A Manumission to a Manuduction

To the godly reader.

A Lbeit I be justly sorry for all oppositions against the truth, yet not so for this occasion of further manifesting that my formerly professed persuasion, that public communion with the parish assemblies cannot be inferred upon private with godly persons though members there: the constitution and estate of the same assemblies rearing up a partitiō wall, neither so transparent as may be seen thorough, m •• h less so open as may be passed, no not in the best charity, as this manuducent supposeth: but on the contrary, so gross, & entire in evil, as that no engine of wit, or art can so batter it, as to make a safe passage through it for a good conscience.

Needful it were in a matter of this nature, and weight, that the manuducent, or hand leader should guide men by the plain, and open way of the s • riptures, as is the way of the Lord in them laid down, open, & plain, as the King▪ high way: and beaten by the feet of the Apostolical churches: & not by subtle Quaerees, and doubtful Suppositions, and such under hand conveyances, as may lead the vnwary into a maze, and there loose him, but cannot clear the way for an upright conscience. Of the way of Christ it was prophesied of old: An high way shall be there, and a way, and it shall be called the way of holiness: the unclean shall not pase over it, for he shall be with these: the wayfareing man, though fools, shall not err therein. But so many and doubtful are the wyndeings of this man's way, as that he who finds it, had need be no wayfareing man, but a town-dweller, and well acquainted with all the secret turnings thereof: nor a fool, as the Prophet speaketh, but one having wit indeed more then a good deal. But let them

let them, I say, not suffer themselves to be led by the turnings of man's devise whatsoever, but by the words of the wisdom of God, which are all in righteousness; & in which there is nothing wreathed, or perverse: but they are all plain to him that will understand, and straight to him that would find knowledge.

Now for my persvasion about public, and private communion, it is the same which I have manifested in my other book: and that, wherein (so far as by the weak light, which God hath given to shine in my heart, I can discern) I neither wrong the good in that Church; (person, or thing), nor partake in the evil of either. My trust is, that God who hath given me my part (though in great infirmity) in the Prophets comfort, with all my heart have I sought thee; will also fulfill his request upon me, let me not wander from thy commandments,

I T was some addition of honor to David's victory over the Philistime, that he slew him with his own sword: vpō which hope, mine opposite, as it seems, enterprizeth the beating down of the partition wall of our separation from the parish assemblies in their public communion, government, and ministry, by the engine of mine own acknowledgment, of private communion with the persons & pe • sonall graces os many Christians, though otherwise members there: upon which acknowledgment, he therefore propoundeth certain Quaerees or Demaunds in number seven: the first whereof is.

Suppose one of those many so qualified as that in the judgment of those that can dis •• rn he is competently fit to be employed in the public ministry, having his own 〈◊〉 given to th • t work, and the hearts of many •• a • ing his help, suppose, I say, that such a man (not fyndeing means for the present of a comfortable entrance into that calling) shalby leave in a public assembly, where many like himself, and many unlike are gathered togather, without any further calling for a • yme perform the actions of prayer & pr • p •• sying, without any addition, de • ract • ion, or alteration of that which he had lawfully done in private, my demand is, whether it be not lawful to communicate with him in his work?

I answer, that these exercises of religion not performed by this persō, by any public calling, or authority, but only by his personal gift, & desire to do good, are not public or Church actions, but private, and personal: nor communion with him therein, public, but private communion: no not though performed by him in a public place: which no more makes the action to be of public nature, or a Church action, which in my whole book I make (as they are) the same; then did the private chambers where the Apostles administered the word, & sacraments to the Churches, make these their administrations private, or personal, Reason itself teacheth that public actions are only such as are performed by public authority. See Mr. Perkins in Treatise of Christian equity, for this purpose.

The same answer serveth for the 2 ^d Qu: which supposeth only a longer continuance of time in the same course by co • nive •• y of them in authority; since mere continuance in the same course (especially as an ordinate means • o the same end) altereth not the nature thereof. And so this, as the former Quaere, is besides the purpose in hand. Only I ad, that no man can continue thus preaching in a public place especially some years, but under the cloak & appearance of a Bishops minister, though he be not such indeed.

Suppose yet the same man obteyneth a license from the L. Bishop of the Diocese without any unlawful condition for to continue in that his course; I ask, whether that leave, or license given doth pollute the actions: seeing a man may ask leave of the great Turk to preach the Gospel within his dominions?

This Supposition containeth a contradiction: for the very obtaining, & receiving of the Bishops license (which yet I think no man doth before he have received orders as they are called) is a real acknowledgment that the Bishop hath a lawful power to grant it, which is an unlawful condition. John Claydon a martyr of Christ was otherwise minded then this man, whē he witnessed that the Bishops license to preach the word of God, was the true character of the beast. i. e. Antichrist. Neither is there the like reason of procuring the Bishops liecence to preach the gospel in his Province or Diocese, & of asking leave of the great Turk to preach in his dominions. For 1. he minceth the matter too much, in making this obtaining of the Bishops license to be nothing but the asking him leave, as a man may ask leave of the great Turk, that is, desire him not to hinder him. For to obtain license of the Bishop is to obtain public authority of the public officer, and according to the public laws, of the church, to excercise a public ministry. 2. The great Turk is a lawful civil Magistrate in his Dominions, with whose civil authority it is lawful to partake: but so is not the Bishop a lawful Ecclesiastical officer in his Province or Diocese, with whose spiritual jurisdiction God's servants may communicate. And is this to lead men by the hand, to take for granted the main question in controversy, to wit, that the Bishops jurisdiction in their Provinces & Dioceses is lawful: which I have also by sundry arguments proved unlawful, & antichristian. Surely they who suffer themselves thus to be led must be as destitute of spiritual sight, as was Saul of bodily, when men led him by the hand to Damascut. Theyr authority then being proved (& so confessed by this mine opposite else where) antichristian, & so consequently one of the sins of Babylon; whether excercised by themselves or by others; either Officials in the Cōsistories, or ministers in the Parochial churches, may not by God's people be partaken with, no not in actions though otherwise lawful, under the peyn of Babylon's plagues.

