y when the words of the Canon are, [To dedicate them ••y that badge (the sign of the Cross) to the service of Christ, whose benefits ••••∣stow'd on th m in Baptism the name of the Cross does represent]? Or, wh•• scruple the use of Sponsors in Baptism, to undertake that work which ••s the Parents duty, and not theirs, unless the Parent be incapable; and the more, because the 29••h Canon of the Church sa••th [No Parent shall be urged to be present, nor be admitted to answer as Godfather for his ••wn child]? He that knows not, there are many thousands who judge ••hese things unlawful, and yet are persons as eminent for their piety as those that are otherwi••e minded, is either a stranger to these Nations, or has very little charity left. Whether these persons be mistaken in these scrup••es or no, I do not now dispute, nor is it necessary to my Argument to suppose them in the right; But I wou'd hope it will be granted me, that their credible pro∣fession of Religion gives them a right to all the seals of the Co∣venant; and that 'tis not lawful to debar them from the Lords-Supper, or their children from Baptism on the account of these scruples. To say otherwise, were to make it lawful for the Ministers of Christ to reject those whom they have all imagi∣nable reason to be••ieve that their Lord receives, nay, whom he has commanded them to receive, Rom. 14.1. Whereas to re∣ject s••ch, is a heinous degree of Schism, and opposite to the great law of Charity and Christian forbearance, which Pastors as well as people are concerned in. 'Tis the very sin Diotrephes is charg'd with, 3 Ep. Joh. v. 10.

Now if it be un••awful to deprive such of external Church-priviledges as in the judgment of rational Charity have a right to them, then 'tis unlawful to profess our Assent and Consent to a Book which obliges us to th••s Uncharitable and Schismatical practice; For the Book obliges us to administer the Sacraments only in the manner there prescribed, and by the Canons of the Church those Ministers incur the danger of Suspension that do

otherwise. So that we cannot be Ministers without approving th••se Schismatical Conditions of Church-Communion, and perhaps excluding the most sober part of a Parish on the ac∣count of them. Whereas Christian Love forbids us to Exclude such, and much more forbids us to Assent and Consent to their Exclusion.

For the 2d. Cond••tion of the Ministry, That Clause in the Ox∣ford Oath wherein we must swear never to endeavour any Altera∣tion of Government in the Church.

Do's Mr. K think there are no Corruptions in the Govern∣ment of the Church, which if alter'd and reform'd wou'd great∣ly conduce to the advancement of real Religion? Is the exercise of Church-Government by a Lay-Chancellor and the manner of their process in the Spiritual Courts, no corruption that needs amendment? What when so solemn a thing as the Censures of the Church is manag'd more like a d••sign to correct mens pur∣ses then either the Errors of their Judgment or disorders of their Pract••ce, and as Dr. Burnet in the life of Bishop Bedel complains, That Excommunication had lost all its force as a Spi∣ritual Censu••e and was dreaded only on the account of the effects it produc't in Law. And these matters are not since chang'd for the better. Is that Discipline by which every particular Church shou'd be as much as possible preserv'd from the infe∣cti n and scandal of notoriously wicked members, possible to be exercised by a Bishop or his Lay-Chancellor for a whole Di∣ocess containing 3 or 4 hundred or perhaps as many more parti∣cular Churches? For Instance, Is the Bishop of Lincoln whose Diocess contains in it 1000 or 1100 Parish-Churches capable to cal•• all the scandalous sinners within that vast Precinct to Repentance, to examine the crimes alledg'd against them, use all the admonitions and reproofs that tend to reclaim them and after due evidence of their impenitency cast them out of Church Communion? How many thousands must he have at once in his Court if he exercised Church Discipline as strictly as the H. Scriptures enjoyn or as the Common-Prayer-Book owns it was practised in the primitive Church. See Pref: to the Commination used in Lent. And does there need any plainer

Argument of the impossibility of it, then that this Discipline was never actual••y exe c••sed by the B••shops to any purpose, nor one scandalous si••ner of a thousand in a Diocess ever call'd to Repentance for his notorious crimes or censured for his continuing in them (unless it were some scrupulous Noncon∣formist.) And does Mr. K. think these things need no altera∣tion? If he doth so, I would gladly know, What Church-Go∣vernment or Discipline signifies? To what purpose then is all this stir about an Empty Name, when there is no use to be made of the Thing to the great purposes it's intended for? when 'tis not exercised to preserve the honour of Religion by a credible profession of it in particular Churches, and to secure those Churches from the pernicious influence of such whom their Haeresies or their scandalous crimes render unfit for Chri∣stian Society?

If these things be gross abuses, If the present Church-Go∣vernment render Discipline impracticable, and deprive Parish-Ministers of an essential part of their Office, Is it lawful to swear We will never endeavour an alteration of this, and that without any limitation signified, as [in an irregular manner or beyond our particular Sphoere?] Is it lawful for those who know these to be corruptions which have greatly depraved the Church and dishonoured Christianity to swear they will never e••deavour to amend them? They might as well bind themselves by oath never to Repent nor Promote the Repentance of others.

If any say the meaning of the Oath is only, that they will never endeavour this [by any sinful means, or beyond their pri∣vate sphere]; Why could not these necessary words be put in? And that this dangerous sense was never intended by the Con∣vocation, is evident from the 7th Canon, where they thus speak; [Whosoever shall hereafter affirm that the Government of the Church of England under his Majesty, by Archbishops, Bishops, Deans, Archdeacons, and the rest that bear Office in the same is Antichristian, or repugnant to the word of God, let him be ••xcom∣municate ipso facto, and so continue till he repent, and revoke such his wicked error] They that thus suppos'd nothing in their Government repugnant to the word of God, did without

doubt intend to bind the inferiour Clergy from all attempts to alter it; and so contriv'd this Oath, that an Allegiance might be in these Nations sworn to the Bishops as well as the King.

For the 3d. viz. Reordination. The Divines of the Church of England generally own it unlawful; and consequently, the imposition of it supposes Ordination by Presbyters a Nullity. For such therefore as were so ordain'd to consent to Reordina∣tion, is to own the Nullity of their former Administrations, and cast the basest slurr on a great part of the Reformed Ministry: And this reminds me of a passage in the Preface to the Book of Ordination, which acquaints us with the judgment of those that compos'd it, Viz. [And to this intent, that these Orders be reverently esteem'd, No man shall be accounted or taken for a lawful Priest in the Ch. of Engl. or be suffer'd to execute the Fun∣ction, except he be called according to this form, or hath had for∣merly Episcopal Ordination.] And this we must profess our Assent and Consent to; which he that can do, (and makes conscience of declaring nothing but what he really believes has either a large stock of ignorance, or very little charity; (as will ap∣pear by what is said on the Head about Mission). The Au∣thors of that Preface cou'd not but foresee, that such Declara∣tions would eff••ctually choke a great part of the Ministers in England and Ireland, and 'tis hard to imagine what other de∣sign they could have in requiring their Assent and Consent to such passages as these.

For the Oath of Canonical obedience viz. That the Priests or Deacons will reverently obey their Ordinary and other chief Mi∣nisters to whom is committed the Charge and Government over them.

I suppose 'Tis meant of obedience to their Ordinary in what he prescribes agreably to the Canons which are the known Rule he governs by. And so we should be obliged to read the sentence of excommunication against all that the Bi∣shop or his Chancellor may according to those Canons excom∣municate, now he may excommunicate all Nonconformists.

And we that know them to be men of holy and blameless

lives, must swear to obey the Bishop, by publishing his schis∣matical sentence.

I might have added several things more on this Head, were it necessary.

I know some have told the world ••reely, that in their De∣claration of Assent, &c. they intend no more than to receive those Books as an Instrument of peace; so that they will not preach against any thing contain'd in them, as some subscribe even the Articles themselves: To which I need only answer;

1. It us'd to be acknowledg'd by Prot. Casuists, (as 'tis large∣ly asserted by Bishop Sanderson de Juram.) That to stretch the words of Laws, Oaths, and Promis••s to meanings different from their common use, is sinful, and a practice fitter for those that own the Doctrine of Equivocations, &c. than sincere Christians, or good subjects. Now if to Assent and Consent to all things contain'd in, and prescrib'd by a Book, be not an Assent to them as true, and Consent to them as good or lawful; 'tis impossible to understand the sense of those two words. And what might not a man in this lax sense declare his Assent and Consent to, tho never so much against his judgment, provided he did not think himself oblig'd to speak publickly against it. That the Parliament never intended that lax sense, appears hence; That when the House of Lords added a Proviso, that the Declaration in the Act of Uniformity should be understood but as obliging men to the use of the Book, the House of Com∣mons refus'd it at a Conference about it, and gave such reasons against that sense and Proviso to the Lords; upon which they acquiesc'd, and cast it out.

