that ordinary people that understand not Latine and Greek ought not to be concerned what becomes of their Souls If they be and do in good earnest desire to know how to please God and serve him what directions will they give him They must do as they are bidden true say they if we were to worship you for Gods we would do as you bid us for we think it fitting to serve God in his own way But we would know whether that God whom we serve hath given us any Rules for his worship or no. How shall we know whether we keep them or not or will you take upon you the guilt of our sins in disobeying his will This seems to be a very just and reasonable request and I fear it will one day fall heavy on those who conceale that which they confess to be the will of God from the knowledge of the people Pag. 548. I agree with him in the way of proof of a Churches purity viz. by agreement with the doctrine of Christ and his Apostles and that the Church is to be judged purest which shews the greatest Evidence of that consent and that every one is bound to enquire which Church hath the strongest motives for it and to embrace the Communion of it Pag. 565. 14. To suppose the books so written to be imperfect i. e. that any thing necessary to be believed or PRACTISED are not conteined in them is either to charge the first Author of them with fraud and not delivering his whole mind or the writers with insincerity in not setting it down and the whole Christian Church of the first ages with folly in believing the fulness and perfection of the Scriptures in order to Salvation Read the rest of those excellent Rules to the end In his excellent Vindication of Arch Bishop Laâ—d called A Rational account of the Protestants Religion he hath the same termes of Communion and the same description of Schism with mine and I know not how better to express my thoughts nor plead my Vindication viz. Pag. 289. In his defence of Arch Bishop Land not yet disowned since so great and considerable parts of the Christian Churches have in these last ages been divided in Communion from each other the great contest and enquiry hath been which party stands guilty of the cause of the present distance and separation For both sides retain still so much of their common Christianity as to acknowledge that no Religion doth so strictly oblige the owners of it to peace and unity as the Christian Religion doth and yet notwithstanding this we find these breaches so far from closing that supposing the same grounds to continue a reconciliation seems to humane reason impossible an Evidence of which is that those persons who either out of a generous desire of seeing the wounds of the Christian world healed or out of some private interest or designe have made it their business to propound terms of reconciliation between the divided parties have been equally rejected by those parties they have professed themselves the members of Page 290. The distance then being so great as it is it is a very necessary enquiry what the Cause of it is and where the main fault lies and it being acknowledged that there is a possibility that corruptions may get into a Christian Church and it being impossible to prove that Christianity obligeth men to Communicate with a Church in all those corruptions its communion may be tainted with it seems evident to reason that the cause of the breach must lie there where the corruptions are owned and imposed as conditions of communion For can any one imagine it should be a fault in any to keep off from communion where they are so far from being obliged to it that they have an obligation to the contrary from the principles of their common Christianity And where men are bound not to communicate it is impossible to prove their not communicating to be Schism For there can be no Schism but where there is an obligation to communion Schism being nothing else but a willful violation of the bonds Christian communion And therefore whenever you would prove the Protestants guilty of Schism you must do it by proving they were bound to communicate with your Church in those things which they are Protestants for disowning of or that there is so absolute and unlimited an obligation to continue in the society of your Church that no conditions can be so hard but we are bound rather to submit to them then not joyn in Communion with you This being a matter of so vast consequence in order to the setling mens minds in the present disputes of the Christian world before I come to particulars I shall lay down those general principles which may manifest how free Protestants are from all imputation of Schism Schism then importing a violation of that communion which we are obliged to the most natural way for understanding what Schism is is to enquire what the foundations are of Christian communion and how far the bounds of it do extend Now the Foundations of Christian communion in general depend upon the acknowledgment of the truth of Christian Religion For that Religion which Christ came to deliver to the world being supposed true is the reason why any look on themselves as obliged to profess it which obligation extending to all persons who have the same grounds to beleive the truth of it thence ariseth the ground of society in this profession which is a common obligation on several persons joyning together in some acts of common concernment to them The truth then of Christian Religion being acknowledged by several persons they find in this Religion some actions which are to be performed by several persons in society with each other From whence ariseth that more immediate obligation to Christian society in all those who profess themselves Christians and the whole number of these who own that truth of Christian Religion and are thereby obliged to joyn in society with each other is that which we call the Catholick Church But although there be such a relation to each other in all Christians as to make them one common society yet for the performance of particular acts of communion there must be lesser societies wherein persons may joyn together in the actions belonging to them But still the obligation to communion in these lesser is the same with that which constitutes the great body of Christians which is the owning Christianity as the only true Religion and way to eternal happiness And therefore those lesser societies cannot in Justice make the necessary conditions of Communion narrower than those which belong to the Catholick Curch i. e. those things which declare men Christians ought to capacitate them for communion with Christians But here we are to consider that as to be a Christian supposeth mens owning the Christian Religion to be true so the conveyance of that Religion being now to us in those books we call
are in all places of this Realm almost neglected the offender either nothing or little rebuked and sith the transgressors have no colour of conscience it is sin and shame to proceed against us first having also reasonable defence of our doings Charity my Lords would first have taught us Equity would first have spared us brotherliness would have warned us pity would have pardoned us if we had been found trespassers God is my witness who is the beholder of all faith I think of your Lordships honourably esteeming you as brethren reverencing you as Lords and Masters of the Congregation alas why have not you some good opinion of us why do you trust known Adversaries and mistrust your Brethren We confess one faith of Jesus we preach one doctrine we acknowledg one Ruler upon earth in all things saving in this we are of your judgment shall we be used thus for a Surplice shall brethren persecute brethren for a forked Cap devised singularity of him that is our enemy Now shall we fight for the Popes coat his head and body being banished shall the controversie so fall out in conclusion that for lack of necessary furniture as it is esteemed labourers shall lack wages Churches preaching shall we not teach shall we not exercise our Talents as God hath commanded us because we will not wear that which our enemies have desired and that by the appointment of Friends Oh that ever I saw this day that our Adversaries should laugh to see brethren fall together by the ears Oh that Ephraim should thus eat up Manasses Manasses Ephraim My Lords before this take place consider the cause of the Church the Crests and triumphs of Antichrist the laughter of Satan the sorrow and sighs of a number the misery and sequel of the Tragedy I write with zeal without proof of my matter at this time present but not without knowledge of it nor without grief of mind God move your Spirit at this present to fight against Carnem Circumcisionem immo Concisionem against Literam Legem which principally is now regarded and rewarded Speak I humbly beseech you to the Queens Majesty to the Chancellor and to Mr. Secretary and the rest that those proceedings may sleep that England may understand your zealous mind toward the worship of God your love toward the poor welwillers your hate toward the professed enemies your unity in true conformity the other neither be needful now neither exacted in any good age So shall the little Flock be bound to you so shall the great Shepherd be good to you An ANSWER to the false ACCUSATIONS and REASONINGS of the Dr.'s SECOND PART HEre the Dr. begins with the description of their principles whom he accuseth I am one of them And the first sort are those that hold partial and occasional Communion with our Churches to be lawful but not total and constant viz. at some times to be present and in some part of our worship and on particular occasion to partake of some acts of Communion with us but they apprehend greater purity and edification in separate Congregations and when they are to choose they think themselves bound to choose these though at certain seasons they may think it lawful to submit to occasional Communion with our Church The second sort are `` Such as hold any Communion with our Church unlawful And he pretends to proceed with all possible clearness Answ I am sorry if more clearness and truth is become impossible to him He taketh not me to be one of the second sort and therefore describeth me as of the first It s no presumption to say that I know my own mind and practice better than he doth though he would seem to know the old Nonconformists minds better than they did themselves Sect. 2. The matter of fact must first be notified 1. I ever distinguished the National Diocesan Parochial and Segregate Churches And the National as supposed organized or an Ecclesiastically political Society from the National as a Christian Kingdom and as an agreeing Association of Churches without any Governor of the whole Single or Aristocratical And I