And this answer also serveth to the 4 ^th demand, or Supposition of this persons takeing besides his license, the form of admission called orders, of the Diocesan. And so, that which I bring pag: 15. Arg: 2. of my book, is here misapplied. I there speak of lawful actions performed merely by the personal grace of faith, & the Spirit in a godly man, though of infirmity remaining in an estate, & standing otherwise culpable: but here of actions, though in themselves lawful, yet performed immediately by virtue, or vice rather of that very unlawful state, & standing.

Suppose after this that being desired, & so chosen by some assembly wherein there are many fearing God apparently, he taketh a Pastoral charge of them, having the Bishops, & Patrons admission, but chiefly, & professedly grounding his calling upon the people's choice: & that he do nothing but the same he did before, besides the administration of the Sacraments to such as are in charity, & discretion to be esteemed worthy, what hindereth from communion here?

Indeed if men may take liberty in disputeing first to suppose what themselves have a mind unto, and after to suppose, that others are also of the same mind with them, and yet have little reason either for the one or other, they may then easily conclude their purposes. But .1. I deny that an assembly gathered, & consisting of many fearing God, & many (which must also be supplied) without the fear of God, is a lawful Church-assembly, having a right in communion, or common right, to call, & enjoy a pastour, & his pastoral administrations. 2. I deny that any doth, or can truly take a pastoral charge in the parish assemblies. It belongs to the pastors charge not only to teach, & minister the sacraments, but also (& that as a main parte, or duty thereof) to govern, and rule the flock: which no parochial minister doth, o • can take upon him.

3. The Church of England; doth acknowledge no such calling as is chiefly grounded upon the people's choice: but only that which is grounded upon the Bishops ordination at the first, and to the ministry at large: and determinately, either upon the Bishops license, or upon the patrons presentation, Bishops institution, and Arch-deacons induction, confirmed by the public laws of the same Church, both ecclesiastical, & civil. According to which public laws, and orders (especially submission unto them being publicly professed and given, as is by the minister here deciphered) we are to judge of the public ministry of the Church, & not according to the private intendiments, and underhand professions of particular persons. And let God, & all reasonable men judge between me & mine opposite, whether a man going to the public governers of a Church, & desyreing of them a public office, or public orders, & so receiving them according to the public laws of the same Church, & therewith authority to preach the word, & so preaching publicly in the same Church, whether I say such a man be not to be esteemed as called to that work by these governers; & so by consequence, whither all men pertakeing with him in that work of preaching for which he was so sent, do nor partake therein withal what in them lieth in the authority of the sender. And for such a man (except he have publicly renounced his former calling) to pretend in secret unto his friends whom he dare trust, & who, he thinks, will again trust, & believe him, either that he preacheth not by that calling, or by another principally, is but to put on a cloak of shame, & to walk in craftiness, more like in truth to a disguized familist, then a minister of Jesus Christ. And if any ministry grounded, as this man supposeth, be to be found in any of the assemblies, I deny the • ame to be the ministry of the Church of England, about which our question is. And howsoever men do build much upon the people's acceptance of, and submission unto their ministry, yet is this a very sandy foundation whereupon to build such a weight. If they be not the lawful ministers of those Churches before, it is their syn to accept of them, & submit unto them, as such. The people's acceptance, and submission are not causes, but consequences of the ministers calling, & duetyes, which they ow unto them all their life long. 4. The supposition is but an imagination, that any parochial minister doth administer the sacraments only to such as are, in charity, & discretion, to be esteemed worthy. He is by his parochial cure (& show me the man whose practice is not answerable) to administer the sacrament of Baptism to all the infants born in the parish, though neither parent can, no not in the most enlarged, if • ot overstretched charity, be judged to be of the faith, & so in the covenant of Abraham; according to which covenant Baptism is to be administered. Lastly, I would know of this man (& so of others who would bring the presbiteriall government upon the parish assemblies without a separation) what should be done with such men of years in the parish, as are to be esteemed vncapeable of the L: Supper. It should seem, as the common opinion is, that such should be suspended, & so consequently (remaining obstinate & incorrigible) excommunicated. But by what law of God, or reason of man, do the Censures of the Church apperteyn unto such, as had never right to be of the Church, nor were within God's covenant made only with their faithful, & their seed? And since the Church is only to judge them which are within, & the same fallen from their former holiness, at least, external; how should not excommunication be greatly profaned upon such, as never came under that condition of eternal holiness?

Suppose at length that he be deprived by that prelate, which formerly admitted him, for not conforming to human corrupti • ns, & his people for fear of 〈◊〉 forsake him, if he I say now rejected by the prelate, & witnessing against his corruptions, shall without seeking any new license find place to preach the gospel in occasionally else where, why should any refuse to hear him?

First this his deprivation (especially for well doing or not doing evil) by the prelates spiritual jurisdiction, shows his spiritual bondage unto the Anticristian H • erarchy: as doth also his forsakeing his flock when • he wolf thus cometh, declare (by the testimony of Christ himself) of what Spirit he is. And very fadeing is the color, which here he sets vpō the ministers cess • ation from their ministry: which is the people's forsakeing them for fear of da • nger: whereas the contrary is most true, & that the ministers did universally, for fear of danger, forsake the people: and that in sundry places, where the people offered to suffer persecution with them at the magistrates hands. But mine answer is, that this man remaining by the prelates ordination a minister of the Church of Engl: & as he was before his institution, or license, & so preaching by that calling, communion cannot be had with him therein, without submission unto & upholding of the Prelates Antichristian authority, which in that work he exerciseth.

Suppose lastly that the s • me man doth besides the good actions which God hath commanded, admit of something at man's command, which is not lawful, yet holding the faith, & building faithfully in the main things of the Gospel, and it may be repenting also of what he hath done at his admission: is no communion lawful with him in those very things, which if they were done by another after the same manner were heavenly duties? May not his fault be an humayn infirmity, in an external ordinance? May not some faults of his entrance be circumstantial personal actions by which his calling is not abolished.