2. Whatever meaning be put on the forementioned declara∣tions and oaths, None can exercise his Ministry in the Church of England without denying the priviledges of Christianity to those that have a right to them and without quiting an essen∣tial part of his office as Pastor of a particular Church, or in∣curring the danger of suspension for doing otherwise. And the Ministers of Christ must not put themselves under such a nec••ssity of acting uncharitably and schismatically towards his true Members, nor thus wi••fully maim and deprave their Pastoral office.

I appeal then to the Judgment of all, Whether if these con∣ditions of the Ministry be sinful, That Law be just that shall enjoyn them, and make mens forswearing themselves necessary to the preaching of the Gospel?

I am very sorry Mr. K. and some of his Coat should so often necessitate their Brethren to harp on this ungrateful string. They pay too great a deference to the Laws of the Land to cast any need••ess Reflections on them. But men ought not to bear silently the charge of Schism and Church Rebellion, who are no way guilty of it. Especially when their silence and neglect to vindicate themselves may tempt others who are not acquainted with their case, to censure and hate them wrong∣fully, as cloth'd with these odious characters. I hope the pre∣cedent discourse has evidenc'd the charge to be undeserved and false. And therefore whatever expressions seem to grate on the Laws, must be imputed to the unhappy necessity put upon them to give a true representation of their case, by the virulent accusations of their brethren, from whom one wou'd think they might rather expect some pitty. I doubt not but the moderate and charitable part of the Conforming Clergy have other apprehensions of their brethren, and are asham'd of these passages in M. K's Answer. But for those that approve the si∣lencing Laws, arraign their Brethren as Church-Rebels for not obeying them, and condemn those societies that need and em∣brace their help meerly on that score, as no parts of the Catho∣lick Church, even when they exclude not the Popish Churches, It will appear, I think, from this Paper, that their Arguments are not so strong as their Passion, and a little more charity wou'd advance the reputation of their Intellectuals as well as Morals. Such men may long exclaim against our divisions, but their own principles and temper are the most insuperable obstacle to the healing of them.

Having considered the Questions in the Preface, I come to examine the first sett of those in the Pamphlet it self, which concern the Mission of the first Reformers, and they are by Mr: K. reduc'd to these five.

1. What Priesthood or Holy Orders had the first Reformers but what they receiv'd from the hands of Roman-Catholick Bi∣shops?

2 Who authoriz'd the first Reformers to preach their Prote∣stant Doctrine, and administer their Protestant Sacraments?

3. Whether Cranmer and his Associates could condemn the Church of Rome by pretence of the Mission they received from her Bishops?

4. Whether a Presbyterian Minister having received Orders from a Protestant Bishop, can by virtue of such Orders pronounce the Church of England a corrupt Church?

5. Whether an Act of Parliament in France, Spain, or Ger∣many, be not as good an Authority for Popery there, as in Eng∣land for Protestancy?

These are Questions one would think too ridiculous to be se∣riously propos'd. But I am heartily sorry Mr. K. can find no better Answer to them than what he has given, which in se∣veral passages runs too much on the same wretched mistak••s that led D. Manby to offer them with so much confidence.

And therefore I need say little more to expose them; than first state the Controversy about Mission, and then apply the true Notion of it to these Questions.

There is a twofold Mission, Immediate or Mediate:

1. Immediate, Which those had whom God sent to deliver some extraordinary message, or some new revelation of his will to men. Such a Mission had the extraordinary Prophets under the old Testament, the Apostles and Evangelists under the new. And these brought some Credentials of their Mission to convince men of the truth of it. That immediate Mission is now ceas'd; the revelation of the Divine Will being compleated in the holy Scriptures, and directions given for the continuance of a Mi∣nistry in the Church. There is therefore,

2. A Mediate Mission, or Call to the Pastoral Office. (For we are not here concern'd with the office of Deacons), I mean that office of Bishops, or Elders, or Ministers (for they are but several names to import the same thing) so often describ'd in the holy Scriptures. The office contains in it many great and

laborious works, To teach the Flock committed to their charge, be their Guides in publick Worship, and rule them by Evangelical Discipline. A Call to this Office gives the person call'd autho∣rity to do those works, and lays on him a personal obligation to do them. 'Tis from Christ alone that power is deriv'd by which men are authoriz'd and oblig'd. 'Tis his will exprest in the Gospel-Charter constitutes men his Ministers. And all that's further requisite, is, to know how he signifies his will concerning this or that particular person, being one of his Mi∣nisters.

To that purpose we must consider what Christ has done al∣ready in the Gospel-Charter, and what he has left for men to do.

Christ has already determined in the Gospel that there shall be a Ministry in his Church to the end of the World: He has describ'd their Office, and all the particular works of it; as what Doctrine they shall preach, what Worship they shall ce∣lebrate, how they shall rule the Church they oversee, and what Discipline they shall administer in it: He has left them suffici∣ent rules in all matters of universal constant necessity for per∣forming these works: He has describ'd the duties which Chri∣stian Flocks owe to such Pastors: He has assign'd the qualifi∣cations of such Pastors; He has made it the duty of people that need the labours of such qualified persons to seek their help, and of Ministers to call them out, approve, and invest them in that Office, and of the Civil Magistrate to protect the Wor∣thy.

It belongs not therefore to any men to appoint any new of∣fice in the Church of Christ, or maim that Office he has insti∣tuted, or impose sinful conditions in order to its exercise, or impose any other duties on the people than he has done; much less does it belong to them to determine whether the Gospel shall be preach'd, or the necessities of souls who want such Pastors supply'd.

All therefore that the Gospel has left to the Ordainers, is the Designation of the person to whom Christ's Charter shall con∣vey the power, the approbation of his qualifications, and the In∣vestiture

of him, or solemnizing his admittance. The Or∣dainers therefore do not give the power to others as from themselves, nor does it pass hrough their hands, nor can they diminish it, as ex gr. should the Ordainers say, [Receive thou power to preach and adm••nister the Sacraments, but not to rule the Flock:] Th••s restraint or diminution is null, as being con∣trary to the Charter of Christ. They are but Instruments of Inauguration, as a Recorder that invests a Mayor in that office which the King's Charter gives him. And the great design of the Interposition of Pastors in this matter is, to secure to the Church a succession of ab••e and blameless Pastors, of which they are supposed most fit to judge. Ordination by Pastors is God's ordinary regular way of admittance to prevent the Churches being deprav'd and injur'd by the intrusion of unqua∣lified p••rsons And therefore it should not be neglected where∣ever it may be had. Only it must be added, that the law of Christ which determines, that the Gospel shall be preach'd by persons so qualified, is founded on the necessity of souls, and the great law of Charity; and therefore is of constant and indispen∣sible necessity in the Church. But the command of their be∣ing Ordain'd by Pastors, is but subservient to the former, and relates only to the ordinary regular execution of it; and does not oblige where there is a physical or moral impossibility of ob∣serving it, and yet a necessity of the Ministry. For Ordination by Pastors is not of absolute necessity to the being of the Ministry; There have been and may be extraordinary cases wherein a man may be obliged to be a Minister without it: To instance in two cases;

What if many Christians should be cast on the shore of some Pagan Nation, where they are forc'd to stay a considerable time, and one among them be more eminently qualified than the rest, to be their Minister; the rest entreat his help; and will any say, that the Providence of God, which has given him such abi∣lities, does not sufficiently authorise him to exercise them in this case of necessity? When the work of the Ministry is of so much greater importance and necessity than that positive pre∣cept about the ordering of it. Nay, to propose a Case far more considerable:

What if all the pre••ent Pastors in a Nation should corrupt the Christian Doctrine and Worship, and impose those corrupti∣ons on the people as terms of Church-Communion? What if they refuse to ordain any that will not joyn with them herein? The people dare not comply with those terms, and because they would not live without the advantages of the pub∣lick Ministry and Worship, they invite such to take the Pasto∣ral care of their Souls as are duly qualified; that such qualified persons should not accept Ordination on such wicked terms, is past doubt; But what if they live so remote from any other Christian Kingdom that they cannot have Ministerial Ordina∣tion elsewhere. Wi••l any say, that in this case, those qualified persons for want of this Ordination ought not to ••••ke on them the Pastoral charge of those people, which God h••s given them such abilities for, and such a Call by his providence 〈◊〉〈◊〉? To say this, were to set up the Rule about the regular orde••ing the Ministry above the ends of the Ministry it self, and o•• 〈◊〉〈◊〉 circumstances of the Duty to the substance of it. Wher•• 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ••¦sitive precepts must always yield to moral, and matters or 〈◊〉〈◊〉 order to the end of the Duty ordered; and the former must n•• be pleaded against the latter. Ordination by Pastors is no•• therefore there necessary where it cannot be had without sin; and yet without a Ministry; the interest of the Gospel, and the salvation of Souls, are like to suffer the most visible prejudice and detriment. For these are matters infinitely more precious and valuable than any Rules of external order, and the very end those Rules aim at, and are subservient to. And if this be not granted, it must be left to the pleasure of such corrupt Pa∣stors, whether the people who cannot joyn in communion with them, shall enjoy the means of their salvation, or be obliged to live like Atheists without any publick worship of God. And he that asserts this, may next assert, that God has left it to their pleasure, whether the people shall be saved or damn'd; and that 'tis better they should be canonically damn'd than uncano∣nically sav'd. I propose these Cases to shew the vanity and falsehood of that Notion some make such a noise about, viz: The necessity of an uninterrupted succession of Ordination. And

if that principle be false: much more is theirs who assert the ne∣cessity of Successive prelatical ordination.