distinguished Diocesans that are as Arch-Bishops over lower Bishops and those that are like ours infimae speciei and I distinguished Parish Churches that have true Pastors from those that have none but uncapable men through insufficiency heresie malignity or as usurpers are not truly called 2. Accordingly I concluded 1. That the Parish Churches in England that have true Pastors are true political governed Churches 2. That though some would make them none by denying to the Pastors an essential part of their office and make the Bishop the sole Pastor and the rest but his Curates and the Parishes no Churches as having no Bishop but to be only as Chappels part of the lowest governed Church Diocesan and so give up the cause to the Brownists called Separatists yet truly such Parishes are true political Churches because the ordainer being but the investing Minister the office is not essentiated as he willeth or saith but as God the Instituter willeth and saith As the power of the Husband over the Wife is not what please the Priest that marryeth them but what pleaseth God who giveth it by his Law and as the Lord Mayor's power is not what please the Recorder or he that giveth him his Oath or Insignia but what the Kings Charter giveth and the Kings power is not what he will that Crowneth him and giveth him his Oath but what he hath right to by the constitution of the Kingdom so that the truth of the Parish Churches is soundly maintained by the Nonconformists and overthrown by many of the Diocesans But if the Parish Minister himself consent not to the essentials of his own office his Ministry may be valid to others while he is in the place but he is himself no true Pastor 3. All Parishes are no true governed Churches whose Ministers want any thing essential to a Pastor nor must be owned as such if known 4. But for the peoples sake they are true Churches secundum quid or equivocally as a company of Christians may be so called that have no Pastor and as such may be so far communicated with 5. I never spake against a Diocesan or Arch-Bishop that hath Parish Churches and true Pastors or Bishops under him and taketh on him no more than the Apostles did excepting their work properly Apostolical viz. by the Word and not the Sword to oversee and instruct inferior Pastors 6. When the Diocesans put down all lower Churches and true Pastors I own not that doing nor them in that form but I separate from them no further than they do from Christ 7. When they are but as good Arch-Bishops taking care of many Churches whether their Diocess shall be called a Church as such is but lis de nomine I find not that any Apostle as such was the constitutive Head of a Diocesan or Provincial Church or made any such above particular Churches
while you deny not that half or a quarter of your own Parish cannot hear you much less many greater Parishes that if some of them do but sometimes crowd in perhaps once in many months or weeks by coming with the first and do but dwell in the Parish and own you that they have no need to hear or worship God publickly all the rest of the year and to pretend such need becometh not Sincerity 2. And as to those that meet in lesser Parishes you thought not meet to take notice of my answer assigning many Reasons which I will not repeat any further than to tell you 1. That many Churches there are unbuilt 2. Many come from the greater Parishes to them and some have other Reasons Sect. 15. P. 102. He saith Mr. Baxter hath a whole Chapter Plea p. 141. of Reasons against the Communion of Laymen with our Church Answ You are unhappy in History though it be your strength There 's not a word to prove it unlawful for Laymen to have Communion with your Churches but only the Matter of Fact named which is supposed to the Controversie But it being cunningly worded by you it may be by Reasons against Communion with our Churches you meant but as I did Reasons for Nonconformity in those particular Acts But do you not your self all-along suppose and plead that though we conform not yet we should hold Communion with you Why call you then the Reasons of Nonconformity Reasons against Communion Sect. 16. P. 103. He adds in the same Books he saith it is Schismatical in a Church to deny Baptism without the transient Sign of the Cross or for want of God-fathers c. or to deny Communion to such who scruple kneeling Now if the Church be Schismatical then those who seperate in these things are not Answ 1. Say you so Then we are not only quit but further quit than we can own our selves I undertake to prove that it may be Schism to separate from a Church that is guilty of some Schismatical Acts and Impositions And it needs no proof but the plain History and their Accusations of one another that there are few if any Churches on Earth that are not guilty of somewhat that is Schismatical in East VVest North or South in Africk Asia Europe or America Greeks Muscovites Jacobites Abassines Nestorians Armenians Georgians Mengrelians Circassians Papists Lutherans Calvinists Prelaticalls Presbyterians Independants Anabaptists c. And must we separate from them all 2. Verily Sir denying Persons Christendom and Church-Communion are great things And if a Cross and a gesture forbidden by the Ancient Councils in Adoration every Lords Day be now matters so weighty as for them to deny Christendome and Communion for shame call them Indifferent no more one would verily think that when you writ your Defence of Archbishop Laâ—d you had been of another mind if words are any notifying Signs of your mind 3. Other Pastors may be used in such instances without separating from you Sir these are not impossibilities to peaceable men In both the places where I formerly preached a publick Minister and a private lovingly joyn as assistants one doing that part which the other cannot And they all live in peace Sect. 17. I am next assaulted Pag. 110. I say The Benefit of Christian Love and Concord may make it best for certain seasons to joyn even in defective Modes of Worship as Christ did c. though the least defective must be chosen when no such Reasons sway the other way Reader is not this true Will not the denyal of this drive us from the Parish Churches and from almost all or require us causelesly to choose sins of omission Would you not take him for a separatist that is against this But he saith And hence we take notice 1. That no Obligation to the Peace and Unity of this Church as they are Members of it doth bring them to this occasional Communion with it but a certain Romantick Fancy of Catholick Unity by which these Catholick Gentlemen think themselves no more obliged to the Communion of this Church then of the Armâ—nian or Abissine Churches Only it happens that our Church is so much nearer Answ 1. This is not true For 1. we take this Church to be far less corrupt than the Armenian or Abissine 2. We have more Obligations to it from the civil Magistrates Laws and Protection c. 2. Is nearness such a trifle with you How much do you differ from Mr. Cheny Tell us why we should be of your Parish Church rather than of one an hundred miles off but for nearness and Cohabitation why else of old had each City its own Church 3. Is Catholick Unity become a Romantick Fancy Is this the same man that wrote the Defence of Archbishop Laud we are not ashamed of the title of Catholick 4. If I name one Obligation to Communion with you is it a learned Note to gather that I deny all other 5. When prove you that I am only for occasional Communion when I have so long practised constant Communion with you These are reasons suitable to your cause Sect. 18. He adds Ask him what Church he is a Member of If he answer he could have occasional Communion with all tolerable Churches but was a fixed Member of none would they if he were at Jerusalem take such a man for a Christian What a Christian and a Member of no Church And I much doubt whether they would admit such an one to occasional Communion c. Answ 1. Wonderful Who would have thought that this man had been so much for the Principles of Separation more than the Independants In his defence of Laud he maintaineth that the Power of the Keys is formally in the whole Church and given to Peter as their Representative which is not true for it was given only to Pastors as such and not to the Laity And now he would make that man no Christian that is no fixed Member of some particular Church Let us examine whether this be true CHAP. VI. Q. Whether he be no Christian that is not a fixed Member of a particular Church Sect. 1. HE that is a true Member of the Universal Church which is Christs Body is a true Christian But many are Members of the Universal Church which are no fixed Members of any particular Church Ergo. 2. All that are rightfully Baptized are Christians for it is their Christening But many rightfully Baptized are no fixed Members of any particular Church Ergo. 3. He that hath all the Essentials of Christianity is a Christian But many that are no fixed Members of a particular Church have all the Essentials of Christianity Ergo. 4. A fortiore They that are not so much as bound in Duty to be fixed Members of a particular Church though Baptised are not unchristened for want of such Membership But many Baptized person are not so much as bound in Duty to be fixed Members of a particular Church Ergo. Instances