This Quaere is in effect comprehended in the former, in whose answers it hath also been answered. But for more full satisfaction I further ad; that I may not partake in the sins, though of hum • yn infirmity, & of persons otherwise go • lie: whether those sin • s be in the work done, or in the unlawful calling of the doer: of which we here speak, and not of any personal, or circumstantial action, as is in vain insinuated. And he that breaks down the partition wall which an unlawful especially an antichristian calling sets up in the Ch:, not making conscience of partaking therewith in duetyes how heavenly soever in themselves, makes way for all Babylonish confusion: neither is Israel now to be blamed for communicateing with Corah in the heavenly duty of burning ince • se to the Lord, to whom only a lawful outward calling was wanting: he so ministering by an Anti-mosaicall, as do the men of whom we speak, by an Anti-Christian calling. And for the ministers repenting of what he hath done at his admission, it may well be called (as truly being) a supposition, but of an impossibility, and contradiction. He cannot repent of his sin, which is his re •• eaving authority from the Bishop to preach, but he must forsake, & renounce the same authority, as he received it, which if 〈◊〉 indeed & truth, he ceaseth to be a minister of the Church of England.

And thus it appeareth, how this Author is so far from leading a good conscience by the hand a • • e promiseth, as that he doth not so much as point out with the finger any passable way into public communion with the parish assemblies as they stand: but rather having framed a plot of ministry, & other devise in his study, sends men by doubtful suppositions to seek they know not what, nor where. It remains we now come to his removal of the bars which I in my book set in the way: the first whereof is, that, such a parrishional minister is a branch of the prelacy / as receiving power from it / by which it doth administer / and therefore all communion with it to be avoided by God's people.

His answer is, that in proper, & accurate speech the minister, whom he formerly described, is no branch of the prelacy, nor doth receive his power of ministering frō any prelate.

The question is not whether the minister which he describeth, or rather Supposeth, be a branch of the prelacy, & so minister or no: but whether the ministry of the parish assemblies, being partes of the Dioceses, and Provinces, be such or no.

He addeth, that the power of right he (that is his supposed minister) had before ever he had to do with any prelate, which power is from God by the Church: but a power of external legal ability to do that, which from God by the people he had formerly right to do, this he may be said to receive from the prelate.

He looseth himself in the labyrinth of his own devise: for even his supposed minister had to do with the prelate, both for license to preach & orders of ministry before this supposed right conveyed to him by the people, as appears in his Quae: 3. 4. & 5 compared together. 2. None of the parish assemblies have in their hands, as Churches, power of right to choose their ministers, nor are the Lord's free people in that case: but do, on the contrary, stand in subjection & bondage spiritual to the prelate, and patron, by whose appointment they must receive them, will they, nil they. Indeed some of them do by favor, or money get ius patronatus into their hands, & so do agree amongst themselves what person they will present unto the Bishop for their Clark: but this they do not as a Church, neither will, or may the Bishop so receive him from them, or appoint him over them, but as a patron, (which right any one profane person may have & enjoy as well as they): nor, that such a person may be ordained a minister in, & of that Church, according to the order Apostolical: but that being before, or first, a minister at large of the Bishops making, and ordaining, he may by the same episcopal authority, in way of license, or institution conveyed, be determined to that particular parish, according to the Popish order. So that if there were anything in the distinction between the power of right, & of freedom, he hath the power of right, or authority by the Bishop at the first, in his ordination: & the legal ability or freedom afterwards by the patron, & prelate presenting, & appointing him to his place: & so the parish, as a Church only receaves him so appointed by others. But the distinction is more subtle then sound: & i • not a distinction without a difference, yet a division of things inseparable in this kind. No man hath external spiritual power of right, to minister the holy things of God, but by a lawful calling: & no man having a lawful calling wants external spiritual power of ability or freedom to minister them: & of this power we speak, as being that which the Bishops as the spiritual governers of their Prov: & Dioc: do confer. I know a man may be restrained by viol • nce, or other bodily impediment from the use of this spiritual freedom, but then he is restrained from the use of his power of right also. Whosoever hath the one hath the other by the same act, & whosoever hath a lawful calling, hath both. Of his great mistakeing (upon which notwithstanding he builds the weight of his answer, both in this, & the former parte of the book) which is that the Bishops Provincial, & Diocesan authority & administrations are civile, & derived from the king, I shall speak hereafter.

He ads that it cannot stand with my plea, that such a man preaching diligently, & professing that to be his main office should in this work be a branch of the prelacy, & d •• t by his power received by him. For. 1. this is not any parte of the prelates power (as he is a prelate) to preach the word. Which he also would prove by an affirmation in my book, which is (though he weaken the evidence of the truth thereof in relateing it) that the prelates office / and order is founded upon their usurpation of the rights / and liberties wherewith Christ the Lord in his word hath endowed his Church (the Elders for their government / and the people for their liberty) for the calling of officers / & censureing of offenders. Power therefore (saith he) of preaching can be no parte of it.

First that which he admits in mine affirmation hath enough in it to overthrow his consequence. For if it belong to the prelates to call ministers, & that in calling them, they give them power & authority (though no absolute charge) to preach according to the order of that Church; then followeth it undeniably, that those ministers thus preaching do therein excercise the prela • es power: & that it may be said of the ministers, and Bishops, as Christ said of his disciples & himself, that whosoever receaves them which are sent, receaves them which send them. In submitting unto, or withdrawing from him that is sent by the king, in a work of his office, men do submit unto, or withdraw from the king himself, & his authority; so is it in all estates, & subordinations, whether Ecclesiastical, or civile; as everyone that dimms it not in himself, may see by the light of nature.

And if unto this be added, that, as the whole nation is divided into two provinces under the two Arch-Bishops / and the Provinces into •• ndry •• o • eses under the Bishops / and they into their several parishes under the ministers thereof / so the Arch-Bishops / and Bishops do share out unto the parish priests in their ordination / & other assignementes / a parts of their charge, to wit / so much as concerns the ordinary service of the parish: as unto their chancellors, commissaryes, and Arch-deccors on other parts for inferior government reserveirg to themselves the Lordship ever both for the best advantage of their own honor, and profit, it will then evidently appear, (as that the part is a branch of the whole), that the parochial ministry is a branch of the di •• es • n & provincial p •• lacy. By which ministry we are not to understand (as doth mine opposite) the work of preaching, or any other work whatsoever, but the office, & power exequuted, & used in these works. For if we will exactly weigh things in a just balance, we must consider of these three distinct points in the ministry. 1. The office. 2. The power. 3. The works. The office is the very state, & function conferred upon a man by his calling: from which office ariseth immediately power, & charge to minister, and to perform the works of that office: in the performance of which works the office is exequuted, and power used. And if preaching diligently & faithful • y were the pastors main office, then should Apostles, Prophets, & Evangelists, have the same main office with pastors, for they all do that work of diligent preaching, one as we • as another: besides that this work is lawfully performed by him that hath no office at all, & therefore cannot be the Pastors office main, or mean.