But tho in such extraordinary Cases, The extraordinary call of God's providence is sufficient to authorize a man to the sa∣cred ••ffice, and sup••lies the defect of Ministerial Ordination; Yet the command of God which enjoyns such Ordination does oblige where it may be had; and the neglect of it wou'd bring great confusion and disorder into the Church, and ex∣pose it to the danger of being corrupted and divided by un∣qual••fied Intruders.

The only thing that remains to be consider'd under this Head is, Who are entrusted with the power of ordination, Or whom has Christ appointed to approve and invest others in the Ministerial office?

Answ. Those are entrusted with this power and appointed to this wo••k, Who are themselves such Bishops or Elders or Pastors as the holy Scriptures describe, He that denies this, is oblig'd to acquaint us what other Officers the Apostles left in the Church, to whom this sole power of ordination was en∣trusted then, or what other officers claimed and exercised it in the primitive Church, Which none that I know of ever preten∣ded to do.

But now those whom the holy Scriptures call Bishops or El∣ders, were the stated pastors of particular Congregations.

That the same persons are in Scripture call'd Bishops and Elders is too palpable to be denied (However the Authors of the Preface to the Book of Ordination are pleased to say the contrary, viz. That 'tis evident to all men diligently reading the holy Scriptures and ancient Authors, that from the Apostles time there have been these orders in Christs Church, Bishops, Priests and Deacons, (as several offices) and even this palpable mistake among the rest we are required to declare our assent to.) Those who are 20 Acts. 17. called the Elders of the Church of Ephesus, are commanded, v. 28. to take heed to all the Flock, over whom the holy Ghost had made them overseers or Bishops. The description of a Bishop 1 Tim: 3 ch. and of an Elder 1 Tit. are the same; And Titus when directed to ordain Elders must

see that they be blameless, for a Bishop must be blameless as the Steward of God, v. 6, 7.

That these Bishops or Elders were Pastors of single con∣gregations is evident from the Duties enjoyned them towards those under their care, and from the Duties which the Flocks are required to pay them.

They are to labour among the people and admonish them, And the people were to know and esteem them highly in love for their works sake 1 Thess. 5, 12, 13. They were to rule their Flock, speak the word of God to them, and to watch over their Souls as those that must give an account; 13 Hebr. 7, 17, 24. They were to take heed to all the Flock over whom the Holy Ghost had made them overseers. 20 Acts, 28. Wherein the Apo∣stle proposes his own practice, (while he stay'd among them as their temporary pastor) for their imitation viz That he taught them publickly, and from house to house, and ceased not to warn every one with tears day and night 20 Acts, 20, 31. v. They were to bee ensamples to the Flock who were to follow their Faith considering the end of their Conversation, 1 Pet. 5. v. 3, compar'd with Heb: 13.7, They were to visit the sick and pray for them James, 5, 14. see Dr. Hammond's Annotations on these places applying them to Bishops.

Now let us consider whether these mutual duties, betwixt Pastor and Flock were to be performed betwixt the Pastor or Pastors of a single congregation, and the congregation commit∣ted to their care or betwixt a Diocesan Bishop and so vast a Flock as his Diocess.

That one or more Pastors of a single congregation associa∣ted for personall communion are capable of performing these duties to their Flock, and their Flock to them is past all doubt.

But can these mutual Duties be perform'd betwixt a Dioce∣san Bishop and his Diocess? Is he capab••e of labouring amongst them in word, and being esteem'd of them highly for his Works sake, when very few, comparatively of his Diocess, ever saw him, or heard him preach? Can he watch over the souls of all in his Diocess as his Flock, and warn them of their evil cour∣ses, when he knows not one of them in many score thousands?

Can the Diocess follow the Faith of such Bishops, and consider the end of their conversation, and propose them as their patterns, when not one in many thousands know any more of the life of their Bishop, than if he lived at the other end of the World? Are such Bishops obliged to visit the sick of their Diocess? Can they rule them by the exercise of Church-discipline against the notoriously scandalous, when perhaps there are forty or fifty thousand such in their Diocess? Can they use all the due process of serious reproofs and perswasions that are requisite to be u••ed for reclaiming such sin••ers, when there is so vast a number of them, and those so remote in their habitations, and the Bishops wholly strangers to the most of them? These are so pa••pable impossibilities, as to an unbyast considerer, are in∣stead of a thousand Arguments; that the Bishops or Elders which these Texts speak of were not Diocesan Bishops, i. e. they were not the Overseers or Rulers of many score or hundreds of Churches, as their Flocks to whom they were to perform all these Pastoral works, and the Flocks to pay them the foremen∣tioned Duties; But the Pastors of such a number of people as they could thus personally oversee, teach, rule, watch over, visit, &c. and such a number as could pay them that love, submission, imitation, &c. prescrib'd in the forequoted Texts. Especially when 'tis so expresly asserted. Acts 14. v. 23. That such El∣ders were ordained in every Church, which Titus is also appoin∣ted to do in every City, 1 Tit. 5. And 'tis well known every Town equal to our usual Market-Towns in England was then called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or City; and but a few comparatively of the in∣habitants at first converted to Christianity.

I grant, that soon after the Apostles time, the name of Bi∣shop and Presbyter, or Elder, begun to be distinguisht, and that of Bishop apply'd to a stated Praeses or Moderator of a Pres∣bytery or certain number of Elders. But 'tis as evident, That the Bishop and his Presbyters in the Primitive Church were but the Rulers of one Single Congregation capable of personal communion, not of many Score or hundred Churches. How plain to this purpose is that known passage of Ignatius (whose Authority the Defenders of Prelates have so vainly boasted of.)

who in his Epistle to the Philadelphians gives this certain mark of every Churches individuation, viz. There is to every Church one Altar and one Bishop together with the Presbytery (or Eldership) and the Deacons my fellow ser∣vants. The same Author in his Epistle to Polycarp advises that good Bishop to have fr••quent Churhc-Assemblies, and to enquire after all by name, and not to despise servants and maids: So in his Epistle to the Smyrnenses, Fellow all of you the Bishop as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the Pres¦byte••y as the Apostles, and reverence the Deacons as the appoint∣ment of God. Let none without the Bishop transact the affairs of the Church. Let that be accounted a valid communion which is in his presence, or by his permission; for where the B••shop is, there let the multitude be. 'Tis not lawful, without the Bishop, to Baptize, or make a Love-Feast.

Nothing can more fully evidence that the Church of Smyrna had their B shop, Presbyters, and Deacons; and 'twere ridiculous to apply those pass••ges to a modern Bishop and his Diocess.

Justin Martyr's known account of Church=Assemb••ies evin∣ces the truth of this which the learned Mr. Jos. Mede in his Discourse of Churches quotes, p. 48, 49, 50. and from thence ac∣knowledges, They had then but one Altar, (or place of Commu∣nion) to a Church, taken for the company or coporation of the faithful, as united under one Bishop.

Tertullian's account of particular Church-assem∣blies assures us, that Church-discipline was exercis'd in them, and that by the probati seniores, or approved Elders (among whom we own the Preses was called Bishop. Even in Cyprian's time, his famous Church of Carthage was not so great, but that he frequently professes he would do nothing in Church-affairs without the consent of his Presbyters, and all the people, especially in the censuring of Offendors. As in his Ep. 3.6, 10 11, 13, 14, 26, 27, 28, &c. Edit Goul And Ep 68. as he there declares the people have the chiefest power of choosing worthy Priests, and refusing the unworthy; so when he relates the manner of the Ordination of a Bishop, he tells us, All the next Bishops of the same Province do come together to that

people over whom the Bishop is set, and the Bishop is appointed, t••e people being present who fulliest know the life of every one, and have thoroughly seen the Act of every one's conversation. Which also we saw done with you in the Ordination of Sabinus our Colleague, that the office of a Bishop was given him, and hands imposed on him in the place of Basilides by the suffrage of the whole Fraternity, and by the judgment of the Bishops that had met together, &c.

We may easily gather what the Bishops Church was when all the people must be present, and judge of his life, and are supposed to be thoroughly acquainted with it. A Diocess of the mod••rn extent would be hard put to it to meet together for this purpose, and pass their judgment concerning the life of their Bishop.

The Constitutions and Canons called Apostolical, assign such duties to the Bishop, as plainly imply his relation to a Congre∣gation capable of personal Communion, as his Charge or Flock.