execution of it on others or the person in foro externo But still the Church hath done her part in Legislation to oblige as aforesaid § 6. He saith Persons excommunicate are to be denounced so every six months that others may have notice of them Answ 1. But are they not excommunicate then before they are so oft denounced yea or at all as far as aforesaid § 7. He saith I have fully answered my own Objection by saying I am not bound to execute the sentence on my self Answ 1. He would not say that he approveth the answer For if he do he confuteth himself that would have us execute the silencing sentence on our selves and the sentence against publick worship in any way but theirs 2. My reason is because I take the unjust sentence as invalid else I were bound in foro interiore 3. But sure the Church at least relaxeth that mans obligation to present Communion by shewing her will if she did not oblige him to withdraw Read over the words of the Canon and see whether they make them not as unintelligible and flexible to what sense they please as they do the words of the Act of Uniformity and Liturgy § 8. As to his two cases in which the excommunicate may be schismaticks for not communicating 1. We question not the first Just excommunication excludeth none but the guilty Here then indeed is the state of our Controversie Had he proved that in all the cases before cited it is just to excommunicate us he had done somewhat when now for want of it he betrayeth his cause 2. His 2d is If they form new Churches Answ 1. Is forming new Churches and not communicating with the old ones all one Our present question is of the later So that this great Accuser seemeth plainly to absolve all from being bound to Communicate with them who are unjustly excommunicate and gather not new Churches 2. But may not the unjustly excommunicate that cannot on just terms be restored worship God in some publick Church Doth such a wicked sentence bind men to live like Atheists till death or deprive them of their right to all God's Ordinances even many Papist Doctors and Councils say the contrary And how else do you justifie the Church of England against the Papists charge of Schism § 9. p. 372. He still seemeth to think that His own and others reasonings may change all the truly honest Christians in the Land to hold all the things imposed lawful Answ These thoughts of the Bishops in 1660. and 1661. have brought us all to the pass that we are at And if after 20 years so great experience of the inefficacy of all their Disputes yea and Prisons and after the notice of the nature and different cases of men they still trust to bring us to Concord on these terms disputing with such men is in vain The Lord deliver us from them CHAP. XII Of the English sort of Sponsors and the exclusion of Parents duty § 1. PAge 380. He saith I several times mention this as one of the grounds of the unlawfulness of the peoples joyning in Communion with us yea as the greatest objection Answ Four places of my writings are cited and all will testifie to him that will read them the untruth of the Doctors words This is an unhappy course of accusations I can find no word of The unlawfulness of the peoples joyning in Communion with you on this ground On the contrary I have taught men how to make this very action in them lawful viz. By getting if possible credible Sponsors of the old sort and agreeing with them to be the Parents Representer and promise as in his name or at least but as his second undertaking the Education of the Child if he die or apostatize which was the old sort and himself to be present and signifie his consent by gesture though he may not speak But I have shewed 1. That this must be done besides the Churches order that hath no such thing 2. That subscribing to the Churches order herein is unlawful 3. That the Church which refuseth the Child lawfully offered ought not to blame that person that cannot or will not make such shifts but getteth another Pastor to Baptize him whom they sinfully refuse But this is not to prove it unlawful to have Communion with you But it 's lawful to use better also when they can being thus repulsed by you § 2. He saith The Parents are to provide such as are fit to under take that office Answ 1. No one is fit for it as used by the Liturgy but an Adopter that taketh the Child for his own For he undertaketh the Parents work And it 's lis sub judice whether any others undertaking besides a Parent or Owner can prove the Child to be in the Covenant as offered and have right to the seal and benefits Atheists and Insidels Children are unholy 1 Cor. 7. 14. 2. If any were sit few Parents can get such as will understandingly and deliberately and credibly promise them to do all that Godfathers must by the Liturgy undertake I never knew one in my life that seemed to the Parent to mean any such thing much less to do it I have in my younger time been Godfather to three or four But we before agreed with the Parents to intend no more than to be Witnesses and the Father to be the Entitler and the undertaker I did in 1640. Baptize two by the Liturgy without Crossing and never more in 6. or 7. years after because of the imposed corruptions Mr. Kettilby the Bookseller unless his Father had another Child of the same name baptized the same year was one But his Father gave him his name and promised all his own duty and his Uncle and Aunt standing as Sponsors we before agreed that they should signifie but Witnesses and friendly helpers in case of need 2. But what if the Parents are bid provide such that is no discharge of their own part nor are they bound to cast their duty on others § 3. He saith as to the Child 's Right to Baptism that the Godfathers stand in a threefold capacity 1. Representing the Parent in offering 2. Representing the Child in promising 3. In their own as undertakers of his education c. Answ 1. I will not till he confute them repeat my proofs that in the Church of England's sence the Godfathers are not the Parents representatives at all nor speak in their name 2. If they were then when the Parents both are Atheists Infidels Hobbists scorners at Godliness Hereticks the Godfathers can represent them but as they are and their own faith entitleth not the Child because they stand in the persons of Atheists Infidels c. your Church doth not like this doctrine 3. And as to their representing the Child quo jure is the doubt It cannot be done without some representing power given them And who gave it them 4. And as to the third Person in this multiform
A SECOND TRUE DEFENCE OF THE MEER Nonconformists AGAINST THE Untrue ACCUSATIONS REASONINGS and HISTORY of Dr. EDWARD STILLINGFLEET DEAN of St. PAULS c. Clearly proving that it is not sin but duty 1. Not wilfully to commit the many sins of Conformity 2. Not Sacrilegiously to forsake the Preaching of the Gospel 3. Not to cease publick worshipping of God 4. To use needful Pastoral helps for salvation though men forbid it and call it Schism Written by RICHARD BAXTER not to accuse others but to defend Gods Truth and the true way of Peace after near 20 years loud Accusations of the silencing prosecuting Clergy and their Sons With some Notes on Mr. Joseph Glanviles Zealous and Impartial Protestant and Dr. L. Moulins Character 1 Tim 6. 5 6. Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds and destitute of the truth supposing that gain is godliness from such withdraw thy self But godliness with contentment is great gain LONDON Printed for Nevil Simons at the Sign of the Three Golden Cocks at the West-end of St. Pauls 1681. AN Historical Preface § 1. THE matter of fact occasioning this second Defence hath been formerly and is after here opened in part I need now but briefly tell the Reader that after the long difference between the English Prelatists and those that desired Reformation and Discipline the most of the English Ministers who were in possession of the Parish-Churches from 1646 till 1660 obeyed the Parliament so far as to disuse the English Book of Common-Prayer and Subscription and Obedience to the Diocesan Episcopacy some of them being most for Church-Government by Synods of Parochial Pastors and assisting Elders and most for a Reconciling of the several divided Parties thinking somewhat in the Episcopal Presbyterian and Independent Parties to be good and somewhat in each of them unwarrantable 1. They were so far Independent as to hold that particular Churches associated for Personal Communion in faith worship and holy living were of Divine Institution such as true Parish-Churches are and that each of these Churches ought to have its proper exercise of that Discipline which is described by Christ Mat. 18. and by St. Paul 1 Cor. 5. and in other Texts of holy Scripture and was exercised in the days of Ignatius and so on for many hundred years some part of it still remaining even to the times of Popery Therefore they held that the Pastors of such Churches must be such as had power to exercise the said Discipline And they held that Parish-Bounds were of great convenience against disorder though not of Divine Institution not taking all that dwell in a Parish to be eo nomine of the Church but such of them as were capable by continued owning their Baptismal Covenant not nullified by proved Heresie or inconsistent wickedness And they held that no unwilling person was capable of a sealed Pardon of sin and so of Church-Communion nor yet of the true receiving of the use of the Pastoral office And therefore that none but free Consenters should have the Sacrament nor be related to the Pastor as his Flock of that Church but the rest should be constrained to live as Catechumens or Hearers as they were capable in peace and quietness and such as the Magistrate found meet to be tolerated in other Churches who only were uncapable in that 2. They were so far for Presbytery as to hold that 1. If men of competent sufficiency were made by ordination Elders ejusdem ordinis with the chief Pastor to be his Assessors and Assistants though they seldom or never Preached publickly but helped him in Catechizing or private over sight and in judging persons and cases and though in necessity they laboured with their hands it would not be unlike the ancient Government 2. And they judged that all Gods work should be done in the greatest concord and with the best mutual counsel and help that might be and therefore that Synods are to that end of great use and if they were appointed at stated times and places it would by order be a furtherance to their ends But they were not for their assuming a proper Regent Power by Majority of Votes over the minor part or the absent Pastors and thought that when sixedness occasioned that usurpation occasional Synods pro re natâ were better And 3. They judged that Presbyters are ejusdem ordinis with Bishops and that no Bishops have a divine right to govern without the Presbyters assistance nor to deprive them of any of their power nor their Churches of true Discipline or Worship nor the people of their Rights much less to use any forcing power of the sword on any 3. They were so far for Episcopacy as to hold it lawful and convenient that the particular Churches have one that shall have a Priority and in many things a Negative Vote as the Incumbent in each Parish hath among his Curates a sort of power And that the Presbyteries and Synods have their Moderators and if they were fixed durante vitâ and had a Negative Vote in Ordinations they could consent sobeit they were duly chosen as of old and had no forcing power by the sword but only a Ministerial teaching guiding power And some of them thought it of Divine right that the Apostles and Evangelists have Successors in the ordinary parts of their office and that to have a special caâ—e of many Churches and their Bishops and Elders are some of that ordinary part 4. And to the Erastians also they granted that the King is the Supreme Governour of the Church by the sword or force and that we must obey him not only when he enforceth the Commands of Christ but in all acts of outward circumstance and order left by God to his determination and not appropriated to the Ministers office These were the thoughts then of the far greatest part of the Ministers that I had then knowledge of § 2. Before the King returned many Episcopal Doctors and great men perswaded these Reconcilers that thus much would be accepted to our common concord if the King were restored But some said They do but decieve you there are such men now got into chief credit on that side that will silence you all and ruine you unless you will follow Grotius or be of the French Religion or unite in the Pope as Principium unitatis and obey him as the Western Patriarck c. And when you are all turned out what men have they to supply your places § 3. But when the King came in and encouraged the Reconcilers with the promise of his help they made the attempt in 1660 and 1661. the History of which I need not repeat Since that foreseeing what the silencing of so many Ministers and the afflicting of the people of our mind would unavoidably cause we pleaded we petitioned the Bishops to have prevented it by those necessary means which they might have yielded to to their own advantage But it was all in vain § 4. When the Act of