2ly, It followeth not because the office of the prelates is founded upon their usurpation of the Churches rights in calling of officers, & consureing of • fferders • , that therefore power of preaching is no parte of their office. Men may by their office have power to do more then the very things upon which their office is founded: otherwise the parochial ministry should be very slightily founded, considering how many trifles, and superstitions the ministers have not only power but charge also to perform. By this man's reasoning their office should be founded vppō the wearing of a surplice, making a cross, &c. for these they have power to do, yea not power to leave undone, by their office.

There are among men many lawful offices or orders, & those lawfully founded, and yet not so perfectly but that some evil actions are (through humayn frailty) done in & by them: so on the contrary is the office of prelacy unlawful, & unlawfully founded, and yet not so absolutely, but that the good work of preaching may be and is performed in, and by it. Which preaching being also an inferior work of that office, and order (which is principally set up for government): and that wherewith the Bishops do little trouble the Churches, it ma • well be excluded frō the foundation of their office, though a work thereof: (as there are also many doctrines of Christian religion, besides those which are properly called the foundations thereof) & though a work good in itself, yet in the extent of their power to preach when and where they list in their provinces, and diocesses, exorbitant, and antichristian; & so a parte of their usurpation, whether of the foundation, or building, it matters not: a parte of which power they also share out unto the ministers in their several parishes. An other argument he bring vpō an affirmatiō in my book, (p. 29) that preaching is no natural, or necessary parte of the parochial ministers office.

This mine assertion in the first place he reproacheth as an intemperate speech proceeding from an impotent sickness of mind, which yet (saith he) may be used against myself.

If I were sick of any such impotency of mind, as he in his potency of mind pronounceth, I should surely find him a physician of no value: which brings no other medicine then a reproach to cure me withal. Only he insinuates a reason against that I say, which is, that, preaching the word is expressly mentioned in the ministers ordination. And is it not also mentioned in the ordination of a Mas-priest, of whose office notwithstanding it is no necessary or natural parte? yea is it not evident that one, and the same ordination serves both for a Mas-priest, & parochial minister, being given, by a popish Bishop? and so by consequence, that there is one, & the same office of both, though exercised in some different works? So also is ministering the discipline of Christ, as the Lord hath commanded, expressly mentioned in his ordination: & is it therefore a necessary work of the Parochial minister? or is he anymore then the Bishops man's man in publishing his court censure? The Bishop also expressly bids his ordained one, Receav the H: Ghost. Doth he therefore so receive it? Or know we not that it is Antichrists guise, and that not a little advantageable to the mistery of his iniquity, to keep the forms of good words without the substance of things, & so under the name of Christ to subvert Christ's truth, and ordinances? I would to God the notorious ignorance, and utter inability to preach the gospel in the greatest parte, by far, of the parochial ministers, to the destruction of so many 1000 souls for which Christ died, did not cry out unto God, and men against both that Church, Prelacy, and ministry, that preaching is no necessary parte, or work of their office. There is but one order, or office of priesthood in that church: & how can that be a natural, or necessary parte of that office, which the most of those officers want, this especially being by the constant practice of the puqlique governers, & according to the constitution, and state of that Church, ministry, and government; the public laws thereof also both ecclesiastical, and civile approveing it; as otherwise, so by appointing homilyes to be read by such as are unable to preach.

Such a one the patron may present for his Cl • rk to any parishonall charge, and may also compel the Bishop, will he, • ill he, to institute him by process of law: whom the people also are bound to receive, as their minister, & with him to communicate under penaltyes civil, and spiritual. Let Baal then plead for himself: even the wearing of a surplice, and signeing a babes forehead with the cross are more natural, and necessary to the parochial ministry, considered both in the common practice, and public laws, then is preaching of the gospel. For inability to preach (though most ordinary) no minister is, or can be deposed: but for not conforming, how many in a few years? Myne affirmation then (how licenciously soever mine opposite censureth both it, & me) is so apparē • tly true, as it cannot be denied without loss of credit both to the person, & cause of the denyer, in the eyes of all reasonable men.

Vppon which affirmation of mine his inference notwithstanding is of no force, viz. that such ministers as give themselves to preaching do not in that buesines excercise any power received from the prelate as a branch of him, because that power must then have been a natural parte of his office.

It followeth not. For as some partes, or works of the parochial ministers office are natural, and necessary, as to read divine service &c. so are other works or partes thereof but casual, & arbytrary, as is this of preaching, as the person can, or will. It is not by any absolute necessity required of every minister to preach, but yet he that doth preach, doth it by authority of the prelate, in his parish, as in a parte of the prelates province, or Diocese. And where he speaks of the ministers not excercis • ing the power received from the prelate in that buesines of preaching, it is, as a poor shift, so a vain insinuation, that though in other buesinesses he did excercise the prelates power, yet not in that of preaching. Whereas he both preacheth, & readeth divine service & doth whatsoever he doth publicly, by one & the same ecclesiastic, power, & office. He is not one officer in the desk, & another in the pulpit, though his works be divers; • ut the B ^ps minister in both.

He ads (as opposite to an affirmation of mine, pag: 30.) that though the prelacy were pluck • d up, yet the parochial ministry might stand still, as reason (he saith, but shows none) will teach, and experience showeth in Denmark, Saxony, H • ssia, & other partes of Germany.

But wherefore doth he lead me to Churches so far off, whose estate I neither can easily know, nor he happily justify? Why doth he not rather insist in the better both known, & reformed churches in the low countries? I perceav if I follow him in his Manuductiō he will lead me cōpass enough.

Well, I deny, & marvel he would affirm, that the same parochial office, and power of ministry doth remain in those Churches, which was in use before the extirpation of the prelacy there. The office itself was the order of Mas-priesthood, & the power derived from the Pope, & popeish prelacy. That the works of preaching, and prayer, performed by many of the parochial ministers, and also by some of the Mass-priests) may remain, though the prelacy be taken away, (& with it the parochial priesthood also) is without doubt; as they do in the reformed Churches, and with us, where there is neither prelate, not parochial minister: but our question is not about some particular works, as mine opposite makes it, but (as hath been oft observed) about the very function itself, and the power by which it is given, and used.