And (to give a brief summary of those proofs which it would require a large volume to insist fully on) if we consider impar∣tially all the duties which the most ancient Christian Writers describe, as belonging to the office of a Bishop, viz. [To be the ordinary publick Teacher of his Flock, (a) and Baptizer of those that were received into his Church. (b) To confirm the Baptized, to reconcile and absolve all penitents, to administer the Lords Supper. (c) To receive all oblations, &c. and distri∣bute them, To take care of the poor and sick and strangers as their Overseer and Curator (d) To try all causes about scandal in his Church with his Presbyters in the presence of his Flock (e) To Ordain other Bishops and Elders, To keep Synods among his neighbour Bishops, To grant communicatory Letters (f) &c.] And to how great a flock one man is capable to perform them: If we consider further that the Bishop and his Presby∣ters liv'd usually in the same House and in Common, at least near the Church, and that in the distribution of their maintenance one half of it was destin'd to repair the Fabrick or Temple, and maintain the poor; the other half to the Bishop and his Clergy,

or Presbyters (g); That it was the common custom for the Presbyters to sit in the same Seat with the Bishop (in a semi∣circle) and the Deacons below them (h); That the Deacons are always mentioned as Officers in the same Church with the Bishop (i). That the Love-feasts were not to be kept without the Bishops permission, and he was to have his share sent him, if absent (k). That the way of strangers communicating was by communicatory Letters or Certificates which were to be shewed to the Bishop of the Church where they desir'd to communi∣cate (l). That a Schism was describ'd by setting up Altar a∣gainst Altar, every communicating Church having its Altar (or Table for celebrating the Lords-Supper) and B••shop (m)

(a) Constit: Apost. c. 26. Just: Mart. Apol: 2: (b) Tertull. de Cor: Mil. c. 3. (c) Ignat. Ep. ad Smyrn: p: 4. Just: Mart: Apol: 2. (d) Just. Mart. ibid Constit: Apost. c. 27. Apost. Can. 5: (e) See Cypr Ep. passim, Tertull. Apol. c. 39. and many more in Blon∣del de Jure plebis, &c. (f) See Albasp. Observ. p. 254, 255. (g) See Tolet de sacerd. lib. 5. cap. 4. n. 15. and Pad. Paul Sar∣pi's Tract of Church-benefices translated by Dr. Denton. (h) Constit. Apost. c. 57. Counc. Carth. 4: Can: 35 (i) 1 Phil. v. 1. Clem. Rom: Ep: ad Cor: p: 54, 55: Pius in Ep: Justo Episc: Biblioth: Patr: Tom: 3: p: 15: Constit: Apost: c: 30 & 44. (k) Ignat: Ep. ad Smyrn. forequoted. Constit. Apost. c. 28: (l) Albasp. Observ. p. 254, 255. (m) Ignat. Ep: ad Philad. forecited. Cypr. Ep: 40, 72, 73. The ancient description of a Church is well known, Plebs Episcopo coadunata: See Dr. Still. Iren. p. 416.

That the Bishop was chosen by the Suffrages or Votes of the people he took the charge of, (n) and (as was said be∣fore) administred Church-censures in the presence of his Flock, whose judgment he consulted (o:) That Presbyters did but se∣dom preach publickly in the two or three first Ages, except in Alexandria or some few Churches that had Presbyters of more than ordinary Learning and Abilities; Chrysostom's preaching at Antioch, and Austin's at Hippo, while Presbyters are noted as unusual; That every City had its Bishop, is granted by all; (and Dr. Hammond and Grotius own many had two, nay, some

had more, as might appear by many instances, were it needful.) And every Town of any bigness was then called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or City, and the number of Christians did not of a long time even in the larger Cities exceed that of our larger Parishes. Nor were Bishops confin'd to Cities or Towns; for the Countrey Villa∣ge•• (where three were any tolerable number of Christians to m••ke a Church or Congregation) had long their Bishops also, who were not put down till Ambition had begun to deprave the Church, and for a reason agreeable to the humour of those that did it, ne vilescat nomen Episcopi (p): If we consider the nearness of Episcopal See's of which we read many that were much nearer one another than our Market-Towns, perhaps one, two, or a few more miles distant (q): If we observe all the small inconsiderable p••aces that were the See's of many fa∣mous ancient Bishops, not half so big as our lesser sort of Pe∣rishes (r): If we consider the vast number of Bishops men∣tioned within a narrow compass of ground.

(n) See Cypr. Ep. 68 forecited, and many more testimonies in Baxter's Church-History, & Answer to Stillingfl. from p. 128 to 133. and in Blondel de Jure plebis, &c. (a) See Blondel, ibid. (p) Concil. Laod. Can. 57. (q) To give a few instances; In Pa∣lestine, Diospolis or Lydda was but six miles from Joppa, Joppa four miles from Janmia; Rhinccoruca four miles from Anthe∣don, and Anthedon not three miles from Gaza, and Gaza, twenty furlongs from Constantia (anciently called Majuma). So in E∣gypt, Nicopolis was twenty furlongs from Alexandria, and Ta∣posiris, Canopus, Heraclia and Naucratis not much farther from one another; and yet all these Episcopal See's (r). Mr. Thorn∣dike Right of Churches reviewed, tells us, p. 53. that in Africa Bishops were so plentiful, that every good Village must needs be the Seat of an Episcopal Church; and the African Church, as Dr. Stillingfleet tells us, Iren. p. 373. longest retain'd the pri∣mitive simplicity and humility.

Binnius tells us of Sylvester calling together 284 Bishops, of which 139 were out of Rome, or not far from it. A Council of Donatists at Carthage had 270 Bishops (as Austin tells us, Ep. 68) about the year 308, and yet they were the smaller number, and

complain'd of Persecution. Ʋictor. Ʋtic: in Persec: Vand. ac∣quaints us that in that part of Africa 660 Bishops fled besides the great number murdered and imprisoned and many to••era∣ted, The 6th Provincial Council of Carthage had 217 Bishops. And to give an instance of later date which we are more ca∣pab••e to judge of, even Patrick is said to have founded here in Ireland 365 ••hurches, ordain'd so many Bishops besides 3000 Presbyters. Ʋsher de Eccles: Brit. Primord. p. 950. If we add hereto the late date of Par••h••s as distinguished from the Bi∣shops Church, (The Government of the Cathedrall by the Bi∣shop with the Dean, and chapters being a Relict of the ancient Episcopal Government) From these evidencies (and many more might be added) duly weigh'd, Wee may easily judge what the ancient Churches and Bishops were. A primitive Bi∣shop had no more then one Church, or assembly capable of per∣sonal Communion under his Charge, which he rul d with the joynt concurrence of his Presbyters or Elders. The first that set up more Assemblies under one Bishop were Rome and Alex∣andria, and no other Church can be prov'd to have done so for near 300 years nor many Churches for 4 or 5 hundred. And even those Assemblies did but long make up one commu∣nicating Church, and were but to the Bishops Church as Chappels of ease are to our larger Parish Churches. But for Diocesan Churches and Bishops, 'tis evident from these few re∣marks, That they are entire strangers to the primitive Church in its first and purest Ages. 'Twas only Ambition (striving to modell the Ecclesiastical Government by the Civil) that first gave rise to them, and from the same ambition in the Empire, sprung up Metropolitans, Patriarks and Popes, (The last of these long claiming only a Primacy of order among the rest of the Bishops in the Empire, for which Constantinople long vy'd with them, 'tis but of late they have emprov'd their pretensions into a claim of Supremacy over the Catholick Church as the Vicars of Christ) And 'tis too observable in Church History that as the Seats of Bishops swell'd and their power encreast by engros∣sing to themselves that work which a score or hundred Bishops cou'd hardly discharge, so all true Discipline was gradually dis∣us'd

and lost, and the Church miserably deprav'd by the cor∣ruption of it, as well as divided by the Contentions of aspiring Bishops about their primacy and usurped power.

If you d••sire further satisfaction on this head, I referr you to Mr. Baxters Treatise of Episcopacy who in the 2d. part 5, 6, 7: ch. has given as Satisfactory an account of the ancient Epis∣copacy as can be exp••cted of any matter of fact at that distance The few slender exceptions produc't by Dr. Stillingfl. in his Ʋnreason. of Seper: (which yet do not reach the two first Cen∣turies) are so clearly invalidated and expos'd by Mr. Baxters Answer to Dr: St. p. 100, 101, &c. and by Mr. Clerkson in his, No evidence of Diocesan Churches in Antiq: &c: that I shall take it for granted that, Diocesan Bishops and Churches are Strangers to Antiquity, and shall look on that cause as desperate and lost, unless some of its Patrons cou'd disprove that full stream of evidence he has brought against it from the most an∣cient Christian writers in the foremention'd Treatise. There are few considerable defenders of Prelacy, whose writings he has not animadverted on.