abuse themselves and others with the ambiguous word Separate no better explained 3. And to think the other causes before and after named of some sort of Separation to be insufficient and I am sorry for the Dr. if this be his own Profession that he would tell any lie or commit any other sin or forsake any other part of Religion rather than separate to other Assemblies from a Church that agreed in Doctrine and the substantials of Worship with him The Presbyterians then are sure of him if they were but in possession and it seems in Moscovy he would forsake preaching But what if the King licensed a preaching Church would he refuse the use of it for fear of separating from a mere reading Church This Protean word separate serveth for many uses I will put one case more to the Dr. not feigned A Conformist Gentleman was of the opinion that his Parish Church was no true Church because the Vicar was a Socinian and another because the Parson was ignorant of the essentials of Christianity and they go to the next Parish Church A Nonconformist in the same Parish goeth to a Nonconformists Chappel but doth not accuse the Parish Church as none as the other do which of these separateth more At Gloucester one took the Diocesan Church for no true Church because Bishop Goodman was a Papist and the Bishop is a constitutive part and yet this man was for Diocesans A Nonconformist went to a Nonconformists Church but would not say the Diocesan Church was none Which separated more He separateth from his Parish Church against the Canon who goeth from an ignorant scandalous Reader to communicate with a Preacher at the next Parish He separateth from the Parish Churches who judgeth them true Churches but having the Kings License joyneth constantly with the French Dutch or Nonconformists as better still owning mental communion where he hath not local and he separateth from the French Dutch or Nonconformist Churches who thus leaveth them as true Churches to joyn with the Church of England as better Many and various are the sorts and degrees of Separation and not all lawful or all unlawful None of these are the Brownists separation which the old Nonconformists confuted which consisted in a denial 1. That the English Ministers were true Ministers 2. And their Churches true Churches 3. Or such as a Christian might lawfully live in communion with in ordinary worship 4. And therefore they were all bound to renounce them and set up others I doubt the Dr. is far more a Separatist than I and such as I for I am for Communion with all Christians as far as they separate not from Christ and I hate the false accusing of any Church as if it were none or its Communion unlawful I can be but in one place at once but in heart I joyn with all Christians on earth except in sin and locally I joyn where I see greatest reason for it preferring that which I judge most agreeable to Gods word so far as I may without greater hurt But the Canonical Conformists unchurch all the Churches here but their own and utterly refuse Communion with them even with those that refuse not Communion with them And some think that forcible silencing fining excommunicating and imprisoning is not the gentlest sort of separating But doth he in all his Book do any thing to satisfie any mans Conscience that would know from what Churches he may or may not separate Not a word that I can find that decideth such a doubt His two words here used are Agreement in Doctrine and substantials of Religion whereas 1. Religion is in Acts and Habits and hath no proper substance and what his term substance meaneth till he tells us none can know It must be either an essential part or an integral part for an Accident I suppose it is not If only an essential part what Christian dare say that I may sin against all the meer integrals of Religion rather than go from the Church that imposeth such sin upon me If it be all the integrals that we must agree in then we differ in no one part of Religion for Accidents are not parts And then who contradicts him When men differ in no part of Religion they will not separate unless merely locally Are all the things named in my first Plea no parts of Religion It may be by Substance he meaneth only the greater sort of Integrals but how shall we know where to six our measures what duty is so small that I may omit it or what sin so small that I may commit it for Communion 2. And as for Doctrine they that differ in any part of Religion are supposed to differ in the doctrine about that part But can any man tell what Doctrine it is that he maketh our agreement in to be necessary or the test of Communion If I should separate from all Churches from which I differ in any the least doctrine I know not where the Diocesan or National Church is that I might hold Communion with Do all the Conformists agree in all doctrines If it be in all that the Law imposeth how various mutable and uncertain is that I distinguish between Doctrine professed by the Church and Doctrine imposed on me to profess it As to the first I will communicate with a Church that hath twenty false Doctrines consistent with the essentials of Christianity and Church Communion As to the second I will not knowingly profess one false Doctrine for Communion with any Church on Earth Did not the Nonconformists differ from the Conformists in the Doctrine of the sufficiency of Scripture for regulating Church-Order and Worship and about the Divine Right of Diocesans and Elders and about Parish Discipline Do not we now differ about the undoubted certainty of the salvation of all dying baptized Infants Will this warrant a separation Sect. 2 1. p. 75. He tells us very confidently that diversity of circumstantial pretences for Separation alter not the case But 1. It s true that if twenty men have twenty false pretences for Separation none of them are thereby justified but if one man have a just cause it justifieth him I named very many just and unjust causes in my Plea and he giveth no answer to it 2. Are they such circumstances before named Oaths Declarations Subscriptions Doctrine c 3. What if the Law should change and allow of various Churches what if the King license them These be but circumstances What if the Plague drive away the Parish Ministers what if the Churches be burnt and the people forsaken will no such circumstances make other Assemblies lawful because he calls them separate Sect. 22. p. 78. His undertaking is repeated He is certain that preaching in opposition to our established Laws is contrary to the Doctrine of all the Nonconformists of former times Answ If I have not proved the contrary I cannot prove that they were English men But 1. he proveth that they were all of that
If in the beginning of Queen Elizabeths Reign when abundance of Papist Priests staid in the Churches for their Benefices a man had quietly gone from them to the Nonconformists I could not blame him though he had not been sure that they were not changed And I still say that if such erre by too much care to avoid sin and save their souls 1. It is a far greater error to give them the occasion 2. And in such as you to say that therefore they must be so far forsaken as that none may preach to them If I may preach to no erring people 1. I must preach to none 2. Or be no Physician to any that are sick And I must say that though I found no call to gather any together as a Church and give them the Sacrament I cannot say that no other had such unless I had heard them all speak for themselves yea I see such notorious need in many places that I dare not blame them Sect. 5. And now Reader Qu. whether the Dr. hath truly stated the case between him and me and whether you can expect truth and edification in his handling of a false-stated case These are the questions which as my accuser in his Book he should have handled had truth been his design 1. Whether for one that holdeth so much Communion with their Churches as I have done and here describe it be sinful separation to Preach in and Communicate with the Assemblies of Nonconformists or mixt ones as I have done 2. Whether to deny this to be sinful Separation or Separation as commonly taken for Schism be disingenious and worse than theirs that openly renounce their Communion Sect. 6. Three things he saith p. 94. we cannot deny 1. That there is no reason of Separation because of thâ— Doctrine of their Church Answ 1. We distinguish of Separation There is no reason to separate from you as no Church or further than we do there is reason to deny our consent 1. To your foresaid Doctrine of all baptized dying Infants undoubted salvation not excepting those of Atheists and Infidels 2. To your included Doctrine implyed in your Impositions viz. That if a man have unlawfully made a Vow and Oath to endeavour in his Place and Calling to reform some corruptions in Church-Government yea or to repent of his sin and oppose Popery Prophaneness and Schism there is no obligation on him from that Oath and Vow to do it These and such other Doctrines we separate from so far as to reject them Sect. 7. His second supposed Concession is That there is no other reason of Separation because of the terms of our Communion than what was from the beginning of the Reformation Answ 1. There are in my judgment no common reasons for going further from you than we do nor to justifie that which is commonly known by the name of Separation But there are many and great reasons to justifie our measure of dissent and ministration and to say that we grant there are no more reasons now than were then is too bold an untruth There is more reason 1. From the quality of the things