And for the point: since all the ministers of that Church are made, & appointed by the Bishops authority, take away the same Bishops authority, and how can the ministers remain the same ministers? Take away the correlative, and the relation ceaseth. 2. Take away the prelacy, and how possibly can such a ministry continue (as is the parochial) whereof the one of the two partes (though the inferior) which stands in fee • ing the flock by ruling, shall be usurped, and possessed by the prelates and their ordinaryes. 3. Take away the Provin: and Dioc: Prelates, and with them the prov: and dioc: churches: and then the parochial churches as partes of them must fall with them their whole: and with the churches the ministers, as partes of them. 4 It is not possible that the prelacy being abolished, such an office of ministry (of which office the reader must still remember our question to be) should survive, as whereof men utterly unapt to teach should be capable, as it is with the parochial ministry. Can such stuff pass thorough any but Bishops fingers? or will the Lord ever wipe away so much of their shame as to suffer any other hands but of prelates, and their chaplayns to be laid upon the heads of such Idol-priests? Or is it possible that in any other then the Episcopal government the ministry of • o many zealous, and learned teachers should hang upon the cop-web of conformity to Cross, Surplice & such vanityes, & be in danger every day for refusal thereof to be broken asunder? Can this web be woven by others then Bishops, or of other stuff then comes out of their bowels? Lastly is it possible that in such light of the truth, as now shineth in Engl: all the profane parish without difference should be compelled to be of the Church, & the minister of them to take charge, as his flock (as the parochial ministers do): but as the same is a part of the Bishops flock, & well serving for to supporte his lawless Lordship? Now no man weighing these things with an equal hand will judge them light, and sleighty matters, but weighty, & as he speaks, substantial, in ▪& about the ministry. Which therefore cannot stand, as now it doth in the several parishes, when God in mercy to that nation, shall root out that plant of the prelacy, which his hand never planted.

Where after to mine objection, & charge, that all the parochial ministers are subject unto the jurisdiction of the prelates spiritually, in their citations, suspentions, and excōmunications, he for answer alledgeth, that prevate Christians are subject to the same jurisdiction personally, & for personal & private opinions, and behaviours also, it is that which I say, & upon which I infer a separation from the formal state, & government of that Church every manner of way, since with the sins of Babylon (whereof I have proved in my former book the Hierarchical government one) no man may partake. But if herevppon he would conclude the unlawfulness of private or personal communion with the godly, as well as of public, or Church communion, I must deny his consequence; & because I would not repeat the same things again, do desire the Reader to take knowledge of the double difference about this matter shown in my former book.

But he gives a 2 ^d ▪ answer, upon which also the lawfulness of the Bishops authority is much pleaded, throughout the whole book. Which by the way, I desire the Reader to observe, & withal how such as go on in opposeing our separation, are driven in the end, to justify the Bishops authority, though diversely. His answer, & defense is.

The greatest parte of their jurisdiction being external & coactive or forcing, is from the king derived unto those that do exercise the same: & therefore must of necessity be a civile power, such as the king might as well perform by other civile officers, as it is indeed exercised in the high-commission, & some other courts also, • he laws of the land do so esteem it, as Sir Edward Cook now L: chief justice of Engl: hath largely shown in the first book of his reports.

Divers pleas for the prelates have been made by men diversely minded touching them: but that their jurisdiction in their provinces & Dioceses should be civile, & coactive (for external we grant it to be, which is ill joined as the same with civile, & coactive, since even spiritual ordinances are external also) this I say is a plea, which to my remembrance I never heard of before. The Author in the front of his book proclaymes the vnreasonablenes of our separation: but I hope the Lord will give me grace, and modesty, never to defend, or continue in that state, & standing, for which I shall be driven, to make so unreasonable a defense: which is indeed an argument of an ill cause, & of no good consideration, that I say no more, in the writer.

For the better then both clearing of this point here and else • where in the book, & help of others otherwise: it must be considered that the Bishops have in their hands a double authority: the one civile as magistrates: the other spiritual, as Church-officers: and so do perform works of divers kinds according to these their divers callings. By the former they sit with other Barrons in the parliament-howl for the enacting of laws, & statutes, under bodily punishments: some of them also being of the kings p • ivy council, & some of his high commission, having therein joint authority with other Lord's, & Magistrates civil. They are generally, in the Countyes & Shyres where they live, Iusticers of peace, in the same Commission with other honorable, & worshipful personages & thus they sit upon the bench at Assizes, & Sessions: & have authority civil jointly with the other Iusticers, & so severally as they, at other times, to apprehend, imprison, fine, & punish bodily, malefactors, according to the common laws of the land, & their office of Iusticeship: and all these their administrations they perform expressly in the kings name. In which also they are to be honored, & obeyed, as are other civil magistrates whatsoever, by all the kings subjects, & wherein, for myself, I profess communion with & submission unto their authority, & power.

But besides this their civil authority they have also ecclesiastical Jurisdiction, as they are the Arch-Bishops of Provinces, & Bishops of Dioceses. And thus they with the rest of their triumphant Church, & Clergy, sit in the convocation house, frameing Canons, & constitutions ecclesiastical, under spiritual penaltyes. Thus they ordain ministers, & institute them to their several charges; & give them licences to preach within their provinces, & Dioceses. Thus they keep their spiritual courts by themselves, & their subordinates, Chauncelours, Commissaryes, Arch-Deacons, & other their officials: citeing men thither by their Apparitours; as on the contrary in their civil administrations (though in matters ecclesiastical) they use Pursivants, & Constables. There, and thus they suspend, depose, & degrade ministers, as at the first they ordained, and appointed them: as they also excommunicate, & absolv both ministers, and people as they see cause: proceeding in all these, not in the name of the king, as in the former, but expressly in the name of God: in & unto which their usurpation of the name or power of God, & Christ, no communion may be had, or submission yielded.