And tis strange to observe, how farr the most of them mi∣stake the true state of the controversie. Some go about to prove a sort of general superintendents Arch-Bishops, or Metropolitans who had some inspection over the Bishops of particular Church∣es within their Province, and presided in their Synods, but did not put down the Government and exercise of Church-Disci∣pline in those particular Churches, as if this were a proof of those Diocesan Bishops that do cast out all Government and ex∣ercise of Discipline by the Bishops or Pastors of particular Churches, and pretend to be the sole Pastors of the Diocess. And yet the jurisdiction of such Metropolitans, is of no very ancient date, and quite contrary to the judgment of Cyprian, who disowns any Bishop of Bishops, and owns only Bishops or Overseers of Flocks or Churches. Others take a great deal of pains to prove the stated presidency of one (by the name of Bishop) in a Consessus or Bench of Presbyters, who had but all one Communicating Church under their charge, which is not deny'd to have begun early in the Church as a Remedy of

Schism. But that difference of Bishop and Presbyters, when both were but joynt-rulers of a Congregation, is so far from being a proof of modern prelacy, that such Diocesan Bishops have put down the primitive Parish-Bishops, and monopoliz'd the pow∣er of many score, or hundreds of such Bishops to themselves, and thereby rendred true Church-government impracticable. Nay that very difference betwixt the Bishop and Presbyters of a particular Church, seems to have had it's rise wholly in the notorious disparity of his gifts, learning, age, &c. above the rest, but was never esteemed by them a difference in office or power, nor is it ascrib'd to any higher Original ••hen Human Constitution by Jerome, Au••••in, Amb••ose, Sedulius, Primasius, Chrysostom, Theodoret, &c. not to mention ••••der writers.

If then Ordination belong to Scripturall Bishops, and such be the Pastors of particular Churches, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 none else di•• or•••••••• in the Primitive Church in its purest Ages Then a l su••h B••∣shops have that power. Nor indeed have any power to or•••••• but on the account of their being such Scriptural Bish••••s. ••h•• office of Diocesan Prelates being a manifest Usurpation in th•• Church which had it's rise in human Ambition, That U••u pa∣tion cannot rightfully deprive the true Bishops or Pastors o•• that power of Church-government, which is as essential to their office as the power of teaching or being guides in wor∣ship. And whatever may be said for Parish-Bishops, submitting for peace sake, to the usurpation of a Diocesan, (ex: gr. when he claims the sole power of Ordination) where the true ends of it are attain'd, yet they have no reason to submit to it, when Diocesan Bishops shall so abuse that usurped power as to cor∣rupt and deprave the Ministry by imposing sinful terms, and hazard the ruin of Souls by neglecting to provide a number of faithful Pastors suitable to their real necessities. The Ordinati∣on therefore of the Pastors or Bishops of particular Church••s is more agreeable to the holy Scripture and primitive Antiqui∣ty, and consequently more unexceptionably Valid then that of a single Diocesan.

From whence it follows, That the ordination of Pastors in the Presbyterian Churches is Valid; because either they are

ordain'd by Diocesan Bishops, who had power to ordain on the account of that office they have in common with scriptural Bishops, tho they have none as Diocesan; or they are ordain'd by a concurrence of scriptural Bishops, to whose office the power of Ordination was annext by divine Institution, and and cannot be alienated by any humane usurpation. For Christ has given none power to change his Institutions. Nor can the will of the Ordainers debar his Officers from any part of that Authority which his Charter conveys to them. And if the validity of Ordination by such scriptural Bishops be deny'd, the Church had no ordained Ministers for a Century or two at least.

Having laid down these Notions about Mission, I come to examine D: M's Quest's.

Quest: 1: What priesthood or holy Orders had the first Refor∣mers, but what they received from the hands of Roman Catho∣lick Bishops?

Answ: If D: M: mean, that their priesthood or ministerial of∣fice was convey'd to them by the Bishops, as the Givers of it, they receiv'd it from none at all; nor has any that power to give; 'tis given by Christ in his Charter. But if he mean, that the Roman Catholick, or Popish Bishops did invest them in that office. 'Tis own'd, that most of the Reformed Ministers were ordain'd by them; and 'tis not material, whether they were R man Catholick Bishops of the same rigid stamp as those of the present Age, or no; for the validity of their Ordination de∣pends on the Essentials of the Pastoral office retain'd, and not on their horrid corruption of it. And as Mr. K. well observes, they ordain'd as Christian, not as Roman Bishops. But what if some of the Reformers became Pastors to the people upon their necessities and call, who durst not comply with the sinful terms of Ordination in the Church of Rome, and yet could have no other? They would not be in this case destitute of a true Mission: For the evident necessities of the peoples souls (who earnestly desir'd to have the Truths of the Gospel purely preach'd, and divine Worship purely celebrated; and who could not with a safe conscience continue in the Communion of the

Roman Church), and their Qualifications for so necessary a work were a sufficient signification of the will of Christ that they should undertake it. For the precept about the ordinary regular way of Admission to the Ministry did not oblige where it cou'd not be lawfully observed and where there was a far greater necessity of a pure untainted Ministry then of that positive point of Order. For else on supposition, no Pas••o••s had embraced the Reformation, The people who did, woud have been obliged to have lived like A••heists without publick wor∣ship.

2 Q: Who authorized the first Reformers to preach their Protestant Doctrine, and administer their Protestant Sac aments?

Answ. It does not belong to the Ordainers to determine what Doctrine the person ordained shall preach, but to Christ who has determined that matter already. And therefore if the Doctrine which our first Reformers preacht, and the Sa∣craments they administred be Christ's, as Mr. K. well argues, 'tis ridiculous to ask who authoriz'd them to preach the one, or administer the other. Christ did; and no men can autho∣rize any to preach any other Doctrine, or administer any other Sacraments. The Bishops or Priests in the Roman Church had no right or Mission from Christ to preach Popish Doctrine, or administer Popish Sacraments, or celebrate Popish Wo••sh••p so far as these are contrary to the Doctrine, Sacraments, and Wor∣ship contain'd in the Gospel. These were gross corruptions of their office; and therefore when any of them embrac'd the Reformation, when they begun to preach the Gospel more purely, and to celebrate divine Worship more free from the ido••atrous and superstitious mixtures that had prevail'd in the Roman Church, they restor'd their Ministry to its true use, and so far purg'd it from that wretched depravation. And in this debate Mr. K need not be asham'd to defend either Luth••r, or Calvin, or Zuinglius. For S cinus or h••s followers, they can produce no Mission to preach against the Divinity and satisfa∣ction of the Son of God, no more than D. M. to preach u•• the worship of Images, or Invocation of Angels and Saints, or Ado∣ration of the Host, &c.

For the 3d and 4th Qu. I shall joyn them.

Whether Cranmer and his Associates could condemn the Church of Rome by pretence of the Mission they received from her Bi∣shops. If so, whether a Presbyterian Minister having ••eceived Orders from a Protestant B••shop, can by vertue of such Orders pronounce the Church of England a corrupt Church?

'Tis evident both these Questions are founded on this ridi∣culous fancy, that the person Ordained is obliged to conform his Ministrations to the judgment or humour of the Ordainers. 'Tis true indeed, if in any Church, the Ministers that are Or∣dained be obliged to subscribe a Confession of Faith, or observe any publick Rules in their Worship, they ought not to be Or∣dain'd on these terms, if they think any thing in the Doctrine of that Church, or the Ru••es of its worship contrary to the Doctrine of Christ, or the Gospel Rule of Worship. Much less should they enter into that obligation with a design to break it afterwards. This were odious dissimulation. But if any have been Ordain'd in a Church that has obliged them to subscribe certain Articles of Faith, and Rules of Worship, which at their Ordination they had no scruple against, and shall upon deeper study find many of those Artic••es were gross and dan∣gerous Errors, and those Rules of Worship idolatrous or su∣perstitious, they are not obliged to preach those Errors, or pra∣ctice those Rules against the dictates of their own con••cience. Nay, if those errors and corruptions endanger the salvation of their Flock, they ought to preach against them, and warn souls of their danger. And not to do this, is to betray those souls, to desert the cause and testimony of Christ, and fail of that fidelity he expects in the discharge of their office. They ought to do all in their sphere towards a Reformation; and if they should be suspended for the doing that which Christ has made their duty, the suspension is unjust and null, as being opposite to the laws and interest of Christ, and is indeed a Rebellion against him. If therefore the Doctrines and Worship of the Roman Church were pernicious, and endangered the salvation of souls, and our Reformers had just ground to account them such, they were bound by the laws of Christ to preach against them, and

warn the people of them, and in their sphere attempt a Refor∣mation. Nor would any suspension or excommunication of those Popish Bishops that Ordain'd them, justify their deserting their Ministry, and betraying the interest of Christ and souls. And they might do this without assuming any Authority over the Church of Rome; they only refused subjection to her unjust im∣positions. And so may Presbyterian Ministers refuse subjection to the sinful impositions of those Prelates that Ordain'd them, and are not obliged to lay down their Office when ever their Ordainers shall unjustly silence them, as we proved before.

But Mr. K. I perceive likes not this Answer, and therefore chooses to justify the Church of Engl. upon narrower grounds; And therefore in his Reply to these Questions;

1. He grants that, A Presbyter or Bishop ought not to preach against the Constitution of the Church whereof they are Mem∣bers.