imposed 2. From the designs and drift of the Imposition 3. From the effects 4. From the aggravation of Conformity as in the Church that we must communicate with 5. From the things which give us a fuller cause for our Preaching and Assemblies viz. 1. The late general contrary Church State and Engagement to it 2. The Plague 3. The burning of the Churches 4. The Kings License and Clemency 5. The number and quality of them that seek our helps Of these briefly in order 1. As to the things imposed now which were not then 1. The Vestry Act was not then made by which so considerable a part of your Parish Churches as the Vestries are to renounce all obligations to endeavour any alteration of the Government of the Church from the Oath and Vow called the Covenant So that all Reformation of Church Government as so sworn was thus renounced by them who in a sort represent the Parish Church 2. The Act of Uniformity had not then imposed the same declarative Renunciation of all such obligation on all the Ministers and Schoolmasters in England as it now doth 3. The Corporation Act was not then in being which constituteth all the Officers in power in all Cities and Corporations of such only as declare that there is no obligation from the said Oath at all not excepting so much as the sworn duties of opposing Popery Prophaneness and Schism to repent of sin and amend our lives And if swearing and vowing against Schism no whit bind men if the Oath were but unlawfully imposed why should the Dr. make so great a matter of it and think that his reasonings should make men afraid of Gods service if he will but call it Schism 4. None of these Acts then required men to profess and subscribe that there is from that Vow or Oath no such Obligation on any other person and so to become Vouchers for the Souls and Consciences of many hundred thousands whom we never saw even those Parliament men that were not forced to it but imposed it on others when we know not in what sense they took it 5. The Re-ordination of Ministers ordained by Presbyteries was not then required and made a necessary condition of their Ministration and Church Relation even by them that confess Re-ordination unlawful and therefore plainly intimate the nullity of the first 6. The Act of Uniformity was not then made which requireth all Ministers publickly to declare their Assent and Consent to all things contained in and prescribed by the Liturgy Book of Ordination though part of this was in a Canon 7. The false Rule for finding Easter-day was not then to be assented and consented to as a condition of the Ministry 8. Nor the new Doctrine or Article of Faith of the undoubted certainty by Gods word that baptized dying Infants are saved without any exception of the children of Atheists c. For the old words at Confirmation as many Drs. of the Church have shewed only meant that nothing else was necessary on the Churches part that is not Confirmation 9. The word Pastor as applyed to Parish Ministers distinct from Curates was not then blotted out of most places in the Liturgy nor the twentieth of Acts as applied to Presbyters left out Take heed to your selves and the Flock c. in plain design to alter the Office and Parish Churches 10. The Oxford Oath was not then imposed to banish Ministers above five miles from all Cities and Corporations and Places where they had of late years preached so that their old Flock or Friends yea Wives and Children that could not follow them might not so much as see or hear such Ministers in their Families or familiar converse that would have come to the publick Churches And all Nonconformist Ministers that took not the Oath were thereby forbidden to come to the Parish Churches
to the Anabaptists and Quakers Answ Alas that such things should be the best to such a man By May go you mean 1. lawfully 2. or eventually 3. or for want of due hindring The Reader may think that you by Calumny father the first on me as if I said that so to go to the Quakers were no sin whereas I still say that if they do but leave your Churches by any culpable Error it is their sin 2. And as to the Event many not only may but do turn Quakers Papists and Athiests 3. And as to the third it 's all the question here not whether we should seek to save them but which is the true reasonable and allowed means Whether it be the Patrons choosing for all England the Pastors to whose care they must trust their Souls and laying them in Jail that will choose others Or whether there be not a righter way And again I say Kings and Patrons choose not mens Wives or Physicians or Food and every man hath a charge of his Soul as well as of his Life Antecedent to the Kings or Patrons charge Sect. 6. But why saith he P. 11. v. 115. must the King bear all the blame if mens Souls be not provided for c Answ He that is the chooser must bear the blame the King for Bishops and the Patrons for Parish Priests if they mischoose And do you think in your conscience that all the Patrons in England of so various minds and lives are like to choose only such in whose pastoral conduct all that care for their Souls should rest Yea though the Bishops must Institute them as they Ordained them When we heretofore told them of the multitudes of grosly ignorant drunken Priest their answers were 1. Their Chaplains examined them 2. They had certificates 3. A quare impedit lay against them if they required higher knowledge than to answer the Catechism in Latine And now experience will not warrant us to know what such men are P. 115. He asketh How it is possible on these terms to have any peace or order in an established Church Answ I have fully told him how in a whole Book of concord And hath their way caused greater peace and order Yes to themselves for the time So Popery keepeth some Order and Unity with them that hold to it But it kept not the Greeks or Protestants from forsaking them Sect. 7. P. 119. 120. He saith They only look on those as true Churches which have such Pastors whom they approve Answ Equivocal words 1. If they approve not those whom they should approve it is their sin 2. Approving is either of the necessaries ad esse or only ad melius esse They must not put the later for the former 3. Approving is by a Governing or but a discerning private Judgment The first they have not but the later In good earnest would he have all the people take those for true Pastors who they verily think are none Can they at once hold contradictions And if they must not judge as dissenters what meaneth Mr. Dodwels and such mens Arguments to prove all no Ministers that have not Succession of Episcopal Ordination Must not the people on that account disown them by his way Sect. 8. p. 119. He brings in against us my words I take those for true Churches that have true Pastors and those for none that have 1. Men uncapable of the Pastoral Office 2. or not truly called to it 3. Or that deny themselves the essential Power Answ He knoweth that I speak not of equivocal but proper political Churches And is it possible that such a man should dissent in this 1. Can he be a true Pastor that is uncapable of the Office Shall I abuse time to confute gross Contradictions Or if he be a profest Infidel Can he be a Christian Pastor 2. Is a Layman a true Pastor that is not truly called to it why then do they argue as Mr. Dodwell or Re-ordain men 3. Can a man be a Pastor against his will or that conâ—enteth not but renounceth it or can that be a true Pastoral Church that hath no Pastor Verily we are but upon low works if these be the things which we must prove Sect. 9. He adds And one or other of these he thinks must if not all the parochial Churches in England fall under Answ I read these words of the Dr. to a Papist To speak mildly this is a gross untruth Therefore I hope it were no Rage for me to have said the like How doth he prove it Nay in the place cited by him I not only profest the contrary but gave the Reason p. 65. Because I judge of their Office by Gods Word and not by the Rule which deprives them of an essential Part. And 1. He citeth my confession that those that I hear preach well and therefore are not uncapable men 2. That their Ordination hath all essentially necessary and all the worthy men that I know have the communicants of the Parishes consent though not Election and therefore are called 3. And many of them as he thinks they have all essential to the Office and disown it not though I think others deny it them where there is the truth of what he saith Sect. 10. p. 120. Because my practice disproveth him he finds out a Subtilty that I joyn not with the Parish Churches as true Churches but only as Chappels or Oratories he accounts not our parochial Churches as true Churches nor doth communicate with them as such a Subtilty beyond the reach of the old Brownists Answ Deliberately to print such untruths seems tolerable in him but to say they are such would seem passion in me and what other answer are they capable of What I expresly say of the three forementioned excepted sorts he feigneth me to say of all or most of the Parish Churches and yet dare not deny the truth of any one of the Exceptions 1. Do not all those men take the Parishes for no proper political Churches but only for Parts of the Diocesan Church such as we call Curates Chappels who say that a Bishop is a constitutive Part of a true political Church and entereth the Definition and that it 's no Church that hath no Bishop and that Diocesan Churches are the lowest political And do I need to tell him how considerable these men are among them 2. Doth he himself take any one of these for a true political Church When I was young divers Laymen by turns were our publick Reading Teachers Among the rest one was after proved to counterfeit Orders This mans acts were no nullities to us that knew it not but when we knew of such must we take them for true Pastors and it for a true Church Sect. 11. p. 221. He saith Any Parochial Church that hath such a one a Bishop or Pastor over them that hath the power of the Keys and owns it self to be Independant he allows to be a true Church and none else Answ