And where he affirmeth that the greatest parte of their Jurisdiction (to wit in their Provinces, & Dioceses) is derived from the king, which he might as well perform by other civile officers, & that the laws of the land do so esteem it, alleging to that end S. Edw: Cook L; chief Justice, there is a great mistakeing in the matter. No only the greatest parte of, but in effect, their whole Jurisdiction in their provinces, & diocesses, stands, in their ordaining of ministers & excommunicateing of offenders with their apurtenances, & in their contraryes, of the same nature? Now to make the power of excommunication & of ordination of ministers civile, or these such works as may be performed by civile magistrates, the king, or others, is to confound heaven, & earth; & to make Christ's kingdom (whereof these works, in their nature, are administrations) to be of this world. This power of the prelates is in itself, & nature, spiritual: & in the extent of it over an whole Province & Diocese, & all the Congregations therein (to the abolishing of the power both of officers & people) papal, & antichristian, Of which the kings civile authority is no parent, but only a nurse • otherwise the king should be not the d • fender only, but the author of the Churches saith in her government, & ministry. Papists have made of Popes kings, by deriveing from them civile governments: and will protestants make of kings, Popes, by deriving spiritual authority from them? And because Popeish kings have given their power to the beast, shall Christian kings therefore take the beasts power unto them: which they should surely do in making themselves the spring-heads from whence floweth the power of making ministers, & excommunicateing offenders which the Prelates use in their Provinces, & Dioceses?

And albeit for want of the books I cannot exactly set down the judgment of the laws in this case, yet may I safely affirm, that they nowhere derive from the kings civile authority, the power of these spiritual administrations, but do only make the king the establisher, & vphoulder civily of this power. The same ecclesiastical jurisdiction which had been in use in popery, & a great part of the popish Hierarchy, was confirmed Eliz: pri: & so continueth at this day: & in vain men apply their industry & ar • in the washing of this blackmore. Neither yet doth it follow, though the laws of the land did esteem this Jurisdiction civile that therefore it were such indeed. They may, and do misesteem many things especially of this kind. They esteem the Cross, Surplice, &c. indifferent, yea comely, & • dificative ceremonies: & are they therefore such, or so esteemed by this author? So for those corrupt usurpations, & abuses, which he affirmeth to be mingled with the Bishops (so seeming unto him) civile power, do not the laws of the land esteem even them also lawful, & laudable ordinances, & orders? The Arguments therefore from the laws esteem to the nature of the thing is of no force.

Now that the prelates Jurisdiction in their Prov: & Dioc: is not civile, but ecclesiastical, & a spiritual external power, appeareth plainly by these Reasons.

First where he makes it civile, because it is coactive, or bodily enforceing, I conclude on the contrary, that because it is not so coactive, therefore it is not civile. The furthest the Bishops can go, as Bishops, is to excommunicate a man, or to pronounce him an heretic: which done they may deliver him to the secular power, or procure a civile coactive process against him from the L: Chancelor, in certain cases.

2 ^dly . Where he affirmeth that the king might perform the works of their jurisdiction by other civile officers, there neither can be stronger, nor need be other Arguments to prove the contrary, then the very consideration of the nature of those their works: which are for substance, the making of ministers, & excommunicateing of offenders with their contraryes, & app • rtenances: which to call civile works, what is it but to make a civile religion?

3 ^dly , Let their consecration to their byshopricks be looked into, and [ III] there will be found in them no word, or syllable insinuateing any civile authority; but only that which is spiritual, for the feeding of the flock & doing the work, whereunto the H: Ghost hath called them: such scriptures also being thereunto applied, as conteyn in them only the callings, offices, & works of the ministers of the Church.

4 ^lie . Theyr civile authority, whether that which is peculiar to some of [ IIII] them, as to be of the pryvy council, or high commission; or that which is more ordinary, & common to all, as to be Iusticers of peace in the countries where they live, is but one, & the same, & conveyed by one, and the same joint calling, & commission with that of other counsaylers, commissioners, & Iusticers: & therefore is nothing at all to that jurisdiction by which they ordain ministers, and excommunicate offenders, which the foresaid civile magistrates neither have nor can have power to practice: though (by their civile power) they do, and may (civilely) restrain men under peyn of bodily punishment. Ad unto this also, that the Bishops may, & do excercise all, & every part of their episcopal authority, where they have not the least civile authority, viz: in the cittyes and corporations within their Provinces and Dioceses: as for example, the Bishop of Norwich in the city of Norwich, where his civile authority is no more then mine.

Lastly whereas all civile proceedings are made in the name of the king; [ V] they on the contrary side proceed In the name of God, though too oft verifying the old saying, In nomine Dei incipit omne malum.

And by these reasons that which I did not suspect that any would have denied, is confirmed, to wit, that the Prelates power in their Provinces, and Dioceses, is not civile, but a kind of external spiritual power which I have also in my former book proved Antichristian, as vsurpeing upon Christ's royal prerogatives, subverting the order of true Christian government, & su allowing up, as with full mouth, both the people's liberty, and Elders government, wherewtih Christ the Lord hath invested the true Church.

He proceedeth. But if this be so, then (saith Mr Rob:) those ministers are under no spiritual government: and so be lawless persons, and inordinate walkers &c.

His answers are. 1. that they so govern themselves, as that no honest man hath cause to abhor from their communion. 2 that they are subject to civile government, even in spiritual actions: & in the larger acception of the word to external regiment merely spiritual. 3. that they are no more lawles persons, then I myself was when I had no elder joined with me, or am now with mine one Elder, since I exclude the people from all government.