2. He asserts, This was not the Reformers Case, and therefore he founds the lawfulness of the Reformation entirely upon its being made by the Convocation, in whom he supposes the su∣preme Church-Government lodged in this Nation.

Had Mr: K. only argued, that the Reformation in England was not only lawful, but effected in the most regular way with the concurrence of the Civil Magistrate upon the advice of so considerable a part of the Clergy; none could have blam'd him for taking in all the considerations that prove the Refor∣mation in England to have been the most unexceptionably re∣gular and orderly. But that in his eager zeal to defend the Prelates of the Church of England in silencing their brethren, he should make such a Concession to the Papists as may be used a∣gainst the Reformation elsewhere with so great advantage, was not ingenuous. But we must excuse him that he had rather wound the Reformed Churches abroad, than not gratify his spleen against the Presbyterians at home, and car'd not whom he made Schismaticks, provided he fastned that character on his Brethren.

Let us therefore examine this Concession of his, p. 27. A Presbyter or Bishop ought not to preach against the Constitution

of that Church of which they are members. The reason he gives is, Because there is a regular way wherein they may endeavour a Reformation▪ viz. If they find any thing amiss in her Doctrine or Discipline, they may make their application for the redress of it to those that have power to reform it, but must not presume, being subjects, to u••urp their Governors power.

But what if their Governors refuse to reform, and silence those that desire, or in their own sphere attempt it? All the answer is,

But if such a Bishop or Presbyter be censur'd and suspended, he is thereby discharg'd from the execution of his Office, and he must no more make a Schism to regain it, than one must make a Rebel∣lion in the State to regain a Civil Office. This we urge, and I think with reason against the Presbyterians and other Sects among us, that either have no Ordination or appointment to their Offices from the Church of England or Ireland, or else abuse the power against her, which was once given them by her, and from which they are again legally suspended. And as we urge this against them, so likewise against D. M. &c.

Let us briefly consider the Consequences of this Concession, and the grounds of it.

1. Its Consequences.

The first Protestant Pastors in France, and most other parts of Europe were before the Reformation members of those Chur∣ches where they lived, and subject to their Governors; they had received Ordination by the hands of Popish Prelates. God was pleased so to bless their studies, and search after truth, that they begun to discover abundance of gross and pernicious er∣rors in the Doctrine, and a wretched mixture of Idolatry and Superstition in the worship of the Church they lived in. What should they do? they were but particular Presbyters, and there∣fore should not according to Mr. K's principle preach against the Constitution of the Church which gave them their Office. Ma∣ny of them try'd his remedy; they represented these things to their Ecclesiastical Superiors, as Luther to the Archbishop of Mentz, and the Bishop of Brandenburg, and the Pope himself. But they soon learnt by dear experience, how averse the Court

of Rome was to any Reformation, and how little it was to be expected from the Prelates, who either had no will, or no cou∣rage to attempt a Reformation against the will of the Pope. Luther and all his followers in stead of prevailing with those that had the conduct of the Church were excommunicated as Hereticks. Now according to Mr. K's principle, these Refor∣mers being censured and suspended by the Prelates to whom they were subject, were discharged from the execution of their Office, and should no more have made a Schism in the Church to regain it, than one must make a Rebellion in the State to regain a Civil Office.. And since they did not desert their Office, but went on to preach against the Constitution of the Romish Church, and the will of their Superiors the Popish Prelates, they were no better than Schismaticks and Church-Rebels; Nay, if his Notion of the Catholick Church be true, the people that sepa∣rated from the Popish Prelates, and adher'd to their excommu∣nicated Pastors, ceast to be members of the body of Christ. And how great a part of the Reformed Churches and their Pastors fall under this heavy charge? And will Mr. K. own all these unavoidable consequences upon mature deliberation? What if we should once more have a Popish Convocation in England, and these should restore the Romish Religion, and sus∣pend a••l the present Parish-Ministers (whom Mr. K. thinks now lawful Pastors), According to his Principle they being but Pres∣byters, and the Bishops Subjects, must not preach against the Con∣stitution of the Church of England, declaring her judgment by a Convocation in whom the supreme Government of the Church is lodg'd; they must therefore cease their Ministry, and no more make a Schism by the exercise of it, than they must make a Re∣bellion in the State to regain a Civil Office. Nay, to separate from such Governors of the Church of England, will prove those that do it no Catholick members of the Church. The same principles may be apply'd to the Arrians, who got Imperial Councils, and consequently the Government of the Imperial Church into their hands, and for such Pastors as Athanasius to preach against Arrianism which was then the Doctrine of the Church was Schism and Church-Rebellion; In a word, Accor∣ding

to these Principles, 'Tis in the power of a Convocation to damn many thousand souls by suspending an Orthodox, and substituting a corrupt Ministry; and for those Orthodox Pa∣stors when suspended to endeavour their salvation by the ex∣ercise of their Ministry, is to be Schismaticks and Church-Rebels. And what is this less than to set up the will of such Church-Governors above the will and laws of Christ, above the Salvation of Souls, and above the Interest of Truth and Ho∣liness. Therefore,

3. Let us examine the Grounds of this strange Assertion, viz. Because there is a regular way for reforming abuses, And for par∣ticular Presbyters to do it against the will of the Bishops whose Subjects they are, is like reforming abuses in the state, in spight of the King, a remedy generally worse then the disease, &c.

Answ. 1. All that these reasons prove is, that Reformation shou'd be first sought by humble addressing to our Superiors. But Mr. K. plainly leaves it impossible if they refuse.

2. They are founded on this wretched mistake, that the Authority of Bishops in the Church does resemble that of a King in the State, and so to reform abuses in the Church against their will, is like reforming abuses in the State, in spight of the King. Whereas tis Christ's Authority in the Church that does resemble the King's in the State. And therefore if he wou'd rightly state the comparison, it runs thus; Christ the King of his Church, requires all his Officers to preach the pure Doctrine and administer the pure institutions deliver'd in his Gospel (which is his universal law,) Let us suppose, there are in this or that particular part of the Church dangerous corruptions crept in, The law of Christ obliges these his officers to disown them and reform them, but the Major part of these will not, but presume to silence those that do it according to his com∣mand. Now the Quest: is whether those that obey the command of Christ be the Rebells against him, or those that neither will obey his commands themselves, nor allow others to do so. One wou'd think, that such as refuse to reform and silence all that in their own place attempt it, according to the tenour of their Commission, are like to prove the Church Rebells. But no

doubt the Pastors of a Church may disown and excommuni∣cate one that abuses his office to the perverting the Church, and for him to continue to p rvert the Church by such male-ad∣ministration is to Rebell against Christ and his laws. The charge of Rebellion therefore must arise from the vio••ation of Christ's Authority, not mens, which the Major part of Pastors may be guilty of in a Nation as well as the lesser.

3 He seems to confound a private and a publick Reforma∣tion.

4. The Reason given, why a Bishop or Presbyter when censur'd, is discharg'd from his Office, viz. Because to regain it is like making a Rebellion to regain a Civil Office does suppose two great mistakes.

1. That the Ordainers give a Spiritual office in the Church as the King gives a Civil office in the State; And this is no less a mistake then to set the Ordainers in the place of Christ. Tis his Charter gives the sacred office as the King's does the Civil, and the Ordainers do but for orders sake approve and ceremonially invest the person as the Recorder does the Mayor of a Town whom the Burghesses choose. And herein Mr. K. seems to own that very error which is the ground of all Mr. M's im∣pertinent Questions.

2. He supposes, that the Bishops who ordain Presbyters, have equal power to depose them from their Ministerial office as the King has to take away a Civill Commission. And thus, p: 27. he te••ls us, That the present Dissenters were the Bishops subject, ac∣countable to them as their Superiors, and liable to be discharg'd from their office, and the benefits of the Communion of the Church by their Censure.

Whereas Tis plain, that it is the Charter of Christ gives the sacred office as the King's does the Civil; And as none can take a Civil Commission given by the King to any Subject, but by the King's orders and Command: So none can take away that spiritual Commission Christ has given any officer in his Church but by his orders. But now he has given none leave or Authority to depose his officers, but for evident Male-administration, as preaching Heresie, gross scandal, &c. And if in any part of his

Church, The Major number of Pastors shou'd depose the Mi∣nor for doing their duty, or without a just cause, their doing so is, a bold and wicked usurpation, for which they may ex∣pect their Lord will call them to an account, as he threatens the evil servant, who unmindfull of his Lord's coming, begun to smite his fellow servants, 24. Matth. 48, 49: But for the innocent Pastors thus wrongfully deposed, to disobey their usurping deposers is to obey Christ, who never warranted them to desert their office, and b••tray Souls, because they are unjustly forbidden to do what his charter has made their duty. 'Tis therefore the unjust deposers are the Rebells against Christ, and their usurpation is, as if the Mayor of a County town shou'd without any orders from the King, presume to turn out all the Mayors of the particular Corporations in that County at his own pleasure; and I imagine the King wou'd in all proba∣bility take him for the Rebell who wou'd thus under pretence of his Authority, usurp a power never given him, and exercise it to the violation of his Charter, and the Laws of the Land. This is the true state of the Case, and Mr. K's mistakes about it are so palpable, that 'tis a wonder how a man of his judgment cou'd fall into them. And I must needs add here, that as the Dissenters were never the Bishops Subjects as they are any of∣ficers of Christ, and Mr. K will never prove them to be so; So they will be more afraid of submitting to their usurpation, if they arrogate to themselves such an unlimited power of de∣posing his undoubted officers, particular, Church Bishops, and claim a blind obedience to their deposing Sentence, be it right or wrong. And 'tis but fidelity to our Lord, to disown such palpable and dangerous usurpation.