their several fixed Provinces which I never saw proved I will not contend whether those Provinces may be called Churches If we agree about the thing use the name as you see cause Sect. 9. And to your talk of our Bishops being of the same sort I ask you whether any of the Bishops for 300 years or for long after save Cyril Alexand. by violence did ever use or claim any power over any Ministers or Christians besides meer fatherly Teaching Perswading urging Gods Word on them and applying it to the consciences of particular Persons by Admonitions verbal Censures and Absolutions Did they meddle by Force with Body or Purse Let your Bishops use no other force or way of constraint than the Apostles did if they be their Successors and not lay the excommunicate in Prisons and ruine their Bodies and Estates valeat quantum valere potest But Mr. Glanvile and many of you tell us how little you care for it without the Sword Sect. 10. If any man will but consider what I cited out of Greg. Nazianzen that saith Men unfit were so ambitious to be of the Clergy that the Clergy was in many Churches almost as many as the Laity And that Presbyters then were much like the Presbyterians Elders save that they had the power of Word and Sacraments though they seldom exercised Preaching in Cities but left that to the Bishop and that the number of their Acoluthi Exorcistae Ostiarii Lectores Subdiaconi Diaconi c. made up the great body of them And the very Boys and Schollars that were bred up under them yea or but for Church-singing are sometimes joyned to make up the number see Isidor de Offic. Eccl. L. 2. even all the Monks are often numbred with them And Victor cited by him seemeth to number twice the Infantuli so bred up with the great number of Readers to the Carthage Clergy I say he that considers all this will not judge of the number of people or Churches by the number of the Clergy as he would do now with us where the great Parishes have but two or three Priests Sect. 11. And as to the cause that I plead for it is enough that I have proved that even when the name of Bishop was confined to the Episcopi Pastorum yet the Presbyters had the power of the Keys and were Episcopi Gregis and exercised this power in their distant Countrey assemblies though under the Bishop and the Bishop was to exercise his with them as Assistants so that the particular Churches were not really unchurched Sect. 12. p. 265. He cometh nearer our controversie but first falsly stateth the question supposing that I say that the whole power of the Presbyters is swallowed up by the Bishops And is the disputing of a question falsly stated of any profit I only said that the office of a Church-Pastor or Presbyter hath three essential parts viz. the power of Teaching the Church of conducting them in Worship and Governing the people by the use of the Keys And that he that destroyeth one part that is essential though he swallow not up all the power altereth the essence of the Office and that so the English Diocesan Form doth I have largely proved in my Treat of Episcopacy which he doth not answer Sect. 13. 1. He tells us that the Presbyters are the lower house in the Convocation and so have their Votes in passing all the Rules of Discipline Articles of Doctrine and Forms of divine Service Ans 1. According to his description the Church of England hath no one Ecclesiastical Government either Monarchical or Aristocratical or Democratical And therefore the Acts of the Convocation are no Acts of governing the Church of England but meer Agreements Therefore this proveth not the Presbyters power of governing it 2. If this be a part of Government it is the Legislative Part or the Executive The later it is not The former the Lawyers say it is not King and Parliament only being Legislators But if this be Legislation we deny it to be any of the power of the Keys in question which is but to judge who is fit or unfit for Church-communion to Admonish Absolve or Excommunicate according to Christs Law and is the execution of Christs Law and not the making of new Laws 3. It is lis sub judice whether the things here named be any part of true lawful Church-Government Rules of Discipline Christ hath made enough except about meer mutable Accidents Articles of Doctrine man must not otherwise make than to declare what he believeth Christ hath made Forms of Divine Service commanded to all others the Apostles never made nor that we find appointed any others to make them If these be lawful by way of agreement of many Churches this is none of the Power we speak of Yet he calls this one of the greatest Rights of Government viz. making Rules for the whole body which he denyeth to have any constitutive Government Sect. 14. He saith In this main part of Government our Church falls behind none of the ancient Churches only there they were taken singly in every City c. Ans That is 1. When the Ministers of a Diocess choose four out of whom the Bishops take two And 2. This only to make agreements without any governing power over the Church of England 3. And this only about general Regulation 4. In either unlawful or doubtful Impositions on others about meer Accidents or Circumstances of Order This is the same or as good as when every true Church hath present Pastors personally to exercise the executive Church-Government called the Keys by the Laws of Christ already made in judging the case of each particular Person as to his Title to Church-communion and the Kingdom of Heaven For that is the thing which by us is pleaded for Sect. 15. Next he tells us of four that are to joyn in Ordinatiom and Examination when 1. It is not the making or governing of Pastors which I am speaking of but the Government of the Flocks 2. He knoweth that it is no strange thing for our Bishops to say that both in Convocations and Ordination the Presbyters act only as the Bishops Council and the Bishops only act by governing authority 3. I never disputed for Presbyters Power to ordain as essential to them nor did I ever meddle in any Ordination 4. If four Presbyters have such power that proveth not that four hundred have it that never exercise it in the same Diocess 5. If by all this you mean that really Presbyters have the governing Power of the Keys it condemneth those the more that give it to four and deny it to four hundred or one thousand 6. When I was ordained none examined us but the Bishops Chaplain and two or three City Ministers called by the Bishop that never saw us before meerly pro formâ laid hands on us with him But it 's well that you give such a power to ordain Sect. 16. Next p. 267. he
am glad I understand you § 12. Saith he Quest By what way this National consent is to be declared By the Constitutions of this Church the Arch-Bishops Bishops and Presbyters summoned by the King 's Writ are to advise and declare their judgments in matters of Religion which received and enacted by Parliament there is as great a National consent as to any Law And all the Bishops Ministers and People make up this National Church Answ Now we are come to the bottom And 1. Our question is of the Constitution of the Church and the Doctor tells us the Administration makes it To consult and advise and make Laws are acts of Administration and follow the Constitution Men must have Power before they use it and must be a Church before they act 〈◊〉 Church 2. Yea to Advise and Consult are not so much as acts proper to administring Government but belong to those that are no Governours also 3. If they be no Laws till the Parliament make them such then either the Parliament are your Church Head or you have none that 's Ecclesiastical But having your plain Confession that you have no such Regent part and so are no Church Political save Civil but a meer Association I ask § 13. 1. Why do you pretend that we are none of the Church of England or that we vent our spleen against it or deny it who deny not Associated Churches in England under one Civil Government 2. How unhappily are the Church-Defenders and Conformists disagreed Read Mr. Dodwell and many such others that take the Church to be a Governed body Politick and see what they will judg of you 3. Are not you and I liker to be of one Church of England who agree what it is than you and those Bishops and Doctors that speak of two different things and agree not so much as what it is 4. Have you not brought your Defence of the Church of England to a fair issue by denying that there is any such Church in the questioned political sense 5. What made you before talk of being under one Government If you meant only Civil Is your Governed Church as such only Civil or a Kingdom only 6. Do you not now absolve all men from the duty of obeying the Church of England aâ— such and from all guilt of disobeying them How can men Govern that are no Governours and how can we obey them It 's only the Civil power then that we herein disobey If you say that all the Bishops are Governours and altogether govern the whole I answer Yes per partes but not as a whole or Church If twenty Families in a Village agree as Masters and Servants to go one way as Consenters this maketh no one Government of the Village If the Physicians of London consent to one Pharmacopeia that maketh them not a body Politick If twenty Sea Captains consent to go one Voyage by one rule each one is a Governour of his own Ship but this maketh no Government of the whole All the Justices and Mayors of England rule the Kingdom per partes by the same Law But all together make not one Aristocracy to Govern the Kingdom as One whole Unless your Bishops c. are United in One persona Politica or Aristocracy they may rule their several Churches but they make not one common Government for the National Church as such An agreement of the Emperour Spaniard and other Confederates make not one Kingdom or body Politick 7. How can they be Schismaticks for disobeying them that are not their Governours 8. How come Dissenters bound by Parliament consent If it never was in their minds to trust them as Consenters for them yea and declare their own dissent as most of the Nation did lately against Prelacy and Liturgy yea and their chosen representatives Have such representatives more power to express our consent than we our selves 9. You unhappily erre with Hooker in your popular Politicks if you think that the Laws bind us only because we consent to them by our Representatives or that as such they make them Whereas it is as by Consenting in the Constitution they are made part of the Rullers or Legislators and not meerly as if we made the Laws by them 10. And as to Convocation consent how binds it all those that never consented to them How is the City of London so bound to Conform when they had not one chosen Clerk but only the Dignitaries in the Convocation that made us our Conformity the two chosen by them being refused by the Bishops 11. Will not you pass for an asserter of the Principles of Independency that not only say The Keys are given to the whole body and the Convocation represent the People c. but also that England is one Church but by consent without consenting to any one Constitutive Regent Church head The Independants are for a National Church meerly by confederacy and consent without National Government of it 12. You go further from the Episcopal Politicks than the Presbyterians do For they make an Aristocratical Regent Part