In these answers he neither dealeth with me, nor the cause of the Lord, as is meet. For first, I do not in my book inter this exception upon the former ground, as he sets it down for his advantage, as will appear in the examination of the 3. answer. 2. I do not allege it to prove communion unlawful with them, as he insinuates, but to reprove, & that upon their own plea, their Church-state, & standing, as such, as wherein they neither do nor can enjoy the spiritual external government of Christ in his Church: & so neither have that conscience, which is meet of the commandments of Christ by his Apostles, to give due honor to them who rule well: & to submit themselves to those who are over them in the Lord: nor of their own frayltyes, & in what need they stand of the Lord's ordinances, & of this in special, for their guidance, & conservation in his ways. And though he pass by this reproof, not mine, but the H: Ghostes, turning it off another way, yet let the godly Reader with good conscience remember that the disciples of Christ are to observe whatsoever he hath commanded his Apostles: & withal that it was the Prophets comfort, that he should not be confounded, when he had respect to all God's cammaundemēts: 3. In his 1. &. 2. answer he speaks not at all to the purpose in hand: our question not being about the personal government, which a man hath over himself; nor about civile government, though in spiritual actions, nor about government at all, in the larger acceptation of the word: ut only as it is taken for the outward guidance & ordering of the Church in her public affairs, by the Bishops, or Elders. And thus, and in this regard all in the parish assemblies (if not under the Prelates spiritual jurisdiction, as many would make themselves, and others believe) are lawless persons, & inordinate walkers: neither is this mine assertion either lavish, or lawless, but a just & necessary testimony against their transgression: of which I wish them from the Lord more conscience, & for that purpose, better counsel, then in this manuduction they find. Lastly, to make way to a touch of wit, unto which he cannot get by my words, & meaning truly related, he takes liberty to change the one & other, for his advantage. I do p: 30 propound sundry defences made by such both ministers, & people, as dislike the prela • y: and the first, of the people, to wit, that they are not subject to the prelates government. And that I intend this of the people, is evident by my reply in the same place: the words whereof I have formerly noted down in the 2 ^d consideration of his answer. This by me spoken, and intended of the people, he misapplyeth to the ministers, putting, as my words, These ministers are under no spiritual government: and so would (in wantonness of wit) fasten the same reproof upon myself as having been formerly with none, & now with one Elder, without government also, and so an inordinate walker.

The truth then is, that the people professing themselves (though most untruly) to be from under the Prelates Spiritual government, do therein profess themselves to be from under all Christian church government: & that, both ministers, and people professing themselves to be from under the prelates spiritual power, do therein profess themselves to be from under all power of Christ for the censures; & in those respects, and considerations (of which only I speak though he streach my words further then he should either in charity or equity) to be lawless persons & inordinate walkers, & without the yoke of Christ, & one special means of their salvation.

And thus much for the confirmation of my testimony against communion with the parochial assemblies, in the particulars (though far frō all in my former book, as mine opposite pretendeth) wherein he hath endeavored to weaken it: where I also desire the Reader well to note, that whatsoever either he pretendeth, or others conceav of public communion following upon private, yet the issue unto which things come between him & me is in these two questions. 1. whether the Bishops jurisdiction in their provinces, & diocesses be lawful, or no? 2. whether the parochial ministers being ordained, instituted, & licensed by the Bishops, do preach by their authority, or no?

The other two stumbling blocks (as he calls them) viz. that all are urged to communion by penal laws; & that a set form of prayer i • appointed, he neither purposeth, nor thinks it needful to deal about, seeing 1. there are many excercises of religion where none are present by constraynt, nor the service book so much as appeareth: for which he instanceth in Mr. Parkins his excercise.

And wherefore doth he still after his (but an evil) custom change the state of the question? which is not about men's being preson • by constraint at the excercises of religion, but about Churches gathered by constraint of all the profane parrishioners with the other handful; as was that parish church whereof Mr Perkins was a member, & where he taught: & that by authority from & under the prelates.

My being once at his successors sermon since I professed separation, is neither pertinently, nor truly objected by him. I was there as in many other places since I made question of it, & disputed for it, but had not otherwise professed it. And vppō this occasion I think good to note down the work of God's providence towards me in this matter. Comeing to Cambridge (as to other places where I hoped most to find satisfaction to my troubled heart) I went the fore-noon to Mr Cha▪ his excercise: who upon the relation which Mary made to the disciples of the resurrection of Christ, delivered, in effect, this doctrine; that the things which concerned the wh • le church were to be declared publicly to the whole Church, & not to some parte only: b • inging for instance, & proof the words of Christ, Mat: 1817. Tell it to the Church: confirming therein one main ground of our difference from the Ch: of Engl: which is that Christ hath given his power for excommunication to the whole church gathered together in his name as 1 Cor: 5: the officers as the governers, & the people as the governed in the use thereof; unto which Church his servants are comaunded to bring their necessary complaynts. And I would desire mine opposite either to show me how, & where this Church is, having this power, in the partish assemblies: or else by what warrant of God's word I (knowing what Christ the Lord commanded herein) may with good conscience remain a member of a Ch: without this power (much less where the contrary is advanced) & so go on in the known transgression of that his commandment, Tell the church?

In the afternoon I went to hear Mr B: the successor of Mr. Perkins, who from Eph: 5. & v: 7. or 11. shown the unlawfulness of familiar conversation between the servants of God, & the wicked, upon these grounds, or the most of them. 1. that the former are light, & the other darkness, between which God hath separated▪ 2. that the godly hereby are endaungered to be leavened with the others wickedness. 3. that the wick • d are hereby hardened in receiving such approbation from the godly. 4 that others are thereby offended, & occasioned to think them all alike, & as birds of a f • there, which so flo • k together. Whom afterwards privately I desired, as I do also others, to consider, whether these very Reasons make not as effectually & much more agay ••• th s • irituall communion of God's people, (especially where there wants the means of reformatiō) with the apparently wicked, to whom they are as light to d • rknes.

To that which he alledgeth in the 2 ^d place of the reformed Churches generally us •• ng a stint form • f prayer, with whom yet I will not refuse all public communion, I answer, that for the very use of a set form of prayer, or other the like failing I will not refuse communion with a true Church in things lawful: but between the set form of prayer used in the reformed Churches, & in the unreformed Ch: of Engl: I put great difference; not only in the matter, & sundry orders thereof, but especially in the manner of imposeing it: which in the reformed Ch: is not by compulsiō, nor in the first place, as in the Ch: of Engl: where the reading of it is preferred before, & above the preaching of the gospel: and where more ministers (and those of the best sort) have been deprived of their ministry in a few months for the not reading, and observeing it in manner, & form, then have been ever since the Pope was expelled, not only for not preaching (for which no man is so censured) but for all other wickedness of what kind soever, though abounding in the ministry there. By which, that their set service is advaunced above all that is called God, & made a very hateful Idol, to which both great & small are compelled to bow down, & it to honor. Which Idol-servi • e also upholdeth an Idol-ministry: which, as it is truly so called, would without it be well nigh as dumb, as the Idols of the heathens, which have mouths, & speak not.

For conclusion, he affirmeth, that by the laws of Geneva like strictness, (to wit, unto that in Engl:) is used towards the inhabitants of that city, though I unadvisedly deny it in mine assertion of the Engl: assemblies difference therein from all • mue Churches in the world. pag: 20.