The grounds then of Mr. K's principles being false, they will not serve him to condemn the Presbyterian Ministers as either Schismaticks or Church-Rebels, and the charge is likelier to fa••l heavy on those that presum'd to suspend them against the known laws of Christ, from whom they received their Commission. Mr. K. very gravely takes for granted, what he will never prove.

1. That the Convocation are by the laws of Christ, the Su∣preme

Governours of all the Christians in England.

2. That either the Convocation did justly, according to the laws of Christ, suspend the Nonconf••rming Ministers, or that an absolute obedience, was due to their Censure whether just or unjust.

1. He takes it for granted, That the Convocation, are by the Laws of Christ, the supreme Governours of all the Christians in England.

Does not Mr. K. know, that the Divines of his own Church are not agr••ed about this matter. The Reverend Dr. Stilling: when posed by Mr. Baxter about this Quest. Who was the Ecclesiasti••al governing Head of the Church of England, as one body politick, does very fairly de∣ny that the Church of England has any such Head or Regent part, nay denies the necessity of such an Head. So that according to him, the Church of England can be no Po∣liticall Church made up of a Governing and a governed part; And consequently all the noise of it's Government Constitutions and Laws as such a politicall Church, is at an end. But now Mr. K. comes and tells us without Scruple, That the supreme Government of our Church, has always been in a National Coun∣cel or convocation of our Clergy. If so, I wou'd gladly know, whe∣ther Mr. K: does think that the laws or Canons of a Convo∣cation, wou'd ob••ige the Consciences of all the Christians in England, tho they were not enacted and ratified by the civill Authority? If they wou'd nor, 'tis evident, that the Church of England has no Ecclesiastical Head of Government, because none that can make laws obligatory to all the Christians in Eng∣land; And so the Convocation are but the King's Ecclesiastical Council (which is indeed the true Notion of them) to advise him what Laws he shall establish by civil Authority, relating to Church Government. If he say, the Canons of the Co••∣vocation wou'd oblige, whether the civil Authority ratified them or no; I ask Quo jure. All obligation to obey any Church-governors as such, must arise from the command of Chris••. Now where has he commanded, that in every Nation such a small part of the Clergy, as our Convocation consists of, shall be supreme Governours of all the rest. When perhaps, they are as

unfit to represent the judgment of all the Pastors (not to men∣tion the people) in England, as ••he Council of Trent all the Churches in Euro••e. I am confident, besides the 2000 silenced Ministers, the far greater part of the Conforming Clergy would never have consented to all the late excommunicating Canons, had th••ir Vote been requir'd. And the chief members of the Convocation are so far from being Christ's Officers, that I de∣sp••ir th••ir ever defending the lawfulness, and much more the divine r gh•• of their Office against Mr. Baxter's Arguments in his for••said Treatise of Episcopacy. Neither the light of na∣ture, nor general laws of Scripture wou d suggest such an As∣s••mbly as the governing Head of the Church of England. A duly ••l cted Synod of Pastors in a Nation to endeavour the nearest Unity and Concord of the particular Churches (as far as 'tis to be expected on earth) by their amicable consultations we grant to be most desirable and eligible wherever it may be had; and the judgment of such a Synod should be comply'd with in all things not r••pugnant to the word of God. But we cannot say so of an Assembly compos'd chiefly of men, whose Office is not only an Usurpation, but such as renders true Church-government impossible, and whose interest and grandure inclines them to keep up the divisions and corrupti∣ons which they have made. And to such a Convocation's be∣ing entrusted by Christ with the National Church-government, which Mr. K. is pleased to assert, I oppose the judgment of the truly learned Archbishop Ʋsher which he often profest to Mr. Baxter, viz. That Church-Councils are not for Government, but for Ʋnity; Not as being in order of Government over the seve∣ral Bishops, but that by consultation they may know their duty more clearly, and by agreement maintain Ʋnity, and to that end they were anciently celebrated.

2. Mr. K. takes it for granted also, That either the Convo∣cation did justly according to the laws of Christ suspend the Non-conforming Ministers, or that those Ministers were bound however to obey their sentence, whether right or wrong.

For the first, If he will indeed prove their silencing to have been just, i. e. that the Non-conforming Ministers were guilty

of such male-administration as forfeited their office, and war∣ranted the Prelates by the laws of Christ to depose them, I will assure him, they will quit their office rather than rebel against Christ, or any just deposing sentence of men. But I have al∣ready prov'd the sentence to be unjust: And the silencing such a number of Ministers on such grounds, was a crime of that nature, that I would in charity to Mr. K. warn him to draw the guilt of it no further on his own head, by undertaking to justify or defend it.

For the Second, That these Ministers, tho unjustly suspended, were bound to obey the sentence, is to give the suspende••s the same absolute Authority c••aim'd by Popish Prelates and Coun∣cils; and on the same grounds, all the Protestant Mini∣sters in France and other Reformed Churches were bound to cease their Ministry when first suspended by Popish Prelates, and so their Reformation was only founded on Church-Rebellion. Nay, if this be true, it will be in the power of a Convocation in England by imposing such sinful terms of Church-Commu∣nion as few of the people dare submit to, and silencing all the Pastors that will not approve of them, to oblige the greatest part of the Nation to live without the publick worship of God (as the Popes did sometimes thus interdict a whole Kingdom). And he that can believe this, may next be perswaded, that Christ has put the power of damning men into the hands of a Convocation, and the people must not endeavour their own salvation against the will of such a Convocation, tho even the Apostles themselves had no power but for Edification.

4 Quest. Whether an Act of Parliament be not as good in France, Spain, or Germany for the Popish Religion, as in Eng∣land for Protestancy?

Answ. Mr. K. justly saith, that 'tis not sufficient the Power which establishes a Religion be competent, and the methods of settling it regular; but 'tis likewise necessary the Religion it self be true, p. 33. No humane laws can justly establish a false

Religion, because God has given no man power to contradict his Revelation and Laws. And tho subject••on be due to the Magistrate, yet his Authority cannot oblige us to formal obe∣dience, when he commands us to profess Error, or practice false Worship, or forbids us to confess with the mouth what we believe with the heart to salvation.

The only Quest. here is, Whether the Popish or the Prote∣stant Religion be the more agreeable to the holy Scriptures the only infallible Test of all revealed Religion? Which Quest. D: Manby shou'd have attempted to resolve by coming to the merits of the Cause, and entring into a particu••ar discussion of the Controversies betwixt the Church of Rome and those that have embrac'd the Reformation. Had he done this, he might have spar'd all these impertinent Questions about M••ssion, which are but as Mr. K. calls them, meer Banter, and contriv'd only to divert people from a necessary enquiry into the principles of the Popish Religion.

Only there is one passage that occasionally drops from Mr. K's Pen in answer to this last Quest. which I would take no∣tice of, p. 33. 'Tis one principle of the Christian Religion, that the Professors thereof ought to associate into a body, and that Christ the Author thereof has appointed Governors who are to descend by succession, and that to these regularly appointed, due obedience is to be paid, as men value the rewards and punishments of another life.

'Tis strange to me that Mr. K. should think any man able to know what he meant by these words.

If he means, that all the Christians throughout the world must associate in a General Council to set up some universal Officers that shall govern the Church-Catholick as as one po∣litical society subject to them, or that the Church-Catholick must become one body by a subjection to any humane Head, Pope, Council, or Colledge of Prelates, this is plainly to set up a Vice-Christ, and to make a humane center of Unity to the Catholick Church, which he seems honestly to disclaim, p. 55. If he mean not thus, why does he talk of Governors appointed to this Catholick body. So for these Governors descending by

succession, if he mean that none are lawful Governors but such as can plead an uninterrupted successi••n of Prelatical Ordination, as Mr. Dodwell seems to dream), it will hence follow, that 'tis a meer uncertainty whether there be any lawful Governors in the Church at all; and if such Prelates were not known in the primitive Church, either they or the succeeding Ages had no lawful Governors. So when he makes obedience due to these Governors, as men value the rewards or punishments of ano∣ther life; I hope he means obedience to them so far as they de∣liver those laws of Christ which he enforces with that solemn sanction; and not obedience to every unnecessary or sinful in∣junction of their own. And I hope he will not think that Christ has appointed such our Governors, whose very office he never instituted.