but you make none 13. I doubt some Statesmen will be angry with you that say there is no power of Church Government in England but from the King as Head as Crumptâ—â— before Cousins Tables and others ordinarily 14. Do you make England in essentials any more one Church than England and any Foreigners agreeing are one Did the Synod of Dâ—rt make us one with them Do large Councils make many Nations one Church Did the Heptarchy make England one Kingdom when seven Kings Governed the whole by parts but none the whole as such 15. I beseech you think what you have done against the Parochial Diocesane and Provincial Churches in England Have none of these have not each of these a Regent Constitutive part Are none of them true Churches in sensu politico You dare not say No. If they are You have said that visible Churches as Parts unavoidably require a visible Head to the whole by which I bring in the Pope because you think Christ will not serve the turn And do you not say that all these Churches are parts of the Church of England And if you deny it to have one Regent part do you not then either destroy the rest or use the name Church equivocally to these several sorts so heterogeneal 16. I pray you tell us from whom our Arch-bishops receive their power If you say from the Bishops and so Inferiours or Equals may give power why may not Presbyters make Presbyters or Bishops and generare speciem If it must come from Superiours the Church of England hath none such 17. If the Peoples consent can make a National Church why may it not make an Independant or Presbyterian Church 18. If the Nations consent as such make the Church of England it is not made by Legislative power of King and Parliament 19. Do the Clergy represent the King or is he none of the Church 20. How prove you that the
doth this meddle with the peoples Recipient power which is only levelled against Princes and Lay Patrons Impositions and deposeth the English Clergy and Church The same is repeated Can. 25. which it's likely is that which he meant viz. That according to the old Canons the promotions and consecrations of Bishops be made by the choice and decree of the College and that no Lay Princes or men in power potentuâ— do mix themselves in the election or promotion of Patriarchs Metropolitans or any Bishop lest hence there be inordinate confusion or contention specially seeing that it is not convenient that any Potentates or other Lay men have power in such matters but rather attend with silence And if any secular Prince or Potentate men in power or Lay men of other dignity strive against the common and consonant and Canonical Election of the Ecclesiastical Order let him be anathema till he consent and obey in this which the Church shall shew its will in in the Election and Ordination of its Proper Bishops Here 1. The Churches will is made the determiner of the Election and Ordination of their proper Bishop 2. The Canonical Order is established which ever required the Clergies and Peoples consent 3. Nothing of the Laity but acts of Princes power and dignity is excluded 4. And hereby our English Clergy deposed The Doctor had been better to have let alone his History and Antiquities § 36. His 4th note is Christian Magistrates did interpose in this matter as they judged expedient Answ Hitherto he hath produced the Testimonies of Councils and Bishops against Magistrates choice or medlings mistakingly thinking it had been against the Flocks Receptive power And now he will prove that Magistrates interposed as you shall hear § 37. And first So Constantine did in the Church of Antioch Soz. l. 2. c. 19. Answ What did he He motioned a Bishop to end the difference And who opposeth that § 38. Next Constantius put by two that the people strove about and set up Euseb Nicom Answ An unhappy testimony Socrates whom he citeth thus relateth it Alexander dying commended Paulus to the chusers as the fittest but if they would have a man of prowess to chuse Macedonius The people were divided in the choice and made a greater stir than formerly But the Orthodox carried it for Paulus against the Hereticks that were for Macedonius Constantius being the first persecuting Arian Emperour was offended and got a Council to depose Paulus and he got in his great favourite Eusebius Nicomed the head of all the Arians Doth not this shew 1. That the people were chusers 2. That the Emperour deposed him not but by a packâ— Council of Bishops which we know had a deposing power 3. That this is Recorded as an Act of two Hereticks a Prince and Prelate wronging the Church § 39. Saith he When Eusebius was dead the Orthodox party again chose Paulus and Constantius sends Hermogenes to drive him out by force Answ 1. I doubt he will next cite Valens Gensericus Hunnericus c. for murdering and persecuting the Bishops Was an Arians Tyranny a note of right 2. The story in Socrates cited by him is this Euseb the Arian being dead the People again went to the choice and chose as before But some were kill'd in the tumult The Arian Emperour sends Hermogenes to force out Paulus the chosen Bishop The people tumultuously fight for their Bishop and priviledge and set Hermogenes Lodgings on fire and kill him The Emperour comes from Antioch amerceth the City and puts Paul out and yet is angry that Macedonius was chosen by the other part without his advice but consenteth to him 1. Doth not this shew that the people were the chusers 2. And even their murderous tumult moved neither an Heretick Prince nor the Bishops to deny their right of choice 3. Murder and such violence was a fair colour for more severity 4. Yet all this was by a Heretick noted as an act against the Church 5. And all this was but about a Patriarch and not an ordinary Bishop and that at his Imperial seat where it concerned the Emperours to have most regard 6. And I told you that Princes are the Judges whom they should tolerate whoever have the choice § 40. He adds When Athanasius was restored Constantius declared it was by the decree of the Synod and by his consent Answ 1. If he meant here to intimate the exclusion of the peoples consent or choice he could scarce have named in History an instance more against himself than that of Athanasius who thereby was brought in upheld and oft restored 2. This History tells you the Arian Emperour was forced to this consent to avoid a threatned War from his brother 3. This was not to make him Bishop but to call him to his flock from his banishment 4. And doth not all this confirm what I plead for as to the Peoples Synods and Princes several parts § 41. Nectarius case is next about whom Historians disagree but the most credible say that the Council named Nectarius with some others in a paper and in honour to an excellent Emperour bid him take which he would But all this excluded not the peoples part who would not have left Gregory but by his own request and were glad to accept one from such a Council and Prince § 42. Next he saith out of Sozomen That the People and Clergy chose Chrysostome and Arcadius consented and then he affroâ—teth Sozomen with Palladius Answ 1. Palladius denyeth nothing that I plead for but only tells us of the Emperours premotion and endeavours in his Royal City about a Patriarch to prevent the division of the people Nor is Palladius credit to be equalled to Sozomen's herein much less preferred 2. Socrates the most credible of all in this saith l. 6. c. 2. It seemed good to them to send for John Chrys Wherefore not long after Arcadius with the general consent both of Priests and People sent for him And did not the Doctor think I needed help by such Citations § 43. The choice of Nestorius was just such another The people had no reason to deny consent to one out of Chrysostom's Monastery nominated by so good an Emperour who was judge whom to tolerate in his Royal City But both he and they after repented of the choice § 44. His last instance is Theodosius getting in Proclus before Maximianus was buried Answ Reader 1. All this is a good Emperours care about one Patriarch of his own City to avoid division and nothing to the common choice of Bishops 2. The true case Socrates cited thus describeth The people were the chusers They were for Proclus but some adversaries objected a Canon that a Bishop might not be removed from one Church to another and he being a Bishop already they could not have him Socrates pleadeth for the dispensableness of this Canon but the people were fain to take Maximianus The Emperour being for dispensing with that Canon and gratifying
Magistrate may restrain him and refuse to tolerate an intolerable man And yet the people ought not to accept an uncapable man offered by Bishops or Patrons no nor a man next to uncapable when they need and may have much better Many Negatives are safe § 53. He saith The prophane have right to their own souls and to the care of them and therefore are equally concerned with others to chuse Answ It is sad with the Church when they need to be saved from such reasonings of their great Teachers 1. A Right to care for their Souls giveth no man right to chuse men for others Souls to do that which they will not have done for their own The question is whether that man will Communicate with the Church on Christs terms He refuseth and will not else he ought not to be refused And shall he that refuseth Communion chuse one to give it others because he hath a Soul himself Had the neighbour Heathens and Hereticks of old power to chuse Bishops for the Church while they refused to be of the Church themselves Shall he that will not be of the Society chuse for the Society 2. We distinguish between what a man may be forced to and what not He may not be forced to the great gift of Sacramental Remission and Communion because no unwilling person hath right to it But an ignorant person may be forced as a Catechumen or hearer to hear what can be said for his conviction For truth may conquer the unwilling But none on this pretense can hinder the Church from hearing its own Pastors nor force men to be the ordinary Auditors of Mahometans Hereticks or Heathens § 54. p. 331. He again tragically exclaims of me on the old false supposition that I make the people the sole chusers and not only plead for their free Negative Vote though chusing also but not alone was the old way And here tells us of the tumults that would follow Answ 1. So they would if the people chose in France Spain Italy And yet I would they did No humane actions are free from inconveniencies which are not to be cured with a mischief 2. Let him name me ten places that have suffered so deeply by the peoples choice as I can tell him of ten thousand that have done by the choice of Prelates Patrons and Princes and I will confess my errour It was not