In that place of my book I observe two main differences between the Churches of Christ, as the scriptures testify of them; and the parish assēbl • es in their very constitution. With these differences thus propounded he meddleth not, either by showing how the assemblies agree therein with the Apostolical Churches, or how disagreeing from them in the one, and other, they can be true visible Churches rightly gathered & constituted. But where by the way for amplication I mention the reformed Churches, as in • eressed in the same differences frō Engl: he there st • ps in and takes me by the hand, and leads me along to Geneva: as b • like rather hopeing to make the Church of Engl: agree in something with the laws of Geneva, then with the laws of Christ's testament. But was the Church of Geneva indeed gathered of all the apparently wicked, and fl • gitious persons in the city, amongst the rest, scarce sensible in so vast a heap as were, and are the English parrochiall assemblies? If the state of Geneva did in a politique r • spect expel out of the city such the inhabitants, as were not well affected towards the religion, and that the Church were gathered of the rest, being judged in charity capable of the holy things of God, upon their personal confessior; how then standeth this agreement between the Genevean, and Engl: assemblies? And if the Church of Gen: had been gathered after popery (as the Engl: assemblies were, and it was not) of all the unhallowed rowt in the city, without separation, I should confess mine unadvisednes in my better judgment of it, then it deserved.

And thus much for this letter, which the Author might more fitly have called • n exercise of wit, then • Manuduction, as he doth. And for that it is in effect intended for the justification of the Ministry, it shall not be amiss for the better help of the Reader, and furtherance of the truth, briefly to set down such particulars, as by the scriptures and good reason thereunto agreeable, are of absolute necessity for a true ordinary Church-officer, and minister of Christ; which for order sake I will reduce to four heads.

The first is, that there be a true visible Church, in which he is to be appointed God having set in the Church, Apostles, Prophets, Teachers etc: & mention being made everywhere of the

Whereupon 1. I desire to know how the ministers of the Church of England can be true Ministers, not being made, and ordained such in and to any particular Church? 2. Since, as is rightly acknowledged in the former part of the book, Every true visible Church is a company of people called and separated out f • ō the world, I would know how many, and which of the parish Churches consist of such a separated people, and are not both (at the • est) in their persons mixed of the people of God, and the world, and also mixed in one national, provincial, and diocesan Church, or body with all the godless multitude, and part of the world in that land? 3. I ad, that since a separated people from the world is but the matter of the Church, and that for a true Church a true form is also required, it must also be shown how that can be found there. This form cannot be any particular act, which is transeunt, and passeth away, but something constant, and permanent, without which resydeing actually in the whole and all the partes thereof, the Church cannot consist one moment; neither yet can it be any personal thing either disposition, or other relation whatsoever: nor other, as I conceav, then a public orderly covenant, and union of a particular assembly, by which it hath in itself entire right to Christ, and to all the means of enjoying him: which I rather wi • h could be, thē belief can be (for the present) found in any parish Church in the land. Lastly, if the Provincial, and Diocesan Churches be not true visible Churches (which I suppose is this Authors judgment) I would know how the parish assemblies being partes of the other, and so partes of false Churches, can anymore be reputed true Churches, then could a particular Jewish Synagogue be reputed a true Church, which should have made itself an entire, and independent body in respect of the national Church, and Temple?

But now if any of the parish assemblies be thus separated in their personal, & church estate, and formed accordeingly (though with defects, & wants) we desire to take knowledge of them, and which they be, that we may rejoice for the grace of God towards them, and perform unto them the duties of Christian fellowship, as is meet.

[ II] The 2 ^d necessary for a true ministry is a fit person, in whom ap • nes to teach, & vnreproveablenes in conversation is found: even reason teaching that whomsoever God calleth to any estate he fitteth cōpe • ently for the main works thereof. In whom also for his own comfort with God, is required an inward calling, which with Calvin I conceav to be an holy disposition, & desire to administer the gospel of Christ to the glory of God, and furtherance of man's salvation. Which inward calling as a true minister before men may want as did Indas, so for that they in Engl: much pretend it whē they canno • justify their outward, I demand whether a man thus inwardly called of God, & forefitted accordingly, & being withal persuaded in his heart that a lawful outward calling, & without sin in the entrance, & continuance, cannot he had in the Ch: of Engl: whether, I say, such a mā be not bound in conscience to seek out, or procure another Church then the Church of Engl: in the present state thereof; by, & unto which he may la • fully enter, & administer: & how otherwise he doth not either carelessly neglect, or sinfully profane the Lord's inward calling in his heart?

[ III] The 3 ^d thing necessary is a true, & lawful office, or function of ministry; there being, as the Apostle teacheth, diversityes of administrations, but (& by) the same Lord, even the L: Jesus: who when he • scended on high gave gifts unto men, some Apostles, & some Prophts, & some Evāgelists & some Pastors, & Teachers. Now this office, & order not being a matter of dignity, as the order of knighthood, or the like, but of work & service; & this work standing summarily in feeding the flock, Act. 20. 28. and this feeding, in teaching & ruleing, as the two main partes thereof, I demand how that can possibly be the true, & lawful function, or office of a Bishop or Pastor, unto which preaching to the flock is not necessarily required, not ruleing so much as permitted; as we all know the case standeth with the English ministry?

[ IIII] Lastly there is required a true & lawful outward calling of the ministers by those in whom the Lord hath left that right, & power: which (if the scriptures may bear sway) are the particular congregations in, and unto which they are to administer. And of such force is this true & lawful outward calling, as that by it, & none otherwise, this fi • , and lawful person becomes properly, & immediately, a true pastour. And how then can he be a true pastour, whose calling unto his function, or office of priesthood in the Ch: of Eng: is merely by the prelate of the province, or Diocese; by whose license or institution he is also afterwards designed to his more particular charge?

These 4 conditions & every of them are necessarily required to the constitution of a true pastour: & are none of them (to my knowledge) save the 2 ^d to be found in the parochial ministry. Let mine opposite either disprove the former, or manifest the latter, & how, & where such a ministry is to be found▪ but let him do it in that godly simplycity, which becometh the gospel, and the things thereof: p • escribeing to himself with due reverence of God in whose work he dealeth, the sacred bounds of the Apostle saying, we can do nothing against the truth, but for the truth. In▪ & into which the God thereof guide both him, and myself, and all his always.