And if the meaning of this fine Principle be no more than this, that all Christians must unite in Christ as their Head, and all endeavour to live under such Pastors as he has instituted, and the Pastors endeavour all necessary Concord by their mu∣tual consultations, and be careful to provide such as shall suc∣ceed them in the same office; and that to disobey such Pastors when they urge the necessary Doctrines and Laws of Christ, is to forfeit the rewards, and incurr the punishments of another life; then indeed I see no danger in this Principle. But with∣out all this allowance and explication, it has a very dangerous sound, and Mr. K. was not aware what use D. Manby might make of it.

For the 2d and 3d Points of Mr. M's Paper about Auricular Confession, and the Catholick Church, Mr. K's Answer is so judi∣cious and clear, (bating a passage or two that relate to his schis∣m••tical Notion of the Catholick Church) that I shall not need∣lesly undertake what he has so well perform'd. The same I may say concerning his Answer to that wild discourse of the Dean's in vindication of the Church of Rome, and accusation of the Reformed, except what Mr. K. has, p. 79, 80, 81, 82. which runs on the mistakes I have already animadverted or. And 'tis strange Mr. K. should, p. 82. quote; Phil. 3.15. to that purpose he there does, which may be applied to the quite

contrary with far greater advantage, as the Answerers of Dr. Stillingfleet's Sermon have at large evinc'd. The Rule the A∣postle there speaks of, is, what God has prescr••b'd to h••s Church, not the unnecessary, and much less the sinful Canons of men. And for those that are otherwise minded, he leaves them to God's instruction, and does not immediately go about to open their eyes by an excommunication ipso facto, much less by a Writ de Excom. capiendo. And if other Church-governors had used the same forbearance, there had been fewer Schisms and Divisions in the Christian world.

For Mr. K's Answer to the Latin Questions, there occurrs nothing in them disagreeable to the common Protestant Do∣ctrine, which does not refer to the forementioned mistakes.

Having (Honoured Sir) offered you my sense of these pas∣sages in Mr. K's Answer, wherein I thought his immoderate affection to a Party perverted his judgment; I shall now put an end to this long Letter, by a few reflections on these mat∣ters.

1. I could heartily wish Mr. K. and all that approve these passages in his Book, to consider seriously, Whether they are acted by true Christian charity and love, whilst they deny so many Christian Churches in these Kingdoms living under the Pastoral care of Orthodox and pious Ministers never justly si∣lenc'd, to be any part of the Catholick Church; and that upon such Principles as pass the same hard censure on all the Refor∣med Churches that were set up as separate from Popish Na∣tional Churches? To unchurch true Churches, is the most op∣posite to that love which is the life of Christian Unity, and is the highest degree of Schism. How much more to unchurch so many, and those so eminent for the purity of Faith, Wor∣ship, and Practice; nay, for their charity too towards those parts of the Catholick Church that are less pure than them∣selves. I should heartily rejoyce if any one could shew me any Churches on this earth wherein there is a more pure, peace∣able and credible profession of Christianity made (as to its in∣tegrals as well as essentials) than in those Reformed Churches abroad, and those at home, which I have here been obliged to

defend from the Assault of a Protestant Divine. I am farr from denying our Parish Churches to be true parts of the Catholick Church, and I hope all that account themselves oblig'd on the reasons suggested in this Paper to frequent other Christian Societies do esteem them as such, and own all the credible profession of Religion made among them. Tho there are ma∣ny things wherein they cou'd desire them reform'd, especially they cou'd wish them that liberty of consenting to their own Pastors which was the general practice of the Catholick Church in its purest Ages, and was confirm'd by the judgment of so ma∣ny Councils; See Mr. Baxters Church History passim, and his Answ. to Dr. Stillingfl. p. 128, 129, &c: and Blondel, de jure plebis, &c. And they would be glad to see some tolerable ex∣ercise of that true and godly discipline which the Common-prayer book acknowledges was practic'd in the primitive Church, and the restoration whereof, it saith, is much to be wished. But the mischief is, tho they have a profest assent and consent to this, 'tis only to wish it, for they have sworn to endeavour no altera∣tion how desirable soever.

2 I wou'd hope that long experience will convince us all of the necessity of more large and comprehensive terms of Christian Concord, as farr as that is to be expected or attai∣n'd on earth. I hope the Churches unity, will no more be lay'd by Protestants on such humane Canons as are not only unne∣cessary but contrary to the Churches interest and edification. Nor the breach of such a sinful unity, be branded as Schism and Church-Rebellion, Mr. Hales of Eaton and Dr. Stillingfleet (once) were of another mind, and lay'd the charge of Schism, in all such cases at the right Door, viz. the Imposers.

3. Tho I can expect no perfect cure of our divisions (un∣less the Churches in these Nations were cemented on a more wide and Catholick foundation, I mean not the schismatical terms of the Roman Church) Yet I wou'd humbly propose it to the Consideration, both of the sober charitable Conformists and Nonconformists, whether something may not be done to promote some considerable degrees of Concord even while the differences of our judgment and practice do remain.

May they not publickly declare, they own each others As∣semblies, for true Christian Churches? May not their members to testifie a true Catholick charity maintain occasional Commu∣nion? shou'd it not be own'd scismatical on either hand to con∣fine that part of Christ's Catholick Church which is in these Kingdoms to either party? May not the Pastors own each o∣ther for true Ministers of the Gospel, and Pastors to such as con∣sent to their Pastoral relation? (I speak of such as want not the necess••••y qualifications) May they not rejoyce in the success of each others labours for promoting that common Interest of Christianity wherein both ••re agreed? For sure that ought to be infinitely dearer to us then the narrow Interest of a party, or the Interest of more dubious Opinions a••d modes of Wor∣ship. May they not concur to promote each others just esteem and reputation in order to the success of their labours? May they not maintain a more amicable correspondence in order to a nearer union of their affections and if possible of their judgment and practice too? May they not forbear unjust Ca••umnies and reviling language to render each other odious? May they not love and honour in each other whatever there appears of the Image of their Lord and Master his gifts and graces? May they not both joyn in the defence of the Reformed Religion upon the common principles wherein the Protestant Churches agreed? And would not so much of mutual affection and concord tend more to credit true Religion and strengthen its real Interest, then the contrary uncharitable narrow and irreconcileable Temper? I doubt not but the truly moderate on both sides are acted by this truly Catholick and Christian Temper; And it wou'd be a comfortable presage to these Churches to see this temper more generally diffus'd and prevalent among us. But for those that will still fancy Christ has every where committed the government of his church to Diocesan Prelates and by catho∣lick Ʋnity mean a subjection to all their cannons and censures, and make all disobedience to their commands when contrary to the commands of Christ, Schism and Church Rebellion, They may long talk of Catholick Unity and Peace, But they are next to the Papists the most dangerous enemies of it; For they have too

deep a tincture of their humour who make a mighty noise a∣bout Ʋnity but when we come to enquire where it lies, They mean a subjection to a certain Gentleman that dwells at Rome, or at best to that Clergy who adhere to him in all the corruptions of Christian Doctrine worship and Practice.

Lastly, I wou'd advise all of Mr. K's mind to consider well the Catholick principles suggested in this paper (in opposition to his schismat••cal ones) to the case of a popish convocation in Eng. or Irel. shou'd such a convocation suspend him from preaching his prote∣stant doctrine & administring prot sacraments (as D. M. calls them) and he go on to do it, By his own Notions he wou'd be a schis∣matick and Church-Rebel, by mine a faithful pastor to his Flock and a Loyal subject of Jesus Christ. And therefore whether his principles or mine be more honest, more agreeable to the holy Scriptures more serviceable to advance the Authority and In∣terest of Christ, more conducive to the welfare of Souls, I leave to his own conscience to determine on second thoughts; And doubt not but most of his own Brethren will acknowledge mine to be so.

I cannot but reflect on these debates with deep regret that I am put on so unhappy necessity, not only of opposing Mr. K. but saying so much against the present Church-Goverment in order to the Vindication of the Reformed Churches both at home and abroad, and the Truth it self. But as these principles I have here reflected on have been the fatal Engines of Church Tyran∣ny and divisions these many Ages, and belong to the Roman Arsenall, so tis the necessary work of a Peacemaker who pro∣poses a Catholick Unity and Love as his great aim to batter them down. I had not so long delay'd the sending this paper, but that I still hoped some abler pen would have undertaken what mine is so unfit for, However I hope I have asserted nothing contrary either to Truth or Peace, or if I have, I am willing to receive better Information.

I am

Sir.

Your most humble &c.

Notes

• The judgment of several Fathers to this purpose, and par∣ticularly St: Aug: see quo∣ted in that fore∣cited dis∣course of Mr: Claud from p: 45 to 68:
• 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c
• 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c:
• Apol. cap.
• Uureas: of Seper: p: 127, 128.