by the peoples choice that all preaching was put down in Moscovy It is not the people that have this many hundred years chosen all the Popish Bishops Mass-priests c. in Italy and most of the Roman Church even in Spain France Bavaria c. 3. I told him but had no answer that not only the Innes of Court but also Black fryars Aldermanbury and such other places as have chosen their own Teachers have peaceably had as happy a succession of Learned Godly able Pastors as any place in London or in England 4. It 's known by experience that Learning and great worth doth as Light so reveal it self to humane nature that usually most of those that are loth to be holy themselves would have a Saint and an able man 5. Doth he think in his Conscience that all the Patrons in England are liker to be judicious and free from solicitations favour and respect of persons than the majority of the Communicants of such Churches 6. If the Parsons first admit great numbers of profane and wicked men to be Communicants and then tell us how unfit these men are to chuse they do but condemn themselves § 55. p. 333. He tells us we do but say We judge we think c. the things unlawful but for particular arguments to prove them unlawful he finds none Answ If this be true then they that never found our arguments never answered them If it be not true it is not well Then you here and Mr. Falkener Fulwood Durel c. have not yet answered any of our arguments Remember this 2. Though I did not argue but name the things in my first Plea you and others took it for arguing and we ever craved leave to do it 3. Is it true indeed that there are no arguments in our Writings 1660. and 1661. with the Bishops nor any in my Book of Concord or Treatise of Episcopacy nor in my old Disputations of Church-Government nor in any other mens Books these eighteen years I doubt the angry Bishops will think that in my Treatise of Episcopacy there is some sort of Argument and that my Book against Sacril Desertion of the Ministry hath some and that an Apology for our preaching now in the Press hath some But if there be none accuse us of none CHAP. X. Of the Imposed use of the Cross in Baptism and denying Baptism to the refusers § 1. PAge 343. He cometh to our charge against the Church though he never found any Arguments as aforesaid And I. Why doth he silently balk the chief things which I had named will this satisfie Conscience will excusing some things make others lawful II. As to what he saith for the Cross I have so fully answered it twice to Mr. Cheney and once to the Impleader that I am loth to repeat all again In short 1. He saith the Church intends it not for a sign of Immediate dedication Answ 1. What is the Medium 2. What if it were not Immediate 3. Can it be more Immediate than in the very present dedicating act to use the sign and expressing the dedicating signification 4. The words of the Canon are To dedicate them by that badge to his service whose benefits bestowed on them in baptism the name of the Cross doth represent And after the Church of England accounteth it an honourable badge whereby the Infant is dedicated to the service of him that dyed on the Cross And the service is named Christianity in practice to fight under his banner c. 2. He saith In baptizing the Minister acts by Authority derived from Christ but at Crossing he speaks in the name of the Church We receive this Child c. Answ 1. It 's meet it should be so that Christ's Sacraments be used by Christ's Authority and mens by mens 2. But I hope this is but a quibble and that notwithstanding the word we the Minister as Christ's Minister and in his name saith we receive this child when even the absolved are to be received by Christ first and then by the Church I will not else aggravate the ill consequences § 2. He before saith Was the Cross a dedicating sign to God or a declarative sign to men Answ The Canon saith expresly twice To dedicate them by this badge to his service And an honourable badge whereby the Infant is dedicated to his Service And the Rubrick which we must subscribe refers us to the Canon for the true sense and reason of the Crossing 2. Is Baptism and the Lords Supper a sign to God or to man It is a sign to man for God God knoweth
not by signs but instituteth signs for humane use It is to dedicate them to God's service § 3. He saith It represents the duty and not the Grace Answ 1. The words are to his service whose benefits bestowed on them in baptism the name of the Cross doth represent Are the benefits so bestowed no Graoe or is Representing no Representing or shall we believe the Doctor against the Church or is this the kind of Conformity that he would teach us by denying what we subscribe to 2. Sure the Cross of Christ with his dying on it exprest also in the words of the Canon is Grace To represent or signifie Christ dying on the Cross which are the words and use is immediately to represent or signifie the very Grace of Redemption it self 3. To be listed under Christ as the Captain of our Salvation and to be received into the Congregation of Christs flock to fight under his banner c. are all great Grace 4. The moral operation on the soul which the preface of the Liturgy ascribes to the Ceremonies is Grace to be wrought by them 5. To make a common symbol or badge of Christianity solemnly obliging as a Covenanting sign by which they must be distinguished from Infidels and this even at our first Covenanting with Christ is to make a Sacrament in the old sence What was the Souldiers Sacramentum Militare more from which the Church seems to have borrowed the name The Oath was obliging The colours or cingulum was obliging and a signifying badge The good received was the honour relation and hope of future pay or preferment upon performance And is not all this in ours 6. If you have wit strong enough to justifie all this humane addition to Christs great institution must all men be compelled to practise as you and such others judge because you think they do not confute you Who gave you or such others right to silence reject from Christendom c. all such as are not herein of your mind even when you deny what your Canon expresly saith § 4. He saith It addeth nothing to Baptism which is compleat before Answ What 's this to our question It adds another Sacrament to Baptism The Lords Supper is another Sacrament of the same Covenant added to perfect Baptism by Christ and the Cross by men § 5. But all the difficulty is thus removed he thinks and by the foresaid quibble of I baptize and we receive Answ Difficulties are easilier removed with some men than with others 1. He dare not say that the Minister speaks not as from Christ when-ever he saith we in the plural number 2. Doubtless it is first Christs act and then the Churches to Receive the Baptized into the flock of Christ And the Minister herein first speaketh Christs act and then the Churches 3. The words we receive him goeth before the Crossing and is named especially as part of the Ministration of Baptism being its immediate effect And what a dangerous invention is it to say that the Minister here speaketh not from Christ but the Church in receiving in those dedicated to him 4. And he will make us a hard task of it to know when the Priest speaks as God's Minister and when as the peoples Minister or mouth § 6. He brings us the instance of one after Baptism engaging himself in the Independent Church Covenant by holding up his hand Answ 1. It is supposed that the Covenant which he mentioneth is not the Covenant of Christianity but that supposed a consent or promise to live in the relation and duty of a Christian member of that particular flock And this is much like a Covenant between a Christian Man and Wife Tutor and Pupil And as men may make particular contracts they may make particular signs of them as is the Ring and taking hands in Marriage the crowning of a Christian King c. But if you suppose the Independant Covenant to repeat also and contain the Covenant of Christianity it self as the first part then that which is required is but signified consent And as all Christians renew their consent at each Eucharist Sacramentally so do they frequently by word and deed and all due signification of consent Nature and Custom of humane converse have made words and gestures signifiers of consent But Sacraments and solemn badges of this nature signifie by Institution of the inventer or imposer The sin lyeth in arrogating Christs prerogative and accusing his Laws of insufficiency If Christ by his act and spirit had not separated one day in seven for the Commemoration of his Resurrection he had not told us that this is his own work as Legislator But now he hath separated one day if man will make a Law that another day also of the week shall be separated to the same use it is as much as to say 1. We have authority to make such Laws as Christ made 2. And to amend his Law by this addition For if it had been fit to be made there was the same reason then for Christ to have separated two days So is it in this case If Christ had made no Sacraments we might more have doubted whether he took it for his proper work But where he hath made two to make more of the same nature to me seemeth too bold He could have made the Sacrament of the dedicating Cross if he would have had it If our Bishops should command us to say we believe Christs resurrection or to stand up to signifie it to avoid confused noise we refuse it not But if they would make a Law that none shall be Christened that will not let the Priest put him into a Coffin or Grave and take him out again to represent the Resurrection I think it fafest to deny obedience to such arrogant usurpation § 7. He confesseth It belongs to Christ only to appoint the means of conveying his own grace Answ I have before proved that the Cross is by this Church appointed as such a means and named the Grace and conveyance § 8. He saith Though it belong to the King to make the badge or symbol of his own subjects yet every Nobleman may give a distinct Livery without treason Answ True And this opens the Case A badge of the Kings subjects is not the same thing with the badge of a subjects servant But the Cross is not the badge of a humane subordinate contract or relation as City Covenants or Pastoral particular contracts c. but of Christianity it self and of the subjects of Christ as such § 9. p. 353. He saith Is our worship directed to it or may we kneel before it as Mr. B. allows men may do before a Crucifix Answ But if this be not true or be a deceiving intimation you should not allow your self to write it My words are in Christ Direct q. 113. p. 876. When I had named 21 Cases in which an Image may not be used and among the rest when it is scandalous or tempting to